Manitoba Hansard — 26 November 1996 (Sitting 87B, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-87b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 87B- 7 p.m., Tuesday, November 26, 1996 ISSN 0542-5492

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

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

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

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

5317 LEGISLATI VE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, November 26,1996 The House met at 7 p.m. ORDERS OF THE DAY (Continued) REPORT STAGE Bill 67-The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act Mr . Deputy Speaker (Marcel Laurendeau): The honourable member for Thompson, who has 25 minutes remaining. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, when I was speaking before, I stressed the importance of the issue to rural and northern Manitobans of, not just the level of employment, but where that employment takes place.

I think that is important to recognize because the interesting fact here is, you now have MTS, for example, saying-this is in its CRTC application, and the minister is aware of this-that it has limited potential for productivity gains. Now, the reason they say that is because they have already cut back, to a significant degree, the workforce here in Manitoba. That is a very specific term that was used by MTS.

Now, what is interesting is, I still think a private company is under significant pressure to do that, no matter what they tell the CRTC, they do not have that ability to do it, but you know, either way there is that pressure. Often, though, the decision that could be made is not necessarily whether you cut the job or the service that is provided, but where you provide it from. Now, let us deal with an immediate example of why you should be. concerned about a private company as opposed to a public company. Has anybody heard of AT&T Canada? An interesting company, it used to be called Unitel.

It is composed of AT&T and three Canadian banks. Interesting. Now, it is interesting because, if you look at it, why would you be in that situation where you have that? Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention, AT&T Canada, is it an American company or a Canadian company? An Honourable Member: New Jersey. Mr. Ashton: New Jersey, no, it is a Canadian company. If AT&T wanted to buy shares in the Manitoba Telephone System, they would not be subject to the foreign-ownership restrictions. AT&T Canada is a Canadian company. I just want to see the ads here, you know. AT&T is a Canadian company. The member for Riel (Mr.

Ne wman ) says, they are a good company, and I want to deal with how good a company they are. Mr. Bill Catucci, President of AT&T Canada, guess whom he worked for before? AT&T, period. He was interviewed in the Toronto Star daily shortly after he came. Two interesting things, he said; one was, guess what phone company they were interested in acquiring? Well, it was not even Cantel; they have done that anyway. It was not even, there is the fourth largest, they purchased that. Guess what company it was? MTS. AT&T, it is on the record, is interested in acquiring MTS.

An Honourable Member: We had to close the door on them. Mr. Ashton: Well, they have said they closed the door on them, 9.9 percent today and who knows tomorrow? They can buy 9. 9 percent. The minister knows that. He also knows that they can acquire shares quite sig nificantly over the next number of years, and if they are interested in carrying out their goal, they can do that. There is nothing in the bill that stops that. The minister knows that. You know, we have had people vehemently defend the rights of individuals, once they purchase that sale, their property rights, to sell to whomever they wish.

There is very little you can do once it trades on the TSE, and it will trade on the TSE, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is where Telus trades now. An Alberta company trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

5318 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 Now, what else did Mr. Bill Catucci brag about, mister newly appointed head of AT&T? Telemarketing jobs that he transferred, like that, from-guess where?-Winnipeg to Toronto. I know AT&T and Unitel have done some other things since. He came in, and he said, no, he made that decision. I guess he thought he would be somewhat popular in Toronto. That is not a bad thing, right? Look, I sure showed them. I am a good corporate citizen for Bay Street and Toronto. I transferred those jobs from Winnipeg to Toronto, like that, telemarketing jobs, gone.

That is the world we live in. It is interesting because I mentioned yesterday about the increasing cult-like behaviour of the Conservative Party tiying to show their faith, you know this big leap of faith here. This is the cult of change. It is interesting because they keep talking about change. What is interesting about it is they do not analyze what actually is going on out there, and they talk about the global economy. It is interesting, in the global economy, what is happening is those jobs can be and will be instantaneously transferred.

There are also some who are suggesting recently more concern has to be shown for individual communities. Ev en manage ment theorists are talking about, what? Stakeholders. Who are stakeholders? I mean in this case the govern ment's share we talked about. That is such a reflection of that mentality at least on a share-run basis. This is privatization, but it is trying to build in a little bit of that element, not enough probably for us but the interesting thing is-and indeed I am just looking at the

section here and I thank my colleague for showing-read

Section 22 of the bill. I mean I love this. This is how ironclad the guarantees in this bill are. "A contravention of sections 17, 18, 19 or 20 shall not render invalid ... " Then it lists meetings of shareholders, transfer of voting shares, and issuance of voting shares. Boy, that gives me a lot of faith. You have 17, 18, 19 and 20 there, but it does not matter, according to

Section 22. Talk about a notwithstanding clause. [interjection] A weasel clause. Yes, a weasel clause. I actually think that is probably offensive to weasels who are actually probably fine animals. The members opposite-this cult of change that we see. What is interesting is change and progress are not necessarily the same thing. They are in some cases; they are not necessarily in the other case. I will tell you, change with Unitel, and I say-I ask the Minister responsible for MTS rhetorically through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was the movement of 150 tele marketing jobs by AT&T Canada to Toronto not change? It was.

Was it progress? I do not think so. I mentioned about Bell Canada transferring operators jobs to Phoenix, Arizona. Is that change? Yes, it is. Is it progress? I do not think it was for the people who used to have those operator positions. Be careful of this because I have seen people in this sort of cult-like mentality. I mean, they are competing with themselves to show their belief in the cause.

I saw yesterday people wanting to throw themselves into the debate, trying to say that their constituents actually supported this and I realized that apart from that sort of collective dementia that develops when you gather into the bunker and convince yourselves and probably do not talk to too many people other than the people who are the converted. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) probably gave the best description. He says, my people support this. Is that not interesting, my people. [in terjection] The member for Broadway (Mr.

Santos) pointed out again, this whole thing, what is he talking about? His political people, or was it a biblical reference? I am beginning to wonder over there if people are seeing-[inteijection] I say to the Minister responsible for Natural Resources, do not confuse change and progress as automatically being the same thing.

Also, by the way, do not try and tum this into a debate of change or no change, because what I find interesting is, I have said right from the beginning in February, you know what I predicted back in February, and you can ask anyone that was at any of the public meetings we had, I said, people ask this question: They said, what are they going to do? You think they are going to privatize? I said, I do not trust them. I said, when you bring in Bay Street brokers, what do you expect? The next question is, what do you think is going to happen? People ask this: Are they going to sell off parts ofMTS? Interesting.

Interesting, because the answer to that I gave was no. In fact, the minister knows that they received offers- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member for Thompson, but the

November 26, 1996 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5319 honourable member fo r Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) and the Minist er of Labour (Mr. Toews) are carrying on a con versation. If they want to carry this on, they can do so in the hall or in the loge, but at this time, the member for Thompson has the floor. The honourab le member fo r Thompson, to continue . Mr. Ashton: But do you know what is inte resting? We get into this whole change versus no change . What is interesting is I predicted-do you know what I predicted back in February, March?

We discussed this in our caucus, and we all predicted the same thing: Alberta. Everywhere I went people said, what do you think is going to happen? I said it is going to be Alberta; they are going to copy Telus . By the way, I started my research in Alberta back in February, March. I had some inte resting people that I talked to, people who went through-who were in the Legislature in Al berta when it was privatized. I talked to municipal officials . I talked to people, consu mers in Alberta .

It is inte resting because what I really find offensive in a lot of ways is, when you get the government coming in here, they carbon copy Alberta. When you get up and you say, here is what happened in Alberta, they say, well, that is fe armonger ing. *

(1910) Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is their carbon copy. That is Alberta. Everything I am talking about on MTS, everything has happened in Alberta . We even have Telus-we have the prospectus with us if you want to look at the prospectus. Do not take my word or the word of others. An Honourable Member: I would not take your word, fo r sure. Mr. Ashton: Well, to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), once again, it is just blind fa ith. How many of them have even looked at the Alberta experience?

Did nobody in the caucus say, hey, if you are going to fo llow what happened in Alberta-and let us deal with the question of change . [interjection] Yes, that is right. It is in teresting because the Minister of Labour is very vocal, once again, from his seat, and I look fo rward to his contributions on the debate. We have the prospectus- An Honourable Member: 1996? Mr . Ashton: Yes, and we have the annual report, yes, both. It is available. I will tell you what, all you do is you phone them up; they send it to you. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is more than you can say about the government with their prospectus, you pick up the front page of the paper. I want you to consider this again. Do you know what is inter esting about what the government did, these great disciples of change, these great modernists? I use this, by the way, with a slig htly cynical edge to my voice. I want that recorded in Hansard. If you can record cynicism, please do, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on my behalf because, in 1991, they privatized Telus. It used to be called, Alberta Government Telepho ne. By the way, they kept the initia ls. Is that not intere sting?

What are they doing with MTS? Keeping the initia ls. What is AGT? Well, it is still AGT. The company's name is Telus . [inter jection] Oh, they have changed. I know they have done some logo changes, and I thank the member fo r Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) fo r that. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) But what is inte resting about what happened, when did they privatize? They privatized right around the time of the deregulation, '92, yes. They took a model from before deregulation of a private company from a much bigger province; they left out some of the fe atures.

Do you know what the restrictions in Alberta on ownership were? They were 5 percent fo r individuals and 10 percent fo r fo reign ownership. Their first numbers here were 15 and 25; they have now reduced that, but it is still not as low as Alberta. They did not deal with any of the stuff that happened in Alberta, but they took a model from prederegulation and applied it, and I want to show-it is interesting. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) talks about the credit rating of the new MTS; read the Telus prospectus.

Their credit rating has been downgraded three times in the past, I think, fo ur years because of the increasingly competitive environment that is out there. Now, what is inter esting about this is, they took this model from 1991, and in 1996-they say a week is a long time in politics. It is interesting, five years is an eternity in the telecom munications industry, and what has happened? These

53 20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 great disciples of change, now you would have thought that they were interested in change and nothing else, right? They like to have you believe they are not ideologues. I mean, nobody else does, but you would think they would have looked at all the alternatives, right? I might just run through the things that were not in the sto ckbrokers' report.

They recommended three alter natives: Keep the Crown as it is, recapitalize the Crown, and sell it off It is inte resting, Madam Speaker, they did not look at options like SaskTel-not even considered, not even thought of, not even moving into a bigger market, the efficiencies you could get of scale moving with a larger company, two adjoining provinces, very similar trad itions with their phone companies, did not even consider it. It was not even in the report. They did not look at other options-they may have interna lly in terms of sale of part of MTS-they did not look at that.

What they did, even when they looked at the model, they took the Alberta model, hook, line and sinker. I will tell you why they did it. They thought this was going to be a real political winner for them. This was sort of going to be the people's capitalism, right, and all these people are going to be lined up to get shares and the vast majority of Manitobans would support the sale ofMTS, right? Madam Speaker, wrong. People looked at it, and do you know what people in Manitoba said, and I give them credit, they said, why should I buy shares in something I already own? I heard that throughout the pro vince.

Ev erywhere I go I hear it from people: Why should I buy shares for something I already own? But this is this cult of change again. They have adopted the Alberta model, and this is the blueprint here. They are going to wave it up here, brought it down from the Rocky Mountains by one-actually it was not Ralph Klein, actually it was pre-Ralph Klein-it is interesting, they had to dig back, Don Getty. Now, that is right. Boy, there is their source, their vision for Manitoba, Don Getty. It is interesting. Think about it.

Do you think anyone along there dared to challenge this enveloping conventional wisdom that must have rushed through the Tory caucus? I would have loved to be in their caucus meeting on the Thursday and been one of the backbenchers when it was announced to them that MTS was being sold off I would have loved that. It Is interesting because you know- An Honourable Member. Steve, we are particular who we have in our caucus. Mr. Ashton: Well, I would have like to have been a fly on the wall, let us put it that way. It is interesting because two of the members-and I notice how Yocal the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) is; he at least got to play a role in the decision. I wonder what happened in the caucus. I wonder. I have been in government; I haYe been in opposition and, you know, I have been there and I can tell you one thing, that if members on the goyernment side did not come close to staging a backbench reYolt when it was announced to them MTS is being sold off, I tell you, I wonder- Some Honourable Members: Guess who is weeping? Mr. Ashton: Well, it is interesting because I notice how much the ministers opposite chuckle.

I think it was offensive, quite frankly, and I have been a government backbencher and I will tell you one thing, that the most underrated people in this House are often the government backbenchers. Do you know who they are most underrated by? Often by their cabinet colleagues. I think you can just look at what happened on MTS. They did not trust you to be a part of the decision. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Ashton: I notice again how vocal the ministers are. They think this is funny, the fact that their own caucus colleagues were not e\·en part of the decision. I say that in all seriousness.

I think it is "TOng not to get such a major decision made- An Honourable Member: That is wrong. Mr. Ashton: I appreciate the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). By the way, and I will say this on the record, I know the member for Sturgeon Creek has been vocal, I know he has talked to people who are concerned about t!te pension issue. I do not think I am giving away any secrets here, this is just from conversation. I had people actually ask me after the committee hearings who the member was.

There were a couple of pensioners there, and they said they appreciated the fact there was a government MLA who was saying

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5321 this bill should not be put through unless the pension issue is resolved, and I give him credit for that. I ask the question, and I do not mean to put him on the spot, but was that issue raised when the sale was announced on May 2? I do not say by the member; I do not think he could have anticipated that. Did they announce on May 2 that they were deeming the pension plan would be scrapped and put into a private pension plan? Madam Speaker, I do not think they did. They brought in the slide show.

As I said, I do not mean to put members on the spot, but I do know that there are members still on the government side who have been speaking out to make sure-they may not agree with our position, but in terms of what they view as improving the bill. That is the role that any MLA should be following. That is what I say if you get caught in the cult of change for change's sake, and you do not look at all the alter natives and you are blinded to the reality of it.

They have a $700-million pension plan; that is almost as big as the sale itself The pension plan is almost as big in terms of value of the share issue, the $800-and-whatever millions it finally ends up with. That surely deserves due diligence, scrutiny, whatever term that you want to apply to it. That is what I say, that is the problem you have run into here. You are basically accepting this kind of argument; this is change, we have to deal with it. Question it. Question. Question the pensions. Question why the model is 1991 Alberta. This is 1996, a lot of things have changed.

The minister himself tells us how much things have changed. We cannot go on with the status quo, but I am wondering who is living in the past here, because on the record we have said-we mentioned the SaskTel option. We do not know why you did not give that serious consideration. I am saying on the record today, why did you pick an Alberta model from 1991, Don Getty's vision, the Alberta vision? Is that the only model that could be brought up? Did you just get into it because you thought it was politically popular? I suspect that was part of it. They must have.

I mean, Jules Benson must have worked overtime on this one. Do not worry about it, they are all going to be buying shares. They are all going to support this. Has anybody over there stopped to say, whoa, what happened, 68 percent against this, the 78 percent of rural Manitoba against it? I am sure members opposite will be prowling the UMM convention the next couple of days pleading with people not to do, what? To support the position the UMM has taken opposing the sale. Was that ever part of the announcements? You know what?

I have a lot of faith in the common sense of Manitobans and particularly-and I do not mean this as any criticism to people in the city of Winnipeg but to rural Manitobans. I tell you, in rural Manitoba and in my area in northern Manitoba, you cannot fool people, you cannot fool them. *

(1920) I tell you we have had several meetings where people have got up and at the end of the meeting they said, well, you can fool some of the people some of the time, but the message you should take to the government, you cannot fool them all the time. That is the judgment of rural Manitoba, 78 percent. And do you know why, Madam Speaker? Because they say a private company is not going to have the same commitment to rural and northern jobs. That is what they tell us. Do you know what I fmd interesting is what the government would love to do.

They try their last vestige here after they attack all their critics from the NDP through to Ross Nugent. Okay, once they have tried to attack the credibility of all their critics what they do is they get up, and the minister got up the other day and he said, but life goes on. But the common sense of rural and northern Manitobans should not be underestimated because they do not say that there is going. to be a catastrophic disappearance of the phone system that we have come to know and respect and support in this province since the early part of the century. Do you know what they say?

They say exactly what we say: by making it into a privatized company, you take the heart out of it and you start losing those kinds of guarantees, the kind of commitment to public policy that saw us bring in Service for the Future, that saw the rates we have, the rate structure, and sees rural and northern jobs. What is amazing, Madam Speaker, this is the same government that a few years ago was talking about decentralization. One of the components was MTS. As a matter of public policy, MTS was required to move jobs out of the city to rural Manitoba. Now, why would they have that as a matter of public policy?

Obviously, because (

a) it is good public policy, and (

b) it is

5322 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 something that you can do when you own the Crown corporation. An Honourable Member: They did that with Hydro, too. Mr. Ashton: Did it with Hydro. I mean, you are getting caught in the contradictions of your own words. If you believe what you said about decentralization and the importance of having jobs in rural Manitoba, how can you not support this amendment to the bill? How can you not support it? I do not know what more I can say, Madam Speaker, and I started with Tom Stefanson. I think Tom Stefanson supports this amendment.

Certainly, his words lend support to it. I talked about UMM, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, they support this. Even some of the Chambers of Commerce, the Dauphin Chamber of Commerce, they support this. I tell you one thing, go beyond the organizations and talk to the people in rural Manitoba, and the one thing they are saying, and I have heard this from a lot of people as well, you know, surely they are going to provide some protection for rurnl and northern Manitoba. There has to be-some jobs, you know, protection.

I mean, offices, and no one is saying there cannot be change in the way the organization is structured. People in Minnedosa are concerned about what is going to happen in their office. I know, I have talked to them-people in Neepawa. You know, what is interesting, I think right now, if you were to take a vote of the people of Manitoba, something that should be done, I know 78 percent of the people in rural Manitoba would vote against the sale of MTS. But I will tell you, even the other 22 percent would support this amendment.

I have not talked to one person in rural and northern Manitoba who thinks that we should either under public or private ownership end up in a situation where we do not have some recognition in this province of the fact that you have to have those kinds of regional and local offices. It is good public policy to have jobs in Thompson, in Morden, in Brandon, in Dauphin, Swan River and throughout the province.

Everybody agrees with that, and I urge members, if you vote for one more amendment before this process is over, please support this one because you will be supporting 1 00 percent of your constituents if you vote for this amendment. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Bon.

James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I had not intended to speak on these amendments, but I think it is important to put a few comments on the record, particularly as they relate to the amendment that is proposed, but probably as importantly as to the performance that we have observed over the past few weeks as it relates to the amendments, as it relates to the bill and as it relates to what we are observing here.

This is not about all of the issues that these members are bringing forward about the issues of rural jobs, the issues of whether or not service will be better or less, whether the price will go up. This is very much a philosophical approach to the way in which a service is delivered to the province of Manitoba. It is very much a philosophical approach. I think it is important to point out the difference, and the member made reference here a few minutes ago as to how our policies were so good on decentralization, and I think that they worked very well.

I think it is a credit to my colleagues in this government that we acknowledge that. If they were so anxious and so happy with decentralization, why did they vote against it? There was a clear opportunity for members opposite to speak by standing in their places and voting what we put forward on decentralization, but every one to a person did not support it, so he brings a bill forward now saying, as part of the sale of MTS, we have to put an amendment in to guarantee certain things will happen.

Madam Speaker, there is no guarantee or there is no justification to think that those offices will be removed under privatization. He has not put one scrap of evidence on the table that there will be one job lost throughout rural or northern Manitoba It is all speculation on behalf of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). We demonstrated our commitment to rural and northern Manitoba by our decentralization program by moving people, and the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), sitting there as smug as he is and saying [inteJjection] well, he said, decentralization. It was not a personal shot.

I am certainly not making a personal shot at the member for Brandon East. He was there in full glory running to catch the flashes of the pictures when they were taken of the library opening in Brandon East, of Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation in Brandon East. He was there as large as life and I compliment him for it, but I am putting the argument down on two points. One is that the opposition did not

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5323 support decentralization and the moving of jobs to rural Manitoba, so do not let them stand here now being the heroes for rural and northern Manitoba as it relates to jobs. Secondly, there is not one scrap of evidence that under privatization any jobs or any services will be lost by the changes that are taking place in privatization, not one scrap of evidence from those people who are pretending to know it all. Let me look at another issue, because here is the commitment of the New Democratic Party and the Manitoba Telephone System.

They got into a major fiasco in the sands of Saudi Arabia. When one looks at the research as to why they went to Saudi Arabia, it was not because it was a good business deal for the people of Manitoba, it was not because there was a profit at the end of the day. They had certain executives and certain employees with the Manitoba Telephone System that they could not find jobs for in the province of Manitoba. So what was the strategy of the New Democratic Party?

It was, we will set up a corporation, an international cor poration-[interjection] No, this is an absolute truth, that they would find employment for their people. They did not have the intestinal fortitude to deal with an issue. They set up a Crown corporation known as MTX to export those people to Saudi Arabia to carry out some kind of a program for the people of Manitoba, and $2 7 million later and a defeated government, the people realized what they had done. That is the full motivation as to why they got into it.

Yes, they tried to paint a picture that it was for business reasons and a whole lot of other things. If that is not the reason, why do they not stand and tell the people as to why the heck we were in Saudi Arabia with a Crown-owned telephone company. [interjection] No, no. *

(1930) I can table the Order-in-Council that Howard Pawley and Muriel Smith signed setting up MTX, Madam Speaker. It was the New Democratic Party. It is on the public record who set up MTX. Enough about that. Enough about that, because there is another area or two that I want to touch on, because this goes back to the whole argument behind this debate. [interjection] You voted against decentralization because it was part of our budgetary measures and you voted against every one of them. Do not tell us that.

Madam Speaker, why is it so different philosophically, and where do we stand philosophically as opposed to the opposition party? We know the reason for the establishment of Manitoba Telephone System as a Crown corporation when Sir Roderick Roblin set it up. It is because there was not anybody . who would provide the service to rural and northern Manitoba. The private sector would not do it. That is understandable. That was 80 years ago. People came to the Legislature and I am sure they rode on a train, and that train system might have been owned by the Government of Canada, CN.

What has happened to CN since they have privatized? It has not quit running. Yes, they have made some changes, but what it did do, it changed some political deadlocks that it was in. I am not saying they are right or wrong. I think the jury is still out, but change was necessary and the federal government made the change. Madam Speaker, we are now living in an era where we have a lot of different technologies that are being applied to the communication systems-wireless, coaxial cable.

We have a tremendous technological change that is an industry that I do not believe that the government of the province of Manitoba should any longer be involved in. Is it in any way going to take away from the public interest or remove service from the people of Manitoba? No, there has not been one scrap of evidence to say that the services provided to the people of Manitoba are going to be any less than they are when they are owned by the Crown.

In fact, I think there is evidence that probably will introduce new technologies, new sources of capital that will add to the overall communications systems for the people of Manitoba. I think it is very much the opposite. And you know what? I am really troubled, because the member for Thompson keeps warning us how dangerous it is politically for us to go down this path, that we could be wiped out as a government. My goodness sakes, when Steve, I am sorry, the member for Thompson starts worrying about my political future, I am really in trouble. I am really in trouble.

That speaks volumes for the concern of the members opposite. In fact, he did something that I never thought a person of his knowledge

5324 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 politically would do. He put on the record that when he gets government again, if his party ever got in, that he would confiscate every share that was ever sold to the people of Manitoba-on the record-confiscation of the shares of the people who have bought under a truly legitimate process of government. That is a pretty serious threat for anybody to put on the record.

The one saving grace may be that the people of Manitoba will realize over the next few years as this progresses that this was the right decision, that what we are doing is the right thing in the public interest. Now that is a big gamble the member for Thompson has taken, but it is he who is gambling it, not me, and I am not worried if he does not succeed. I want to point out one other area that I think is important for members of this House to know. The 1970s, early 1980s, late 1970s, here is the government of Sterling Lyon and my colleagues in government faced with a decision. The member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans) will remember this. The decision was. do we set up a Crown corporation to look after the Manitoba Data Services or do we allow the private sector to get involved? We set it up under the Sterling Lyon government. Not a philosophical approach, but we took a pragmatic business approach of what was the best way to do it. We have the Hydro, we have the telephone, we have the health services-there were services needed to be provided. Do we farm it out to the private sector or do we set up a Crown corporation?

The best decision we could make at that time was to set it up as a Crown corporat ion and to develop an industry, and you know what? That happened. Re-elected in 1988, what was the right decision to make? The right decision to make was, where was the Manitoba Data Services business at this particular time? It has served its purpose as the telephone system has served its purpose. We put it out on the market, Madam Speaker, and what has happened? The data services for this province are being handled very efficiently, and you know what is even more important?

Manitoba Services that, I think, were 200-and-some employees at that time-just listen to the numbers-18 months ago, ISM had just over 300 employees. Today they have 470 employees, and I found out last night they are looking to hire 170 more people today for the province of Manitoba under a private system. That is what is happemng. Now, we could have kept our head in the sand and said no, philosophically, we have a Crown corporation.

First of all, if we had been so hidebound philosophically, we would have never had a Crown corporation to start with, but we set it up as Roderick Roblin did, developed it to do the things that had to be done. Then there was a time to sell it, and that is what happened. I predict that the same thing will happen with the Manitoba Telephone System. That is why the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is so upset, Madam Speaker, is because of the success that it is going to be, not because of the failure that the New Democratic Party are pointing out to us. A lot is being made.

Madam Speaker, about how terrible the private system is in the United States, how terrible the system is other places. Our friends opposite want to keep telling us what our constituents are telling us. And you know what') I have had a call or two that people say, why are you selling Manitoba Telephone System':' And you know what'J After I talk to them and tell them, No. 1. the reason we are selling it-it is not because it is a philosophical thing.

It is because it has played its role. and we do not want to endanger the future of us collectively as a taxpayer to have to pick up the losses that may have to be incurred because of the wrong decision. It is time to let the private capital deal with it. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. Secondly, I have also had some calls from some people who said, why do we not get it done? These people happen to be seniors. some of them happen to phone the United States once in a while. One person said to me, I will tell you what the rates are right now in the community of Texas. where a lot ofCanadians go.

The rates for a calling region in this particular area is $6.50 a month under a private telephone system, U.S., so you could say it is $12.00. The rates here are probably comparable, about $15.00 a month for the same kind of service. Each additional call, if they want to call elsewhere, is 8 cents a call. They said, get on with the privatization of it. An Honourable Member: There are other factors. Mr. Downey: Certainly, there are other factors, but I am trying to, Madam Speaker-you can go anywhere and get any rates and make any story you want.

I am putting on the record-I am getting berated from the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for putting on the record what my constituents are saying, yet his member

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5325 for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) keeps saying what my constituents are saying. I am just saying, let us put a little balance on here. That is what some of my constituents are saying as well. If it is wrong for me to put it on the record, then it is wrong for him to put it on there. So I am just trying to say, there are all kinds of stories coming. In principle, the Manitoba Telephone System has served its role as a Crown corporation. It has done its thing, so to speak. It has provided the services.

We now have-what do you call it? -community for the future, calling for the future, services for the future, where all communities, all individuals have private lines. We have many, many-and it would be interesting to know how many people now have cellular phones as well as have their phones. That is a little more expensive than the system which people are trying to say we have to maintain. How many homes have more than one telephone in them? I mean, we are no longer sitting with a basic service of one phone on a telephone pole in a community, and everybody has to go out and use it.

We have advanced; we have matured. *

(1940) Madam Speaker, I ask a question. You know, they make a lot about Manitoba Pool Elevators and their resolution. Did anybody ask the question, who sponsored the resolution? My colleague from Lakeside defeated him as an NDP candidate twice. That is who presented the res olution. Who seconded the resolution? It was our favourite friend from Swan River who is certainly no stranger to the NDP party. An Honourable Member: And the Farmers' Union. Mr. Downey: And the Farmers' Union, Madam Speaker. Now I have no problem with organizations bringing them forth. An Honourable Member: Was the resolution defeated? Mr.

Downey: No, it was not defeated. I did not say it was. I just said who presented it. Now let us deal with one other area that I think is extremely important. An Honour able Member: Why do you not deal with the amendment? Mr. Downey: I am dealing with the amendment, and the amendment deals with the assuring of services throughout the province of Manitoba. I cannot recall, but it is quite a few years ago that we had- An Honourable Member: 40 or 50. Mr. Downey: How many? An Honourable Member: 40 or 50. Mr. Downey: Yes, you are a little older than I am. You can probably remember that.

This is back to the amend ment and rural jobs. I can remember, Madam Speaker, when we lost the telephone system out of the community of which I live. We lost several operators. We used to have many operators. They are now gone. There is a switching system in place. Would it have been fair for the people of Manitoba, the taxpayers, to say that we are not going to put that new modem equipment in, that we are going to keep all these operators working?

No, but what our job is-and I can tell you I will bet every member from rural Manitoba can stand and speak and tell you how much their communities have progressed and advanced in the last few years. You know why it has happened? Number one, we finally have the management of the province under control. We are not continually driving up the sales tax, the payroll tax and every other tax that you can talk about. I also happen to represent an area-and back to the rural jobs.

I am sorry that I do not have any more time, but I will get another chance to speak on another amendment This is about my own community, and this is about taxes. There are new jobs being developed out there. There are new jobs being developed in the mining sector, but in the oil industry, let us talk about the oil industry for that two minutes I have left. You know the NDP were going to do great things with a Crown corporation called ManOil. Well, they came out and they spent $16 million of your and my tax money to get into the oil business. You know what we ended up with?

We had more employees than we had oil wells. They had more dry holes than they had wet holes. They were the laugh of the industry, and it was a New Democratic Party that was going to do all these great things with a Crown corporation. More importantly, they had another scheme that is even more devious. They were going to own all the oil shares,

5326 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 all the oil properties in Manitoba, by what they called the 25-cent-per-acre oil property tax, and that was a nuisance tax. The people of Manitoba in my area said, why would I pay that tax because I do not have any oil? You know what it was? They also said, if you do not pay that tax, we will confiscate your oil rights. That is what it was all about.

That is the deviousness of the New Democratic Party, and the people of Manitoba, particularly rural and northern Manitoba, should know the kind of people who are trying to stop progress in this Legislative Assembly. Thank you, Madam Speaker. I look forward to further debate. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker. it was indeed with great interest that I listened to the Deputy Premier's impassioned words, although for the life of me I cannot figure out why he is so obsessed with the warm sands of Saudi Arabia and not with the cold reality of Churchill Forestry Industry.

I would like to speak. though, briefly in favour of the amendment to Bill 67. that is

Section II(l )(h). The obvious intent of this amendment is to protect existing levels of telephone service to rural and northern Manitoba. I believe that the wording without the amendment, if we go to the original wording in the bill, is too general or too vague.

Section II (1 )(

h) states that, "So long as the Crovm owns the special share. neither the corporation nor any affiliate of the corporation shall cease to carry on business." That is very general. This amendment is much more focused. It requires the new corporation or any of its affiliates to safeguard regional offices and operations as long as the Cro\\n owns the special share.

Manitobans, especially northern Manitobans, have lost enough jobs due to health and education cutbacks and, yes, there have been MTS cutbacks as well, down some 800 jobs from over a few years ago, and Flin Flon, which is the community that I represent among others, was not spared either. The MTS office in Flin Flon still houses a repair service, that is true, but the office portion has been moved into a store and employees have been relocated and shifted, and I think there might even have been a half a position lost.

In any case, the end result of all of this is that the operation of the corporation becomes centralized mto fewer and fewer places. This is not always good news for northern ers. and I will give you the example, when the changes occurred in the Flin Flon office. When there is a problem with a telephone bill, you can no longer phone Flin Flon, you have to actually take the bill down to The Pas. Now, instead of driving the 35 or I guess it is 52 kilometres, it is about 90 to almost 100 kilometres. It is about an hour's drive.

This amendment attempts to limit the damage that occurs when large corporations, overly obsessed with efficiency and rationalization, chip away at the economic fabric of rural and northern Manitoba. All of us remember the anger of many rural Canadians when the federal government. the Mulroney government, in order to save a dollar or tw·o-I think they called it fiscal restr aint-but basically in order to save a dollar or two. closed many rural post offices.

Yes. it was efficient, but it also destroyed part of small-town Canada and, in fact, you can go anywhere in Saskatchewan or Alberta or Manitoba into these small towns and villages and you will hear people telling you they hate those ugly green boxes on Main Street and they miss their little old post office where they would meet every day when they got the mail. So, yes. you do maybe gain a penny here and there, but you lose something ve1-y Canadian on the other side.

Similarly. unless the government supports our amendment to II (1 )(h). northern and rural Manitobans will face more and more job losses as regional offices will be closed dO\m or so-called rationalized. Now, it is bad enough when Winnipeg jobs connected to the telecom systems are moved to Toronto, losing 150 jobs. It is often catastrophic to a small community when a service or one or two employees or one or two jobs are lost. The economy of many small rural and northern towns and vil lages are very fragile.

A small personnel or service loss is magnified by the ripple effect, and I could give you an example of this ripple effect from my own village in Cranberry Portage. We learned it the hard way. About 15 years ago the Royal Bank moved out. We did not think it was a big deal, just one bank with one full time employee and tw·o part-time employees. But what we discovered was that people from Cra nberry Portage did their banking on Friday. They would also pick up the groceries in Flin Flon. They

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5327 would not shop locally anymore, and while they were in Flin Flon they would also fill up their car so they were not buying gas locally anymore, and so this ripple effect spread out and out and out. The result was a few years later we have lost something like 400 or 500 people. A store closed down, both service stations closed down, the hotel closed down and so on. What I am trying to tell the members opposite especially is that removing a few jobs out of a small village, a small town in northern Manitoba can have disastrous effects on the total economy.

The same ripple effect that this amendment under consideration now is trying to forestall actually did occur in Cranberry Portage, as I pointed out. That is exactly what we are trying to avoid, because the upshot of all this is, because we lost the services of one bank with one full-time employee and two part-time employees, what originally looked like no big deal did indeed become a very big deal.

So when members opposite say, well, you know, we are rationalizing, we are trying to make things more efficient, this looks better if we did it that way, well, perhaps the bottom line does look a little bit rosier but, again, as I pointed out, life in some of those small communities is negatively affected. *

(1950) Now, what I found strange in all of this, Madam Speaker, is that despite the rhetoric this government gives us about the need and the desirability of decentralization, and indeed I agree with the Deputy Minister that some decentralization has occurred, they still tum a blind eye when the corporate sector or the banks go the opposite direction. We lost 150 telemarketing jobs out of Winnipeg. Well, it may have helped AT&T in Toronto, but I do not think it helped Manitoba. It certainly did not help Winnipeg; it certainly did not help northern Manitoba either.

That is the kind of scenario we are hoping to avoid in northern and rural Manitoba, and that is why this amendment is so important. Some safeguards must be put in place so that rural and northern regional offices and operations of what is now MTS are protected. That is what this amendment is all about, and the government members, especially many of the backbenchers, should certainly support this amendment. They purport to speak for rural Manitoba. I know they would also like to speak for northern Manitoba, but that is not the current reality.

Certainly if I were a Tory backbencher from rural Manitoba, even in a yellow dog riding, I would think twice about not supporting this amendment. Bill 67 is a bad enough bill, and the rural members opposite know that four out of five of their voters oppose the sale ofMTS. This amendment attempts to put a little bit of redeeming grace on a bad bill. It is not much, but at least it is something. Surely the members opposite would want to support what is good for rural Manitoba and, yes, also for not+.hern Manitoba. This is a good amendment.

If adopted, this amendment would ensure that jobs and operations connected to Manitoba's main telecom system would not be altered or eliminated in the near future. In other words, to paraphrase our MTS critic, who quoted Mr. Tom Stefanson a little while ago, Mr. Tom Stefanson, who said, nothing will change, this amend ment merely reflects then what Mr. Stefanson said. Surely if one of the esteemed Stefanson brothers wants to keep MTS services and jobs in rural and northern Manitoba, can the other esteemed Stefanson brother be far behind?

As my equally esteemed colleague from Thompson has pointed out, a privatized MTS does not guarantee to keep jobs in Manitoba. It does not have to invest in research and development in Manitoba. It does not eventually even have to have its head offices in Manitoba, or as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has pointed out, the head office could become over a few years merely a shell, a name plaque on a door. CN has its head office in Montreal, yet 64 percent of its shares are owned in the United States. Decisions are made in New York, not in Montreal, despite the fact that we say that it is a Canadian company.

I urge the members opposite to at least make a halfhearted attempt to stand up for their rural supporters by voting for this amendment. I would say, have the courage to stand up for northern and rural Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I certainly do not intend on being long on my feet here, but the amendment that has been proposed by the member for

5328 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 19 96 Thompson (Mr. Ashton) does cause me some concern. Indeed, it causes me substantial concern. What the clause in fact says, the effect of it is that the corporation should be prohibited from in any way substantially altering the rural, northern or regional office or the operation of the corporation. So here they have said, let us freeze the corporation exactly as it is today. We are not talking about change even if it was good for the corporation, but if some substantial change is required, this amendment would defeat it.

That is exactly the problem that has arisen with the corporation to begin with. How does one effectively deal with the competition that has now become a reality in the area of telecom munications? As a Crown corporation, Manitoba Telephone System needs to compete and needs to compete in a quick way. It needs to make decisions very, very quickly.

We have heard the minister responsible for the telephone company state time and again the time lag that occurs going from a management position, any idea from a management position in the telephone company to the board of directors, to the minister responsible, to cabinet, indeed, even to the Legislature. Even this process that we are going through today, while very necessary and very important for the fimctioning of democracy, illustrates the delay that can occur when changes are required.

We introduced these amendments to the act in spring, and we believe those amendments or the act is absolutely esse ntial for the preservation of that corporation in this new competitive environment. We believe that this bill will in fact do everything possible to save this corporation and to protect those services that Manitobans have come to rely on. Yet had we been required to make a change in a quick way that involved a substantive change, we would have gone through this legislative process.

So the amendments one introduces in spring are not passed in November, indicating very, very clearly one of the big problems that a Crown corporation faces in a time of intense competition. They quote one of the esteemed Stefanson brothers as saying nothing will change. I think the intent of that comment was very clear. Nothing will change in terms of the communication services that that corporation must deliver.

It is very, very important that sometimes the telegram gives way to the telephone, the telephone gives way to other new devices for communication, but the service, that is the service of communication, must remain. It must be accessible to the people of Manitoba. So the mandate of the corporation does not change; in fact, this protects the mandate of that corporation.

But clearly, while the mandate of the corporation in terms of delivering communication services should not change in providing accessibility to communication, clearly how those communication services will be delivered must, of necessity, change Yet here we have an amendment stating that nothing in the operation of the corporation can change. So they put a virtual Berlin wall around the corporation and saying, nothing can change. *

(2000) Madam Speaker. had this type of amendment been in place when that corporation was formed in 19 08, where would we be') We would still have party lines. We would have wires-[ interjection] Many parts of Manitoba, as my colleagues from rural Manitoba point out, would not have services. The people in the North would not have services Yet the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) wants to deny progressive change to the people of Manitoba by putting a virtual straitjacket around the corporation.

So right now, in fact, what this amendment is trying to do is take a snapshot of the corporation and count all the telephone poles and count all the wires and say, this is the operation of the corporation, no new use of electrical advances. no satellite advances because that in fact substantially changes the operation of the corporation So here they are putting walls around the corporation, preventing the corporation from changing in a progressive way to meet the demands of the future. The event of mobility is by far the most striking change in telecommunications in the past decade.

Yet, had this amendment been there 15 years ago, we could not have had it here in the province of Manitoba because the member for Thompson would stand up and say, you are subst antially changing the operation of the corporation, and everyone would say, that is right, it is taking away from the telephone poles and the wires. That is what the member wants to do. He does not want to protect jobs. He does not want to protect the corporation. He does not want to protect services, Madam Speaker. He wants to destroy the corporation,

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5329 not because he deliberately does so, but he does not understand. Madam Speaker, there are many things that I do not understand. I admit that. At least I am not presumptuous enough to state that in the legislation that we pass nothing shall change it for the future because we realize that in the future advances will take place. This amendment reminds me much of the other bill that the member proposed, The Public Assets Protection bill, which essentially said: before you could sell any part of a Crown corporation, one would have to have a referendum.

In a referendum I believe that there are some good-in certain situations it is good. Clearly every four or five years our people here in Manitoba demand an elec tion by our Constitution. That is right. We have passed balanced budget legislation here that requires refe rendums before we raise taxes in four major areas, and I can support that. That is appropriate. He re we have a bill that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) brought that said before you sell any part, any asset of a Crown corporation, we have to have a referendum.

So let us take a look at the Liquor Control Commission, and I have used this example before. An Honourable Member: It is a Cro\\'n corporation. Mr . Toews: Crm\'n corporation. The Liquor Control Commission sells assets on a daily basis, not just by the box but by the bottle, and for every sale, by that kind of logic, one would have to have a referendum. This is the sloppiness, this is the kind of sloppy thinking that goes into the legislative proposals and amendments proposed by the member for Thompson, and he is sniping from his seat. He will have an opportunity to stand and address this issue and I welcome it.

But I want to point out again that there have been a number of these types of situations where the member simply fails to understand the larger picture. What is the larger picture? As I have indicated earlier, the advent of mobili ty. One could not have foreseen it 20, 25 years ago. In 1985, that was the first year I ever saw a fax machine. I could not believe that one could put a piece of paper into a machine in one place in the city and the same message would come out on paper a thousand miles away or even the next block. Madam Speaker, when I saw that, I thought it was some kind of a trick.

I did not foresee that. You know, I am not in a position to know what is coming next, but what I want to see in Manitoba Telephone is a corporation that is strong, a corporation that can make decisions on a quick basis, a corporation that can react when necessary so that the corporation does not change in respect of the services that it is mandated to produce. I know I spoke another day about the necessity of change and the danger of putting one's head in the sand, and I think that example deserves repeating here in this context a gam .

In 1994, Madam Speaker, I was working for a large private insurer in this city, and it is the same private insurer that donated more money to the NDP party than it did to me, but that is another issue. An Honourable Member: How much did Great-West Life donate? Mr. Toews: Well, I know how much Great-West Life donated to the party opposite, I believe it was $3,000, but they certainly donated nothing to me. In any event, I know they donated more than they did to me.

But the point was, I had occasion then to work for that company in a capacity in which one dealt with the dissection, and I say the dissection, the legal dissection of one of the largest insurers in Canada, and that corporation had been around for 125 years. It rode the crest of a real estate boom in Toronto believing that nothing would change, that everything that they did would be profitable and they did not need to change the way they did business.

So they built grand buildings and they spent money where they should not have spent money and then the market in real estate collapsed, and so a corporation 125 years old collapsed overnight. You know, Madam Speaker, when I was in Great-West Life I was involved in a peripheral way in the downsizing of that corporation, and that was a difficult time because people were actually losing their jobs. They got fair severance packages; that was not the issue. They treated their employees very, very fairly, and I commend that corporation for doing that.

But the fact is that 250 people walked out the door, people who had been at that corporation for 20 or 30 years, and I was told that they were necessary decisions.

5330 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 *

(2010) They were necessary in the sense that if one does not deal with the realities of the marketplace when one still has a choice, the marketplace will make those decisions for you and then you are not talking about 250 jobs, as happened there, but you are talking about all 2, 000. That is the reality of the marketplace. You know, that corporation was able to restructure itself very, very quickly to ensure that it was operating efficiently and, you know, those jobs came back.

They came back because the corporation was able to respond quickly, and you know, I did not even fully understand that when that happened in '91 and '92, but I understood it fully when Confederation Life and all of its employees were on the streets of Toronto. Where was the New Democratic government at that time that it was spending its way out of power? What about all of the employees out on the street who had lost their jobs') I fault that corporation for the loss of all those jobs because they were preventable.

It did not do the responsible thing even when it had the power to do so because it was so blinded by its own wealth and its own decisions. You know, human beings run these corporations, and that happens to human beings. It happens to people in government as well, and it is a good lesson for us in government to be mindful on a continuous basis of what can happen to a government, what can happen to a people, what can happen to a province. (Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker. m the Chair) One can just look over at our neighbour to the east where Premier Rae found out the hard reality of having to make decisions, and one looks in Quebec today and sees the reality of having to make hard decisions. Yes, even in British Columbia, they are learning that these bubbles burst and the hard decisions have to be made. I look to our neighbour to the west, Saskatchewan, and they have done responsible things there. I do not agree with everything they have done.

They have raised taxes, I think, to an unnecessary degree, and I think that is part of the problem that they are going to have to deal with. In the future they are going to have to deal with it, because as the revenues go down and they have not built up that business base, then their social programs will also suff er again. We are doing things in a moderate, measured way here because we have seen what is required, and we approach these problems in a flexible way. Now the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says, do not grant that flexibility. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member for The Pas.

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am not going to be as long as the Minister of Labour, although he started out by saying that he was not going to be long, but he spent all his time. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just wanted to say that, when I listen to people from across the way, government members. backbenchers. but particularly the government members. when I listen to them talk about their concern about the economy, about jobs in Winnipeg, issues that are being brought to them. I guess, by their constituents. and they talk about them, I always think about what the member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Jennissen) was just saying to us a while ago. When you people from Winnipeg here. southern Manitoba. feel something- An Honourable Member: I am not from Winnipeg. Mr. Lath lin: You are JUSt on the outskirts. -you know, that really impacts you in a negative way, well, you complain. You want to fix it. You want a fair shake. You want what is fair for you and your people, and yet when we talk about the problems that we encounter in northern Manitoba, it is like we are being ridiculed, that we do not ha,·e a ri ght to express those concerns here that we know are bothering people in northern Manitoba.

When we talk about northern roads, for example, the mini ster will dismiss it as merely another one of those northerners complaining. When we talk about the economy, the Premier, who was in The Pas some two weeks ago and now the Deputy Premier just a while ago, stands there rejoicing, saying to us how good it is in Manitoba and, yet, when the Premier was in northern Manitoba in The Pas some two weeks ago he was told by practically everybody that he met that all may be well in southern Manitoba, but in The Pas we have problems.

November 26, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5331 We cannot join you when you rejoice for all the good things that are happening in southern Manitoba, because we do not have it up north. How can you expect us to join your ceremonies or your celebrations, celebrating the good things that are supposedly happening in southern Manitoba and nothing happening in northern Manitoba? When you look at this amendment, for example, the minister makes light of the concerns that we put forth. Those people who work for MTS, they are real people. They have real families.

They are rooted in the community ofThe Pas, and they do not want to leave The Pas. Some of them are indigenous to The Pas and area. They did not come from anywhere else. They were born and raised there. So when you talk about-the member for Flin Flon (Mr. J ennis sen) talked about the post office. You people realize, the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) certainly does, because I was with him on a hearing once on the CN, Port of Churchill issue. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Downey) who was former Minister of Northern Affairs, of all people, should have the best appreciation amongst the crowd over there about what it is like in northern Manitoba because he has travelled northern Manitoba occasionally. He should know. Okay? CN. There has been such an uncertainty about CN. People are worried about their jobs. People are not sure they are going to be working tomorrow. Finally, I think we have seen the end of that crisis for the time being anvway. Repap, people again are worried, like, when Repap is sold, will we have jobs or will the new owner shut down and move away?

I do not blame the people for thinking that way, and this year these concerns that I am talking about, I am not manufacturing them. The Premier heard about them two weeks ago when he was in The Pas. It is not just me that is saying those things. CN jobs are not the only jobs that will be affected if the deal does not go through. There are mining jobs and there are forestry jobs. In Repap, forestry jobs are going to be affected if the sale goes through and the new owner moves elsewhere.

So what I am saying to you people tonight is, do not ask us to join you in your celebration as to what is happening in southern Manitoba, good roads, jobs and everything else. We cannot, we do not feel the same way up north. That is what I am trying to tell you, because we have certain realities that we are dealing with up North. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) quite regularly will get up in this House, jump up and down and try to entice people to join him in the celebrations, but unfortunately we do not feel the same way up North.

We have certain realities up North that are very different from what you have in southern Manitoba. That is why I say, if you close the MTS offices in northern Manitoba, Thompson, Flin Flon and The Pas, it would have been just another nail in the coffin, as. it were, the jobs that are being shut tight. *

(2020) The minister, a while ago in his speech, was talking about decentralization and he talked about some deviancy from this side of the House. Well, you know what? Some northerners regard the Minister of lndustry, Trade and Tourism as the biggest deviant from this caucus here, because two elections ago he promised that there would be decentralization. That was a broken promise because I know for a fact in The Pas there was not jobs decentralized; hell, we had a net loss of jobs in The Pas. So how can the minister say to us, you know, you guys do not appreciate what I am doing for you?

We do not appreciate it because you have done absolutely nothing for us, and if this amendment is not supported, again, you will have done nothing to help northern Manitoba. You will just have continued doing the same things that have been hurting northern Manitoba for the last seven years. Thank you. Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have been listening carefully to our members and to the members opposite, and I have to say that the government's arguments on this amendment are wearing pretty thin.

I mean the two arguments we have heard from the government for the reason why we should not be trying to maintain jobs in rural Manitoba when MTS is privatized, jobs in their own constituencies for many of the members opposite, is that we have to allow MTS to compete and do whatever it needs to do to compete. They do not seem to acknowledge that it was their government, in 19 91, that allowed this competition against MTS in the long distance services. So they have set up this scenario where we have to compete, and now they are using that as the rationale for why they not only will not want to approve this

5332 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 amendment but for why they are privatizing the company in the first place. The other argument that- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I hate to interrupt the honourable member, but I am having a hard time hearing what she is putting on the record at this time. Could I ask honourable members who want to carry on a conversation to do so in the loge or in the hall, or we can wait until you get it out of your systems. The honourable member for Radisson, to continue. Ms. Cerilli: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the other thing that is wearing pretty thin is that this is progress, that somehow we are standing in the way of progress because we want to retain some control over the economy in rural Manitoba, because we want to retain jobs in rural Ma nitoba, because we want to ensure that there is job security in rural Manitoba. Well, if that is not progress, then I do not think we want the kind of economic progress that this government is acknowledging which we know is going to mean jobs out of rural and northern Manitoba, higher unemployment less job security and less control over their local economies.

You know, it is interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I spent a little time recently in southern Manitoba, I was to Winkler last Friday, and I was also in Morden this summer. For the first time I went to the Morden Corn and Apple Festival. I have never gone to that festival before. It was a good time. The line for the corn was pretty long, but it was a good festival. An Honourable Member: There is a nice MTS office too. Ms. Cerilli: That is exactly the point I was going to make. As the member for Thompson says, there was a very nice MTS office in Morden. It was at least three or four stories high.

There was a big banner draped across the building that they were sponsoring the Morden Corn and Apple Festival, and on all the materials for the Morden Corn and Apple Festival, there was the MTS logo on there.

Now I have to ask you if you think that, when this company is privatized, that office is going to be there and it is going to be as easy for them to get a sponsorship from the new Manitoba telephone company, whatever it may be called-! think that it is going to mean that it is going to be more difficult for them to get that kind of local community support when they only have to deal with the head office- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Could I remind all honourable members that they will all have an opportunity to put their voices on the record.

At this time the honourable member for Radisson has the floor, and I am sure we all would like to hear what she has to say. The honourable member for Radisson, to continue. Ms. Cerilli: They want to hear more about my day in Morden at the Corn and Apple Festival because the Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst) is suggesting that this small community did not have any input from their office in Morden in assisting them in getting sponsorship from MTS, and I do not believe that.

I am sure that the local people, the co-ordinating committee for the Morden Corn and Apple Festival, first of alL went to their community office for MTS, the building in their do\mto\\n, and asked for some assistance in approaching the head office, if that is where the decision was ultimately made . The kind of decentralized telephone sen ice we have had with a public company through MTS is going to be lost, and that is some of the kind of community control that is going to be lost in Manitoba.

I do not know how many people work in that office in Morden, but I think that I am sure that the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) or other members of our party could tell us the number of jobs that are going to be lost, likely, when this company is privatized. I would think that now places like Morden or Winkler, where I was last Friday-by the way, the students in the high school clas ses that I \isited \O ted overwhelmingly to keep MTS a public company, but I think that Morden and Winkler, Gimli, Virden, Morris are all getting their lesson from this government on globalization.

That is what they are saying, oh, we have to bend do\\n on our knees to the global marketplace, and we have to go along with this cult of inevitability in terms of the globalized economy . The people in those communities are going to learn that It is going to mean job losses in their community, that it

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5333 is going to mean less service and input into services in their home communities, and it is going to mean that we are going to be losing assets from our province. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jenniss en) talked about the ripple effect, and one of the MTS employees in my constituency was talking to me about the ripple effect in the eco nomy.

The member for Flin Flon was talking about the ripple effect in small communities when they lose an industry which may only have, as he explained, one full-time employee and two part-time employees, as was the bank in Cranberry Portage.

But I wanted to talk a little bit about the kind of effect that this is going to have in small communities again, like Morden and Winkler and Neepawa, because the MTS employee in my cons tituency was talking about how they already knew that MTS in its readiness to be privatized was ready to eliminate all of the cheque and bill payment centres, and they were going to be replaced by instabank-type machines where people would no longer, when they wanted to go pay their phone bill, be able to deal with an actual person.

But in these small communities, I would bet they will be the first ones that are gomg to have these machines that are going to be there for people paying their phone bills . That will. again, have the same kind of economic ripple effect as the member for Flin Flon was talking about I guess, in closing, I ju st want to encourage all those members who are now speaking against maintaming the community offices of MTS in their constituencies to lis ten to the 78 percent of Manitobans in rural communit ies that want to maintain MTS as a public company and vote with their constituents .. Thank you. *

(2030) Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you can see, it might be a little tough to really express my iss ues here with my voice as it is. I have gotten into coaching hockey again after 12 years, and this is the result of trying to teach young kids and to explain to young kids in the cold of an arena how to try and play hockey as best as I can show them. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I have heard some comments over the last couple of days, and when it comes to rural areas, I have a tremendous feeling here that this government with all their rhetoric, with all the rhetoric throughout, not only with MTS and Bill 67, but with everything when it comes to rural development-and I appreciate what the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has said about the lack of concern for northern and rural areas. We talk about rural development, and we talk about the need to expand in rural areas. This government has done nothing. I have seen it before in my election in 199 0; I see it now.

They make lots of promises. They have lots of meetin gs . They have lots of concerns, and they talk about what they know needs to be done, but do not do it. MTS and the situation-! have not only concerns with the people who work with MTS in my area. I am sure members across the way have heard, maybe they have not. but I have, and I cannot say that a MTS worker in the cons tituency of the Interlake is any different from a worker from the cons tituency of Turtle Mountain, because I am sure the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr.

Tweed) is not going to tell me. or stand up here tonight or anytime to tell me, that h1s MTS employees in his area support what this government 1s doing because what I hear IS no to It. An Honourable Member: You hear only what you want to hear. Mr. Clif Evans: No . I do not. The member for Arthur Virden (Mr. Downey) says I only hear what I want to hear . Well. that is wrong He should know that He should know better to saY that to this member. because this member tells it as it is from what he hears from all people in his constituency. not only what I want to hear Mr.

Deputy Speaker. 78 percent of rural Manitobans have said no to the sale ofMTS: 42 percent of the whole province gave this government a mandate on an election promise not to sell MTS; 42 percent only gave this government a mandate that said we will not sell MTS-4 2 percent; 78 percent are saying in rural Manitoba, we do not want it sold. Seventy-eight percent, 42 percent, how does that figure? And 63 percent in Manitoba are saying no.

So 63 percent, 78 percent against 42 percent, giving you a mandate to do something that you promised not to do and a promise to rural Manitobans that you were going maintain services, you were going to keep jobs. You are not keeping those promises. Not only are you not keeping a promise about MTS, you are not keeping a promise or are you providing the type of service in a mandate that you are elected to do and that is provide services for northern rural and northern Manitoba with infrastructure. MTS is part of infrastructure. MTS is

5334 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 part of a service that is needed in rural areas. in northern areas-needed . It is a cost. Mr. Depu ty Speaker, when I moved to Riverton in 1987, at that time there were a lot of homes and areas that did not have private lines. We have them now. UMM, itself, has supported the fact that MTS has gone out as a Crown corporation and provided line service to individual communities and individual homes. They spent $620 million on it, but it is a service that was needed. It was a service that was promised and now they want to just throw it away.

They want to throw it away. They are not caring about the people of rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba. they are not You want to throw it away You want to throw away an asset That 1s what thev want to do. Mr Deputy Speaker. I am concerned wJth rural Manitoba. I see-and I have travelled smce bemg en tic of Rural Development. I have travelled around m different areas, talked to different people I see the differences go round and round. [ inteiJection) The Minister of Industn . Trade and Tourism (Mr Downey) says. I go round and round. [intel)ecnon] No.

I do not: I go around l do not go directly to South America, I go around ;-..tamtoba The silly part about this government and its actions wtth MTS is the fact that they do not believe that a Crown corporation such as MTS. which has provtded service m all these years-[i nterjection] The member for Charleswood (Mr Ernst ! savs. welL MTS is supporting sponsorship or corporate sponsorship towards the events that are upcoming m Marutoba Terrific. Is a private organization going to do that for sure? Do we know that for sure?

Because the share holders, whoever they may be and they Wlll not be Manitobans on the whole, are going to say. well, why are we going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to sponsor something in Manitoba? We want our share of the profits made from this company now that we own it. We are not guaranteed that, but we are guaranteed that it is available now. [inteljection] Yes, it is. Mr. Dep uty Speaker, as far as rural Manitoba is concerned, we have great concerns about the rates going up in this province for rural people after a long time waiting, and I do not care what government was in place at the time.

I do not care less. The fact of the matter is that now that we have been able through a Crown corporation to provide service at a good low cost to our people in rural areas for private lines, and availability to technology is very important, I am afraid that will be lost with a private organization.

It will be lost because this government's friends, this government's ideas about wanting to provide and get away from doing anything for the people in this province, providing service, health care, education. everything else falls mto place when it comes to MTS because you are taking away another service and you are gomg to have another user-pay when it comes to MTS and the phone service along with the roads. the education and health care Thev are just falling into a trap. They are not even fallmg mto it What bothers me.

Mr Deputy Speaker. ts they plarmed this long before the elecnon. and then the:- went out m the elecuon and thev told the peop le. no. we arc not I heard the Prenuer "'' s�� .:..'1d ::onc;tnucnts heard him sav no to selling MTS Peopl e heard An Honourable Member: That 1s not true. Mr .

Clif Evans: .-\re YOU saymg I am lymg·' �o the opposite membe� . l can feel for rural members opposit e I can feel for them because they have to go mto the mold They have to toe the party lme They carmot go away from anything else that the Prcmter says The Premier prorrused Y ct. can they prO\ c ::an the� show can the\ prove to us that they dtd not plan all of this pnor. not after the ele ctwn. pnor to the clecnon If they can prm c that then l would be mllmg to get up m this House anci say. hey, I made a rrustake hu\ e 1t to me that �o u \\ C�c not plarmmg 1t pnor to Mr. Deputy Speaker. I still say UMM.

MAUM, the people of Marutoba 78 percent of rural Manitobans have said no to the sale of MTS. Just no They do not want 1t sold. *

(2040) I see the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is here, and I want to ask the Rural Development minister to support me and support this amendment on behalf of rural Manitobans. Say no, support this amendment. Say no to the services that are going to be lost and the services that the people are going to have to pay more for in rural Manitoba. Say no, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

November 26, 1996 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 5335 Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I too would like to just put a fe w comments on the record in regard to this amen dment. It troubles me when we are talking about change and bills and things like this that someone would introduce an amendment into legis lation which would become the law, as I understand it, that would want to put a restriction such as this into a policy that actually will aff ect rural Manitobans and northern Manitoba ns, I would suggest, negatively.

They talk about our backbenchers, a group of people of which I am one, who support the government in what they are doing, not based on rhetoric, and not based on fe armongering, but based on the fa cts, the fa cts that have been presented to us by the people who have entrusted us to make the decisions on behalf of the province of Manitob a. In my own personal experience, I was born and raised in rural Manitoba, and I have been responsible fo r creating several jobs. I look at this type of legisla tion and this type of a law that we would implement and how it would aff ect me in a personal way in my own busin ess.

Our business grew in the '70s despite the recession that we went through because we made chan ges. We saw opportunities and we chased those opportunities to the point where we could make it viable. We took great pride in creating jobs fo r rural Manitoba ns. I can tell you a time I sat with my fa ther at a Christmas supper that we hosted fo r our employees and their fa milies, and there were over 10 0 people at this supper.

I said to my fa ther-we were stand ing on the stage getting our picture taken with our employees and their fa milies- I said to my fa ther, Dad, did you ever expect this would happen in your business when you first started? He said, when we first started, son, it was just me and your mom. It brought a great fe eling of pride to my fa mily, to my brothers, and to our employees because we talked to them about this. During the '80s, with the times that we were fa cing, we had to make some tough decisions.

Again, when I look at legi slation like this and how it would have aff ected our business at that particular time where we had to make tough decisions and tough decisions with fa milies and friends of people that we have worked with fo r my entire lif e, in some cases-that is how long term some of our employees were. I respected the things that they had done fo r our company, and I respected the things that they did in the communities that they worked in. I had to make decisions. I was put in a position to make decisions, and we did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We did downsize.

J look back at that experience that I went through, and I can remember the arguments that I had with my fa ther dealing with his heart, dealing with passion, dealing with the sense of community and the sense of responsibility, the sense of caring fo r the people that we served and that worked fo r us and with us, and we were sitting around the table one night and the fm al decision was being made, and my fa ther said to me, you know, we are not losing five or six jobs here, we are saving 25 or 30 jobs. It made a great impact on me in decisions that I have had to make in the futu re.

Since that point in time, because we made those tough decisions, we rehired some, we employed more, and our business grew again. But, if we were bound by legis lation that is being put fo rward in this amendment today, we would no longer be a company in southern Manit oba. We would no longer be represented in three communities in rural Manitoba employing people in all of those commun ities. That seems to be lost on the members opposite when they discuss amendment s such as this. I listened patiently and intently to what the member fo r The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin) had to say, and I fe el fo r him, I really do, because I think we need all the jobs we can create in rural and southern and northern and in Manitoba, period, but we have to make decisions that enable that to happen. It does not ju st happen overnight, and it does not just happen because governments decide tl1at is the way it is going to happen. One of the statements that the member fo r The Pas made-- and I listened to his speech. During his speech, he said the government has done nothing fo r us, and then he praised about the celebrations of the things that are going on in southern Manitoba.

I can tell you, those people, the government has done nothing fo r them either. All they have done is create a situation in Manitoba where people with ability and people with desire take the risk, take the chance to step out, and when they do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they create jobs; they create growth. That is what we are seeing in rural Manitoba right now. The members opposite have ridiculed the backbenchers fo r not going out and talking to their constituen ts. I travelled the province with a task fo rce on behalf of the government of Manit oba. I travelled to southern Manit oba.

I travelled to northern Manitob a. We

5336 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 travelled all of rural Manitoba, 26 communities in the area. Do you know what they told us? Get government out of the way . Quit creating regulations that prohibit growth, and that is exactly what this amendment will do. It does not contribute; it restricts. It tells people that, no matter what happens, no matter how the market changes, we will stay the same. We cannot do that. We cannot think that way, and we cannot encourage Manitobans to think that way .

It is the poorest direction that we would take as a province, and we would fail the people of Manitoba if we took that attitude . The members opposite in all of the amendments that they have put forward in their legislation have dealt with no change, perpetuity. They use terms that never reflect growth or progress. They want, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) said, to take a snapshot of time and freeze it there, and that just will not happen no matter what we do, whether we try and legislate it or whether we try and make people believe it. It just will not happen.

The change that is going on out there is wanted. [interjection] It is needed, exactly. It is needed to move us ahead again. You talk about the farmers in rural Manitoba. I visit with them on a regular basis. I did so when I was in business. They have gone from hauling their grain to an elevator to now making deals on the phone to sell it, not only just in Manitoba but all over the world. They have negotiated their prices. They have negotiated who they will ship it with, where it will be picked up and where it will be delivered. Nobody does that for them anymore, and they do not want that done for them anymore.

They do not want it legis lated for them. They have accepted the changes that are happening to succeed, and they have done it far better, I would say, than most people in Manitoba. They are the most adaptable people that you will ever meet, the people in rural and northern Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would suggest to you that an amendment like this, if anyone were to ask me, I support jobs in rural and northern Manitoba. I will do everything within my power to encourage that to happen, but I will not legislate it, because I cannot. I do not believe that is what the people of Manitoba want.

I certainly know it is not what the people of my constituency want, regardless of what is being suggested from the other side. *

(2050) We have talked to people all over Manitoba, and they understand what is happening, and they understand the reasons that we are doing it. We are not doing it out of spite or any other reason but to help Manitoba Telephone System succeed. And succeed they will, regardless of government, I assure you of that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, with those few comments, would just again like to reflect that no matter what we can do or cannot do, we cannot legislate the status quo. It just is not on. It never \\ill be, and I do not think that anybody in rural Manitoba would support an amendment like this. Thank you. Mr .

Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House-it has been moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). seconded by the honourable member for Co ncordia (Mr. Doer). that Bill 67 be amended in subsection- Some Honourable Members: Di spense. THAT Bill 67 be amended in clause 11 (1 )(

h) by adding "or close or substantw l(v alter any rural, northern or regional offi ce or operatwn of the corporation .. af ter "business " [French version] II est propose d'amender le projet de loi 67, a l'alinea 11 (1)(h), par adjonction, apres "activites ", de "ou fe rmer, cesser ou modifier en prof ondeur ses bureaux ou ses operations ruraux. septentrionaux ou regwnaux Voice Vote Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay . Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it. The motion has been defeated.

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5337 Formal Vote Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) Madam Speaker: The question before the House is the amendment moved by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) THAT Bill 67 be amended in clause ll (l) (

h) by adding "or close or substantially alter any rural, northern or regional office or operation of the corporation" after "business". Division A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Yeas Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake) , Gaud ry, Hickes, Jennissen, Lamoureux, Lath/in, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGiff ord, Mihychuk, Reid, Sale, Santos, Stru thers.

Nays Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gil/eshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, Mcintosh, Mitch elson, Newman, Pal/ister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliff e, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stef anson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yea.s 22, Nays 29. * (211 0) Madam Speaker: The amendment is accordingly defeated. * * * Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), that the following be added after

section 38: Proclamation only after referendum 39(1) Despite

section 38, this Act shall not be proclaimed unless the government first puts the question ofthe advisability of implementing this Act to the voters of Manitoba in a referendum, and a majority of the persons who vote in the referendum vote in favour of proceeding with the implementation of this Act. Procedures for Referendum 39(2) A referendum under this

section may be held in conjunction with a general election under The Elections Act, and the provisions of The Elections Act apply, with necessary modifications, to a referendum.

Regulations regarding process 39(3) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make any regulations that the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers necessary respecting the referendum process to give effect to this section. [French version] II est propose d'amender le projet de loi 67 par aqjonction, apres /'article 38, de ce qui suit: Proclamation apres Ia tenue d'un riferendum 39(1) Malgre l'artcle 38, Ia presente /oi n'est proclamee que si le gouvernement soumet au prealable aux electeurs du Manitoba, par voie de reforendum, Ia question de l'opportunite de Ia mise en application de Ia presente loi et qu 'une majorite des personnes, au cours de ce reforendum, vote en fa veur de sa mise en application.

Processus referendaire 39(2) Les reforendums vises au present

article peuvent etre te nus en meme temps que sont te nues les elections generales en vertu de Ia Loi electorale dont les dispositions s'appliquent, avec les adaptations necessaires, aux reforendums. Reglements-processus referendaire 39(3) Le lieutenant -gouverneur en conseil peut, par reglement, prendre /es mesures necessaires

5338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 19 96 relativ ement au processus reforendaire a fin qu 'if so it donn plein ejft t au present article. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment is out of order according to Rule 60 because it imposes a charge on the public revenue without being recommended by message of the Lieutenant Governor. It was also ruled out of order in committee for the same reason. Point of Order Mr . Ashton: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I note that it was dealt with by the committee. It was the will of the Legislature, and I think the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) indicated he wanted question put on this. We could deal with this without debate and have the people of Manitoba see where the members of the Legislature stand on this important issue. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have been informed that it was ruled out of order but it was discussed in committee by leave. Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Speaker: No, leave has been denied. Order, please. Voice Vote Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if indeed the government is denying leave on this, I would challenge your ruling.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair having been challenged, all those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Formal Vote Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

Division A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Yeas Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, Mcintosh, Mitchelson, Newman. Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliff e, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stef anson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey. Nays Ashton, Barrell. Ceri//i, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Hickes, Jennissen. Lath/in, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGiff ord. Mihychuk, Reid, Sale. Santos, Stru thers. Mr. Clerk: Y cas 31. Nays 20.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained. "'"'"' Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) THAT Bill 67 be amended by renumbering

Section 12 as subsection 12 (1) and by adding the following as subsections 12 (2) and 12( 3): Operations within Manitoba 12

(2) The corporation shall ensure that its senior executives reside in Manitoba and that all accounting, finance, marketing, administration and personnel functions and substantially all of its other operations are maintained in the province. Restrictions on contracting out 12(3) The corporation shall not contract out to a person who is not a resident of the province, as defined in subsection 16(3), any services that on the day before this

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5339

section comes into force are normally performed by the predecessor corporations or their employees. [French version] II est propose d'amender le projet de /oi 67 par substitution, au numero d'artic/e 12, du numero de paragraphe 12(1), et par adjonction de ce qui suit: Operations au Manitoba 12(2) La Societe veille ac e que ses cadres superieurs resident au Manitoba et que toutes /es fo nctions comptabilite, gestion jinanciere, commercialisation, administration et gestion du personnel ainsi que Ia quasi-to t alite de ses autres operations soient maintenues dans Ia province.

Sous-traitance 12(3) La Societe ne peut donner en sous-trait ance a une personne qui n 'est pas un resident de Ia province, au sens du paragraphe 16(3), des services qui, a /'entree en vigueur du present article, sont norma/ement assures par /es societes remplacees ou leurs employes. Motion presented. Madam Speaker: The amendment is in order. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I am continuing to try to appeal to members opposite to make a stand. An Honourable Member: You are losing ground. Mr. Ashton: Well, they say we are losing ground here.

I think Manitobans generally are losing ground when the government tries step by step to push through the sale of MTS that is not supported by the vast majority of Manitobans. We are definitely losing ground in this province because of the government. An Honourable Member: Only the New Democrats. Mr. Ashton: But I think it is interesting. Well, the Premier says, only the New Democrats.

I am glad to see the Premier is in the House listening to the debate, because ifhe goes out on Main Street, Manitoba, he will find that two-thirds of Manitobans and 78 percent of rural Manitobans do not support what he is trying to do to this province through the sale of MTS, and he knows that. Let us deal with the sincerity of this government. An Honourable Member: What sincerity. *

(2120) Mr. Ashton: Well, indeed, what sincerity. Who can forget the MTS Answers document. Dear Manitoban, October 1996. It is interesting, Madam Speaker, because this document signed by Mr. Bill Fraser, President and CEO ofMTS- An Honourable Member: He is a good man. Mr. Ashton: A good man, and it is a shame to see Mr. Fraser being put up to put forward the political propaganda of this government. Shame on the minister for not doing the kind of thing that he should be doing himself. If anyone's signature should have been here, it is the Premier, and it should not have been on MTS letterhead but PC letterhead. Now I want to read this because this is very relevant to this particular

section of the debate here. Let us deal with this. In the coming weeks, you will be hearing a great deal about i:he Manitoba Telephone System as the provincial government prepares to convert it from a government owned to a publicly traded corporation. It must have been prophetic. I do not think that even Bill Fraser knew just how much Manitobans were going to hear about the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. I do not think even the minister knew that. But here we are today, in the latter part of November, we are still talking about MTS. We are about halfway through our amendments actually.

An Honourable Member: Yes, we are making progress. Mr. Ashton: Well, we have one of them passed and that is progress, I must say. We have one of them passed, but we have seen the government stand for what it truly believes. We saw the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) giving a very passionate defence of the corporate agenda. You know, he pleaded passionately only a few minutes ago. For what? For the ability of this new private company to be able to close down rural and northern

5340 LEGIS LATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 offices. That is what they stood for. We have seen them vote tonight already-for what? For the ability to buy shares and profit off the sale. We have seen the reluctance, they were very reluctant earlier on tonight, just even a few minutes ago, to put the question of the referendum shareholders' vote. They even have a vote on it. It is fimny, in committee we had a vote on this matter. The committee members were there and those who were there at the time I thought showed good judgment and put it on the record.

Interestingly enough, given the same opportunity, the first person to not want an election was-guess who? The Premier. If I was him, I would not want an election now, I would not want an election tomorrow, I would not want an election for quite some time, Madam Speaker, after what he has done to the province the last period of time. I mean, the Premier does not want an election for a good reason. [interjection] Well, it is interesting because the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) , from his seat-and I hope he will speak from his feet on this-this deals with a couple of items. Well, let us deal with it.

I want to see in this one, what could you not support in this resolution? Let us deal with contracting out. What did the

section on contracting out say? [interjection] Well, it is interesting because the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister) was mentioning something about the wall coming down. It seems it must have landed on the member's head, because he was not paying much attention to the debate and he is now making comments. Madam Speaker, whether the wall has come down on anybody's head or not, the fact is what does this say that is quite so unreasonable. Let us deal with it. Let us deal with it here. The contracting out.

I want the member for Portage to put on the record if he is against this, why he would oppose this section, the corporation should not contract out to a person who is not a resident of the province. Now, you know, we can get into the question of contracting out within the pro vince. That is not prohibited in this. I think that will be unwise, it would be wrong, but what this says is-and I will tell you how bad this is. If this was passed today, MTS would be in violation of this.

I mention about the MTS Answers sheet Now how many people have seen those ads, those commercials on TV, the one they pay people $300 a day for? Now, those were average Manitobans according to the-daly, MTS employees. Now, do you think that they would have got a Manitoba company to do the production of this and got a Manitoban to produce it? Reasonable, right? Here is the governm ent that is saying, trust us on MTS . You know, it is still going to be a Manitoba company. We are still going to have our head office and we are going to have everything here.

You would think they would have said a hundred percent Manitoba content on the ad, right? Not even close. Guess who produced the commercials? An American living in Vancouver. An Honourable Member: No, Seattle. Mr . Ashton: Well, he is based in Seattle; he works in Vancouver as well. And what is interesting is, where were the ads produced? Where was the production done? Toronto. Is that not interesting, because it is fine, it is very interesting-[interjection] Well, the Minister of Northern Aff airs (Mr. Praznik), who now is participating in the debate, I look forward to his contributions on the record on this.

How can the government have anybody believe what they stand for when they have already started contracting out, in this case, with a $400,000 advertising campaign? Why would we move this-and I see that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) is doing calisthenics, and I welcome that. She says she has to stay awake some time, and I can understand that might be a problem, too, but I am pleading to the minister as well, does it not make sense to require that this company, which within months will be selling on the Manitoba stock exchange, 'Will have Manitoba content? Point of Order Bon.

Darren Praznik (Deputy House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, in all the banter across the House, I know I was asking the member for Thompson if he could indicate which American company produced the ads for the federal New Democratic Party leading up to the last election. Perhaps he answered that question and I missed it. If I did, I would ask him to repeat it. Madam Speaker: The honourable deputy House leader does not have a point of order. * * *

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5341 Mr. Ashton: The answer to the member for Lac du Bonnet is none. It is interesting, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, they often say, and the best example of that is the Minister ofNorthern Affairs. I will sit down and explain to him, our campaign ads were not produced by an American company, and I might want to explain to him that the ads that MTS is running have been produced by an American and production has been done in Toronto, and the minister knows that. He also should be aware, and the ironic

part is, here is the most ironic part, this is how much faith that MTS has in-and, oh, I forgot to mention Barb Biggar. Barb Biggar seems to pop up coincidentally in a lot of these types of contracts. I do not know why. What was her firm's name? Biggar Ideas. I know the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) is more than aware of the name of Barb Biggar's contract, and I wonder if he might want to explain why Barb Biggar spends quite so much time at the Manitoba Telephone System building.

Interesting, because she and Jules Benson probably spend more time in the MTS building, aliJ have recently, than some of the CEO and presidents ofMTS. I mean, Barb Biggar, what is her role in this? Interesting. Here is another one for you. Right, the government made the decision to sell off MTS May 1. May 2, they announced it. When did they decide on the contract related to the privatization ofMTS? May 3, 4, 5? No, they did it in April. They decided on the contract for the advertising before they made the decision. Is that not an interesting one?

By the way, for the Minister of Education, I know she does not trust anything that I say. I remember when she spoke out on an amendment that I supported, that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) had moved, and she immediately wanted to oppose it because I was in favour of what the minister was moving. But I am using the words that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) on the record has said that they had the advertising contract let, and it was let in April. So does that not kind of make you wonder about when the real decision was made to sell MTS? I would say probably around 1993.

I do not know when the minister found out about this. I will be interested to find that out because I wonder if he did not fmd out probably what was happening on MTS, probably October oflast year. An Honourable Member: Madam Speaker, relevance. Mr. Ashton: To the Deputy Premier, he would not know relevance ifhe tripped over it. I have heard his speeches in this Chamber for the last 15 years, and he should be aware of what we are talking about here. I just talked about Barb Biggar, the kind of contracts that have been dealt with, contracting out. Well, let us deal with the operations within Manitoba section.

Interesting. Now I want to see what they oppose in this. You know, this MTS Answers document, I mean, I would not say it was all that effective. It was interesting when they asked Manitobans-and this is particularly directed to rural Manitobans, after they sent this out-78 percent of people in rural Manitoba said they were opposed to selling off MTS. And they go out of their way in here. * (2130 ) But, you know, it is interesting. One of the things they say in this is, will MTS continue to be in Manitoba? They talk about the MTS head office remaining in Manitoba. That is interesting, the MTS office.

Now do they define what that means? They do not, Madam Speaker. Read the bill; read it through in detail. I mean, they thought enough of this to put it in this piece of propaganda. Somebody must have been asking. I heard people-you know, I went in rural Manitoba-who even said, what does that mean, the MTS head office? The mailing address? A building with a logo on top? Does it mean the president's? How about a significant part of the operation of the building? The minister knows that we may have a head office and under the act there may not be much in it. It does not have to be.

I would appreciate his indication of how he defines head office. I sat down with a number of us, and the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) were both on that committee that dealt with the bill. A number of us talked about this bill, and the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). We said, well how would you define it? I say this to the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay). Now I think if you ask most Manitobans, they

5342 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 26, 1996 would say, what do you need, okay? Senior executives residing in Manitoba-that makes sense. Now I must admit I am a little bit concerned when I got the Freedom of Information response, and the four new senior executives, when I saw one senior executive claim $38, 000 for moving expenses-$38,000. The total of expenses for this new CEO, by the way, in five months was $66,000. That is more than most Manitobans make in salary for a year . An Honourable Member: Three years. Mr. Ashton: Three years, mdced It is higher than what members of the Legislature make.

That is expenses, $1 30 ,000. Well, there are a few more stories that we could get into about the operations internally, and, mdeed, we will be getting into them. I say to the Mini$ter responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) , indeed, there is a lot more out there. But let us deal with that for a moment. We have senior executive officers; they are making $1 30 ,000 a year $65,000 worth of expenses in five months? The minister might want to check into some of the other activities as well ; all-expense paid trips by major suppliers, overseas suppliers. It is interesting.

We are starting to get a window on how this new corporation will operate because in a way they may have not privatized MTS yet, but they have been bringing in this corporate culture that they like to talk about already -$6 5. �00 worth of expenses in five months. I think that is part of the corporate culture that they are talking about [interjection] Well, you know, once again the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) asks about relevance. Read

Section 12 (2) of the amendment. I realize this is a bit onerous to ask of the Deputy Premier to actually read a paragraph in the amendment before he decides on whether the comments are relevant, but- Bon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): I have been reading it, and they are not relevant to what you are saying. Mr. Ashton: Well, it is interesting. He says he has been reading it. and I am glad. If you will read, it says : will ensure that senior executives will reside in Manitoba. Okay? It is interesting because you ask most people what the head office should have. What else?

Accounting, finance, marketing, administration and personnel. Think about it, Madam Speaker. If you were to go to the current head office of MTS, what else would you have The basic administrative functions. I do not know how many people have taken the time to do that, and I have. I have talked to people in MTS buildings, MTS employees throughout Manitoba, and one of the things they are saying-[ interjection] Well, to the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs . Mcintosh), I have, and I would encourage her to do that. Come to Morden and talk to the employees of MTS in Morden. Come to Neepawa. Come to Dauphin.

An Honourable Member: Do you ever listen? Mr. Ashton: Oh, I listen. To the Minister of Education, I have listened to them, and I will tell you what they are saymg. They are very concerned about what the government has been doing, and they are concerned about these kinds of issues. because we have to in the global economy. as I mentioned earlier, make sure that jobs exist here in Manitoba. [interjection] Well, it is interesting because the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) may want to consider what wouJrLI mean. here he is the Minister responsible for I. T and T I want to make a suggestion. Madam Speaker.

Why does not the Minister responsible for I, T and T be the first one to support this on the government side? Now I heard earlier. I heard one of the more entertaining and I must say one of the more interesting debates I have heard in the Legislature from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews). I do not think I have heard a debate like that since junior high. Here we went from talking about rural and northern offices; in the end he was going back to 1908 and talking about phone lines not being established if this kind of an amendment had been in place.

I get worried, because I know the Minister of Labour has appeared in court on many occasions, and I was reminded-and I mentioned this from my seat-that I had not seen anything quite like that since the prosecution summ ed up the O.J. trial . I wonder what kind of imaginative arguments they are going to use on this one. I mean, this would be terrible, would it not, terrible if we had the company being required to keep senior executives, accounting, finance, marketing, administration and personnel here in Manitoba?

November 26, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5343 Now I want to know, if the members opposite do not support this, I want to know why. Which one of that do they not want to see-senior executives, accounting, finance, marketing, administration, personnel? Which part do you not like about that? Contracting out, what is the problem with the contracting-out provisions? We do not even deal with the situation within Manitoba, we deal with out-of-province. Are you saying that you want the new company to be contracting out?

You know, it is interesting because when it is convenient, when the minister wants to take off his hat responsible for MTS and put on the other hat and favour the MTS privatization, he goes out and he says, when the members opposite try and explain why they are going to invest in this, what do they say? Well, we have to invest in Manitoba, yes, and make a buck on the side. We know that. But what is interesting is, are they going to vote for Manitoba on this? The second part of this says one thing, it says you do not contract out out-of-province. Think about it.

What if you get a substantial outside-of province ownership? I say to the Minister responsible for MTS. between what he has said and what Mr. Stefanson has said. they have indicated that between 65 and 75 percent of the shares, they are hoping, will be sold to Manitobans the first go-round. Think about that. [interjection] The other one. Tom Stefanson An Honourable Member: The younger one or the older one? Mr. Ashton: Well, I am not getting into that, younger one or older one. I am not making any comparisons. I am just saying Mr. Stefanson, Tom Stefanson, the chair of the board.

It is interesting because-I just want you to reflect upon that because we are going to have one-quarter to one thirdofthe shares owned by non-Manitobans, according to the best estimates of the governm ent. Even in this blue document it says, Manitobans will be offered the first opportunity. You know what? Their own estimates say they are going to have between 25 and 3 5 percent outside ownership and that includes foreign. Foreign is not separate. The minister knows the figures fairly well. I want you to reflect on that, Madam Speaker, for a moment.

Day One, after this Manitoba offering, the governm ent is saying within a matter of weeks MTS will be one-quarter to one-third owned by non-Manitobans. Think about it, because that is what happened in Alberta. [interjection] To the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), again, who obviously is on the single track of his eight track mind today, if he cannot figure out that the ownership is critical to the way this operates, I think he should not only reread the

section of the amendment but read the bill, because 25 to 35 percent of the ownership is going to be held outside of Manitoba. What happens after that? The shares will be traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange. Right? Is tha

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-87b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 87b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d0c70f20f7cee05e0a11b47b7d7b265c18bc8483

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