Manitoba Committee Hansard — Intergovernmental Affairs Committee, Sitting 5 (35th Legislature, 2nd Session)

35-2-ir5

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba STANDING COMMITTEE on INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS 40 Elizabeth II Chairman Mr. Marcel Laurendeau Constituency of St. Norbert VOL. XL No. 5 • 7 p.m., THURSDAY, JULY 11, 1991 Printed by the Office of the a.-ns Printer. Province of Msnltoba ISSN 0713-9608

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB - Liberal; ND - New Democrat; PC - Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARREIT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, 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. MciNTOSH, 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 Ia 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 Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood 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

18 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS Thursday, July 11,1991 TIME-7p.m. LOCATION- Winn ipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. Marc el Laurendeau (St. Norbert) ATTENDANCE-11 -QUORUM-6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Cummings, Driedger, Praznik Messrs. Ashton, Cheema, Mrs. Dacquay, Messrs. Dewar, laurendeau, McAlpine, Reid, Sveinson Substitution: Ms. Wowchuk for Mr. Dewar

(0040) APPEARING: George Hickes, MlA for Point Douglas WITNESSES: John Doyle, Private Citizen larry Brown, National Union of Provincial Government Employees Rick Park, Private Citizen lisa Bukoski, Private Citizen Jean Altemeyer, Private Citizen lesley Brooks, Private Citizen Jim Pringle, Private Citizen Alan De Jar din, Private Citizen Mike Gidora, Private Citizen Don V.

Sullivan, Private Citizen Bob Clague, Private Citizen Ken Emberley, Private Citizen Rob Altemeyer, Private Citizen Val Kellberg, Private Citizen Bernice Bryan, Private Citizen Sheila Gordon, Private Citizen MATTERS UNDER DISCUS SION: Bill 70- The Public Sector Compensation Management Act *** Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Will the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations please come to order. This evening the committee will resume consider ation of Bill 70 , The Public Sector Compensation Management Act (loi sur Ia gestion des salaires du secteur public).

I would like to indicate that this committee will also be meeting tomorrow, Friday, July 12 at 1 p.m. and Saturday, July 13 at 10 a.m. and continuing all day. Just prior to re suming hearing public presentations on the bill, I would like to remind the public that the process that will be followed by this committee is that out-of-town presenters will be asked to identify themselves to the committee clerk, and the committee will endeavour to hear from these persons first. Once the out-of-town presenters have been heard from, the names will be called from the presenters list in numerical order.

If a presenter is not here the first time his or her name is called, that name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If that presenter is not here on the second time his or her name is called, that name will be dropped from the list. However, it should be no ted tha t th e co mm ittee will attempt to accommodate those persons, especially those from out of town who are unable to present on a certain day but can attend on others. This morning, the committee has agreed to hear from Mr. John Doyle first. We will now call on Mr. Doyle to come forward if he is in attendance. Mr. Doyle. While Mr.

Doyle is making his presentation, the committee clerk will go out in the audience and identify if there are any out-of-town presenters. Mr. Doyle, do you have a written presentation? I believe I asked you that this morning. Mr. John Doyle (Private Citizen): Yes, and I am happy to report that the copies that I made for the committee made it from my office to the back seat of my car. Unfortunately, my car is on its way to Portage Avenue with the brief in the back seat. So I will be able to supply you with it eventually.

18 9 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 11, 19 91 Mr. Chairman: Okay, that will be fine. You can just- Mr. Doyle: If you can bear with me. Mr. Chairman: No problem. We will just carry on. Just one moment, Mr. Doyle. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): On a point of order, I would suggest that, in terms of checking with the out-of-town presenters, et cetera, we do that at eight, because we had discussed in the House earlier the fact that a lot of people had assumed it was eight o'clock. So I suggest we do it at that time.

The other agreement in the House, too, was that if there was a gap before eight, we would adjourn and come back. Mr. Chairman: That is correct, Mr. Ashton, and we will be going with that. At this time, I would still like the clerk to go and see if there is anybody from out of town present. We will do it again at eight o'clock. * (1905) *** Mr. Chairman: Mr. Doyle, carry on. Mr. Doyle: I would like to really thank the members of this committee for affording me this opportunity to share some of my views with you on Bill 70, The Public Sector Compensation Management Act.

Others who have already spoken before this committee have already discussed at length many of the concerns I have about Bill 70, particularly the unfairness of isolating 48,000 workers in a wage freeze that, in my view, cannot be justified. I would like to direct my remarks to those aspects of the bill which strike at the very base of workers' rights, the right to bargain with their employer collective ly.

Ho wever, before I begin those remarks, I would like to draw to the committee's attention that I find the behaviour of government members of this committee-i n using the rules, I believe, in an undemocratic manner, the application of these rules has so far limited participation as opposed to the-- Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Mr. Doyle, I would ask you to deal with Bill 70. At this time, we are not here to review the rules of the House or the rules on how this committee is running. We are here to deal with Bill 70, Mr. Doyle. Point of Order Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order.

I have been here 1 0 years, and I have seen many a committee hearing where people have commented on both the legislation and the process itself. I have never seen so many points of order raised on presenters. I think we have raised more in the last two, three days, trying to say what presenters should say and what they should not say, than we have in the previous 1 0 years. I think we should allow the presenter to make his comments as we have for the last 1 0 years, and if the presenter has concerns about the process, that is totally in order.

That is the purpose for having committee hearings, to hear members of the public. Certainly the process is as much a part of the bill as the clause is, and the subsections. Mr. Chairman: Mr. Ashton, as you are aware, the matter under consideration is Bill 70, The Public Sector Compensation Management Act. That is what we are dealing with, and that is what we will hear presentation on. Mr. As hton: Mr.

Chairperson, just to clarify my point of order, I am saying that comments on the process of this committee are indeed part of Bill 70, The Public Sector Compensation Management Act, and have always been in orde r in terms of discussion in committees of this legislature. I would suggest we allow members of the public to speak as much as possible without being impeded by points of order, et cetera. I suggest we allow Mr. Doyle to continue with his comments. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of labour): Mr. Chairperson, the subject of this discussion, of this hearing, is Bill 70.

The rules of this committee are es ta blished by the com mittee and by the legislature. They have been voted on; a majority has established those rules. In fact, there has been a great deal of flexibility in acc ommo dating presenters. The normal procedure that is followed is one goes through the list until one is found, and we have been straying from that somewhat. So I think it is appropriate to hear presenters on Bill 70, and I would ask the Chair to ensure that is what the committee does. ••• Mr. Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Doyle.

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 0 Mr. Doyle: As I was saying, I would like to base my remarks this evening on those aspects of Bill 70 which strike at the very base of workers' rights, not only in Manitoba, but in Canada and in the industrialized world, where most unionization has taken place over the past decades.

That base that I am referring to is the fundamental right of workers to associate and enter into a collective bargaining process with their employers, which most often leads to a collective agreement that both parties are able to live with, find fair and indeed facilitate the process of economic generation within a community or within a larger scope, such as the province of Manitoba. By suspending collective bargaining rights for workers, even for a limited time period, Gary Filmon has displayed a contempt of staggering proportions, in my view, for generations of workers.

The right to bargain collectively was won at great cost to workers in Canada. Over the years, thousands of brothers and sisters have paid for that right with sweat, their personal security, the ir short- and long-term financial security, and their ver y bloo d . Unfortunately, in too many cases, they also paid with their lives. *( 1910) With a casual flick of the pen, Mr. Filmon and his Conservative colleagues have stripped that right away from 48,000 working men and women in Manitoba-just a casual flick of the pen.

As usual, the suspension of workers' rights by the state has come about for the good of the public. I say that in a sarcastic fashion. No one consulted the public about this. Certainly, no one consulted workers or their unions about it. Conservative and Liberal provincial gove rnments, even as we speak, elsewhere in Cana da have also chosen confrontation over consultation. They have consciously decided to mount this twin assault on workers, imposing a wage freeze that does nothing more than visit privation on workers and their families, and stripping away their right to collective bargaining.

That this right-wing attack on workers' rights is so pervasive in Canada at this time, is to our country's discredit. That it appears so readily in Manitoba, which has a lengthy history of progressive legislation, is to this government's shame. Time and time again I have heard Gary Filmon and Clayton Manness defend their attack on collective bargai ning by claiming unions have abandoned it by relying on legislative alternatives to immediate strike action.

As speakers before me have pointed out, the union movement certainly does not like some of the rules imposed on us, but we stay within the rule of law and we utilize those rules. This government, along with Conservative and Liberal governments elsewhere in the country do not feel the same obligation to act within the law. When it does not suit you, you hit the back rooms and change the rules-hardly the mark of a government that is remotely interested in fostering a healthy labour relations climate and interested in setting an example to encourage harmonious relations in the private sector.

It is more the mark of back-room bullies who happen to be in the position of forming a government. This assault on the rights of working people will not pass quietly without notice. If it has not already taken place, I am sure that the appropriate complaints will be filed with the International Labour Organi zation and the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, so that the plight of working people in Manitoba and six other provinces will become known by the international community.

In the days ahead, I am sure the Filmon government will be tempted to mount more assaults on working people, as it lays the legislative groundwork to finish off the free trade sellout of the Manitoba econom y. We have already had the pleasure of looking through a wish list put together by the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce. In the chamber's April 8, 1991 issue, the Communique, the chamber spells out quite clearly what the Rlmon government will have to come up with as the price tag for business support in the next election, and it is quite a list.

The headings of their proposed amendments, and I have brought the entire wording of the proposed amendments with me, but the headings by themselves are quite informative: the definition of employee; the supervision of em ployees; interference in union activities; deemed interference in the formation or selection of a union; lists of arbitrators for expedited arbitrations; mandatory first contract legislation; certificati on; the power of arbitrator. Clearly, there is a move afoot to redraw the Manitoba Labour Relations Act to make it more difficult for workers to exercise their constitutional

19 1 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 11 , 19 91 right to associate with one another, and make it easier for employers to interfere in union organizing, among other things. I would like to make it crystal clear to the Filmon government, and to any other MLA who would like to support it in an anti-worker attack through either these proposed amendments or anything remotely resembling them, there will be a price to pay, both during that amendment process and during the next election. In conclusion, I urge the government members of this committee to stop your attack on workers. Enough is enough.

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Doyle. I believe there might be some questions, Mr. Doyle, if you do not mind. Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions, whether it be at seven o'clock in the evening or at five o'clock in the morning, as we did yesterday. I know that you had been around yesterday, and I appreciate your patience in coming back today and, in fact, that this committee was able to accommodate you. *

(1915) I want to ask you a specific question, because I know you have had an unique opportunity in the last number of years, in various different involvements, including as a news reporter a few years ago, to assess the pulse in Manitoba. I believe you were also quite involved at the time in terms of reporting on labour issues.

One of the concerns that has been expr essed to this comm ittee by other presenters is that this bill is going to significantly damage the very positive record we have in terms of labour relations in this province: in particular, the fact we have had the second lowest strike rate, historically, with only Prince Edward Island, which really does not have that much in the way of union organization, having the lowest.

I want to ask you , based on your current knowledge, but also on your previous opportunity as an objective observer, to observe labour relations in Manitoba, what will happen, if Bill70 is passed, to the labour relations climate, in your opinion? Mr.

Doyle: Rightly or wrongly, I think any provincial government of any political stripe, anywhere in Canada, is in the position, perhaps unwillingly in some cases, but they are in the position, of setting an example for the other employers in the province about what it is we believe in as a community and as a society about the fundamental parts of our lives; one of which, and I believe it is very fundamental, is what sort of relations should exist between employees and their employers.

I think that when you see the kinds of anti-worker legislation and policies, such as layoffs, wage freezes, the suspension of collective bargaining righ ts- which I cannot underscore enough is fundamental to workers' rights in any jurisdiction; but, in my view, and I guess because this is home, but also here in Manitoba; it is fundamental to the whole process- when private sector employers, who happen to be unionized, but even those who are not unionized and are not dealing with the unionized work force, when they see a government mounting these kinds of assaults on the people that work for them directly, and through agencies indirectly, I think the clear message is that it is open season on your work force.

If you are unionized, go at it. We will back you up; we have the law; we have the clout. We will make the law, if necessary. That is what Bill 70 is. We are making law to satisfy an objective. Now, when it is open season by employers and their workers, the inescapable result is a souring of the labour relations climate as it is today, headed downhill as the impact of Bill 70 and other pieces of legislation like it are felt and used as an example for behaviour by other employers in the province.

When that occ urs, I think the number of opportunities that we cannot afford to lose in the future- thanks to other Conservative policies, such as free trade and now the expansion of free trade to Mexico; those policies have placed us in a position of not having any elbow room, not having any ma rgin of safety-as opp or tun ities presen t themselves, for us to take advantage of them and turn them into economic activity and jobs for everyone-th ey will be lost.

I think those opportunities are in danger of being lost, simply because of the terrible impact that Bill 70 and pieces of legislation like it will have on the labour relations clima te her e in Ma nitoba . Companies will not want to locate here. Companies that are here will not be able to exploit opportunities as they present themselves. Other countries with a far more enlightened attitude about relations between employers and employees will reap the be nefits of those oppo rtu nities, those lost opportunities for us.

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 2 In other countries it has occurred. Ill-advised government policy has led to some terrible, terrible things. Take Mexico, for example. The real income of workers in Mexico is far lower today than it was as short as 1 0 years ago, simply because of government policy that was not designed to reflect the needs and the aspirations of the people of Mexico. That is the kind of risk I fear this government runs the risk of by adopting this kind of policy. It sets an example that will not do anybody any good. *

(1920) Mr. Ashton: I find it interesting you referenced a referral of this particular bill to the ILO, because we had an interesting pe rspective yesterday. A presenter, who came here about 3:30 in the morning, who was from Czechoslovakia, and left Czechoslovakia in 1968, had indicated that he felt this was the type of legislation that would have been introduced by the hard line Communist government in Czechoslovakia prior to the Dubcek period, which of course was crushed by Soviet tanks in 1968.

We discussed with that presenter what had happened in Eastern Europe: the first country in 1979 really to lead the way towards democratization, being Poland, and the leading force behind that, being Solidarity, and Solidarity being a trade union which was fighting for free collective bargaining rights as much as democracy. I want to ask you, because you reference that referral to the ILO, in what ways do you feel that this would violate any of the provisions of the charter of the ILO? Is it in terms of its impact on collective bargaining?

Are there other sections in this bill that you feel may lead this government-it would not be the first, by the way. I note that other Conservative gov ernmen ts ha ve been cited rather embarrassingly by the ILO for contravening the ILO charter. But, I would like to ask you specifically what you were referring to in this bill that might violate the ILO principles and the charter. Mr. Doyle: There are a numb er of international-scale bodies that concern themselves about the rights of workers, the rules that apply to the exercising of those rights, and the relationships between workers and their employers.

One is the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, which is--1 can liken it to the Canadian Labour Congress, only on an international scale as opposed to a Canada-wide scale. It, as you might well imagine, has rather specific language in its constitution, and its protocols and charters, as to how it believes workers in a free collective bargaining environment should be treated by government and their employers. As you point out, there are other organizations such as the International Labour Organization.

Many of you will recall that the International Labour Organ ization is comprised of busines s represe ntatives; it is comprised of government representatives; and it is comprised of central labour organi zations from memb er countries. In this context, the representatives that come from Canada are nominated by, in part, the Canadian Labour Congress. Now, I cannot quote you

chapter and verse, or name specific clauses or protocols that the International Labour Organization may have set down over the years, insofar as the trea tment of workers and their rights are concerned. However, I am absolutely certain, having read them myself, that they do make specific reference to the right of workers to unfettered and free collective bargaining environments; that they indeed will view Bi1170 and the provisions it contains, from the context of the suspension of free collective bargaining for a group of people, but also in the context of the larger impact on the welfare of workers.

So, the implications of these kinds of reviews and these kinds of assessments by international bodies such as the ICFTU or the ILO, the implications are profound. These organizations issue regular report cards on member countries, particularly on those countries that generate the kind of legislation that raises concern in their minds. Certainly the international business community is a regular reader of these protocols and updates and newsm agaz ines. The interna tional political community tracks them very closely.

In fact, any organization that has a right, or rather has an interest in human rights in general and workers' rights in particular, will read these publications and be brought up to date rather quickly, I would imagine, on the goings on in a member country like Canada, or its provinces. I think that in these times the last thing Manitoba needs is another barrier to the location of investment capital to Manitoba. Mr. Ashton: It is interesting in terms of referencing international capital, because one of the things that

19 3 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 11 , 19 91 has also been suggested by a number of presenters is the fact that they feel this fits in very much with the free trade agenda. I assume they were talking about the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, but there has also, of course, been discussions in terms of free trade with Mexico. ..

(1925) I would like to ask you on that, are you of that view? You made some reference, a rather general reference to free trade. Do you feel that this is a part of a free trade agenda here in Manitoba? Mr. Doyle: A great deal of legislation and a great deal of government policy and programs, both at the federal level and the provincial levels across Canada, in my view have been directly related to the laying of the groundwork of the Free Trade Agreement, or the economic conditions that the Free Trade Agreement will bring about, certainly not the least of which is the Free Trade Agreement itself.

However, you just cannot pass a Free Trade Agreement and expect it to do what its supporters believe it will do by itself. It requires a substantial number of legislative changes to the labour relations field, as a main area that requires substantial change in order for the Free Trade Agreement to do what its supporters say it will do. Other changes are necessary, particularly in the areas of social policy, social spending, enabling legislation that deals with things like regional economic development. A lot of these things have been identified as not being on the table.

The only people that do not agree with that assessment are the Americans. I do not think we are in an excellent bargaining position when we are dealing with a government and a country and a economy of that scale. In order for the Free Trade Agreement in its current form-and this will only become more urgent as it is expanded to include countries like Mexico, Central American countries, and further south into South America.

The urgency for legislative amendm ents such as Bill 70 becomes more apparent, because when all the dust is settled, the Free Trade Agreement really means that we are prepared to take on low wage economies.

That is what it means we have decided to do; that either, and I hope this is not true, the government is ceding to low wage economies a substantial number of our manufacturing jobs and not hoping to maintain much of a manufacturing sector; or they have gotten into the equally unlikely situation, in my view, as believing that Canada can go head to head with an economy that pays its work force at one-tenth the level that the Canadian work force is paid at. I do not believe that either of those circumstances will pay off in economic gain for Canada, Canadian workers, or our families.

Bill 70 certainly has all the earmarks of the kind of legislation that would be req uir ed to be put in place to make our circumstances more like the right-to-work states, such as Georgia, such as Alabama, such as some of the other states in the southern portion of the Unites States.

Bill 70, of course, is of a limited duration; but the remarkable thing about Bill70 is that it is the kind of legislation that would be required, only on a longer term basis, to either facilitate the entrenchment of the Free Trade Agreement, or, indeed, to attempt to limit workers' rights in a longer term, perhaps even on a permanent basis. So, yes, in answer to your question, Mr. Ashton, I think Bill 70 fits that profile very well. The only thing that is absent from it is the word "permanent. n Mr.

Ashton: I appreciate your thoughts on that because, indeed, whatever we deal with, whether it is part of a broader policy agenda, whether it is part of an obsessional strategy by a government, or part of an ideological perspectiv&- whatever the source is, obviously, that plays into it. I just wanted to ask one more question, and it is a question I have asked many other presenters.

I think one of the advantages of this set of committee hearings is that it gives people the opportunity, probably as close as you will get in a lot of cases, to speak, not necessarily one on one, but speak directly to some of the people on this committee. Some of us, obviously, know how we are going to vote on Bill 70. I mean, I know the NDP-we have opposed this from day one. I know the Liberals have said they oppose it, but -( interjection)- I am not playing games. I know the Liberals have said they would oppose this, certainly in Manitoba.

I know in other provi nces, in New Br unswick and Newfoundland, Liberals have supported some of the legislation, but I am not trying to get into a partisan debate. I am assuming the Liberals will vote against this. *

(1930) Assumin g tha t perhaps there are some Conservatives-and it would only take one or two, to vote with their conscience, to stop this bill. One

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 19 4 or two members, one or two abstentions could do that because we have had some pretty close votes in this session. We have had tied votes. I want to give you the opportunity, since you might not have the opportunity on a personal basis to talk to some of the MLAs-1 noticed the other day that someone put our Chair on the spot, and I apologize. At that time I had asked the question to one of his constituents. I do not know if you are one of the Chair's constituents this time; I do not believe you live in the constituency represen ted by the Chairperson.

So I am not asking this, Mr. Chairperson, directly at yourself- An Honourable Member: You may be surprised. Mr. Ashton: I might be surprised, yes, but I have no idea wher e the pr esenter lives, so I am approaching this in terms of the general perspective -( interjection)- Well, to the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), there were some of his constituents here the other day who said they were definitely opposed to this bill.

It is unfortunate he did not have the opportunity to listen to their comments, but I am asking this presenter, if you have the chance to talk to anyone who might be voting with their conscience on this bill on the Conservative side, what would you say to them to persuade them to either abstain from the vote on this bill, or preferably to vote against it, recognizing you have made a number of comments already?

What would you say, one on one, to somebody who might still in their heart of hearts have an open mind, might treat this process seriously, might actually be listening to the more than 500 to 600 presenters listed before the comm ittee? What would you say to them? Mr. Doyle: I think there are a number of comments to be made in connection with your observations, Mr. Ashton, and your question. I might point out at this pointthat I share your ambivalence about hastily predicting what the Liberal Party will do in this situation, since I had the pleasure of listening to Mrs.

Carstairs on the steps of the Legislature on June 27 in which she promised to support any motion that would defeat this bill. On the other hand, I also read the Winnipeg Sun recently, in which several quotes from Mr. Edwards were contained, in which he claims the Liberal policy supports wage freezes. At one point, I thought I knew what the Liberal Party was going to do. Now I am not so sure. I do not know. I suppose I could call Mr. Wells and ask for his opinion, but perhaps not. Perhaps Mr. McKenna could give me some guidance on wage freezes and the suspension of collective bargaining rights.

I think I probably already know them. The role of this committee is, as we all know, rather unique in the Canadian parliamentary system. I had occasion not long ago to spend some time in Alberta. Some people involved in the gov ernment pr ocess in Alberta wer e qu ite astounded to hear that each bill is reviewed by a committee in which public participation in that process is automatic. They were quite astounded that Manitoba had chosen to go this route. I was quite astounded at their astonishment. It seemed to me a natural thing. Before moving to Alberta, my political experience was based solely in Manitoba.

What I took to be the normal course of events to my surprise was certainly not the normal course of events elsewhere within our own country. I really was quite taken aback by that, how there could be such a differing view on participative democracy within a single country. I guess in a way-and I hope a bolt of lightning does not strike me when I say this-our committee process is like the Senate. It is an opportunity for sober second thought. It is an opportunity to review and put a human face on the impact of proposed government legislation.

Over the years, I have seen some profound changes made to bills as they have been prese nted at comm ittee and as committee members have listened to the views of Manitobans who are affected by these laws. It is not without hope that I appeared here tonight, because I have seen what looked to be fairly set positions go to committee and indeed come out either fundamentally changed or, in some cases, even tabled or hoisted. It is my hope that will happen to Bill 70.

If I could speak to each individual government MLA and attempt to convince them on a one-on-one basis about the merits of seeing this bill die an ugly death, I suppose I would show them the impact of freezing the wages of a single mother who has a family of three children at home, how the existing collective agreements that are being frozen by Bill 70 are freezing her below the poverty line. I can show them these faces, see the real impact of a wage freeze , an unfair wage fr eeze, an unnecessary wage freeze, a wage freeze that will

19 5 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 11, 19 91 not accomplish what the government hopes to accomplish with it. The payment of wages, particularly when those wages have had a history of 1 0 years, 20 years perhaps, in some cases, of being behind the rate of inflation, for the better part of a lot of people's working lives their wages have steadily-th eir ea rning powe r, the ir spending powe r, their discretionary spending power has eroded over the years to a tragically low level.

In some cases, I believe-and I admit this is only a feeling on my part, but I think that some regular wage earners are below the point of having any disposable income, that they must devote almost entirely their entire earning power to pr oviding their family with the fundamentals of life. I think in a country like Canada and in a province like Manitoba that has gone through, in the same 20-year period, a remarkable increase in GNP, a remarkable incr eas e in profit margin for corporations, that is-w ell, it goes beyond the word wrong.

It gets into that area where you use words like tragic, and how can this happen, and what will we ever do about it? I think one of the things we can do about it is to withdraw bills like Bill 70. I think the other thing I would show these government MLAs is the archival evidence that we have built up over the years. Indeed, I could even introduce to them some survivors of the bad years, before workers' rights were readily acknowledged by government or corporations.

I think I would show them, through archival process-and I would sincerely wish a face-to-face discussion with a survivor-the staggering level of commitment that the brothers and sisters who have gone before us brought to the struggle for the recognition of the right to form a union, the right to join their co-workers and attempt to persuade their employer-and in some cases that employer was government at any of the three senior levels-that they deserved a fair share ofwhatthey produced, that they deserved a modest, a fair level, an equitable level of the economic good fortune of Canada.

In the scheme of things, Canada has been very fortunate over the decades compared to a lot of other countries in the world. Unfortunately, the product of that good fortune has not been spread evenly amongs t Canadians. The collective bargaining process, the labour relations community has emerged to try to bring some level of fairness to that relationship. Through that archival process, I think I would show government MLAs the absolute and profound level of commitment that it took to bring today's structure to reality.

I think I would show to them the gravestones of the people who have been run down on picket lines, who ha ve been sho t by company-hired thugs. I think I would show them the stumps that used to be hands that led to the fight for worke r health and safety measures in our workplaces. These are all part and parcel of the thing I am talking about, that labour relations community. I think that any reasonable person, and I count amongst the people here at this table reasonable but perhaps not fully informed people.

I would hope through this information and the exposure to the evidence that exists that one or two or three or perhaps even all of them would agree that Bill 70 should be withdrawn and should disappear. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Chai rpers on, indeed these committee hearings, if they are to have a purpose, should, I believe, have the purpose of informing members of the committee. Most of the time we spend debating back and forth, we are essentially informing ourselves. Perhaps at times we could use these opportunities to get that direct contact.

I really believe there is a bunker mentality sets in in this building a lot of times. I really make an effort, myself, to get out. •

(1940) I believe comments such as yours directly put to members of this comm ittee are perhaps the next best thing, and I really appreciate you coming back again today and making your presentation. Mr. Guiz ar Cheema (The Map les): Mr. Chairperson, I think it will be unfair if we do not correct the record. First of all, I heard Mr. Doyle and I think we had the opportunity to hear you during the FOS hearings also. You will recall that it was a very lengthy process. We came to the meetings with an open mind to hear, and I think we learned from that experience.

You are asking us to be fair and reasonable, but at the same time you are being unreasonable and commenting something and dr awing your own conclusions and saying that the Liberal Party is going to support this bill. I think it is not fair and it is not true. If you would take some time to read the speeches of all my six other colleagues-we have

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 19 6 all spoken on this bill-it will become very clear to you that we have a serious problem with this bill, with the process in many respects of this bill. I think this is a good place to hear your-we have to hear your concerns, but if you have a preference to a specific party, that is up to you. You can promote the specific party, but to label another party without any conclusive evidence, I think is unfair.

Certainly, from a person of your status who has a lot of experience, who has worked very hard, I respect your work and your opinion, but I think you should be fair with what you say, because what are you saying? We seven or eight of us are listening and we want to pay attention. We want to hear your concerns, but at the same time you must be correct in whatever you are going to put on the record. This is just my comment. Certainly, I would like it if you want to reply to that.

I think if you want all of us to do the same thing, respect the process and be reasonable, I think we as human beings should demand from each other the same respect and not put on the record something which is not true. Mr. Doyle: I can under stand the memb er 's sensitivity on this particular question. At one time I worked in this building. I had the great pleasure, on most occasions, and sometimes the dubious honour of being able to track very, very closely what was being said in the House by all members of the Legislature.

I must say that I becam e the fan of many an MLA, be they Conservative, Liberal or New Democrat. I admired many of their attributes. Events having overtaken me, I have since found other ways to occupy my time. I can no longer bring the dedication and the commitment of time to what, I am sure, is still a very enjoyable exercise of tracking who says what on what particular day. So now I am in the awkward position, I must say, of having to rely on second and sometimes even third-hand repo rts of wha t goes on in the Legislature.

You can understand why I would prefer that I would have direct access on a virtual24-hour basis, but not having that, I must rely on the news media. To their credit, I find them quite accurate on most occasions. It was the apparent position of Mr. Edwards that led to my confusion, since they seemed to be so directly at odds with his Leader' s about wage freezes and such. Understanding that, I hope you understand my level of confusion about that topic. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Manitoba has or had the second-best labour relations climate in Canada.

How do you feel that this bill will affect those relations? Mr. Doyle: Without counting Bill 70, I think the record that Manitoba enjoys in terms of days lost to work stoppages, be they strikes or lockouts, has slipped. I think the number of strikes that have occurred in Manitoba and the number of lockouts that have occurred in Manitoba since the New Year alone, going back to the month of November for the Moffatt lockout of its employees and the members of NABET 816, these were lengthy strikes and lockouts. In the month of January alone, boy, the number of lost days must have hit close to 300,000 lost days.

I would say that having 10,000 nurses deprived of their livelihood because of what they felt was a fundamental fight for fairness put a serious dent in Manitoba's claim to having the second lowest. Now yet, on top of that, the effects of Bill70, the . effects of layoffs, the effects of wage freezes, the effects of a suspension of collective bargaining rights-the message this sends to the priva te sector, the message this sends to the nonunionized private sector is a green light. Go for it. If you do not like the way things are, give them a run. We are doing it.

So I think in the short term we have got a problem already saying that we are second lowest in the country. I think in the long term the possibilities are quite serious. I think that the traditional, relative harmonious labour relations climate in Manitoba is eroding, and it is going down. How long that were to turn around, I think is-well personally speaking, I do not know, I do not care, I do not think I would want to even hazard a guess, because a good positive productive labour relations climate is not something you accomplish by undoing an unfair piece of legislation. You do not do it by tinkering.

It takes a long, lengthy process to build up where workers and their employers feel that they have some mutual objectives and have some mutual goals that they can both work towards without compromising their responsibilities to their respective constituencies. Mr. Dewar: Of course, 48,000 workers are 48,000 consumers. How do you feel this freeze will affect the general provincial economy?

19 7 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 11 , 19 91 Mr. Doyle: Ten years ago, one of the realities I was not aware of at that point in time was the affinity that should exist, and in some cases does exist, between workers and small busines s peop le. I think individuals in our country carry an unfair share of the tax burden, both federal and provincial and so on. I think small businesses carry an equally unfair share of that.

When you look at the statistics of all the small businesses incorporated today in Canada, in less than five years close to 80 percent of them will no longer exist for a variety of reasons. I think the lot of a small business operator in Manitoba, which is also the largest employer in our economy, is quite frankly shameful. I think that the potential for closer alliances between labour and small business organizations is something that both are interested in exploring and perhaps exploiting at some point in the future, perhaps in the near future-1 hope.

By imposing a wage freeze on 48,000 wage earners in the province of Manitoba, while we are in the depths of a serious recession-that I hope there are some hopeful signs of us pulling out of in the fore seeable future-but the impact on small business in addition to the impact on the families and the workers themselves mystifies me. How this can be contemplated at a time when we are trying to break out of a recession, to breathe some life into our economy so that jobs are created, so that Manitoba regains its rightful share of the national wealth, is totally beyond me.

I cannot understand why any government, let alone the government of Manitoba, would contemplate that at this time. It simply does not make any sense at the best of times. Our economy is vulnerable. In the worst of times it il'l critical that each step, each policy is carefully thought out, and I do not think this has been carefully thought out at all. *

(1950) Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Chairperson, I have listened to your comments with interest here today, Mr. Doyle. I find them very interesting when you talk about free trade and the sell-out and how this bill could be an extension or possibly is an extension of the Free Trade Agreement. I do not want to dwell on that issue itself, but I want to ask you a question concerning another presenter who was here earlier today.

That presenter was a woman who indicated that she had four children and that her family income was $28,000 a year, and I have indicated that it was, in my opinion, a very meagre amount to support a family of that number. How do you see that this wage freeze-a nd what type of impact do you see this having on people who are on the low end of the wage scale, and what type of impact do you see it having on these particular families? Mr. Doyle: The 1991 poverty line for a family of four, and this is total family income, is in the neighbo urhood of $29,400.

So the woman-1 believe you said she had four children-so that would be a family of five, and at her level of $28,000 · before taxes, before an unreasonable number of taxes, at $28,000 she is already below the poverty line for a smaller family. Having a family of five and that level of income, I would say would put her in that position of having to carefully count each of her pennies in order to provide the basics of what we expect to be an acceptable level of quality of life for that woman and her children.

So assuming that this person is affected by Bill 70 in the short term, hopefully not the long term, I would say that a wage freeze would be of extremely serious proportions for her. I must admire the government strategy of profiling Bill 70 as a wage freeze when it is something quite more than that. I think the contents of Bill 70 taken as a whole not only puts this woman even more at risk and her children more at risk, because of the monetary nature of Bill 70, I think Bill 70, if she is directly affected by it, takes away probably her only effective tool that she can use to remedy her problems.

Her collective bargaining rights have been stripped away. They have been taken. They are gone until you give them back. That in a worker-employer relationship is her only tool for seeking fairness. That, I think, is the true insidious nature of Bill 70. It certainly is a wage freeze, but more than that it is a stealer of rights. I think in this century we have seen too many examples of governments stealing rights from identifiable groups or from entire populations. It makes me shake my head that we have not been able to learn a valuable lesson by observing what happens in these countries.

It is really quite an astounding thing to see that happening not only in your own country, but in Manitoba. This is Manitoba. We have a proud tradition of progressive legislation. On more than one front we have set the standards for the country. We have brought Canadians along with us. We have not sat in the background and we have not said, well, let us see what happens somewhere else first. We have

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 19 8 a history of saying, this is not right or this is right. Because of its rightness, let us go with it, or because of its wrongness, let us make sure it never happens here in Manitoba. So to see Bill 70 occurring in Manitoba is extremely disturbing for me because of our proud tradition and our history. Manitobans do not deserve this treatment. They should have a right to some kind of protection against it, if only because this is Manitoba, and I say that very, very proudly.

Insofar as Bill 70 being the forerunner of more aggressive legislation that would relate to free trade, I think the correct analogy would be when a swimmer dips a toe in the water to test it to see what is going to happen when they dive in. It makes the diving in a lot easier. Of course, in some cases it heads off the diving in because it is simply unacceptable. I see Bill 70 as that toe dipping. Let us just test out what it is going to take to get this kind of legislation through.

Bill 70 in itself would not lay the ne cessary gr oun dwork for the full implementation of the Free Trade Agreement, but with a couple of word changes it is there. That is what it takes. I do not like to see toe dipping going on when it comes to workers' rights or the economic security of Manitoba. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, the presenter talked about collective bargaining rights being stripped away from individuals. We had a process that was taken away from the negotiating parties in the province of Manitoba, and that particular policy was the final offer selection.

That was supposed to have ended in March, but it was by extension allowed to go through with ongoing negotiations to, I believe, the end of June. In that sense, there were parties that are now going to be falling under this Bill 70, that are going to have their wages that were agreed to either by negotiations or had come to a conclusion as a result of FOS now being rolled back. How do you see this impacting upon the employees in these different organizations who had thought they had an agreement, that their salaries were going to move forward, now facing a wage freeze?

How do you see that impacting upon these organizations and these employees? Mr. Doyle: I am afraid I do not have the level of statistics in my awareness, Jet alone with me, in order to truly give a full answer to that. However, there are groups of workers that I have a passing familiarity with, one group in particular. It is not paid out of the public treasury. These people earn from the revenue that is generated by their efforts and by the efforts that they facilitate.

Going into their final offer selection process they were low paid, many of them in the $7 range, $7 per hour, $8 per hour, which is not a handsome pay cheque in 1991 . Many of them had gone several years without any kind of increase in their real or disposable income. Through the final offer selection process-which I might remind the committee is not a replacement for collective bargaining. It is an encouragement for collective bargaining and a remedy when collective bargaining does not occur.

It cannot be cast as a replacement for collective bargaining or something that would stop collective bargaining-qui te the opposite. However, I digress. The 5 percent that these employees were awarded through the final offer selection process was really the first raise they had seen for a number of years, and 5 percent of a low wage is a low increase. *

(2000) So when the employees of the Crystal Casino had their final offer selection award wiped out, I found that par ticularly cruel because of their circumstances and because of the lengthy time that they spent on the picket line before the final offer selection process took over and moved events along to a fair wage relationship between them and their employer. Then to have Bill 70 appear on the horizon like a vulture and snatch that away from them, I think is contemptible.

I cannot see any justification for Bill 70 under any circumstances, but the particularly cruel impact it is having on specific workers I think is especially objectionable. Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, considering that the salaries and the wages for these employees, these 48,000 employees who are going to be impacted by this Bill 70, and that their cost of living is obviously going to increase as it does elsewhere in the country, and looking at the rate that has been taking place in the range of nearly 6 percent historically; how do you see negotiations for these groups of employees that are affected taking place?

Do you think that they will be striving for catch-up in the future and that there will be strong pressures brought in that direction upon their organizations to strive for that? Mr. Doyle: As I said earlier, I think the labour relations climate that is established in any community or country or jurisdiction is something that comes about through many years of developing

19 9 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 11, 19 91 it, of fostering it, of working on it to make it a productive entity. In a remarkably short period of time, the labour relations climate in Manitoba has deterior ated substantially. Now I have never bargained in the public sector. I have never had that pleasure or honour but, based on my experience in other realms, I cannot imagine how Bill 70 would be of an assistance to the future of a good and healthy labour relations climate between the government, its agencies and their employees.

I think we have been taken back in time and it will take a long period of time to bring about improvement to the labour relations climate, specifically between the government and its employees and, more generally, to the labour relations climate as a whole in Manitoba. So it is not a sho rt-te rm remedy to a short-te rm problem. It is

an act that is going to have echoes in Manitoba for years to come. Mr. Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle. Is that it for the questions? Thank you very much Mr. Doyle. Mr. Doyle: Thank you. Mr. Cha irman: We have at this time one out-of-town present e r. Are ther e any other out-of-town presenters who have come in? I will be asking every once in a while during the evening. Mr. Larry Brown, 269, is that correct? Mr. Larry Brown. Do you have a written presentation? If you could wait until it has been distributed, Mr. Brown, and then we will get started. Go ahead Mr. Brown. Mr.

Larry Brown (Nationa l Uni on of Provincial Government Employees): Thank you. I must say, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the committee's courtesy in putting me on before 4:30 in the morning, which I gather is when other presenters have had the distinct pleasure of appearing. With time zone changes, I am not sure what I would be like at 4:30 in the morning. It might be an interesting experiment for both of us. I am not sure if I am pleased or disappointed that Mr. Manness is not here in person tonight. The last time I met with Mr.

Manness in Winnipeg, it was just prior to the federal-provincial Finance ministers meeting where I made an impassioned and, I thought, brilliant presentation to him about why he should not support the kind of right-wing policies that we saw coming down the pipe. As a result of our brilliant intervention at that point, we now have wage controls in five provinces in Canada. So if Mr. Manness was her e tonight to listen to our presentation, it might mean the end of the labour movement altogether, I am not sure, based on our track record.

I also noticed as I was landing today that the Hell's Angels are having their convention in town as well. I was wondering if they were going to be here to learn some lessons from the Manitoba government in how to approach collective bargaining. We are the second largest union in Canada, and we are here today to voice our strong opposition to Bill 70. That may come as a surprise to the members of the committee that we would be in opposition, so I want to underline that to begin with. I want to tell you a little bit about the National Union so that the rest of our presentation fits into some context.

The National Union is the second largest union in Canada representing over 300,000 working people, and included in our membership is the Manitoba Government Employees' Association. We have 13 components across the country in all kinds of different occupations. At this point, about 59 percent of our members work directly for provincial governments. It used to be considerably higher when our name was chosen. We now represent employees in all different kinds of fields: a number of indirect public sector fields, hospitals, schools, correctional institutions and so on, a number of Crown corporations.

Also going into the private sector, we now represent employees in the tourism industry, breweries and so on. A broad occupational spectrum is included within our membership: clerks, engineers, nurses, the janitors and so on. I say all that not only to brag, although I am rather proud of it, but also to point out that the perspective that we bring to this hearing is not the pe rspective nar rowly of only public sec tor employees, but also the perspective of a number of working people in other fields as well.

We also have a perspective that we would like to claim extends beyond the boundaries of Canada, because we are one of the major unions in an organization internationally called the Public Se rvices Interna tional which is a worldwide assembly of unions, about 10 million public sector workers in 70 countries. So we consult with and obtain their views on a number of subjects, including consulting with them on things like privatization and wage controls.

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 200 I was in Geneva not very long ago at a conference where we talked about the impact on public sector unio ns these days of various gove rnment strategies, and it was pointed out at that point by a number of speakers that the World Bank had played a role in influencing a number of world governments to take the same kind of direction, cutting back on the wages of public sector employees, privatization, cutting back on services.

I would draw the attention of this committee that the World Bank itself, most recently, about a week ago, has themselves drawn attention to the fact that they were in error in putting forward those policies. What this government in Manitoba is doing is not unique. I wish it was, it might make us a little bit less busy. What the government in Manitoba is doing is part of a pattern that governments, not only in this country, but around the world, a select number of right-wing governments, have chosen to impose on their public.

The World Bank-that was one of the philosophical originators of that set of policies-has recently issued a study saying that they were wrong, that they carry those policies too far, that there was pain being caused to the people of the countries who pursued those policies, and that public services and governments are in fact needed by the populations that they were put in place to serve.

So while this government contemplates whether it should be pursuing the path laid down so thoroughly by the World Bank, it might be instructive for this committee to read that report of the World Bank where they, in fact, acknowledged that that set of policies went far too far and was in some ways in error.

We would like to talk to you today about a theme that has dominated a number of provincial budgets and the federal budget in this calendar year, and that theme is "tough choices." It has become the modern-day cliche, I guess, the governments made up of Clint Eastwoods who think that making tough choices somehow validates the positions that they come up with. The idea that we are asked to agree to it is that particular governments who are faced with admittedly difficult economic circumstances have had no choice whatsoever but to clamp down on public programs and services and wages and jobs.

It is a theme that the Finance minister of this pr ovince used ve ry-and I use the term advisedly-l iberally in his own budget when, after he blamed federal policies specifically, and we agree with him in this, those relating to high interest rates and severely reduced transfer payments for Manitoba's problems. Being a major cause of the recession , he the n, instead of solving those problems, proceeded to clamp down on the public sector in this province. A

(2010) The question we would like to put in front of this committee to consider is how real is this allegation that these are legitimate responses to tough choices. Did your Mr. Manness and your government have no other choice but to target the public sector? Does Manitoba's economic prosperity hinge, in fact, on the type of actions that Bill70 would mandate?

We do not think so, and we would quote not only union representatives and people's representatives in that argument, but also no less an authority than John Kenneth Galbraith, who is internationally respected as an economist who, in a May 1991 Globe and Mail article, warned governments, including this government here, to reverse their economic direction or risk making the recession worse. I would qu ote James Frank, who is a vice-president of the Conference Board of Canada. The Conference Board of Canada, I would remind this committee, is not exactly a trade union organization.

It is an economic think tank in Ottawa financed by major corporations and by government departments, I believe. There is certainly no trade union money going into it. Mr. James Frank, who is the senior economic adviser for the Conference Board of Canada was critical of governments like Manitoba's whose intense focus on their deficits aggravated unemployment, increased bankruptcies and resulted in lost output. A few hundred years ago doctors used to treat diseases by applying leeches to people. They used to bleed them.

Even if the disease was a blood disease like anemia, they used to apply leeches and take more blood. We kind of laugh at that now as a medical theory, but for some reason it is still an acceptable economic theory. In the middle of a serious recession we apply more leeches to the problem to drain more blood, more money and more purchasing power out of the economy. We are repeating the classic mistakes that were made in the late 1920s leading into the 1930s. It does not seem to us to make much sense.

201 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 11 , 19 91 The provincial budget here was put into the context of the federal economic scene, and your Finance minister spent some time explaining his provincial budget based on what had happened at the federal level. So I want to talk just briefly about the federal sce ne. Both econo mic ally an d politica lly, he seems to have provided the framework for your government. Since the Mulroney government came into power in Ottawa, this country has taken a radically different economic direction than it used to.

Things are now in this country a lot easier for large corporations and the well-to-do than they were in the past. There are reams of statistics, and at the risk of keeping you here until five in the morning, I will not repeat all of them, but I do want to cite some of them in support of those allegations, because there has been study after study that has demonstrated that there has been a turn for the people of Canada for the worse. (Mrs.

Louise Dacquay, Acting Chairman, in the Chair) The November 19 89 issue of the Canadian Economic Observer, which is a Statistics Canada pu bl ication publis hed by the Governm ent of Canada, said: From the early '40s to the late 19 50s corporate taxes averaged over 25 percent of total federal revenue. Personal taxes were only slightly higher at about 30 percent. By 19 88, personal taxes accounted for 55.5 percent and corporate taxes for only 1 0.5 percent, an incredible drop in the corporate tax contribution to this country and an incredible increase in the personal tax increase.

The reasons were increased tax breaks accorded to corporations and the remo val of tax credits benefiting individuals. In April 19 91 , Statistics Canada issued another study, and they extended this to all levels of government including the provincial level. Their study showed that from 19 85 to 1991 , corporate taxes which accounted for 7.4 percent of combined federal-provincial and local government revenues in the '85-86 fiscal year accounted for only 7.1 percent in '90-91 .

So combined across the country, corporate taxes and the contribution of corporate taxes has been dropping, and personal income tax has increased as a percentage of combined federal-provincial and municipal income from 31 .5 to 35.8 percent of combined government revenues. Then we add on top of that consumption taxes from 19 .4 percent to 20.8 percent before the GST. With the GST in effect, of course, consumption taxes are going to be an even greater money machine for governments.

Now the GST may be a federal tax but the employees of the government of Manitoba, who are going to have their wages frozen according to this bill, are not going to have their GST contributions frozen according to any copy of the bill that I have seen. The GST Consumer Information office has estim ated that the GST will cost the average middle-income family an extra $570 a year, 50 pe rcent hi gher than the figure inclu ded in government studies backing the need for the GST.

Now, again at the risk of oversimplifying this, let me point out that your employees who are facing a wage freeze are going to be facing that increase the same as other Canadians who are not facing that freeze. It seems to me that governments are causing part of the problem and then visiting the blame for those problems on their own employees. The Con sumer Association of Ca nad a's Manitoba office showed that prices on 36 items in a basket of 52 rose more or fell less than the federal government had projected.

Attempts were made to discredit that study, as you will be aware, but a follow-up study covering six provinces discovered exactly similar trends. Now zeroing in for a moment on personal income taxes, the tax burden for the personal income taxpayer in this country had changed markedly since the federal Tories took power. According to Patrick Grady, a famous study that got all kinds of coverage a couple of mon ths ago of Global Economics, the average federal marginal tax rate has increased by 2.5 percentage points since the Tories took power in '84.

The average family now pays-and that is a little hard to get your mind around; I do not know what a marginal tax rate amounts to, but I do know this figure-a n additional $1 ,530 per year in personal income taxes, not the average marginal income earner earning more than $1 00,000, mind you. That is for the middle-income brackets. That confirms the findings of the 19 89 study by Professor Allan Maslove of Carleton University, who showed that only the very rich and the very poor have benefited from tax reform . The biggest relative losers are those earning between $29,990

July 11 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 202 and $36,310. It would be interesting to do a study of how many gove rnm ent em ployees in this province fall within that magic bracket who have been hardest hit, had most of their incomes taken away by the tax reform that we have been told is supposed to be benefiting all of us. Your Mr. Manness in his budget speech said that his options were either to have wage controls or to raise taxes. I want to put that kind of a claim by your Finance minister back into this context, because the question is raise taxes on whom? If Mr.

Manness is saying that his only option was to raise taxes on the already overburdened middle-income taxpayer, then he has missed the obvious point that there are people out there who are not paying their fair share. More and more of the Canadian public is realizing that to say raise taxes does not begin to answer the question, because they are realizing that the tax system has become progressively more unfair. Ninety-five percent of the people in the last poll I saw indicated that they wanted greater fairness in the Canadian income tax system.

Taxes are only one part, of course, although they are an important part of the actions taken by the federal government in Ottawa over the last seven years. In general, federal economic policies over that time frame have been based on a very strongly held philosophy with a number of key points in it. First of all, the reason for our economic problems according to this philosophy is that government is too large.

Secondly, this philosophy holds that governm ent in volvemen t in the economy is automatically a bur den to the co rpo rate actions-and I suppose, as a result, corporate actions would be more conducive to economic growth and prosperity if they were just left alone and if government got off their backs. Given free rein and appropriate tax breaks, low-inter est loans, subsidies and so on, the corporate sector according to this philosophy will automatically act in the public interest and spur the economy on to bigger and better things.

Finally, and this may ring a small bell, the federal government themselves are confronted with some tough choices, and must take drastic steps to address the deficit problem, a deficit problem which they themselves created through high-interest rates, tax breaks, corporate subsidies and other initiatives. Their addressing of the deficit sounds all too familiar; it is through program and service cuts. This philosophy was first trotted out by Adam Smith a couple of hundred years ago and has been discredited on regular intervals ever since, but it is like a phoenix.

It keeps on rising again, and it has risen again temporarily and is now being pushed at considerable damage to the people of the gov er nme nts who are suffe ring under that philosophy. •

(2020) The federal gove rnmen t has established priorities. Deficit reduction has been its No. 1 priority, but not deficit reduction through increasing corporate taxes or the taxes of the well- to-do, despite the fact that they have not been paying their fair share.

Now the main mechanisms have been lower tax rates for the well-to- do; a free trade deal with the United States which not only cost us 315, 000 jobs so far and we are still counting, but cost us $2 billion in tax revenue for foregone tariffs at the border, and it is costing the provincial governments as well; the GST, a tax which has fueled inflation and increased the tax burden on the poor and the middle class; changing unemployment insurance so that those people who suffer as a result of those policies have less protection for the unemployment that comes with them; privatizing well-run government corporations such as Air Canada and gutting others such as VIA and the CBC; deregulation, which among other things has been blamed for the death of several people in the Dryden air disaster not long ago, specifically pinned by a commission of inquiry on the government policy of deregulation.

Another tactic has been to attack the public sector, programs, services, jobs and wages, and to encourage the provincial governments and the private sector to follow the example. What an example to have to follow. One result of all these changes has been a tremendous increase in the amount of unemployed Canadian workers. Some 1. 5 million Canadians, 10 .5 percent of the work force, are now admittedly unemployed. Statistics Canada only keeps figures on those who are actively looking for work.

So that those poor sods who have gotten so discouraged because there are no jobs to do that have gone home do not even get counted as unemployed. That is an increase from 7.2 percent just over a year ago. Surely when we look at that kind of figure, we do not need much more proof that the set of policies that has been imposed on us is not working.

203 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 11 , 19 91 One additional mechanism used by the federal government needs to be canvassed briefly, and that is one that yo ur government is faced with, the offloading of many of the financial problems that it has created onto provincial governments through rejections in comm itted transfer payments. Of course, the provinces then turn around and pass that on to hospitals and school boards and municipalities, and the hospitals and school boards and municipalities pass that on to the end user through a process called hot potato budgeting.

Your air conditioning system is not all that powerful, is it? An Honourable Member: We do not have one. Mr. Brown: Yes, I am beginning to suspect that. It is much more comfortable down there reading the paper than -(in terjection)- Pardon me? So those things flying in front of my eyes were not just spots? They are real animals, are they? What have provincial governments done in response to these federal actions?

Well, d uring 1991, provincial government actions have been so remarkably similar to each other and the federal actions, that we are sure governments have been putting their speech writers in the same room at First Ministers and Finance ministers conferences to dev elop model budge t speeches and press releases. The Manitoba government's budget speech said that the actions that they were taking against their employees were, in fact, legitimized because a few other governments had already done it.

Based on that logic, I sincerely hope that the government of Manit oba doe s not read the recent report of Amnesty International, because what that report says is that a number of governments around the world have been guilty of serious abuses of the rights of their citizens and, according to the logic of Mr. Manness, that would make it okay for the government here to do. In fact, I am taking it as my authority from the Manitoba government budget speech that it is okay for me to go out and rob banks, because several other people have done it first and, according to that logic, that makes it legitimate. The

preamble of most of the provincial budgets including Manitoba's that have been introduced during 1991 are remarkably similar, and far be it for me to suggest conspiracy theories, but see if these phrases sound familiar to you: There has been a recognition of how the federal government has contributed to provincial financial problems, particularly through its policies on interest rates and transfer payments. Ther e hav e been state men ts ab out how provincial citizens must pull together, and we are all in this together and we all have to deal with our difficulties.

Thank God the belt-tighte ning analogy has been dropped. If I heard that one more time, I think I was going to throw up. That was the one that was famous for years. There have been assurances that the provincial government has or will engage in a broadly based consultative process. Having said that, however, provincial budgets have noted that the provincial government has had to make some tough choices, and there have been statements about how the only realistic option that provincial governments have found is to come down hard on public programs, public services, and public sector workers.

What then have those provincial governments done as a result? Again, the actions have been remarkably similar: Program, service and job cuts, public sector wage freezes, some of which have contravened already signed collective agreements which I am going to speak more about later. There have been promises that there will be more of the same in the future-- so the reward for taking our bitter medicine now is more bitter medicine to come, and despite the complaints about federal offloading to provincial governments, provincial governments have in turn offloaded their problems to local governments.

In Manitoba, for example, the recent budget took some $20.2 million away from Manitoba cities and an additional $63.3 million away from rural and northwestern communities. Well, the question we would like to consider with this com m ittee is whether this province's government was really constrained in its choices? Were there other choices that could have been made? Obviously, we think so.

The governments of Ontario and Prince Edward Island not only did not make cuts in all of their programs, not only did not savage the public sector worker force in those provinces, but engaged in free coll ective bargaining and reached satisfactory collective agreements with their employees.

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 204 Indeed, our national perspective shows us that provincial gov ernmen ts across the country, including those that alleged that they had no choice, did have other fairer choices, despite federal actions in the areas of interest rates and transfer payments. For example, in your sis te r provinc e of Newfoundland the government cut some 2,600 provincial jobs and 360 hospital beds, froze grants made to school boards and so on, but still found $16 5 million to pay out in grants and subsidies to Newfoundland companies.

In that budget speech, the government of Newfoundland reported as a matter of some interest that in fact corporate taxes had declined in Newfoundland, as well, and that the corporate sector in Newfoundland was not paying its fair share of taxes, but proceeded not to do anything about it. Nova Scotia's government felt the need to go back on the agreement it had already signed with public sector workers in order to save $31 million. It could have raised $74 million if it had increased corporate taxes by the same proportion as personal income taxes it increased in that province.

It could have raised another $7 4 million by instituting a very modest 1 percent payroll tax. New Brunswick-a wage freeze on public sector workers in that province as well, contrary to a signed collective agreement. It could have raised $1 6 million through fairer personal income taxes and $1 00 million through fairer corporate taxes. I would suggest that the lessons learned from our study of these other budgets can be applied in this province as well.

There are a number of things that your government could have chosen to do besides visiting all of its concerns, allegedly concerned, about their financial situation on the backs of their employees. In this province, fairer corporate taxes would have raised $7.5 milli on in provincial revenues. A provincial surtax on those earning $50,000 or more would have raised $45 mil lion in provincial revenues. A capital gains levy, another $1 5 million in provincial revenues. There are a whole series of options that I am sure you have heard about that are going to be presented to this committee.

To claim that somehow the economic situation faced by this province validated an attack on a group of people who happened by the luck of the draw to be working for the provincial government, to claim that is validated is nonsense. There were, of course, a whole raft of choices that this government could have made that were options for it. Bill 70, despite what the government is saying and despite what the assurances are publicly about it, is not based on economics. The choices that were made by your government had less to do with economic problems than they had to do with political philosophies.

The political philosophies like those of their federal Tory cousins whom they consult at Finance ministers meetings and other forums are based on that same set of false premises that we talked about earlier. *

(2030) Manitoba has economic problems because your government is too large. Does that sound familiar? Government involvement in this economy is a burden to the corporate sector. Given free rein, the corporate sector in Manitoba would automatically act in the public interest and spur the Manitoba economy on to bigger and better things. The provincial government is confronted with tough choices and had no real option but to go after its own employees. Those are not economic statements, members of the committee, those are political statements of philosophical choice.

They have very little to do with economics and everything to do with politics. Now we have recently had a new angle added to all of the old arguments that have been trotted out. The new angle is making the economies more competitive. Competitive is the new buzzword. This is the new penicillin which is going to cure all of our economic ills, no matter what their original cause was. Competitiveness is being used by all levels of government to justify any and all of their economic actions. Mr.

Manness, I note echoing one of the collective decisions made at that Finance ministers meeting, also used that theme in his April budget. I am not used to quoting The Globe and Mail as evidence of a trade union position because The Globe and Mail is Canada's foremost business and-large "c"-C onservative newspaper. In The Globe and Mail's Report on Business, they showed that even they recognized that this competitiveness tag is just a con game. In a June 14 article, The Globe said things like the following : Canada remains anything but uncompetitive. As a country, we are getting richer every year. Our merchandise

205 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 11 , 19 91 exports have done nothing but rise. Our labour produc tivity has not deteri orat ed. Canadian business has produced a higher return on capital than the competition in Germany, Britain, France, Italy and even Japan. We have one of the world's most abundant resource bases and skilled labour forces. So why all the talk-and I am still quoting The Globe and Mail here-about declining competitiveness? Partly self-interest, and politicians are learning that they, too, can apply the "C" word to almost any economic dilemma.

Members of the committee, we can certainly get into competitiveness and carry that to any kind of absurd extremes. We can compete to see who can give the lowest tax break around the world for corporations; we can com pete to see who will provide the fewest services to Canadian people; we can com pete wit h countries that ha ve no environmental protection at all to see who can lower their standards the most; we can compete to see who can offer the lowest wages around the world. That really does not have very much to do with a sensible economic direction for this country.

What we would like to ask is the following: Is it not time that we started to hear some truths about national and provincial economies? Is it not time that our governments started to be more honest about what they are doing and why? Is it not time our provincial governments started to treat people, of whom the people who work for them qualify, more fairly? We could start with the public sector-want to look a bit more closely at governments' so-called economic basis for clamping down on public sector workers. To do that, we asked ourselves the question: Is the public sector wage bill out of line?

Do tough choices have to target public sector employees? Well, our union did not go to our own bank of rhetorical flourishes to find the answer to that. We went to Statistics Canada, and we obtained public sector data from Statistics Canada for a five-year period. We wanted to determine, for our own information, the extent, if any, to which provincial governments' financial problems could legitimately be blamed on their wage bills.

What we found, based on Statistics Canada information, which is available to all of you, is that provincial governments' wage bills had actually become less of a factor over the five-year period that we studied-less of a factor-not only in terms of provincial government spending but also in provincial economies overall. Wage costs in '85-86 were 11. 44 percent of total provincial expenditures. By 19 89-90, they were only 11. 07 percent of comb in ed provincial expenditures. They had dropped.

Wage costs in '85-86 represented 2.5 percent of combined provincial gross domestic product, wage costs for public sector employees. That percentage has dropped constantly through the five-year period so that public sector wages started to represent a smaller proportion of provincial output. By '89-90 , provincial public sector wages accounted for only 2.29 percent of combined provincial GOP. The statistics, contrary to what our political leaders have been telling us, demonstrate clearly that public sector workers and their wages cannot legitimately be considered the source of provincial financial problems.

Man itoba was not som e kind of exception to this rule. In '85-86, wage costs represented 1 0.2 percent of provincial expenditures and 2.7 percent of GOP. By '89-90, the figures were 9.1 percent, a drop of over a full percentage point, and 2.5 percent. In this province, the percentage of government money going to public sector wages has dropped in the last five-year period by over a full percentage point. In the face of that kind of hard fact, the argument that somehow governments have to visit the main source of the solution of their financial problems on government emp loyees is ju st nonsense.

I am not sure about this next statement, in fact across the country, we found that, even if provincial governments fired each and every one of their employees, their financial problems would still be there. Given the pattern that is existing across this country, I am not sure somebody is not going to try that as an experiment. We would underline the fact that that is not a suggestion. According to the data that we have looked at, the real problems that provincial governments have really can be narrowed down to two significant ones: Significantly reduced federal transfer payments and inc reased public debt costs.

Neither of those problems are going to be solved by wage freezes on the public sector. Provincial governments, as I am sure you well know, lost $6.8 billion between '85 and '89 as a result of changes in the formula used to transfer funds. Provinces will lose an additional $6.3 billion for the '90-96 period as a result of

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 206 changes in the '90 and '91 federal budgets. Those figures are not going to go away by the introduction of wage controls in this province. Provincial governments lost a further $3.5 billion as a result of increased interest rates that they had to pay on the money that they borrowed, and those interest rates were deliberately kept high by the Bank of Canada as part of its monetary strategy.

Now if those are the two most significant sources of a provincial government's economic problems, then why on earth would it be fair to visit those problems on people whose only mistake is that they work for those provincial governments? There ain't no justice in that. There is no fairness in it. All there is, is choosing to transfer a problem and getting the monkey off the backs of the government and onto somebody who can a hell of a lot less afford it and somebody whose choices are a lot more restrained than the provincial governments' are.

In the 19 90s, wage controls and other policies aimed at provincial government employees are really a part of a deliberate strategy. The aim is to divert attention away from the choice that the provincial governments have made, being either completely unable or completely unwilling to take a stronger stance against the federal government, for causing provincial financial problems and targeting national programs like medicare.

At the federal level, government worker bashing is a strategy aime d at diver ting attention away from the government's unwilli ngness to attack the real problems in the deficit through more progressive taxation and expenditure measures. Would it not be nice if governments at all levels started to spend more time focusing on their real problems instead of tryin g to deflect criticism by attacking publi c programs, services, jobs and the wages of those workers who deliver them?

I would like to deal with one final issue, and this is an issue that strikes me as one that, even for people with different philosophical orientations, must be one that would give us some pause.

Sam Goldwyn used to say a verbal contract is not worth the paper it is written on, and that has become a sort of caricature of a fast- talking, cigar-ch omping movie mogul, but what Brian Mulroney and many of the provincial Premiers are doing is demonstrating that even written contracts in this country are no longer worth the paper they are written on if those written contracts happen to be with provincial governments and happen to be with provincial government employees. •

(2040) Does being elected mean that you have a licence to lie to your employees? We would argue that it does not. Does it mean that you have a licence to sign formal, legal contracts with them that you have no intention of honouring? Surely not, yet that is exactly what has been happening in the name of fiscal restraint and sound economic policy in several Canadian jurisdictions, including Manitoba. This is a more profound problem than just a setback to sane collective bargaining in the public sector, although it surely is that.

If this bill goes through, it will take years for the collective bargaining situation in this province to stabilize, because the lack of trust that will be imposed on the system will be profound and fundamental. It is more than just an attack on the collective bargaining system. Surely this goes to the root question of the integrity of our system and the faith that one can have in any commitment made by the governors to the governed. I want to put this whole issue in mor e recognizable terms.

If some fast-talking shyster comes to your door and sells you a vacuum cleaner by lying about it, you expect legal protection. People just cannot get away with that, you would think, and you would be right. They cannot. If someone buys a car from you, takes the car, the n cancels the cheque and de cides unilaterally to pay you only haH the amount you agreed on, you expect to be able to enforce the original contract, and you should. You hire a company to do work for you, and they do not do the work, they do not live up to their commitments, you expect to be able to enforce the contract.

For most of us, a deal is a deal. Our honour, our integrity and the legal system all enforce that understanding, that a deal is a deal, a contract is a contract. So when did governments get some kind of dispensation from this rule? Would they try this kind of deal breaking if they had a contract with General Motors and then decided they did not want to live up their end of the bargain, or would they be too afraid of the consequences and the outrage that would occur? Governments sign all kinds of contracts for supplies, office space, equipment.

The people who sign those contracts assume, as they should, that those contracts are going to be valid deals, and they

207 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 11, 19 91 expect them to be honoured. In fact, governments do not break leases, and they do not write laws to change the amount of rent they have agreed to, staying in the same office but legislating a lower rent. They do not accept delivery of supplies and then legislate a lower price, yet when it comes to public sector workers, all of the rules apparently chan ge. Gov ernme nts can sign coll ective agreements, and then they decide they do not like the terms and then legislate new ones.

They can even sign those contracts with apparently their fingers crossed behind their back or something, knowing that the contract is soon going to be unilaterally changed by legislation they have already drafted. That is what has happened in different degrees in B.C., Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and, unfortunately, I have to say, in Manitoba. Your Premier sat across the table from the head of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association and had a conversation with him that was intrinsically dishonest because there was legislation already drafted so that Mr.

Filmon was going to get his way one way or the other. The camouflage, of course, is there. The deficit, fiscal restraint, sound management and all those wonderful-sounding words, but these governments, including your government, had deficits before, and they knew what their budgets would look like. Is there some magic line that says, up until this point, we are going to be honest, but if we cross this line, if the economic problem gets big enough, we can justth row our word to the winds and break our word? Governments' financial situations are not cast in concrete.

As we have noted, all governments make taxation choices which determin e how much revenue they will get, and our tax system is being made more unfair every day. Profitable companies are not paying their share; governments are making spending choices. Some of those spendin g choices are pretty questionable. Even if we do not question the figures, what price do we put on our new society, on our new world order, on honesty? What dollar value do we give to integrity?

If it is $35.2 billion, does that justify lying to the person on the other side of the table, where if it was only $35.1 billion, you would still have to be honest? Is that where the line is, or is it $36.2 billion? The discussion, of course, is nonsense, but what we seem to have accepted and what you will accept if you pass Bill 70 is that there is a line that says, if the deficit gets big enough, then to hell with our word, to hell with our integrity, to hell with our honesty, to hell with going to the bargaining table like honest people and trying to negotiate an honest collective agreement.

We will just use the force of law. Let us look at this from the other end of the tel escope for ju st a mi nute . What if your government employees' union in this province signed a contract for 3 percent and, six months later, the rate of inflation had gone up to 6 percent, double what they signed for? Would the union be justified then in tearing up the contract and walking out on strike? Your government would be the first to argue that they would not be justified, and you would use the force and the rule of law to get them back to work as soon as the police could do it. That is the other end of the telescope.

If an employee signs a contract through his union and makes some kind of a mistake in judging what is going to happen, the employee, through his union, is stuck with it for the life of the collective agreement. Why should the people on the other side of the table be any different? In the public sector, we have the dub ious distinction of having an employer who makes up the rules, appoints the referee and then joins the game as one of the teams. The employer then reserves the right, if they are losing, to change the rules anyway, even to move the goal posts.

Your government here did not want to give to public sector employees the unfettered right to strike, and when they started to win at arbitration, they went through Bill 70 and changed the rules, moved the goal posts halfway through the game. One union put it, breaking a legally negotiated contract is breaking the law, unless you can use the law to break the contract. Then you are not just any em ployer, you are the gover nment. Wh at governments are doing--a nd you have to know this, all of you have to know this if you look in any kind of objectivity at what is happening. This is wrong, dishonest and immoral.

Quite frankly, I can see by the look on some of your faces that you are uncomfortable with this argument. I hope you are, because what governments are doing in this country, by accepting the kind of force and the kind of brute force that it is epitomized by Bill 70, is immoral. It is far too high a price for a law-abiding society to accept. You would not even have to

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 208 explain that to Sam Goldwyn; we should not have to explain that to our governments. Before concluding, I would like to just talk about the image that Canadians have had about the public sector and public sector workers, because that is part of the problem. Over the last two decades, Canadian governments at all levels have worked hard at creating a false image about the public sector and public sector workers.

Governments who employ those people have worked hard at demo ralizing public sector workers with unsupported statements, holding that government activity is in effi cient and misdir ected , that governmen t workers are overpaid or lazy, that freezing funds or further cuts to program spending are needed, that privatizing our contracting out operations will make them more efficient and that effective program delivery will result. Governments have played a very large role in perpetuating those stereot ypes.

Public sector workers in this country have had enough, enough of this image and of the actions perpetuating it. Yes, many are demoralized, and as a result, you are not getting the kind of work that public sector workers are capable of. Yes, others are trying to leave, because they want to work for more enlightened employers, but the majority still believe in the job that they were hired to do, and they are very, very angry. They want to know why they have been singled out for treatment that is demonstrably unfair.

They want to know why they have been singled out for that treatment when the facts show that they are in no way respon sible for the problems that their employers are supposedly trying to address. •

(2050) What are we talking about when we talk about the public sector? Everybody, I think, now has an image of the public sector worker as somebody who dresses in a tie every day, goes to work carrying a briefcase, pushes forms around a desk and does not ever, God forbi d, do anything real. That is nonsense. That image of the public sector worker that governments like to attack is a false image. The work that government empl oyees do is absolutely valuable and necessary work so that society remains one that is decent to live in.

We are not talking about some abstract concept of some person who works in some other city, preferably some city far away like Ottawa, or if you are in Thompson, you can blame everybody who lives in Winnipeg, somebody who is far away and removed. We are talking about families and friends and neighbours. We are talking about health care. We are talking about inspecting food so that, when you go to a restaurant, you can be reasonably assured that you are not going to get poisoned. We are talking about senior citizens' programs. We are talking about search and rescue services.

We are talking about counselling and help for unemployed workers, protecting the environment from polluters, training young people, providing roads and highways inspections and a host of other services on which Canadian businesses depend every day.

Government employees, those public sector workers who are being bashed, those public sector workers who are having their work devalued by their emp loyers, our nurses, lab tachs, ambu lance operators, public health inspectors, nursing home staff, their scientists, their employment counsellors, their community college instructors, prison officers, snowplow operators, social workers, these jobs, the people who do these jobs that you are taking money away from in Bill 70 are doing work that is crucial to this province.

Without those people and without the job they do, this province would not be as good a province to live in as it is right now. It is these functions and these people who are most directly affected by odious pieces of legislation like Bill 70, the piece of legislation about which an official complaint will be filed at the International Labour Organization in Geneva this fall. We are not talking here about somebody else, somebody's second cousin twice removed, or some situation that exists somewher e else.

We are talking about all of us, including government mem bers and the society that you and your constituents have to live in, because we all make use of those government programs. When we talk about public sector workers, we are talking about people who work for the public, which is all of us. We all have a vested interest in having effective, highly motivated public sector workers, and that, in

summary, is why Bill 70 should never have been introduced and why this committee must now reject it. Thank you very much. The Acti ng Cha irman (Mrs. Da cqu ay): Thank you, Mr. Brown. On a point of clarification for the record , it is my under standing that you are presenting this brief on behalf of the National Union of Provincial Government Employees. Is that correct?

209 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 11, 19 91 Mr. Brown: That is correct. The Ac ting Cha irman (Mrs. Da cquay): Thank you. You were listed as a private citizen. You also were not noted as out of town, and I think in your earlier comments, you indicated that you had flown in. Is that accurate? So you are from out of province, are you? Mr. Brown: Yes I am. That was indicated at the beginning, as I was being called up to present. I gather that is why I am on now and not at 4:30. Th e Acti ng Chairman (Mrs . Da cqua y): Mr. McAlpine, are the questions of Mr. Brown? Mr.

Gerry Mc Alpine (Sturgeon Creek): Yes, Madam Acting Chairman, the interest is here in terms of what has stood out throughout the whole brief. I got the impression that you were not from Winnipeg and maybe unfamiliar with some of the things that we are dealing with here. Out of interest, I would just like to know what part of the country you are from. Mr. Brown: I represent -(in te�ection)- I am sorry. Did I do something- The Ac ting Cha irman (Mrs. Da cquay): No. I am sorry. We have to identify the speaker through the Chair prior to responding to each question in order for Hansard to pick it up. Mr.

Brown: I represent, among other things, the Manitoba Government Employees' Association so that we are in close contact with them as well as our other components across the country. I am one of the two national officers of the national union. My home base is Saskatchewan, which is where I am originally from, and I was elected four and a half years ago. I have worked out of Ottawa ever since, but I have been in Manitoba often enough to qualify me at least as an honorary citizen, so I would claim some familiarity with what is going on here. Mr. McAlpine: So I am to assume that you are from Ottawa?

You said you are working out of Ottawa. You home base is Saskatchewan, is that what you said? Mr. Bro wn: My original home base was in Saskatchewan. I was elected four and a half years ago, and since then, my base has been in Ottawa, yes. The Acti ng Cha irman (Mrs. Da cquay): Are there further questions of Mr. Brown? Mr. Dewar: Thank you for your presentation. I was wondering how you feel this legislation will affect settlements in the private sector? Mr. Brown: I am going to learn to wait, before the end of the evening.

I think it is fairly obvious that the first set of wage control legislation that we saw in this country was in 19 75, and that legislation was characterized as wage and price control legislation, if you remember. It was supposed to apply to all wages in the country, private and public, and all prices. In fact, after two and a half years of operation, there was a major news release that the wage and price control board had finally rolled back the price of a bottle of ketchup. It was fairly clear by that time that it was a wage control board, and even the government stopped pretending anything else towards the end.

The next round of wage controls that we saw after 19 75 dropped all that pretense and moved to being public sector controls, and that was the period from 19 82 to about 19 86. There were a number of governments across the country that introduced some kind of wage controls. None of them were as bad as the current round of wage freezes. In the '82 to '86 era, the wage control legislation was in fact legislation that said you can only bargain up to a certain lim it.

It was a much different kind of legislation then, but it was public sector only, started by the federal government with its six and five program and then copied by most of the provincial jurisdictions across the country. The explanation from the federal government at the time was that they understood perfectly well that, if they controlled their own wages and the wages of provincial public sector employees, the end result would be to drag down the wages of all workers in Canada, because the process of colle ctive bar gai nin g is not some kind of simplis tic or straightforward one.

It depends on what else is happening, so if you go to the table here, you quote the wage settlement there; if you go to the table there, you quote the wage settlement here and so on. If the wages of one group of workers, a fairly subs tantial group in our economy, are being dragged down legisl atively, then the ability of anybody else, whatever their work situation, to get the same wage increases that they would have otherwise, is decreased. So what this is, is wage

July 11, 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 21 0 control legislation which will by indirect effect spread out and cover all workers who are unionized, because the general pattern of wage increases will be driven down because of the public sector. Along with that, we are seeing an incredible increase in unemployment, as a result of a whole bunch of factors, including governmentally introduced factors, which is another way of controlling wages, because everybody knows that, in a period of high unemployment, the ability of workers to achieve wage increases is decreased. Mr.

Dewar: It has been estimated that this freeze will take $70 million out of the provincial economy. What are your comments on that? Mr. Brown: That is one of the reasons that people like John Kenneth Galbraith and Jim Frank, among other people, say that what is being done here is exactly the wrong prescription for the problem, because what we are in is a terribly serious recession. In some parts of this country, it is getting scary. There are people living in conditions in this country that would be embarrassing to any of us.

This recession is not some academic, economic exercise; this is a real problem that is being visited on a whole host of people in this country. It is the exact opposite of what we need, to be taking more purchasing power out. Galbraith is no amateur when it comes to economic advice. I told you before, I was in Geneva. At the Geneva meeting, I raised his name, thinking this was kind of a North American name. His name is known world wide. He is a respected economic adviser to governments around the world, whose name is magic in that circle.

He says that this is nuts, that when you have an economy that is going like that, the last thing you want to do is push it down, which is recessionary budgets that take money out of the economy through wage controls, take money out the economy through layoffs, take money out of the economy through the reduction in grants and all of the kinds of things that have been visited through this budget-exactl y the wrong prescription. It is taking somebody who is dying of a blood disease and applying leeches. It does not make any economic sense whatsoever.

It is a philosophical prescription that has no rooting in economics. * (21 00) Mr. Reid: Madam Acting Chairperson, one of the comments that was made in your presentation here today-and I will read it to refresh all of our memories: We all have a vested interest in having effective, highly motivated public sector workers to deliver those programs and services to us.

I find that a very, very interesting comment, and I am wondering how you see the effect of this wage freeze and, in many cases, wage rollback impacting upon the workers in this province, the Civil Service workers, the 48,000 of them who are going to be affected, how their morale is going to change, if it is going to change, and how the performance of their duties is going to be impacted by the freezing of their salaries? Mr. Brown: There is a question of terminology that always bothers me when we are talking about zero being legislatively mandated for a year. That is not a wage freeze.

It is worse than that, because at this point, and it has been proven fairly graphically, the worst impact on inflation right now is things like the GST. Inflation is going up at the rate of over 6 percent per annum, so that what we are talking about is not a wage freeze, it is a decrease in public sector wages by 6 percent. At the end of the day, what public sector workers in this province-if you proceed as a government with Bill 70, the workers will not have had their wages frozen, they will have had their wages reduced by 6 percent. There is no other way that you can draw the equation.

So what public sector workers are being told is that, in a time when there is more demand for their services, when there is more unemployment, when there are more family breakups, when there is more family violence, more alcoholism, all of these things flow directly from unempl oyment. The studies have been done conclusively that show that social services are more called on at a time of recession than they are at any other time.

One percent increase in the rate of unemployment causes an exactly proportional increase in all of the social problems that you would expect, including family breakup, family violence, the illness increases as a result of unemployment. We have tremendous new demands on public services being caused. Public sector workers are being told, and these are people who are working on the front lines, these are people who are out on the streets of Winnipeg and know exactly what this is about. They are not sitting in some cushy office somewhere.

These are people who are out there trying to deliver hands-on personal services to people. They know how desperately those services are needed. They are being told that they are worth

21 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 11, 19 91 less. Two words, but still worth less. They are being told that their employer is expecting them to work harder because the situation demands it, but they are worth less to the employer. They are being told that the situation demands more work, but there are going to be fewer of them. They are worth less to the employer. It does not take an intellectual genius or a psychologist to figure out what that does. People do not go into the public sector for the kind of invalid reasons that I think are a part of the cliche.

If people want job security these days there are more secure places to go. If people want a kind of sinecure where they can sit in a corner and not bother anybody, there are a hell of a lot better places to go than the public sector. The public sector is people who are going behind the closed doors of a jail every day. They are people who are out in the streets. They are people who are having their clients get violent because they cannot get the services that they need. Those people chose to go into the public sector because they believed that those services were badly needed by the people that they serve.

The idea that public sector workers would rather not work is one that really intrigues me. It annoys the hell out of me, but it also intrigues me, because I do not know where it came from . I never personally met a public sector employee who did not want to do the job and did not get frustrated by the levels of management that kept him from doing it. These people genuinely want to be out there delivering services that they genuinely believe in. They are being told by their boss that they are worth less. Their morale is just -(i nterjection)- Go ahead, you wanted to get into the discussion.

The Act ing Chairman (Mrs. Da cquay): Order, please. Mr. Brown, would you continue your response, please. Mr. Brown: Okay. These people are being told that in the face of that set of circumstances, their employer literally does not value them as much as he used to, does not value them in terms of the number of people he is going to keep on or in terms of what he is going to pay. The morale is incredibly bad, but it is a kind of morale problem that is unique in my experience, because it is combined with an incredible anger.

Quite frankly, I would not want to be any of these governments going to the polls after they have done this. Here or in Nova Scotia where I have been at rallies and meetings or in New Brunswick or in Newfoundland, people are right pissed off, if that is not an unparliamentary expression. If it is, I take it back. The Ac ting Chairman (Mrs. Da cquay): I am sorry, Mr. Brown, it is very unparliamentary. Mr. Brown: Okay, well, I beat you to it. I took it back then. The Act ing Chairman (Mrs. Dacq uay): Thank you. Mr. Brown: They are darn mad. How is that? Is that parliamentary enough? People are incredibly annoyed.

The people who cannot get the services that they pay tax money for are annoyed and the people who are trying to deliver those services in the face of this kind of opposition are right mad. That one is okay, too. I am making light of a very serious situation. There is an incredible anger out there and sooner or later, as every student of industrial relations can tell you, that anger is going to find a way to come out. You cannot bottle it up. These sins are going to be visited unto the fifth generation, because there is an incredible mistake being made. It is not just going to go away.

People are not going to wave a magic wand and six months from now say, gee, golly, it is over, so let us all go back to being nice and friends. The lack of trust and faith that is being built into this system is endemic now. It is really a terribly tragic mistake. Mr. Reid: When I ask this question, I do not mean to be facetious when I ask it, but I would like to know whether or not the presenter has any awareness of which minister brought in this particular piece of legislation, Bi1170. Mr. Brown: I know whose budget it was, but I do not know if Mr. Manness brought in the actual legislation. Mr.

Reid: For the presenter's information, it was brought in by the Minister of Finance, Mr. Manness. I am just wondering whether or not the presenter thinks that bills that come in that impact upon the labour in this province, the public sector workers, should be brought in by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) versus the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). Point of Order Mr. Praznlk: On a point of order, I do not think that is relevant to Bill 70. The fact is it is before the Legislature.

July 11 , 19 91 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 212 Mr. Brown: I would be happy to answer the question on the instructions of the Chair. The Ac ting Cha irman (Mrs. Da cquay): I am sorry, I have not recognized you, Mr. Brown. I have not ruled on whether it is a point of order. Mr. Reid, on the same point of order. Mr.

Reid: Madam Acting Chair, I believe this is very relevant, because I would like to know the impressions of the presenters as they come before this committee on whether or not they think that bills that are impacting upon the labour in this province should be brought in by the Ministers of Labour and not by the Ministers of Finance. Therefore, I asked this question with respect to this particular piece of legislation that was brought in by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). It was labour legislation. Mr. Praznlk: Further to the same point of order. The bill was brought in by the government.

The Minister of Finance introduced it. I brought in labour legislation in which the Minister of Finance, because I was at a constitutional meeting, introduced it for second reading. It really is ·not relevant. It is a government bill. * (2110 ) The Ac ting Cha irman (Mrs. Da cquay) : Mr. Reid, I would just like to caution you. It is borderline on being relevant. I think it is more in terms of the way the question was posed. Would you please continue with your question? Do you have a subsequent question? *** Mr. Reid: I will rephrase my question, Madam Acting Chair.

Through you to the presenter, would the presenter think that it would be normal practice if legislation was brought into the legislative process in this province that would impact upon the labour in this province, that it would normally be brought in by the Ministers of Labour rather than the Ministers of Finance? Mr. Brown: I, among other things in my checkered career, used to work for governments and used to work for the Minister of Labour and write legislation under his guidance. My short answer to the question is, yes, that is quite odd.

The only experience that I have seen has been one in British Columbia where there was something called sunshine legislation that was introduced in that province that was quite distinctly different than any other legislation that had been ever introduced in any jurisdiction in Canada. It was a piece of labour legislation that the Labour minister in that province refused to introduce and it transpired after the fact that the Labour minister was, in fact, in total disagreement with the bill and found that he did not want to put his name to it. I do not know whether that is the case here or not.

It may be, and if that is the case, I commend your Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) for his wisdom. The Acting Cha irman (Mrs. Da cquay): Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Brown: Thank you. (Mr. Chairman in the Chair) Mr. Chairman: I am going to ask the clerk if she could please go out and see if there are any other further out-of-tow n presenters from the crowd. If you could raise your hand and give your names to the clerk, I would appreciate it. We will now carry on to going one by one. Number two: J. K. Julius, K. Kryshka , D. Ewanchuck, Anita Lewis, Marla Niekamp, Walter Niekamp. Order, please.

Darlene Bergen, Wayne Bergen, Rose Powers, Ron Bodri, Donna Jones, Pa t Tambak is, Elizabeth Doe rksen, Josie Musgrove, Rick Park. Come on forward, Mr. Park. Do you have a written presentation, Mr. Park? Mr. Ric k Park (Private Ci tizen): No, I do not. I did not make copies. Mr. Chairman: Just carry on then, Mr. Park. Before you start, Mr. Park, I just wanted one point of clarification-have you clarified that- just carry on then, Mr. Park. Mr. Park: I noticed this was the Industrial Relations Committee and I wondered why it was industrial relations. The Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) brought this bill in and should it not maybe be a Finance committee meeting? Mr. Chairperson and committee members, as a private citizen I thank you for this opportunity to express my concerns on Bill 70. I am an employee of Manitoba Hydro, a member of the IBEW Local 2034, a resident of St. James-Assiniboia, and the breadwinner in our family of four. This bill unjustly limits my constitutional rights to free bargaining and my ability to earn a fair and equitable wage. Ron Mclean, a local business manager of Local 2034, has voiced many of my concerns with the effects of this bill on our

213 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 11 , 19 91 membership. I am here today to discuss the bill's effect on my family and myself. Manitoba Hydro is a provincial Crown corporation which, last year, made profits of tens of millions of dollars during a period of drought and has projected profits of tens of millions of dollars this coming year. These projected profits are even before recent rainfalls.

As a shareholder in this company, on three accounts: as a Manitoba citizen, a Manitoba Hydro customer, and an employee, I believe that Manitoba Hydro's management should be left free to manage the corporation and free to negotiate in a fair and reasonable manner. My family's standar d of living has been de

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-2-ir5
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 2nd hansardpdf ir5.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c931cf0bad5592f539a78d60b9e92d281b28791b

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