Manitoba Hansard — 90 ISSN 542 (Sitting 24, 35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-24

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

First Session - Thirty- Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth 11 Publlshsd under the authority of The Honourable Den/s c. Rocan Speelcer VOL. XXXIX No. 24 ·1: 30 p.m., WEDNE SDAY, NOVEMBER 14 , 19 90 ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Oftlc:s of the au.ns Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V Thirty-Fifth legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIR S, Sharon CERIL LI , Marianne CHEEMA, Gulzar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMMI NGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRI EDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonar d S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FIN DLAY, Glen, Hon. FRI ESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edwatd R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDE AU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTI NDALE, Doug McALPINE, Ge rry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, linda MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUF ELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REI D, Daryl REIM ER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STORIE, Jerry SVEIN SON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-L EIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITU ENCY Os borne Thompson Wellington Cresce ntwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

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

Johns Swan River PARTY. liber al NDP NDP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA VVednesday ,N overnber 14 ,1 990 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Eric Stefanson (Kir kfleld Park) : I beg to present the Rrst Report of the Committee on Economic Development. Mr.

Clerk (WIIIIam Remnant): Your Committee met on Tuesday, November 13 , 19 90, in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider Annual Report of Channel Loggers for the fiscal period ending March 31 , 19 89, the Annual Report of Moose Lake Loggers for the fiscal period ending March 31 , 1 989, and the Annual Re por t of the Com mu nities Economic Development Fund for the fis cal period ending March 31 , 19 89. Mr. Danny Morin, Acting Manager and Mr. Gordon Trithart, Secretary, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report and the business of Channel Area Loggers. Mr.

Rino Kivisto , Gener al Manager and Mr. Gordon Tr ith art, Se cretary , pro vided such info rmation as was requested with respect to the Annua l Report and the busines s of Moose Lake Loggers. You r Committee has considered the Annua l Report of Channel Area Loggers for the fiscal period ending March 31 , 19 89, and the Annua l Report of Moose Lake Loggers for the fiscal period ending March 31 , 19 89, and has adopted the same as presented. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose), the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Mr.

Ben Svelnson (la Verendrye): I beg to present the Fourth Report on the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resou rces. Mr. Clerk: Your Committee met on Thu rsday, March 2, Tuesday, March 7, and Thursday, October 26, 19 89, at 10 a.m . in Room 255 of the Legislative Building, to consider the Annua l Reports of the Man itoba Ha zar dous Waste Mana gement Corporation for the fi scal years ending December 31 , 19 87, and December 31 , 19 88. At the meeting on Thursday, October 26, 19 89, your Committee elected Mr. Burrell as Chairman .

Your Committee also met on Tues day, November 13 , 19 90 , at 10 a.m . in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consi der the Annua l Reports of the Manit oba Hazardous Waste Mana gemen t Corporation for the fis cal years ending Decemb er 31 , 19 88, and December 31 , 19 89. On March 2, 19 89, your Committee accepted the resigna tions of Hon. Mr. Neuf eld and Messrs . Driedger, Storie, Angus and Burrell and elected Hon. Mr. Connery, Mrs. Charles, and Messrs. Harapiak and Rose. On March 7, 19 89, your Committee elected Mr. Helwer to fill a previous vacancy. Mr.

Rick Cooke, President and Chief Executive Offi cer, Mr. Nick Carter, Chairman of the Board, Mr. Edwin Yee, Manager, System Development and Ms. Carolina Kaus, Secretary-Trea surer, provided such information as was reques ted by Members of the Committee with respect to the Reports and busi ness of the Manit oba Hazar dous Wa ste Mana gemen t Cor pora tion for the Committee Meeting on Thursday, March 2, Tuesday, March 7 and Thursday, October 26, 19 89. Mr. Rick Cooke, President and Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Don Vernon , Chairman of the Board and Ms.

Carolina Kaus, Secretary-Trea sur er, provided such inform ation as was reques ted by Members of the Committee with respect to the Reports and busi ness of the Manit oba Hazardous Waste Mana ge men t Corporation for the Com mittee Meeting on Tue sday, November 13 , 19 90. Prior to the passing of the Annua l Report of the Man itoba Ha zar dous Waste Mana gement Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31 , 19 87, your Committee adopted the following recommendation on March 7, 19 89:

Be it resolved that this Committee recommended the Government House Leader set a date , on a consensus basis with the other two House Leaders,

1141 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Novem ber 14, 1990 to continue reviewing the Annual Report of the Man it oba Hazar dous Waste Mana gem ent Corporation and include the recommendations of the regulations tabled today by Mr. Harapiak. You r Committee examined the Repor t of the Mani toba Hazar dous Waste Manag ement Corporation for the fiscal years ended December 31 , 19 87, and December 31 , 19 88 and adopted the same as present ed. Mr. Svelnson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Memb er for Seine River (Mrs. Dacqua y), that the report of the committee be received . Motion agreed to.

INTRODU CTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Ques tions, may I direct the atte nti on of Honourable Mem bers to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Her Excellency laila Valere, High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago; Mrs. Pearl Wilson, the Deputy High Commissioner of Trinidad and Tobago; and Mr. Harry Maharaj, Honorary Consu l of Trinidad and Tobago in Man itoba. On behalf of all Honou rable Member s, I welcome you here this aft ernoon. Also with us this afte rnoon, we have from the Calvin Christian School twe nty-seven Grade 9 student s. They ar e under the direction of Mr. Buikema.

This school is located in the constitu ency of the Honour able Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchelson) . Also this af ternoon, from the Bernie Wolfe Community School we have forty-e ight Grade 6 students . They are under the direction of Stara Go oljarsi ngh. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Memb er for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). On behalf of all the Honour able Members, I welcome you here this afte rnoon. ORA L QUESTION PERIOD GATT Negotiations Federal Position Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

All Man itobans, all western Canadians are very concerned about the situation in the GATT negotiations. last Janua ry we raised questions in this Chamber about the U. S. protectionist Bills and asked the Premier what our strategy would be, and as he outlined the strategy it was , of course, to solve this problem in the GATT negotiations.

Since tha t time, it appea rs to us that the United States and the European Com munity is in a major set of negotiations that are obviously going no where at this point, and of co urse Western Canadian farm ers, Man itoba farmers are the integral part of those negotiations in terms of Manitoba. The Premier two weeks ago outlined his position tha t we should start playing hardball with the Eur opean Communi ty, in fact, even look at a strategy of withdrawing from the table.

Given the agr icul tu ral Minis ter s are meeting today in Manitoba, I would ask the Premier what strate gy he will outline for us to play hardball with the European Community and what strategy has been agreed upon by the fed eral Government that must ultimately take our position forward in these crucial next four week s in the GATT negotiation. * (1 335) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr.

Speaker, as the Member knows well, we, during the cou rse of the summer months, indicated first that there was an agr eem ent among st weste rn Premiers that we ought to take a much greater, more forceful role in supp orti ng the Cana dian Gove rnmen t in its negotiations on behalf of western farm ers. As a result of that, all three western provinces-all three prairie provinces- sent delegations in late September, early October to the GATT in Geneva. Ours was the only province whose delegation was led by the Premier.

We had direct face-to-face talks with many of the senior negotia tors, the trade represen tatives of various countries who are integrally involved with the GAlT process. We got both sides of the issue from both the Cairns Group, who are very supportive of our position, and from the other side, the EC people who are ver y interested in protec ti ng their export subsidy situation . In doing that, we cam e back and we held meetings with various of the leaders of the farm community in Man itoba. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Findlay) and I debriefed the leaders of KAP, the Pools, the grai n agencies , the various farm community leaders, and we told them how serious

No vember 14, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1142 the situation is and what a negative perception we had of the EC's position on it. Mr. Speaker , I know you want me to wind up this answer, so I will answer more completely after the Member asks his next question. Mr. Doer: We apprecia te the effort the Premiers in the western Governments have tri ed to make in influencing the decision making at the European Community.

That has resu lted in a proposal that is ultimately a 1. 5 percent reduction in tariffs per year in the European Community, not something that will solve the problem of grai n prices for western Canadian farm ers. My ques tion comes back to the fundame ntal point. Will the Premier outline the position of the feder al Government in terms of its strategy as the Government that is at the table? We already had experience of be ing left high and dry in some areas we fe el by the U.S .-Cana da Free Trade Agreemen t by the same Minister.

Will the Premier assur e Manitobans that the fede ral Government will not negotiate a deal on textiles, procurement services, inve stm en t, int ellectual prope rty and disput e settlement and leave out the important issue of agr iculture and leave out again western Canadian farmers? Mr. Fllmon: As the Member has outlined, the GATT talks involve a whole range of issues, and he has listed them .

Our position is and was, when we were in Geneva in speaking to the trade ambassadors on behalf of the Government of Canada, that we do not see enou gh to be gained in the other issue areas that we should not accept a settlement that includes su bstantial gains with respect to the removal of export su bsidies, substan tial removal of export subsidies over the near futu re. The fact is we do not see su bstantive gains in those other areas, and therefore if it comes down to us not being able to get any more than the EC have put on the table, then it is not worth our continuation in the process.

I believe that the Government of Canada accepts that. I believe as well though that the Governmen t of Canada's position is that the EC's so- called final position is sort of an indication of where they wou ld like to be, but that the real hard-nosed negotiations are going to take place in these next three or four weeks as we come to the final position, and that although EC has said this is it, the fact is that the Government of Canada does not believe this is it, and they believe there is much more that can be achieved by staying at the table. * (1 340) Contingency Plan Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I hope the Premier is right and the federal Governmen t will not trade away the services I have outlined, which the Premier will well know that the fede ral lead Minis ter has not precluded an agreemen t as I have sugges ted, and that causes a very serious problem for Manitoba far mers. My final qu estion to the Premier is: Has the Premier developed a continge ncy plan if the talks fai l over the next fo ur weeks?

Will that continge ncy plan include some way of dealing with the U.S . protection Bill that has jus t come in again in the United States and will fur ther clobber Manitoba fa rmers? Will that contingency plan include debt manag ement, in light of the factthat according to the fe der al credit corporation one- third of weste rn Canadian fa rmers now have a debt of $1 75,000, and with high interest rates it is obvious in terms of what that will mean for western Canadian farm ers? Hon. Ga ry Fllmon (Pr emier) : Mr.

Speak er, throughout the cou rse of the election campaign this Augus t and early September, I spoke on many public fora about the devastated condition of the farm economy, the fact that despite the fact that we have the second largest crop in our his tory with excellent grades, the western farm er, because of prices, will have yet again another major drop in income this year. We are worki ng in all facets to ensur e that we stand firm ly with the fa rmer to protect the farm er against these devastating circumstances.

That is one of the prime circumstances on the age nda of the Agriculture Ministers' meeting here this very minute in Winnipeg. That is the so-ca lled long- term safety net program, some of which was discussed during Question Period yesterday in which the Member for lnterlake (Mr. Clif Evans) was asking for details about various aspects of it. The reality is that if we were to leave our fa rmers at the mercy of the treasurie s of the EC and the United States, with no protection for them many of them could not survive very long, and we would have a change in our entire way of living in western Canada.

That is not tolerable, Mr. Speaker. We will

1143 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Nove mb er 14, 1990 not let that happen by virtue of our conti nued participation to support the farm ers. Child and Family Services Administration Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker , last Friday during a radio interview, the Premier made a num ber of inflam matory comments which called into question the integ rity of Child and Family Services agencies thr oughout the province and which prese nted a very misleading pictu re of how these agencies are run.

One of the most damaging comments that the Prem ier ma de at that time was, and I quote, agencies are being run by people who do not necessarily have manage ment skills at making decisions based on long-t erm priority setting, end quote . Mr. Speaker, who was the Premier attac king? Was it the boards that put in en ormous time and effo rt on a volunteer basis, or was it the managemen t at the agencies them selves, virtually all of whom have advanced degrees and years of experience in this are a?

Will he now confirm that the real problem is that it is his Minister and his department who cannot plan on a long- term basis? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Member for Wellington wou ld want to try and resolve a very critical and crucial issue in our province, and that is our ability to keep up with the demands for increased funding from the Child and Family Services agencies.

When you increase fu nding for those agencies at a rate of 15 percent per year over a space of time while you are ha ving difficu lty meeting needs in health care, where people are on long waiting lists to get in for elective su rgery, where people are on stretchers in hospital corridors-a nd that indeed has been the case throughout the '80s-a nd when you have difficu lty providing fu nding for education, you have to be aware of what use every single dollar is being put to. · When you give 15 percent increases to Child and Family Services agencies and they cannot make ends meet year upon year, Mr.

Speaker , you have to say to yourself , what is wrong with the syste m? How can the system, like a sponge, keep absorbing those 15 percent increases and not be able to meet the needs of the children and the people out there? That is something that we, as a responsible Governme nt, are prepared to look at. We have to look at the managem ent, the administration and the priority setting. * (1 345) Premier Apology Request Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr.

Speaker, will the Premier now apologize in this House to all of the people who were unfairly criticized by him in that interview, and will he acknowledge the work that is done by all social service groups under very diffi cult budgetary circu mstances? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I at no time will attack people who sincerely want to give of their time, their ener gy and their effort to try and resolve problems within their ju risdiction, but at the same time one has to recognize that no sector of society has been as gener ously treated by provincial Govern ments during the late '80s than have the Child and Family Services agencies. When you have 15 percent annual increases being given to these people and workloads that are not substantially changing, Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we have to look at where the money is going and whether or not money is going into services to the children and the fam ilies or whether indeed that money is going into other areas of priority.

When I fin d that people who sincerely are looking to make a difference and to make positive changes are saying to us that the only resolution to their problem is to cut back in direct services to children and not examine ad ministration and not examine overhead cost, I have to say to myself, I am yet to be convinced that those priorities are in keeping with the priorities of the people of this province . Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I assu me that means the Premier is not apologizing. Funding Increase Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellington): My final q1.1estion to the Premier is: Will he also confirm that far from a 15 percent increase for Child and Family Services, the actu al operating increase was 1.6 percent, that he was incorrect in that state ment at his interview and that the Family Services Departm ent has confirmed that there was an error in his statemen t and that he had planned a retraction of similar

Novem ber 14, 1990 LEG ISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1144 comments based on their inaccuracy? Will he now make that retraction in this House? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Child and Family Services agency funding did indeed increase by 15 percent. That includes an amount that is there for their deficit reduction. That includes major increases to foster parents, which is services to children. Services to children-that is what we are talking about. Well, Mr.

Speaker, this is our problem that we have with the New Democrats, that they say this money is not really money going into the system. lt is money going directly to services to children and families whether it is through foster care, whether it is through paying for the deficits that these agencies have built up. They are being increased print over print 15 percent over a previous year. That is real dollars going into the system, real dollars going to service the needs of children.

Those are very hard earned tax dollars that are not being given in such generous amounts to health care, to education and many priority areas. Mr. Speaker, if the New Democrats want to keep trying to misrepresent that issue, that is their problem, but they are not doing a service to the people who elected us to this Legislature. Child and Family Services Administration Study Mr. Reg Alcock (Os borne) : Mr. Speaker, when this Government cannot manage a system, they divert attention from it by attacking the people who do manage the system.

Despite the fact that the Premier says that workloads have not increased, they are 1. 6 times higher than the safe level. That is in a study conducted by the Premie r's own Government. Mr. Speaker, year after year this Government defends its inaction in social services by attacking the people who deliver services to the most vulnerable people in this community. Can the Premier tell us today-ca n he table for this House a single study that suggests that the administration in these agencies is inappropriate, inaccurate, too fat? Is there any evidence he has to support his claim? * (1 350) Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the reality is, and this Member should know well, because he is hired by the agencies to give them instruction on management and administration and all sorts of other aspects of their operation. I would hope that he would take a responsible view and he would evaluate ways in which the system can become more effective, ways in which the system can use the increases that they are getting year upon year-15 percent-to some purpose that would allow them to give better services to the children and the families under their care. That is the objective of this Government.

That is the objective that we have as guardians of the public interest. Not only are we responsible to the taxpayers who give us their hard earned dollars, but we are also responsible to those children and families who rely upon the public system for their needs, Mr. Speaker. They are all very important. We make very, very difficult decisions, each and every one of us in our daily lives, with what we are going to do with our limited income in our budgets. Families throughout this province have to make-farmers have to make those difficult choices. People here have to make them.

When 15 percent increases are passed along and we are still being told that there is not enough, there is not enough, there is not enough, we have to get together and co-operate to find a solution that meets the needs of all. Mr. Alcock: In typical fashion, Mr. Speaker, this Government may budget one level, but it has delivered to these agencies 1. 6 percent increases on average, not 15 percent. The Minister persists in putting on the record false information. I asked the question that I asked the Premier about studies to the Finance Minister (Mr. Manness) and to the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer). The Finance Minister said, I am not aware. The Family Services Minister said, I am not aware of any studies-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a question here? The Honourable Member, kindly put his question now, please. Mr. Alcock: I would ask the Premier to produce a single piece of evidence to support his claim that these agencies are poorly administered-a single piece of evidence.

1145 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Novem ber 14, 1990 Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is a repetition of exactly the same question, but I will very patiently tell the Member -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Fllmon: -1 5 percent in creases to those agencies have been there. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh I Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon ourable Member has put his question, and I am sure you would like to hear a response to that question. Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member does not want to hear the answer.

He just wants to persist in his political maneuvering. The fact of the matter is, and he can ask the Auditor, we have put into those agencies 15 percent increases year upon year. The fact is that those agencies have to find a way to. manage and administer on a reasonable basis every area, every priority area of Government. Health care institutions have to find a way to live within budgets. Everybody has to be able to say, look, this is -(interjection) When there are 15 percent increases passed along to the area of Child and Family Services, those are increases that reflect the priority that we put upon them.

When they are given those increases, they have to be able to find a way within the system to manage within it. I know we have been left with difficult circumstances. l know the needs out there are great. I also know that we have limitations. Every one of us has limitations of money that we have to try and deal with. All we are trying to do is do the best within our control, giving a priority to those agency areas- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Alcock: Mr.

Speaker, the biggest bureaucracy that is being built in this Government is the one that is being built around the Minister of Family Services to protect him from the community. Mr. Speaker: Question. Point of Order Ho n. Clayton Ma nness (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I imagine with that outburst the Member has used the

preamble he is not even supposed to use with respect to a supplementary and that he will get right to his question. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon ourable Member, I have recognized him for his final supplementary question. Kindly put your question now, please. Agency Structure Mr. Reg Alcock (Osbome) : Mr. Speaker, will the Premier tell us what he meant when he said that he does not like how the agencies are structured currently? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that we in Government are constantly striving to make as effective -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr. Fllmon: The Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) continually abuses this Legislature. He interrupts, he interjects, he tries to shout down. He will not listen to the answers to questions he asks, Mr. Speaker. Quite honestly, he does not deserve to be treated with any respect, because he does not treat this Legislature with any respect. * (1 355) Point of Order Mr. Kevln Lamoure ux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, the Honourable Member for Osborne has put forward a legitimate question and the Member for Osborne deserves an answer. lt is very immature of the Premier of this province- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hono urable Member does not have a point of order. lt is a dispute over the facts. Flair Homes (Manitoba) Ltd. Government Action Mr. Doug Martlndale (B urrows): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

The owners of the roughly 300 homes built by Flair and its affiliates last year want more than empty promises about being a monitor, as the Minister would claim, on the gas company profits. What action has the Minister taken over the collapse of Flair Homes and the suspension of Tiffany Homes from the New Homes Warranty Program? Hon. Cl ayton Manness (Actin g Mi nister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs):

November 14, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1146 On behalf of the Minister, I will take that question as notice. New Homes Warranty Program Replacement Program Mr. Doug Martlndale (Burr ows): For the Acting Minister of Housing, in view of the fact that the collapse of Aair is but another sign of the declining economy, what action has the Minister of Housing taken to ensure that the New Homes Warranty Program itself will not be abandoned? Is the Minister prepared to step in and bring forward a Government run warranty program if the industry program collapses? Hon.

Jlm Ernst (Acting Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) and have him report back to the House. Residential Tenancies Act Introduction Mr. Doug Martlndale {Burr ows): Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Premier. Will the Premier assure the House that this Government is not using the collapse of the housing market and the high vacancy rates in apartments and the declining economy as an excuse to gut sections of The Residential Tenancies Act and to delay reintroducing the Bill? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Environmental Programs Recycling Initiatives Ms. Marlanne Cerllll (Rad lsson): Mr. Speaker , a recent survey conducted by the Winnipeg Sun of more than 1 ,400 Winnipeg residents showed that there was an agreement in one area in particular, which was in the area of the environment. An overwhelming 95 percent of respondents to the survey favoured a city-wide blue box program like those found in virtually every other city in Canada.

A month ago the Minister of Environment advised the House that ongoing discussions are taking place with the Resource Recovery Institute and the City of Winnipeg on 'plans for future resource recovery in the city. Will the Minister of Environment advise the House on the status of those discussions, and will he give a clear indication of what recycling initiatives his department is planning? Hon. Glen Cummlngs (Minister of Environment): Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are actively discussing with the Resource Recovery Institute, getting some final figures as to the pilot that was originally set up in the Wolseley area.

As the Member full well knows, that pilo t has expanded far beyond the terms of reference that were originally agreed to. The city and the province are trying to get the figures that we originally wanted in acquiring the cost of operation and what the infrastructure implications might be for that type of project. At the same time, there are a number of depots being opened across the city with the Manitoba Recycling Council, who are working actively to make sure that there are available depots which can also be used as a comparison and for gaining accurate numbers as to the real cost. Ms. Cerllll: Mr.

Speaker, a month ago when we raised the issue of the potential closing of the Resource Recovery Institute, the Minister said that a business plan would be developed and that would allow for resource recycling to continue in the city. What has happened to the development of that strategy, and will this Minister get behind the public and its demand for more recycling, or will he continue to stall on this urgent public issue? * (1 400) Mr. Cummlngs: Mr.

Speaker, my commitment was to make sure that we were able to get the accurate figures on the cost of running a curbside program as the Resource Recovery Institute had envisioned it. I also said that they would have to produce a business plan that would show how that might be operational. That very much involves discussion and agreement between the city, the municipal authority and the benefactor of removing a great deal of waste from the waste stream. All of those factors have to come together. The bottom line is that we have to have a business plan that is workable and acceptable to all those parties involved.

Environmental Innovations Fund Funding Criteria Ms. Marlanne Cerllll (Radlsson): Mr. Speaker , my final supplementary is also for the Minister of Environment. Given the difficulties that the Resource Recovery Institute has had in receiving its one-time grant from the Environmental Innovations program, will the

1147 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA November 14, 1990 Minister now tell the House what criteria he is using in the decision-making process for the funding from this program? Hon. Glen Cummlngs (Minister of Environment) : Mr. Speaker, ! reject the implication of the

preamble of that question, given that it is the third question to begin with. The Resource Reco very Institute did never attempt to produce the kind of figures that we needed for a business plan or to make an understanding of their process. The fact that they were having trouble getting their grant has something to do with the fact that they would not give us the information. Second, let me clearly state that the funds -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker, let us not presume that the Innovations Fund is a fund that is going to be able to fund year after year.

What was an innovation one year is not necessarily an innovation the second year. This is a fund to establish, to begin to provide basic costs for, first of all, what might be innovative undertakings, whether it be in business or in rec ycl ing, anything related to environmental undertakings. Mr. Speaker, the nub of the question was whether or not there would be ongoing funding coming from the Innovations Fund. The Innovations Fund is not set up to fund on an ongoing basis projects year after year. Minimum Wage Increase Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. lt has been more than three years since the minimum wage was increased. lt has become very difficult for many working families to even afford the basic necessities of life with the $4.70 . Can the Minister of Labour tell us why his department has not increased the minimum wage? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour) : Mr. Speaker, if the Member for The Maples would look at the appropriate legislation, he would see that there is a process to deal with the minimum wage issue which has now been invoked.

At this time I am awaiting the report of the Minimum Wage Board. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, it is strange that they did not wait for the political appointment, for two days after the campaign they had appointed political appointees. This is a very serious matter. Can the Minister of Labour tell us, with the GST coming as of January 1 , will he make sure that at least before January the minimum wage will be increased? Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, I reject totally the comment I think the Member for The Maples made about political appointments to that board.

People like Bernard Christophe serve on that board as a labour appointment, and he certainly is not a political appointee of this Government. Mr. Speaker, the board was struck last spring. lt held an extensive public hearing process. The Member for The Maples was certainly welcome to make a presentation to that board. I do not think he did. The board is in the process of preparing a report which they will tender to me as Minister, which we will deal with when we receive the report from the board. I am awaiting that report at this time. Review Process Mr. Gu lzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr.

Speaker, my final supplementary is: Can the Minister of Labour assure this House what mechanism he is going to put in place to assure that the minimum wage is reviewed every year, not every three years and not only during the campaign time? I am talking about the political appointment- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour) : Mr. Speaker, the process of dealing with minimum wages has been in place in this province for a number of years through various Governments and administrations.

If the Member is suggesting we should change that process, I would certainly be prepared to dis cuss that and hear a submission. If he is concerned about the particular rate of the minimum wage, then it is regrettable that he did not use the opportunity to make a presentation to that board instead of just raising it here today. zebra Mussel Infestation Prevention Program Mr. Cllf Evans (lnterlake): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

November 14, 1990 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1148 Nearly a month ago I asked this Government what action is being taken on a threat to drinking water by zebra mussels. Yesterday a second boat in Thunder Bay, Ontario, was found to be infested with zebra mussels, increasing the fear that they will soon be found in Shoal Lake. Will the Minister table in this Legislature today all correspondence he has had with federal officials on this matter as well as a copy of his strategy paper detailing how this Government plans to counter the influx of the mussels into Manitoba? Ho n.

Ha rr y Enns (Minis ter of Na tural Resour ces): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to make available to the Honourable Member and to other Members of the House the specific instructions that have gone out from the fisheries department that provide some guidelines for people who are transporting boats. That is probably the most likely way that mussel infestation is coming into Manitoba, the boats that are running in the Lake of the Woods or the Ontario waters that are coming and being transported to Manitoba. They have been advised by letter to clean and scrub their boats as best they can.

Regrettably, the advance is likely going to take place. We are doing everything we can. I will provide that information to the Honourable Member when I get back to my office. Zebra Mussel Infestation Prevention Program Mr. Cllf Evans (lnterlake): Mr. Speaker, in view of the seriousness with which the Ontario Government and Ontario Hydro take the mussels, I would ask the First Minister what funds he is prepared to spend on zebra mussel prevention and what steps his Government will take to protect the intake point at Shoal Lake from infestation of the mussels. Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, we in the Government have an official group working on the strategy to combat zebra mussels. That strategy will be developed not only by people in the Manitoba administratio(l within the area of Natural Resources and Environment-but obviously this is a concern interprovincially from other areas of the country, as has been identified by the Minister of Natural Resources. lt can be transported by means of boats being taken from one province to another and those mussels having been attached and taken into the new water systems that can spread them very quickly throughout various areas.

We are concerned about it as every jurisdiction in the country is. The strategy and the response to this impending threat is being developed by people who are within the various departments concerned as well as interprovincial co-operation on the matter. Mr. Cllf Evans: When the Premier meets with Premier Rae of Ontario, will he be proposing joint action to combat the mussels, including pressuring the federal Government to take seriously this threat to water quality in Manitoba? Mr.

Fllmon: As I indicated, these matters are the subject of interprovincial co-o peration and discussion, and they are an ongoing issue that we as provinces will have to deal with. There will be obviously areas for direct co-operation. I am having a short meeting as the Member well knows with the Premier of Ontario to welcome him as a member of the Premiers' - (interjection)- not club, no, this is not a clu�remiers' Conference.

As the chair of the Premiers' Conference, I will be welcoming him, and I will take the opportunity to address a number of issues of mutual concern between Ontario and Manitoba at that meeting. Archaeological Assessment Justification Ms. Jean Frlesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. Yesterday, this Minister once again refused to commit herself to even joint funding of a loan program to save the heritage buildings of Winnipeg.

Today, we learned that the same Minister is consi dering funding an archaeological im pact assessment that shoul d have been the responsibility of the Rural Municipality of Arthur, contrary to the principles of the heritage Act. Is the Minister doing this because the community is in the riding of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), who seems to believe that public works are a reward for correct voting? Hon. Bonnle Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, absolutely not.

1149 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 1990 Culture, Heritage and Recreation Impact Assessments Request Ms. Jean Frlesen (Wolseley): Can the Minister indicate what other impact assessments her department has funded either in the private or the public sector, and is she prepared to table that list? Hon. Bonnle Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Her itage and Recreat ion) : Absol utely, Mr. Speaker. We will be into the Estimates of the Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreation by tomorrow I believe, if there is a will to make that happen. All of that information will be readily available.

Archaeological As sess ment Just ification Ms. Jean Frlesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, given that we have very little physical evidence of the aboriginal history of southwestern Manitoba, given that this was not a burial site or apparently a sacred site, is the Minister satisfied that five days of archaeological investigation were enough for this particular area? Hon. Bonnle Mltchelson (Mnlster of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that an archaeological assessment was done of the area, and that report will be forthcoming on the results of the findings.

Obviously, the archaeologists who were working on the site were satisfied with the work that they were able to do, so both the municipality and the archaeological people have been satisfied that the work could go ahead. * (1 41 0) Goods and Services Tax Government Documents Mr. Leonard Evans (Br andon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. lt is now apparent that the Manitoba Government is prepared to co- operate with the Mulr oney Government to the extent that it will allow the Crown corporations to collect the GST for the federal Government.

In fact, Hydro has already issued notices to its customers that it will be collecting the GST as of January. Can the Minister tell this House whether the Manitoba Government is now prepared to co-operate with the Mulroney Government and levy the GST on the various documents and licences that it sells to the public such as fishing, hunting licences, health documents, park admission tickets, et cetera? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I feel like I am living my life over again. I gave a response to that very same question last night in committee.

Obviously there were not enough Members in the committee last night, and the Member wants to share the response. Mr. Speaker, as I have said on other occasions, because Manitoba Hydro is an energy provider and because it is in competition with other energy providers who are not Crown corporations, who are not arms or entities of Government, they have been deemed, by the federal Government I suppose in this case, that they will have to pay the GST. All energy utilities across the land, indeed, are being required under the proposed GST to have their customers pay a 7 percent tax applied to the energy bill. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to know from the Minister whether he and his department and this Government were now preparing to collect that GST on the various documents that the Government was engaged in selling to the people of Manitoba. I ask a supplementary question. When will the Government be making a decision to co-operate with the Mulroney Government to act as a collection agency for the GST with regard to all these other documents and certificates that it sells to the public? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, the question was just dripping with in nuendo, but let me say straightforward that this Government has not decided at this point to what extent it will collect the goods and services tax. Let me remind the Member that presently excise and duty tax people, the federal Government, are collecting provincial tax. Let me also indicate that at the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission outlets that there is a collection of federal tax by the province at that location. There is a long history of Governments collecting each others taxes. That is why Governments enter into reciprocal tax arrangements.

I do not know really what the Member is trying to make from it. I can tell him at this point the Government has not made a hard decision to what extent it will collect the goods and services tax on

November 14, 1990 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 1150 fees that ar e charged by certain entities and departments of Government. Government Announcement Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, at some point the Minister and the Government have to make a decision. So I wou ld ask the Honourable Minister, what deadline is he looking at? When is he going to advise the public one way or the other? I would be willing to predict that this Governmen t will be collecting the GST for the Mulr oney Governmen t. When will this Minister advise the public of that decision? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Speaker, to my soothsayer friend, the predictor across the House, let me say again to this point in time we have not made any decision. Indeed, as I remind the Member and as I remind all Manitobans, this is a federal tax, it is not a provincial tax. If it is the responsibility of any Government to provide inform ation to Manitobans, it is the federal Governme nt's responsibility and certainly not the provincial Government. Mr. Spea ker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Cl ayton Manness (Go vernment House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I would propose that you call Bills in the following order: Bills 12 , 15 , 16 and 17 . Furthermore, depending on the hour, if it is arou nd 4- 4:30, I wou ld propose calling the motion to go into Supply at that time. I understand, Mr. Speaker-you may want to canvass the House-but I under stand there may be a predisposition to waive private Members' hour in the event that we do go into Supply. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private Members' hour if we go into Supply as was indicated? Is that agre ed? That is agreed. If we do not go into Supply? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker , I am sure we will be going into Supply, and I will deal with the issue at that time if we do not. Mr. Speaker: So it is the will of the House to waive private Members' hour. Agr eed. Committee Changes Mr. Kevln Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speake r, I have a committee change. I move, seconded by the Member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natu ral Resou rces be amended as follows: the Member for Cresce ntwood (Carr) for St. James (Edwards) . House Business Mr. Manness: One item of House business, Mr. Speaker, I should announce at this time.

I will be making fu rther announceme nts as to the Estimates order for tomorrow, but I should indicate at this time that the standing corn mittees sitting tomorrow night, first of all the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources at 8 p.m. dealing with the Manitoba Energy Authority, that meeting is now cance lled. Similarly tomorrow night, Thursday, the Standing Committee on Economic Development considering the '89 Auditor's Report and Consolidated Financial Statements of A. E. McKenzie Co. Ltd. is also cancelled.

I will indicate to the House that it is my intention to try and reschedule these standing committees dealing with these issues next week some time. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the. Honou rable Government House Leader for that clarific ation. Committee Change Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): I also have a committee change . I move, seconded by the Member for Bu rrows (Mr. Martindale), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natu ral Resou rces be amended as fol lows: Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BILL 12-THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDM ENT ACT Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik ), Bill12 , The Lab our Rela tions Amendmen t Act ; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the name of the Honou rable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) . Is there leave that this Bill remain standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Point Douglas? Leave ? Agreed. * (1 420)

1151 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 1990 Mr. Jerry Storle (FIIn Flon): The Member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) has asked me to give a prerecorded speech on this issue. If I thought it would do any good or the Members opposite might hear for a change, I would certainly do that, but I think we are going to have to change the tack somewhat to get their attention. This is one of those occasions where this is deja vu all over again. We have seen this Government in its previous incarnation attempt to repeal final offer selection.

At that time, despite the fact that we in the New Demo cratic Party defended the principle that legislation enshrined to a person, along with literally hundreds and hundreds of other Manitobans who came before the Sta ndin g Committee of the Legislature which was reviewing the legislation, to echo the sentiments that have been expressed in this Chamber by every Member of the New Democratic Party Caucus. lt was an interesting debate. lt was an important debate. In the final analysis the Legislature, when it was finally determined, had decided to leave final offer selection in place.

Perhaps there are individuals in this Chamber who were left somewhat scarred by the debate. I refer to some of the Members on my left in the third Party who could not quite decide which side of the fence they were on. They could not quite decide whether with their worke rs, fr iends or with workin g people -( interjection)- I think, as my colleague for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has suggested, they have impaled themselves on that particular fence, as is quite often the case when you attempt to straddle a fence and maintain that position for any length of time.

The heat of the debate during the last Session on this particular issue was certainly the most intense that I have seen in my years in this Chamber. lt is unfortunate that, despite the fact we have a new Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), we have the same old attitude in that Ministry, an attitude which seems intent on rejecting the facts, rejecting the obvious and acting on the . basis of some ideological commitment borne from who knows where. (Mrs Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) I thought I knew the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik). l thought I understood the Member for Lac du Bonnet.

I thought perhaps he was committed to truth and perhaps had some integrity when it came to dealing with important legislation. I recognize that the new Minister of Labour has some Cabinet responsibilities, but it is unfortunate that the new Minister of Labour capitulated to the right wing of the Conservative Party so quickly in a new Session. I did read some of the comments of Members opposite, and there were precious few, when this issue was last debated. lt is sad to know that virtually nothing has changed in the minds of the Conservative Members in this Legislature from the debate that was held in 19 89.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I was one of the Members who sat on the committee and listened to single parents, listened to working men and women who earn a pittance in the course of their day's labour, been told time and time again that no, Conservatives did not want any working person to have access to the kind of fairness that is taken for granted by many professionals in this province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, when this Government, in its wisdom, capitulated to the doctors and gave the doctors binding arbitration as a pre-election ploy to avoid embarrassment, they undermined their own argument about the importance of maintaining free and collective bargaining. This Government, this Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) cannot have it both ways.

H final offer selection, a form of arbitration, is good enough for the doctors of this province, good enough for the teachers of this province, good enough for many other employees in this province, why is a form of arbitration not good enough for working people in this province, people who have in many cases in the history of this province been subject to harassment and abuse, lockouts and strikes which undermined their ability to maintain their living and provide for their families?

Madam Deputy Speaker, all this legislation did was seek to provide a means for settling disputes in an orderly, in an understandable and in a fair fashion. We on this side pleaded with Members of the minority Government of the Day to listen to reason. We asked them to examine the evidence of how final offer selection was working in the Province of Manitoba before they made their final decision on final offer selection, before they decided to repeal legislation which in the eyes of many including the employers and the employees who had used final offer selection-we asked them to weigh the evidence.

November 14, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 1152 Madam Deputy Speaker, although I cannot say that final offer selection remained after the last Session because the Conservatives listened to the evidence, circumstances of that par ticular Legislature, the minority status of the Government, the vacillating position of the Liberals and the steadfast opposition of the New Democrats all contributed to the Legislature leaving in place final offer selection.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that working people, certainly the people that had made presentations to that committee, who had spoken from the heart about their expe riences on the picket line, who had spoken from the heart about the trials and tribulations of attempt ing to maintain a principled stand in the face of lost wages, in the face of increasing family debt, in the face of minimal strike pay, trying to maintain some dignity while on strike against a company with resources of untold amounts compared to the average individ ual worker.

Madam Deputy Speaker, what we said when we introduced final offer selection some three and a half years ago was that final offer selection would be a means of settling the most difficult disputes in the province. I to this day cannot un derstand why final offer selection which is essentially arbitration cannot be accepted as a useful tool for people who earn the minimum wage or above the minimum wage, people who are certainly not in the top 50 percent of the earners in the Province of Manitoba . If it is good enough for others, what is wrong with it for working people?

Madam Deputy Speaker, we cited example after example of final offer selection being used in the province. We showed that the rulings, when in fact a ruling was required under the final offer selection regulations, neither favoured the unions nor the employer. In those cases where an arbitrator finally selected a position between the employer and the employees, in fact it worked out 50-50. I do not know how anyone can interpret the statistics that are a part of the public record as saying final offer selection creates some inequality.

I cannot see how anyone can say that this piece of legislation creates a disequilibrium amongst the two parties. There is no evidence to su pport that. Madam Deputy Speaker, it boggles the mind when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), not only this Minister of Labour but the previous one, introduces legislation to repeal a very progressive piece of legislation and talks in the same breath about fairness.

This Minister of Labour cannot point to one example where the imposition of a final offer has been called unfair by anyone. * (1 430) The evidence that was presented in the last Session is overwhelming, and I can only indicate to the new Minister of Labour that the evidence since the last Session of the Legislature only contributes to the evidence in support of final offer selection. There is no evidence that this Government can put on the record which would indicate to anyone with a modi cum of objectivity that final offer is not working, absolutely not.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister in his defence of the introduction of this legislation, and I have to indicate that I thought the Minister's speech was quite defensive. I hope that reflects what I thought was some common sense that the Minister held. I hope the Minister perhaps has some remaining guilt, some remaining remorse for having to be the tool of the right-wing ideology of some of his colleagues. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was not going to say a mi ndless tool, because anyone with a conscience, any person who illustrates, exhibits moments of remorse is not mindless.

I think that is perhaps the tragedy in all of this, that the Member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) is not mindless. His speech which is quite defensive indicates to me that this Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) may not in fact have wanted to be the harbinger of this regressive and unfortunate piece of legislation. The fact of the matter is that final offer selection has not only been successful in Manitoba, it has been successful in other jurisdictions, in Minnesota, for example, but it has also been used at the University of Manitoba quite successfully.

Madam Deputy Speaker, what is perhaps most astounding is that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) of this province and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tour ism (Mr. Ernst) continue to go ab out the province and travel the country and around the world promoting Manitoba as a good place to do business. Madam Deputy Speaker, in fact in the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) own budget documen t, we

1153 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 19 90 see the most compelling evidence, the most compelling reason for keeping final offer selection. The Province of Prince Edward Island which has a population of approximately 12 5,000 people is the only province for the last two years which has had fewer days lost due to strikes. The fact of the matter is that final offer selection which has been in place in Manitoba now for some 41 months is contributing to the labour relations harmony that we have enjoyed in the province.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that it is contributing to the labour harmony that we have experienced in this province. I cannot remember the exact figure, but it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1. 5 days lost per thousand per worker in the Province of Manitoba, certainly the lowest in Manitoba in many, many years. In fact, there may not have been any fewer days lost in the history of the province, but the fact is that we have enjoyed relative labour harmony since the introduction of final offer selection.

Madam Deputy Speaker, what is the Government attempting to do by the repeal of final offer selection? Who are they attempting to mollify? Who is going to benefit from the repeal of final offer selection? The important question is, who was using final offer selection? Does Great-West Life use final offer selection? Madam Deputy Speaker, who is using it? Who is using final offer selection, and why does the Government, despite the evidence, want to repeal this legislation? Who are they attempting to satisfy?

The real irony of this is even the people who have used final offer selection, even the employers who have used final offer selection, have good things to say about it.

If the objective of the Government is as I believe it is, or I hope it is, to prevent long, protracted strikes in the Province of Manitoba, if the intent of the Government is to save both the business community and workers from the indignity of a long strike, and from the ·f inancial hardship of a long strike, then why will they not use the evidence, will they not use common sense to leave well enough alone? -(interjection)- Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) from his seat says, well, we want to make sure there is a balance. There is no evidence whatsoever.

I have the Minister's speech in front of me-the Minister, in his remarks in moving second reading, does not indicate in one instance where final offer selection creates this imbalance that the Conservative Caucus continues to talk about, not one single shred of evidence that there is any imbalance. Madam Deputy Speaker, the repeal of final offer selection is only the continuation of a political promise the Conservatives made in the election of 19 88. That is the rationale. -(interjection)- We have the new Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) chirping from his seat.

I guess the Member does not believe in free collective bargaining. My question would be to Members opposite, which of these Members believe in free collective bargaining? Which of these Members believes that the use of arbitration for the doctors does not interfere with free collective bargaining? Is that the case?

The fact of the matter is that what these Members oppose is the use of a tool like arbitration for average working people. lt makes sense according to Conservative philosophy to use arbitration for people who enjoy the highest disposable income in the province of Manitoba, but not for those who have very little disposable income. That is where the Member for St. Norbert is. He is a Conservative; that is the problem. There are many, many on the Conservative benches, particularly in the back row, who know almost nothing about this issue.

Perhaps it would serve this Legislature well if the Members in the Conservative backbenches were to read the record on final offer selection. I encourage Members who were not part of this Legislature in the last Session to read the Hansard of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations. The Hansard that is the record of the presentations of groups, who came to discuss their feelings and their concerns about the repeal of final offer selection, is the most eloquent testimony to the impact of this legislation on labour peace in the Province of Manitoba.

I want to read for the record, and perhaps it has not been put on the record, the rather glib remarks of the Minister of Labour in a press release that announced the repeal of final offer selection. Glib, Madam Deputy Speaker, is understating the absolute meaninglessness of these statements. The Minister of Labour said that the repeal of this legislation will, and I quote: eliminate unnecessary

No vember 14, 1990 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 1154 interference with the process of free collective bargaining. Madam Deputy Speaker, there is not one single objective review of final offer selection that dictates a final offer selection which says it interferes with the process of free coll ective barg aining. I have bargained. I was the chairman of the Flin Flon Teachers' Association bargaining committee. ! have bargained on many occasions. Madam Deputy Speaker, final offer selection only comes into play when the two parties cannot agree on a particular issue.

Final offer selection is a tool that a bargaining group would only use if they were very, very comfortable with their position. When would a group use final offer selection? A group would use final offer selection when there were apparently no alternatives at the bargaining table, when they were very confident in their position and when the bargaining had been protracted. * (1 440) Madam Deputy Speaker, who can say in all honesty that this in any way creates an imbalance.

Both parties understand going into a collective bargaining session that their position, the position that they finally table, could be used by a selector as the ultimate resolution of that bargaining conflict. Both parties are compelled to be reasonable, to put forward their very best solution, to put forward a practical solution, to put forward a solution that wou ld be in terpreted as reaso nable by an independent, impartial third party.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is no indication in any of the agreements that have been resolved since the introduction of final offer selection that this piece of legislation interferes with free collective bargaining, in fact quite the reverse. There have been fewer days lost to strikes, there have been more agreements settled without the use of strikes. What does thattell you? Thattells you that the people are coming to an agreement at the bargaining table without using strikes or in fact ultimately having to have a selector make a decision for the two parties.

In 85 percent or 9 0 percent of the cases where a party has registered to use final offer selection, has the selector actually made the decision. In 90 percent of the cases, Madam Deputy Speaker, the two parties go back and work on the final offers of the two parties and come to a mutual agreement. Madam Deputy Speaker, what is interesting is that also what we said was going to happen when we introduced final offer selection.

Final offer selection acts likes a funnel, it actually requires both parties to adapt, to adjust, to manipulate their positions on the bargaining table, to appoint where a consensus is actually possible. lt does not make any sense for any two parties in collect ive bargaining, to leave on the table positions that are outrageous, that are unintelligible or unreasonable. The fact of the matter is no responsible agent, either for the employer or the employee, would ever leave on the table a proposal that was unreasonable.

No one would want a selector choosing between two final offers, to look at one and say, this is outlandish, this is outrageous, this is ridiculous. The fact of the matter is final offer selection puts the collective bargaining process into a funnel. The final analysis is, as the individual clauses and proposals that were originally tabled by both sides worked through the negotia tions process, they are brought closer and closer together by the impending, the possible use of final offer selection.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know what it would take to convince the Government that all of the anecdotal evidence, all of the factual evidence, all of the statistical evidence that we have amassed since the introduction of final offer selection points to one thing and one thing only, and that is that final offer selection works. lt works. If Members opposite believe they have a means of improving it, if the Members opposite believe that final offer selection can be improved upon, then perhaps it is their responsibility to stand up and seek to improve it. But repealing it makes absolutely no sense.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I and others who spoke when this bill was first introduced made it very clear that one thing is going to happen very quickly after the repeal of final offer selection. The number of days lost due to strikes is going to increase. lt may not increase dramatically initially but it will increase. lt do not know who wins by that. I do not think the Cons ervative Party wins. I do not thin k the Conservative Government wins. I do not think those very few in the business community who actually want to repeal final offer selection win by this.

I do not think anyone wins, I think everyone loses and it will be a tragedy.

1155 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA November 14, 19 90 These Members will have to explain to their business fri ends why the numb er of days lost due to strikes are increa sing, why labour relations are increasi ngly hosti le, why ther e is frus tration amongst those who earn the least in this province. They are going to have to explain that to their business friends, the few who have encouraged the repeal of final offer selection now for the second time. Madam Deputy Speaker, it was interesting being a part of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations when we reviewed this, now only some months ago.

We had expected, certai nly we in the New Democr atic Par ty had expected that the business community, those people who had been so vocife rously opposed to final offer selection in the Chamber of Commerce would have come forward to the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations and put forward their argume nts against final off er selection. What happened? Well, it was interesti ng because very few , two I believe, repres entatives actually ca me forward to the Standing Committee on Indus trial Relations to present the case against final offer selection.

There were literally hundreds of grou ps prepared to make prese ntations in su pport of it, but the business community, the community who, certainly these Members opposite believe , had the most to gain from the repeal of final offe r selection, did not come out in large numbers to defend the repeal of final offe r selection which relates back to my first question-who is pushing the repeal of final offe r selection? Who is going to benefit by the repeal of final offer selection?

Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact of the matter is that very few businesses are going to be affected by the repeal of final off er selection. The people who are going to be affected are the vast num ber of working people who have no other protection.

The people for example who worked for SuperValu, who had no pensions, no gu arantee of hours, no benefits, who were continually being harassed by manag ement in one way or another, who were in the throes of a protracted strike which was damaging their own financial secu rity, those are the individuals who are going to be penalized by the repeal of final off er selection.

I suppose we will have an opp ortu nity to see whether the business community, which I can only suspec t is promo ting the repeal of fi nal of fe r selection within the rank s of the front bench, come before committee and lay out in no uncertain terms why they believe fina l off er selection needs to be repealed. ! would lay that as a challenge to Members opposite, to those in the province who believe that the repeal of final offer selection is necessary, to make the case that this will benefit the province in any defi nitive way.

If they can show us that the repeal of final offe r selection is going to reduce the days lost due to strikes, if they can show us that workers will not be harmed, if they can show us that the bottom line of busine sses is going to be improved by the repeal of final offer selection, then I want to see it. I can not believe that any legislation that cuts down on strikes is not goodfor the bottom line of corporat ions.

I know tha t no busin es s executive cam e before the committee last year and said, yes, strikes are good for the bottom line, let us have more of them. * (1 450) If the evidence is overwhelming that we have fe wer days lost due to strikes, if we know that final offer selection is not being used as a sledgehammer to make sure that unions get their way, because in the last record that I saw, out of something like 72 or 73 applications for the use of final offer selection, only five cases had actu ally had a selector impose an agreemen t on the party. Out of those fw e, it was three un ion and two management.

There have been a number since. The numbers are still balanced. What is interes ting , Madam Deputy Speaker, is that so few of the cases where final offer selection was actu ally applied for came to rely on a decision of the selector. The parties came to an agr eemen t afte r the application to use final offer selection had been made. What are we tryi ng to accomplish by repealing this legislation? lt is obviously working to the benefit of collective bargai ning. lt is working to reduce the number of days lost, and that is not only my opinion.

When the prev ious Governm en t intro duced fi nal of fer selection there were some union executives, some represe ntatives who did not favour the use of final offe r selection, but since the introduction of final off er selection, having watched now for three years fi nal offe r selection in practice, I can say that right now there is no dissenting opinion amongst the unions in the Province of Manitoba. They have come to recognize that what we said fi nal offer selection would do, it has done. lt has reduced strikes, and it has given the collective

November 14, 1990 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 1156 bargaining process another tool to prevent strikes, some thi ng tha t we all want. Madam Dep uty Speaker, what Members opposite do not know, and I would be willing to suggest this is true, is that the fi nal offe r selec tion legislation, when it was introduced, also had what is called a sunset clause . When final offer selection was introduced, it was recognized that it was controve rsial, that there was no other ju risdiction in Canada at the time that used final offer selection, and so a five-year sunset clause was built into the legislation.

That means that if we repeal final offer selection at the end of this Session , we will have been a little more than three years into the experiment of fina l offe r selection. If Members opposite are at all interes ted in the real record of final offer selection, why the insistence that final of fer selec tion be repealed ? This Government could technically live out its mandate of fou r years and have final off er selection disappear without this, I would say, embarrassing atte mpt to defend the indefensi ble.

Final offer selection would be repealed, would disappear from the labour scene in a little less than two years from now. So why the haste ? There is no obvious cry in the busin ess community to repeal fi nal offer selection. All of the evidence indicate s that final offer selection is working. Final offer selection, in any event, is going to lapse at the end of the five-year period, a little less than two years from now. Why the indecent haste ? Who is banging the drum that you are marching to, or is there any drum? Is anyone leading this particular Government?

Perhaps, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am missing what is motivating Members opposite. Perhaps the repeal of final offer selection is on the Order Paper and we are discussing it, because they could not think of anything else to do. Maybe that is what it is. When you look at the Order Paper-in fact we could go back to last year's Order Paper. Last year's Order Paper consisted of legislation which New Democratic Party Ministers had been working on and the repeal of final offe r selection.

Now that we have passed virtually all the legislation that was in the works when this Government took over in 1 988, they have no'agen da whatsoever. So what we are left with is final offer selection and the retreaded Busi ness Pr ac tices Act, which was also an NDP-p repared piece of legislation. So, when you think about it, perhaps that is the reason we are faced with this legislation. They could not think of anything else to do. A rather pathetic motive for doing anything, but the more you think about it, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the more obvious that that is the correct solution to this phenomenon.

They could not think of anything else to do; ther e can be no other explanation. lt is working, ther e are very few strikes, no one is asking for its repeal, so the obvious answer is, they are doing it becaus e they could not think of anyth ing else to do. Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to go back to the Minister's November 9th release . First he said that he was going to eliminate un necessary interfe rence with the process of free collective barga ining. Nobody believes any more that final offe r selection does that. The Minister of Labour (Mr.

Praznik) can put on the record anyone who believes that this is the case today, then I would like him to do that. He certa inly did not do that in his remarks on November 9th . He says he wants to restore the balance which has been altered by the existing FOS provisions. Restore the balance; what balance are we talking about ? Are we talking about the fact that year afte r year we have fewe r days lost due to strike. Are we trying to overcome the fact that, even when FOS was applied for, it was very seldom used; that the selector chose in only a small fraction of the actu al applicatio ns?

What balance are we trying to restore ? We have the best record of labour peace in the country, we have had for the last couple of years. What are we trying to restore ? This is an interesti ng one : Ensure that the provisions of collective ag reemen ts are freely nego tiated and accept able to the pa rties as opposed to being imposed by a third party. Final offer selection- this is interestin g--i mposed by a third party. How can a Governmen t in all sincerity who has given the doctors-who have the highest disposable incomes in the province-arbitra tion, say that is not acceptable?

That is the most obvious double standar d that you can imagine . Wha t message does it send to working people? What message does it send to wage earner s in the Province of Manitoba? The Minister of Labour (Mr. Prazn ik) says, ensur e that the provisions of collective agreem ents are freely negotiated and acceptable to the parties as opposed to being imposed by a thir d par ty (interjection)-

1157 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14, 1990 Madam De puty Spea ke r, the Min iste r of Environment (Mr. Cummings) says what was my position. My position was that final offe r selection was a fair alternative. My position was that final offe r selection encouraged collective bargaining in good faith . My position was the facts supported me in that belief. There is no reason for this repeal. * (1 500) What is most interes ting, howe ver, is the contention by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) that final offer selection remains available to both sides should they volunteer to ag ree to it.

That is the most conde sce nding of re marks that one can imagine . Of cou rse , Madam Depu ty Speak er, anyth ing is available to two sides if they agree to do it. Final offe r selection was part of the labour legislation in the province which gave people the right to use that to prevent strikes. That was its objective. That was its objective in its entirety, and it did that. For the Ministe r of Labour to try and crea te excuses for the repeal of this legislation, in such an obviously thinly disguised way, does certainly no credit to himself or the Government.

Finally, it says, help avoid crea ting any divisions between a un ion and its memb ersh ip. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have dealt with that. There is no division. The un ion leader ship and its membership are at one with regar d to this issue. lt is working to their benefit and to the benefit of all Man itobans and business es, I think, are the benefactors as well. This is an unfortu nate piece of business and this Minister of Labour should not have involved himself in it. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll) : Madam Depu ty Speaker, I would like to make some changes to the committees.

I move , seconded by the Member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Com mitte e on Public Util ities and Natu ral Resou rces be amended as fo llows: Neufeld for Cummings and Render for Orchard . Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed ? (Agreed) Hon. Harr y Enns (M in iste r of Nat ural Resources): Madam Deputy Spe ake r, I am compelled to enter into the debate on final off er selection, because of the close atte ntion that I try to pay most Honoura ble Members when they speak in this Chamber.

I was jus t coming in the door when I heard the Honou rable Member who last spoke, the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), talk about the compelling reasons to keep final offer selection. Later on he went on to indicate that the only reason why our Minister of Labour and this Government is introducing the repeal of this Bill is because we promised it during an election. Madam Deputy Speaker, we want to talk about actions of politicians being responsible for the cynicism that has developed to an all too grea t a height among the electorate.

If we hear that kind of talk, what other compelling reason is there than to carry out an election promise? Can you name one ? Madam Deputy Speaker, let me reverse the issue for my honourable friends, the New Democrats, for a moment. They have clearly indicated to the public before the last election, during the election, that if they form ed the majority Government, they would not repeal this piece of legislation. Am I not right? Now if they stood up in this House and repealed the legislation, would that not be cynical action?

Surely, Madam Deput y Speaker, Honourable Members cannot find the least bit of fa ult in this Mi nister of Lab our (Mr. Pr az nik ) or in this Governmen t for doing precisely what we promised the people of Manitoba, not only during the last election, but in this case the people of Manitoba knew it was our intention from the '88 election, and we tried. Therein lies another lesson for all politicians to behold. I can have some respect for my fr iends the New Democrats . They have a position on this matte r, clearly stated, and the people of Manitoba understand it.

I demand and I think it is only fa ir that the people of Manitoba also understood that we had a very clear position on this matter, and we stated it clearly. There was no hidden agenda, Madam Deputy Speaker. Now, let us look, and I do this with all the charity in my heart, at the position of the Liberal Party on this issue. They tried to have it both ways and then walked into an election and they walked out of that election with the people not understanding what it was that the Liberal Party stood for .

That is but one of the reasons why the Liberal Party is sitting where they are sitting now, and my friends opposite are sitting where they sit. I just could not resist the opportu nity to remind all of us from time to time, there is no more compelling

November 14, 1990 LEG ISL ATIVE ASS EMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 1158 reason for any of our action from time to time in this Hous e , ot her than the one tha t we made a com mitmen t, that we made a prom ise to do something. Surely it is what turns Manitobans and what turns Canadians off of the whole political process if they are led to believe and if actions demonstrate that, once selected, their politicians, their Governmen ts do not do wha t they have promised to do. I am very proud to be part of this Government. I am very proud to have a seat mate with the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Prazn ik), this young Minister of Labour, who is about to make a mark in the history of labour legislation in this province. I predict a grea t fu tur e for this young man. He will help me in my aging process you know to carry on with my responsibilities from time to time. I say to Honourable Members opposite, they have to find a better reaso n, a different reason and as the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) said, we have heard them before , fort unately on this case , and I respect their right to keep on repeating them . The issue that the Member for Fl in Ron (Mr.

Storie) raises, that the only reason we are doing it, because we promised it in our election time, simply does not wash. Thank you. Mr. Paul Edwards {St. James): In recent times it has been my great pleasure to speak immediately after the Minister of Natu ral Resou rces (Mr. Enns) . He always is a tou gh act to follow, but he always gives me lots of fodder to talk about.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure today to rise on this Bill before the House , Bill 12 , which seeks again to repeal final offer selection. lt gives me no small amount of pleasure, because I too want to talk about the changing of positions. Let me start by saying that it was clearly my view at the time and continues to be, that final offer selection was an unbalanced and indeed unnec essary piece of legislation for this province.

However, we took seriously in our Party, the public hearing process in this province and we went to that public hearing process, and many of us here sat on that committee night after night after night and we heard many individuals. , I believe that the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) is correct when he says that there was a lack of representation from the business community at that hearing process.

I made it my business to seek out the people who perhaps should have been at that committee on behalf of the business community, but I heard first hand many of the representations made not only by the union leaders, but by the workers themselves who came forward in large numbers. Sur ely the Minister of Natu ral Resources (Mr. Enns) will agree that we have a public hearing process in Man itoba, which should me an something, which should not jus t be by rote, that we sit there and listen to it and all tap our pens on the desk, and then go on and do whatever we feel like, and not listen.

We, perhaps being novices in the fie ld, actually deign ed to take that public hearing process seriously. Perhaps, we should have known better from the veterans around us that they ju st sat there and went to sleep, which is what they do in the public hearing process. We, as Liberals new in the House , actu ally thou ght that the public hearing process was su pposed to mean something.

Madam Deputy Speaker, to that end, by the end of the hearing process, it was clear to us that perhaps, just perhaps, the politicians arou nd that table from all three Parties and the politicians of the day who brought in final offer selection and those who were seeking to repeal it did not have all the answers. Perhaps we fe lt the answer lay in furt her study of what final offer selection was actu ally doing in the Man itoba work force and in the Manitoba economy and for that reason we, and we alone, sought common sense and tried to inject it into that debate .

Politically it was an unwise, unfru itfu l decision. We knew that at the time, but we sought a higher goal. The higher goal was for the first time in 20 years to inject some common sense into labour relations in this province . * (1 510 ) We have seen these two old, tired Parties throu gh their machinations choose a side in the labour relationship and bow at the altar of the union or bow at the altar of the Chamber of Commerce to the detriment of the Manitoba economy and to the detriment of the Manitoba work force . We have seen that again and again and again.

The fact is that final off er selection is a relatively complex piece of legislation. lt is no t something which is easily un de rstood and atta ined by people in an eight-second television clip. That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, you run a serious risk by atte mpting to take a position which

115 9 LEG ISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 19 90 does not ascribe to political rhetoric and political rhetoric alone. That is what we did, and we did it because it was the only common-sense approach to this issue being put forward in this Legislature. -(i nterje ctio n)- The Member for Elmwood (M r. Maloway) says we got snookered. Politically, he is correct. Politically, he is right, and I hope that Party is satisfied with the political points which they have scored. They did not do the best thing for Manitoba.

They did not do the best thing for this province and this economy and neither did their colleagues and indeed their cohor ts in th is conspiracy, the Progres sive Conservative Party of the day, who bowed at the altar of free enterprise . Let us be clear. These two Parti es have no basis on which to say final offer selection has either been a panacea, as the New Democrats would like it to be see n, nor has it been the disaster that the Progressive Conservatives have always painted it to be. lt has not been either.

Despite the fact that they stand again and again now, and they did at the time, and say, it is the worst thing to ever hit this province ; it is a blight on the economy of this province-it is not that. lt is the most wonderfu l thing for the working man; it is going to solve the ills of labour relations-- it is not that. Som e body , somet ime, had to in ject a common- sense approach into this issue. We did it. lt was at a political cost, and we knew that, and that political cost was paid. lt was paid because it was fe lt that it was the only way to have brought com mon sense to this issue.

Let me now go on to show, Madam Deputy Speaker, how that has indeed come true. We are now very close to the end of 19 90, to the end of the year when under our proposal fi nal offer selection would have been repealed. Why December 31 , 19 90? lt is a very simple answer.

The three- year time period between Janu ary 1 , 19 87, and December 31 , 19 90, offers Manitoba uni ons-a nd this only applies to organized workplaces --of fers in excess of 90 percent, somewhere between 94 and 96 percent as I recall, of the un ions in this pr ovince, at least one opportuni ty to nego tiate un der the fi na l of fer selection regime. That is an appropriate window to assess the desirability of final offer selection and its real impact on the Manitoba economy.

You then have the overwhe lming majority of unions and employers in Manitoba to st udy, and what they have done in a final offer selection regime. Many have not used it at all. Many have not needed to use it. We can learn from that. Those who have used it, we can learn from that . We can see how far they went along. We can see whether or not they got in front of the selector and what the ultimate result was. We can speak to them and find out the dynamics of the relationship as it worked in a final offe r selection regime.

That was the only common sense approach which could have been taken, which should have been take n. lt was one put forward by our Party. I am proud to say that it was put forward by this Party. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Conner

y) says no one agreed with us. The fact is that anybody who was not directly linked to the Chamber of Commerce or directly linked to a union agreed with us. But, Madam Deputy Speaker, the problem is, as we acknowledge, and as Members of this House know being elected officials, this is not an issue that you can sell in five or 10 seconds on a TV clip, and that is the only fo rum that thes e two Parties want to debate this issue in.

That is the only way they want to get their message out, in the media clip and it was a lesson to me for that reason , you learn that the politics of the issue became the dominant factor. That is not what the people of this province deserve, and it is not what they ultimately want . lt is what they have had for 20 years, and so they are used to it, but it is not in their best interests .

Let me go on to say that common sense, indeed, was sacrificed on the altar of political expediency by both of these Parties who could not move from their ma sters of the day, in the case of the New Democrats, a few noted union leaders and the unions they represent ed, and in the case of the Progr essive Con ser vati ves, the Chamber of Commerce. I want to relate a somewhat humorous incident which occurred to me on the day that our Party put forward our amendmen t. I think it is probably the first time this has happened in the last 20 years .

I rece ived a call from both the President of the Chamber of Commerce and the head of the Manitoba Fede ration of Labou r, bef ore seven o'clock in the morning, both of them saying, we do not like what you are doing. I would ventu re to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, there has not been a politician in either of the other

November 14, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1160 two Parties who has had that happen in 20 years , and some would say that is a fa ilure when that happens.

I believe that the majority of Man itoba workers, the ma jority of Man itobans are not un ion leaders, and the majority of Manitobans are not busi ness people who ascribe to ever ything the Chamber of Commerce says they should. lt is that silent majority who, I believe, the Liberal Party was speaking to. lt is time somebody took a common sens e approach and did not enslave themse lves to every iota and every comma and every sentence that is utte red from one of the two interes t groups who represent the extremes of the spectru m.

If we know anyth ing from the way the world is going today, Madam Deput y Spe ake r, it is that we canno t enslave ourselves to one of the two dichotomies on that spectru m. If we want to learn from the Japanese experience and the Europea n experience , who are so far ahead of us in this it is scary. If we want to learn, we know that we must develop a consensus oriented co-operative appr oach to labour relations and that is something which both of the other two Parties deeply fear . (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Mr. Speaker, they deeply and fun damentally fear the light of common sense being shone on them.

They squint when it is shone on them because they know that the audience they are playing to canno t stand deviating from the rhetoric of the day. Mr. Speaker, let me talk about the issue raised by the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie ), the strike days lost. He knows full well that the strike days lost in this provinc e-a numb er of factors impact that fi gur e and at least three of them are far more important than anything fi nal offe r selection has had to do with it. The general econom ic te nor of the province is the forem ost factor in determ ining what strike days are lost and what are not lost.

The real record that has to be looked at with respect to the New Democratic Party when they were in power is the record of the un ionization rate. Surely that is where our emphasis should be, and that is where their emphasis should have been, not on the gimmicks put forwar d by the m, Mr. Speaker, but on real improvement of the work envir onment. That is fundamen tally achieved by increas ing the numb er of Mani toba work ers who bargain collectively.

Despite all of their years in power, they were never, never able to increase the reunionization rate in this province any more than marginally above the national average. I think that shows them to be the fai lure they have been. They have always played to the political gimmick. * (1 520) Mr.

Speaker, let me go on to indicate that when this piece of legislation fi rst came in, it was not studied at the time. lt was brought in at the behest of some notable un ion leaders in 19 86, and the New Democrats did it in my view and according to my information at their behest and th eir behest alone, and the union movement indeed split over this issue. The major unions, many of them, opposed final off er selection. lt has not been studied since then in any real way, Mr. Speaker.

Neither the Department of Labour nor the un ions themselves have ever atte mpted to do in-depth analysis of fi nal offer selection from both per spec tives . That can only be achi eved by retu rning the labour relations environm ent to the status quo and then getting people who are neutral, who are impartial, who can actually sit down and speak in confidence to the people who have used fi nal offer selection, learning what the dynamics of the relationship were during the final offer selection process and looking with a neutral eye at the effect of final off er selection on our economy and our work fo rce.

That is what we propose. Mr. Speaker, ! want to conclude my comments by saying that we do very much look forward to this matte r going to com mittee. We think that our position will increasi ngly be seen as the one which should have been take n at the time and indeed should be accepted today. lt is not too late to take a common-sense approach to this issue. We are now approaching December 31 , and we have the three year experience or very close to it. lt is an appropriate time to study final offer selection in a dispassionate environment which is not the slave to political rhetoric. Mr.

Speaker, it strikes me as very ironic that, as I unde rstand it, discu ssions are now going on between the two major Parties as to ju st when it will be repe aled. We know that under our amendmen t it would have been repealed December 31 . lt will be very interesting to see if in fact the Conservatives will achieve that. lt will be very interesting indeed to see that. lt will be interes ting to have them re port to

1161 LE GI SLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 1990 their Chamber of Commerce gods as to exac tly why it lasts beyond December 31 if indeed it does, because under our amendmen t it would have been gone as of December 31 . With respect to the New Democratic Party, they now are in a position where they can do nothing excep t see final offe r selec tion be repeale d outright-ou tright repealed. How ironic is that, Mr.

Speaker, when we put forward the amen dment which wou ld have allowed an indepen de nt examination of final offer selection and had that tabled publicly in the Legislature within five months of it happening. Mr. Speaker, it wou ld have been a significant advantage to this Party if they tru ly believed that final offe r selection would be seen in a positive light afte r that review, and they have said that many times. They have said , nobody examining final offe r selection in a dispassionate way would be able, possibly, even potentially, to say that it was bad for Manitobans.

If they truly believed that, they would have take n the opportun ity to have that study done , but no, the glare of common sense cannot intru de upon the New Democratic Party ; we know that from experie nce. We now have the New Democratic Party, they are going to have the repeal of fi nal offe r selection cut and dried, no an alysis, and you know what, Mr. Speaker, that suits them just fi ne.

They do not want an analysis of final offer selection because that wou ld deviate from the political rhetoric with which they participate every single day in this House and every time anybody has stood up on this particular issue. That has been the daily diet. That is all they talk about. We know, Mr. Speak er, that any numb er of statistics can be massaged endlessly. Any body in this House , who has spent any time in politics, knows how to massage statistics. lt is the daily diet of both of the other two Parties, no more so than on this issue.

What was needed and what was forfeited by these Parties was an opportun ity to be a common sense Governmen t and to be a common sense approach on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I think that was tragic for this province. I think the fact is that these two Parties have both said to the people in this province, we know best and we do not really have to look at this, and we do not have to listen to you because we know best. lt really does n�t matter what you say because we have made up our minds, and we do not really care what has happened in the last three years. The Member for Assiniboia (Mrs.

Mclntosh) asks me, what is my position? My position, Mr. Speaker, is the position that should have been take n for the bettermen t of this province for many, many year s and that is, no one in this Chamber knows all, least of all the Member for Assiniboia. No one in this Chamber has all of the answers on labour relations. Mr. Speake r, if you want to put more than words to the theory that we should listen to the people, you would go and you would get the people who can give you the answers on how it has actually worked, and not the union leaders and not the head of the Chamber of Commerce.

They have vested interes t in this and both of these Parties in this House have vested interest in them , and somebody tried to break away from that in this province. I happen to believe that the day will come when Manit obans realize the absolute garbage that they have been fed by these two Parties for 20 years in the area of labour relations. They have been fed it again and again and aga in. Let me conclude, Mr.

Speaker, by saying that this is indeed another example, I believe, of the need in this province for someone to occu py the middle ground and, you know, it has been said and it has been said in a haH joking manner many times to many of us who are Liberals, you have the easiest role of all, you do not have to make the hard decisions. Well, let me tell you , we know that taking the middle ground to common sense approach is oft en a very, very diffi cult position to take . Mr.

Speake r, sometimes, in fact most times, taking the extreme positions, that is the easy road to take because you play to people, you play to the voters and you re ly on the fact that the majority will not expose you . Mr. Speake r, we have seen that exploited by both of these Parties for nigh on 20 year s. lt is time for a change. lt is time for all of us, regardless of our political stripe to understand that just as in the market itself, we must start to co-ope rate and develop a labour relations environment which works for the employer and the employee .

We must recogn ize that and we must emu late that in this House as best we can . lt has not been done to date and I repeat that the overwhelming, I think, sign that the New Democrats fa iled in their labour

No vember 14, 1990 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 1162 relations strategy for 20 years is that they never took the unionization rate any more than marginally over the national average and that is despite all of those years and all of that rhetoric, Mr. Speaker. That would have been real progress. The unionization rate is still in the mid-30 percent and that is where it is nationally. Real progress would have been more than gimmicks like the New Democratic Party put forward in their tenur e in Government.

Real progress would have been giving Manitobans the ability to collectively bargain in larger numbers than they ever did. We now have a Government which will not, and indeed I think cannot, given the commitments they have made and the links that they have forged , respect workers' rights in this province. We have seen them be the slave to the Cham ber of Commerce. We saw that in Workplace, Health and Safety.

When they reduced the carc inogen levels in the workplace, they did it at the behest of the Chamber of Commerce, a report which admitted in and of itself that it was not a complete report, and they will do it agai n. That is what they are doing now. There was an answer. lt was put forward, Mr. Speaker, and I am proud to say that it was put forward by this Party and this Party alone. That opportunity was missed and will not come agai n, it appears, unless either of these two Parties decides to abandon for once the rhetoric and the change that they have bound themselves too.

I look forward to their consideration again of the only common sense solution in this case which will be put forward again by this Party in the hopes that someone in one of the other two parties has the courage to move from their slaves on the extremes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadwa y): Thank you , Mr. Speaker. I am honou red to participate in this debate on the repeal of the final offer selection process in The Manitoba Labour Relations Act.

Before we can un de rsta nd this probl em , it is esse ntial to understand the process of collective bargaining within the context of the objectives and purposes of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act. * (1 530) Collective bargaining is the process of negotiating between managemen t represe nting the interests of the employer and the un ion repr esenting the interests of the employees relating to the rates of pay, the hours of work, other terms and conditions of em ployment which act to go vern the employer-em ployee relationship for the duration of the collective agree ment. lt was in 19 48 that The Manit oba Labou r Relations Act was originally ena cted.

Later the stat ute was renamed The Man itoba Labou r Relations Act. The bas ic pu rposes of this legislation was embodied in its

preamble and I quote, Wherea s it is in the public interest of the Province of Manitoba to furth er harmonious rela tions between employers and employees by encouraging the practice and procedu re of collective bargai ning bet ween employers and unions as the freely designated represe ntatives of em ployees; the refore Her Majesty enacts as follows the legislation. If we analyze this

preamble, we can extract three basic objec tives or purposes of The Man itoba Lab our Rela tion s Act . Fir st , to further the harmonious relations between employers and employees; second, to encourage the practice and procedures of collective bargaining and third, to fos ter the selection of the union as the freely designa ted represe ntative of the employees in collective bargai ning. The fi rst objec tive of The Man itoba Labou r Relations Act is to fu rther the harmonious relations between employers and employees.

This objective assu mes that ther e exists a relationship called employer-em ployee relationship. In the olden days befor e uni oniz ati on ther e was no exis ti ng relationship. If an employer wants to hire someone to work for him, the employee has to enter into a personal contract of service , exchanging his labour for wages.

After the emerge nce of unionization this per sonal contract of em ploymen t has been trans formed into what is known as a collective agr ee ment, a collective contract that exists to protec t the relation ship of employer-e mployee relatio nship for the dur ation of that collective agreemen t.

It is the societal desire to equa lize the bargaining powers of the parti es and that the additional obli gation has been imp osed by a statute incorporating into the collective agreemen t certain norms and rules governing the employer-e mployee re lationship. lt is essential that this collective contract, this collective agreemen t also contains employment standards such as rules as to minimum wages, hours of work, holidays and other related

1163 LEG ISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA November 14, 19 90 matte rs. lt is also essential that they embody all the rights and obligations under health and safety rules, under Workers Compensation Act, unem ployment rules, as well as human rights legislation standards. If the objective of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act is to fu rther the harmonious relations between employers and employees, there is a constant need for a peacefu l renewal of this employer-e mployee relationship in an atmosphere of mutual trust.

For bona fide and good faith and a large quantum of go odwill and mu tual un der sta nding betwe en management and labour. Essentially the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba has ordained that it is in the public interest to foster and advance and not to hin der the harmonious relationship bet ween employers and employees. The second objective of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act is to encour age the practice and procedures of collective bargaining. _ To encourage the practice and procedures of collective bargaining they ar e ordaining and guar ant eeing to ever y employee certain basic rights.

Among these are the right to participate In the organ ization of a un ion, the right to become a member of a union, the right to participate in the activities of a union. Similarly on the other side, the labour laws of this province recognize that every employer has the right to partici pa te in organ izing an emplo yer's organiz ation. Every employer also has the similar right to become a member of an em ployer's organ ization and also the similar right to participate in the activities of an employer's organ ization.

Every person who interfe res with the basic rights of either the employee or of the employer as members of such respective organizations who makes what the law considers an unfair labour practice . When the employees organ ize themselves for collective bargaining, effec tively in the eyes of the law they become a union, a union with legal rights and subject to the rules and regulations governing the relationship between employer and employee .

The term "union" is broad enough to include also a feder ation of many organ izations of employees, even an organ izational unit composing only of a single employee, in case there is such. When a un ion is certified and ce rtification is subsisting, the un ion achieves a legal status in the law and it becomes a cer tified barg aining agent for the employee. Therefore it can act on behalf of a unit of employees appropria te for collective bargaining, whether it is a craft union, techn ical unit, employee union, plant unit or any other kind of union.

As long as it is a un it appropriate for coll ective bargaining they can act as a union and enter into a collective agreemen t.

To encou rage the practice and procedur e of collective bargaining, the industrial relations of Man itoba also enjoin every employer and every person acting on behalf of an employer at a critical time when the un ion is seeking to become a certified exclusive bargai ning agent for the employees, not to discharge or not to refu se, not to re-empl oy, not to transfe r, not to lay off , not suspend, not to alter the status of such an employee as a member of the union if such an emplo yee has applied for membership in the union.

Ther e is also a conti nu ing prohi bition to employers and persons acting on behalf of an employer not to participate or interfere with the fo rmation, selection or administration of a union in the process of representing the employees as the bargaining agent, or to contribute fina ncial and other supp ort to a union. In gener al, when notice to com men ce to collective barga in is given, the certified bargaining agent and the employer are both under the legal duty to bargain collectively in good faith with one another and to make every reasonable effort to arrive at a collective agree ment.

The thir d objec tive of The Manitoba Labou r Relations Act is to foster the selection of the union as the fr eely desig nated re pr ese ntative of employees in collective bargaining.

In Manitoba, as in any other Canadian ju risdiction, employees are free to form themselves into a union and to invoke legal sanctions in support of their collective right to bargain collectively on behalf of the employees. lt was the pursuit of this third objective of the Man itoba industrial relations Act that any employee exercising managerial func tions or employed in a confide ntial relationship with respec t to labour relations cannot interfer e with this process.

If during the time when the union is seeking to be certified such agent with managerial capacity intimates to the un ion that somehow the attitude of managemen t would change if they become a bargaining union, that will be a form of unfa ir labour practice. Also similarly, to foster the selection of a union as a fr eely designa ted represen tative of the employees in collective bargaining, every employer is prohibited from refu sing to em ploy or discha rg ing or discriminating against a person just because he had participated in some union activities.

No vember 14, 1990 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 1164 * (1 540) Briefly, The Manitoba Labour Relations Act has created a system by which it sought to promote the harmonious relationship between employers and employees, encourage the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and foster the selection of the union as the fr eely designated representative of the em ployees in the process of collective bargaining.

In this setting the question is: Given the so-called doctrine of free collective bargaining, is any form of compulsory interest arbitration jus tifiable as a fo rmal alternative to work stoppage as a result of strike or a lockout?

According to George Adams' Canadian Labour Law, two parties who seek to negotiate a collective agr eemen t ma y, instead of resor ting to work stoppage , either because of a strike initiated by a un ion or because of a lockout in itiated by managem ent, the two parties instead may resort to what is called "inte rest arbitr ation," whereby a neutral third party will be called upon to final ly decide all outstanding issues in order to arrive at a peaceful collective agreement either in accordance with the provision of a statute , or in the case of renego tiation under the provision of an existing--yet about to expire-co llective agreement.

The ques tion is: Is com pulsor y arbi tra tion compatible with collective bargai ning? What are some of the argumen ts against compulsory interes t arbitration to resolve labour disputes, and what are some of the argumen ts in fa vour of compulsory arbitration to prevent an impasse or a breakdown of collective bargaining.

Those people who ar gue against compulsory arbitration say that compulsory arbitration is a procedure that will ultimately destroy free collective bargai ning itself, becaus e allegedly it removes the freedom to negotiate by giving ultimate decisions to a third-party arbitrator to impose his opinion and preferences upon the conte nding parties.

The second argu men t is that com pulsory arbitration will have a narcotic effect of habituating the bargaining parties to avoid the rigors of hard bargaining, and simply rely upon the decision of the ar bitra tion board or the arbitr ator to write the collective barg aining agreemen t for them .

The third argumen t is that compulsory interest arbitration is alleged to have a chilling effect on the motivation of the parties to bargain in good fai th, anticipating that the arbitrator somehow will tend to compromise between the two positions, each party te nding to take extre me inflexible positions , avoiding the usual trade-o ffs in the hope that the arbitrator will split the dif fe rence in his arbitration award.

On the oth er hand, in support of the view that compulsory interest arbitration is compatible with collective bargai ning, it has been arg ued that interest arbitration is a procedure that is closely akin to other procedures in resolving labour disputes, such as th e us e of qua si- judicial tr ibu nals. Theref ore , the curtai lment of freedom by arbitration is not really a radical departure from the usual pat tern by indus trial labour in stitutions conflict-resolution mechanisms.

Secondly, co mpu lsory interest arb itration guar antees a finality that is needed in resolving labour disputes , and this finali ty is achieved without resort to a stoppage of work, without economic dislocation. Thirdly, the threat of ar bitration itself operates in the same way as the threat of a strike, and there fore arb itration .is equally ef fective in providing the needed incentive to the parties to negotiate in order to reach a voluntary agree ment.

Car l Steven, in a fa mous arti cle entitled Is Compulsory Arbitration Compatible with Collective Bargai ning, states that econom ic strike is the weapon by means of which each party may impose up on the other the unus ually high cost of disagreemen t. The economic weapon of a strike is the means used , will impose a high cost of disagree ment on the parties refusing to make concessi ons . This is at the hear t of industrial relations in our mixed, prima rily capit alistic, laissez-fai re economy.

Consequently, it has been argue d that compulsory arbitrati on is strike-l ike mechanism . lt is a method like a strike to which the party may impose upon the other party a high cost of disagreem ent, eve ntu ally creatin g upon the parties a motivation to seek the consensual zone of mutually preferred areas of settlement.

What is now the essence of the system that exists in Manitoba, a system we call final offer selection? lt is for the purpose of overcoming the chilling effect of conve ntional compulsory arbi trati on on the motivation of the parties to bargain in good fa ith for the purpose of reaching a voluntary settlement, that a new form of arbitration, wha t is known as-by diffe rent names, it is called either-or, last off er, or

11 65 LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 14 , 19 90 one or the other types of arbitration, but we in Manit oba have unde rstood it to be final of fer selection. Rnal offe r selection is the ultimate antidote that is offe red to ove rcome the chilling effect of conventional interest arbitration.

In other words, the fi nal offe r selection is design ed to remedy the chilling effect tende ncy of conventional interest arbi tr ation to undermine and sup plant the bargaining process in the sense that those who refuse to make concessions under the conventional interes t arb itra tion are given advantag eous positions, while those who concede and who make concessions and who softe n their position are placed in a disadvantage ous position.

Final offer selection atte mpts to increase the cost of the agreement of one party to the demand by the othe r party by eliminating the discret ion of the arbitrator to a compromise and fo rcing the arbitrator to select one or the other of the offer . There will thus be a mutual endeavour on the part of both sides of the contracti ng parties to offe r their best alterna tive. They will be reasonable on both sides, because if they become unr easonable there will always be this risk that the arbitrator will not choose their position, but will choose the reaso nable position.

Theref ore , it is an incentive to be reasonable and both parties will come closer to each other in their offe r and in their mutual offer so that a reasonable voluntary settlement could better be expected. Rnal offer selection came to us as a form of first con tract legislat ion. lt existe d also in ot her ju risdictions. lt existed in the case of the fede ral Government of Canada since 19 78 and also in at least five Canadian provincial ju risdictions. lt was fi rst initiated in British Columbia in 19 74, in Quebec in 19 77, amen ded in 19 83.

In Man itoba we came to know final offe r selection in 1 982 ; the legislation was amended in 19 85. 1n Newf oundland the system was instituted in 19 85 and in Ontario it was instituted in 19 86. In all these syste ms the common underlying theme of this fir st agree ment statutory provision is the legislative imposition of a first collective contract in default of voluntarily negotiated settlement. If the parties fai l to come to a volunta rily settled collective agreemen t, then the law will impose a first collective contract.

In Canada this fi rst agreement arb itra tion legislation is resorted to as an exceptional remedy, but in Quebec after the 19 83 am endment the first contract arbitra tion is considered simply as an ordinary remedy in the Province of Quebec. Even in British Columbia where the New Democratic Party under the leadership of Dave Barrett first initiated the syste m of first collective contract arbitration remedy, it was not the plan to use it as an autom atic response to an impasse in collective bargai ning. * (1 550) Paul Weiler, the fam ous chairperson of the B.C.

Labour Relations Board, later professor of law at Harvard Un iversity, noted in his book entitled, Reco ncilable Dif fere nces: New Directions in Canadian Labour Law that the main concern then in British Columbia was the "deadlock produce d because the parties were incapable of bargaining at all, especially if one of the parties- typically, though not exclusively, the employer-had simply not accepted the principle of collective barga ining itself." In such an exceptional situation an imposed collective bargaining agree ment is viewed as fully justif ied. Indeed, the B.C.

Labour Relations Board intended to use the first contract arbitration remedy only in the narrow range of situations where there is an ant i-uni on employer who was exerting all his en

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-24
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf 24.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e15befd8c9fe199c6d7706bf1da38d79e8bfc958

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