Manitoba Committee Hansard — 31 October 1996 (Public Utilities Committee, Sitting 8, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-pu8

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources Chairperson Mr. Frank Pitura Constituency of Morris Vol. XLVI No.8- 6:30p.m., Thursday, October 31, 1996 ISSN 0713-9454

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Atraliation Name Constitllenc)' Part)' ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETI, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. - FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATH LIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia PC . MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. - MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirktield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED. Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosano Swan River N.D.P.

323 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC UTILITIES AND NATURAL RESOURCES Thursday, October 31, 1996 TIME- 6:30 p.m. Ms. Joan Johannson , fo r Glenn and Noreen Duncan Ms. Grace Venema, Private Citizen LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba Ms. Catharine Johannson , Manitoba Young New Democrats CHAIRPERSON- Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris) Ms. Shannon Slater, Private Citizen Mr. Marc Beaudry, fo r William J. Hickerson VICE-CHAIRPERSON - Mr. Gerry McAlpine Mr. Paul Graham, Private Citizen (Sturgeon Creek) Ms. Jany Keenan, Private Citizen Ms.

Joan Johannson , Private Citizen ATTENDANCE - 10- QUORUM - 6 Mr. William R. Goddard, Private Citizen Members of the Committee present: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Hon. Messrs. Derkach, Findlay, Stef anson Mr. William R. Goddard, Private Citizen National Farmers Union Region 5 Messrs. Ashton, Helwer, McAlpine, Pitura, Sale, Sveinson, Ms. Wowchuk MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: APPEARING: Bill 67-The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act Ms. Diane McGifford, MLA fo r Osborne WITNESSES: Ms. Shirley Lord, Private Citizen Mr. Jack McLachlan, Private Citizen Mr.

George Marsh all, Private Citizen Mr. Thomas Novak, Manitoba Oblate Justice and Peace Committee Mr. Bruce Campbell, Private Citizen Ms. Marilyn McGo nigal, Private Citizen Mr. George Harris, Private Citizen Mr. Marc Beaudry, Private Citizen Mr. Peter Flynn, St. Matthew's Maryland Commun ity Ministry Ms. Jeanette Block, Private Citizen Mr. Sam Block, Private Citizen Mr. Roy Dudgeon, Private Citizen Ms. Marlene Vieno, Manitoba Network fo r Mental Health Mr. Mark Golden, Private Citizen Ms. Jean Wilson, Private Citizen Ms. Betty McGregor, Private Citizen *** Mr. Chairperson: Good eve ning.

Will the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources please come to order. The business bef ore the committee this evening is the consideration of Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reo rganization and Consequenti al Amendments Act. At this point I would like to inf orm the public of the other meetings that have been called to hear public presentations on and fo r the consideration of Bill 67. Following ton ight, there is a meeting scheduled fo r Friday, November I, at 9 a.m;, Saturday, November 2, at 9 a.m.; and, if necessary, Monday , November 4, at 9 a.m.

All these meetings are to be in this room No. 254. The notice fo r these meetings is posted on the board outside the com mittee room and on the notice boards outside the Legislative Chamber. This evening the committee will cont inue with hear ing public presentati ons. The list of presenters should be

324 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 19 96 bef ore all committee members, as well as posted at the back of the room. If there is anyone present this evening who wishes to appear bef ore the committee and has not yet registered, you may register with the Chamber staff at the back of the room and your name will be added to the list. The commi ttee has received written submissions to Bill 67 from Will iam Goddard, and from the National Farmers Union Region 5. The submissions have been distri buted to all committee members.

Does the committee wish to have them printed in the comm ittee Hansard? [agreed] Mr . Tim Sale (Crescentwood) : Mr. Chairperson, as the member fo r Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) just noted, at least the second page of mine is unrea dable. I do not know whether there is a better ori ginal anywhere , but- An Honourable Mem ber: The second page is good on mine. Mr. Sale: Is it? Would it be possible, Mr. Chairperson, fo r the clerk to assess whether we can get a rea dable copy or not, and if not, maybe we can contact Mr. Goddard? All we need is one good copy among us. Mr.

Chairperson: Confirmation is the clerk will agree to contact Mr. Goddard to try and obtain a good copy of the presentation fo r inclusion in Hansard. Is that agreea ble? Is it agreed we will attempt to obtain a good copy from Mr. Goddard? [agreed] *

(1840) Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Chairman, since there was some confusion on our listing of the comm ittees today, I would like to move, with leave of the co mmittee , that the honour able member fo r Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stef anson) replace the member fo r Turtle Mou ntain (Mr. Tweed) as a member of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources effective October 31, at the 6:30 p.m. sitting, with the Wtderstanding that the same substitution be moved in the House properly fo r the official records of the House. Mr.

Chairperson: Is it agreed? (agreed] Bef ore we continue with the public presenta tions , I would just like to remind committee members and the public present that the committee did agree at a previous meeting to a I 0-minute time limit on each presentations and a five-minute time limit on questions. The committee will still fo llow these . As well, the committee agreed to hear from all out-of town presenters fllSt, and the committee will continue that practice tonight.

There are currently persons regist ered to speak who are from out of town, and they are indicated as such by asterisks after their name on the list. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): As I was indicating to you before the resumption of the meeting, there is also one individual who has indicated she cannot come back at another hear ing. In fact she is, I think, leaving out of town tomorrow and she had requested to be heard ea rlier. It is presenter No. 74. Mr. Chairpenon: Did you wish to agree with that prior to the first presenter being called? [agreed] Then I would call Shirley Lord to come fo rward, please.

Do you have copies fo r distribution? Ms. Shir ley Lord (Private Citizen): No, I do not. Mr. Chairpenon: Please pr oceed. Ms. Lord: I can hardly stand the excitement at this opportunity to participate in democracy. The government has made such a concerted effort to articulate how significant this opportWlity is fo r Manitobans alone, and in the spring, in fac t, they tabled this stack of bills. Now these are just the amendments to the bills, and I think it is just great that we get a chance to speak to everyone of these bills.

Of course , you have to rra.lly also have the bill to speak to the amendment, and you have to also be able to interpret what the amendment to the bill means and what the true agenda of the government is. But we do get this opportWlity today and we come to speak to Bill 67, and people have come before to speak to other bills, and there will be further opportWlities to speak to more bills. Now, you also have to be available at short notice to come and speak. You have to be available to stay late at - -

, October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 325 night.

For many people, they have stayed until two and three in the morning around a number of bills, and then you have to also be fool enough to believe the government is going to listen to people making presentations who are concerned about bills, particularly a bill like Bill 67 that so significantly changes the delivery of telephone service in this province, and with the privatization proposals of the telephone system, it changes the way a public service will ever be delivered, and not only that, under the terms ofNAFTA, it almost ensures that we can never, ever get the system back in our control if they have made a mistake in their judgment about this; I mean, a significant bill that we would get an opportunity this week, if we can get here, to make those presentations.

The government does not even have the guts to go out in their constituencies and hold public hearings across this province, and it ; is the people throughout the province in the North and in rural areas, I think, I believe, who will be most significantly impacted by this. I guess, given what will happen under the terms of N AFT A once the system is gone, I want to know why there are no public hearings throughout the province. You know, I just cannot understand it. I guess the other thing I have some difficulty with is so many contradictions in all of these bills in terms of approaches.

There are significant attacks on the labour movement. One of the big attacks is in terms of having to ratifY their par ticipation in any political activity under the bills in The Labour Relations Act, and yet I as a shareholder do not get the opportunity to speak about a blatantly political fire coming out from the Telephone System, and there is no challenge to Crown corporations or others not to do just the will of the government without the ra iification by all of us shareholders. *

(1850) So I am really perplexed where this government is going. I have not prepared a written presentation, and I guess that is basically because I have been very busy over the last few months in helping people to at least get an analysis of the bills and get some understanding of the process and try to help facilitate participation in what many of us even challenged as a useless exercise because we do not feel we are being listened to.

But I think it is important to at least read into the record the conclusions in the document that was circulated, I know, throughout the province by Choices, including to all the MLAs in this building, and I know that for a fact because I was part of the delivery service because folks involved with Choices do not have major amounts of money and rely on-well, in fact, this document was in many ways the work of a few individuals over the summer who contributed their volunteer time in doing an analysis of all of the bills including Bill67.

For the record, I would just like to read that this vast legislative pro gmm before the provincial Legislature this fall including Bill 67 is part of an internal consistent strategy which reflects the priorities and values of the current Conservative government. It is a policy which will create two Manitobas, one for the rich and one for the poor. At the heart of this strategy is an approach to economic development that attempts to attract businesses from elsewhere by creating, quote, a good business climate.

What the government means by that phrase is a climate of low wages and labour standards and weak labour unions, few government regulations and privatization leading to opportunities for private profit.

This can be seen in a variety of bills, the social assistance policies which reduce welfare rates thereby even driving wages down, labour law changes which make it harder for workers to organize and make it harder for organized workers to defend their living standards, changes to the education laws which weaken teachers' bargaining power, changes to The Construction Wages Act which reduce skilled workers' ability to protect their living standards, an Essential Services Act which unilaterally reduces workers' bargaining power.

These bills also undermine Manitoba's democratic rig hts and the rights of independent organizations that Manitobans have created.

This can be seen in changes in the health laws to create unelected regional health boards, changes in social assistance laws which will make clear the way for the introduction of workfare, changes to labour law which make it more difficult for unions to speak out on public issues, changes in labour law which delay workers' access to workplace justice, changes in health laws which allow a government commissioner to determine which union a worker will belong to, changes in the universities and colleges law which will allow the government to take over internal decision making from the university senate, and selling off a publicly owned

326 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 199 6 telecom munication system at a time when public control over acce ss to changing technology has never been more urgent, limiting public input into determining the approaches to be taken to environmental cleanup of polluted sites. All of the above changes will contribute to the creation of two Manitobas, but they are not the only changes that hei ghten the divisions between rich and poor in our province. This can be seen in changes in welf are laws which red uce welf are payments when other family members have income, changes in health legislation- Mr.

Chairperson: Two minutes. Ms. Lord: -which clear the way fo r requiring payment fo r some health senrices, changes to the education system which will provide more opportu nities fo r students from wealt hier sc hool divisions, privatization legis lation which will create private wealth at public expense and leave rural and low income Manitobans prey to large rate incre ases. In conclusion, I guess, and parti cularly with this bill, I think it is absolutely incumbent on the members of the government to go out into the constituencies and hear from their members . Thank you. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much fo r your presentation . Questions? Mr. Ashton: As the presenter, I am sure is no doubt aware, we moved the motion early on to request hea rings in rural and northern Manitoba. I am wondering if you would care to comment on the fact that this government did not run in the election on any mandate fo r the sale of MTS, in fact said they would not sell MTS. Do you the ref ore think it is legitimate at all fo r them to turn around oow and suggest that they should have the right to sell off someth ing we have owned since 1908? Ms.

Lord: I think it is absolutely abhorrent that in one sense in some bills they are pushing fo r everybody to have a say in certain decisions and that they in fact run on a platform saying they have no plans to sell the system, and then-and we knew-I mean many of us knew we could not trust that, but many people believe and want to believe their politicians, that they are goin g to protect their services, and I think it is abhorrent that they have made this decision. Mr.

Ashton: I am wondering theref ore what your fe eling is in terms of whether this is not the beginning of a move to sell off other Crown corporations such as Hydro and Autopac, particularly given the fact that the Premier (Mr. Filmoo) is making stat emen ts that are eerily similar to the statements that were made about MTS only a year ago. Ms.

Lord: Well, I think there is no doubt that they have an agenda that will, by the end of their term, si gnificantly dismantle any Crown corporation, and make it absolutely impossible under the terms of NAFTA ever to gain control of our own province again, and give it away to large American corpora tions. * (19 00) Mr.

Ashton: You raise an important point too, because I know certainly there are many people, myself included, who fee l that given the lack of a legitimate process, you know, that the issue of repurchas ing MTS has to be on the table but as you point out, there are potentially some difficulties with NAFT A. I wonder if you would care to elaborate, because I know I got different legal opinions. Some people say, given the fact that MTS is not a monopoly anymore, that that overrides those provi sions. There are other concerns about the compensation clause.

I wonder if you could outline this to the committee because I know a lot of Manitobans that I have talked to are extremely frustrated about the fact that, not only is this going to be a decision, but that this might be a final decision, and there may not be the option to purchase it back. I think there should be that option but I am just wondering if you would care to comment on the NAFT A aspect. Ms.

Lord: Well, I am famil iar in a general way with the FT A and NAFT A, but the expert that I have spoken to is Maude Barlow, and she has indicated very clearly that it will be almost impossible fo r us to ever regain control of the telephone system once it .is sold off and that we have to leave the door open always to private American com petitioo in terms of the agreement under the FT A and NAFTA. Mr. Ashton: Thank you fo r clarifyin g that point.

I am wondering, if it was not a difficulty with NAFTA, would you fee l that it would be appropriate fo r a future government to reverse what is clearly an undemocratic and, in my mind, an illegit imate decision?

October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 327 Ms. Lord: I do not think there is any doubt. In fact, I would not even be surprised that we might even look at challeng es to NAFf A, if there is some question about that. Mr. Ashton: I think you raised an important point, because I, fo r one, do not fe el that this government has any right to sell off MTS and I do fe el that the repurchase of MTS is somethi ng that everyone should be aware of, that this government will not be in government fo rever.

They certainly will not be a government fo r much longer if they continue to ignore the people, and I appreciate the information you are putting on the record, that they are doing it in error in which they, through their previous Cons ervative fe deral counterparts, have made it much more difficult to make a public policy dec ision such as repurchase, and you may be right, it rri ay have to be challenged.

I am just wonde ring, you mentioned about the overall agenda of the government, in particular the inconsistency between Bill 26 and adver tising what they are doing, but I am wond ering also if you would care to comment on what we have been hea ring from presenters, that there seems to be a general move by the government to take away control from many Manitobans and move it into a much smaller group, either the cabinet through ministerial power or, in this case, to the corporate sector.

As you know, the board of MTS will have government repr esentatives only so long as this private company still owes the government money . I am wonder ing if you see this as part of the bigger picture. Ms. Lord: Yes, and I think what really concerns me in the broader framework of some of these bills is that the challenges under the labour legislation in terms of disclosure, in terms of a number of issues, they do not say the same things in terms of the corporate friends.

Every salary of a corporation is a tax write-off, so every private corporation's salary including those people who purchase the telephone system-and I hear that one of the rumours is that Disney World is looking at it, can we not just hardly wait-that every one of those salaries should be publicly disclosed. We need legislation that provides balance in this province. It has been a history of balance.

In terms of even previous Conservative governments, there has been no one that I have ever seen in my 25 years involved around political issues and caring about an active caring role in my commun ity that is in one session fundamentally changing how this province operates and signi ficantly shifting the balance of power in favour of corporate interests and their own narrow interests . Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Lord. Time has expired. Thank you very much fo r your presentation. I will now start calling out -of-town presenters . Dave Tesar ski.

Dave Tesarski-this is the second call-not here, name will be dropped off the list. JoAnne Hamilton. JoAnne Hamilton, not here, name will be dropped off the list. B.E. George. B.E . George, not here, name will be dropped off the list. Now I have National Farmers Union spokesperson. I understand that there is a submission, too. Okay, the name to be dropped off the list. Ian Robson . Ian Robson, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Jan Chaboyer. Jan Chaboyer, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Kim Fal lis. Kim Fallis, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Susan Tjaden.

Susan Tjaden, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Brenda Portree . Brendra Portree, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Jasper Robinson. Jasper Robinson, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Phil Oakes. Phil Oakes, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Rod Murphy. Rod Murphy, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Colleen Seymour. Colleen Seymour, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Garnet Boyd. Garnet Boyd, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Ray Cantelo. Ray Cantelo. Mr. Ashton: I talked to Mr. Cantelo earl ier.

He indicated he was going to try and get in from Carberry on Frid ay. I assume he can get back on the list at that time. That is the standard pra ctice. Floor Comment: Rere gister. Mr. Ashton: I will communicate that to him. He is not here tonight though. Mr. Chairperson: Ray Cantelo is not here, so the name will be dropped off the list. Susan Tait. Susan Tait, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Heather Emerson Prov en. Heather Emerson-Proven, not here, name to be

328 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 dropped off the list. Keith Proven. Keith Proven, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Lyle Ross. Lyle Ross, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Brad Mroz. Brad Mroz, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Antoine Desrosiers. Antoine Desrosiers, not here, name to be dropped off the list. John Whitaker. John Whitaker, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Bert Beal. Bert Beal, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Erwin Baumm ung. Erwin Baummung, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Anthony Riley.

Anthony Riley, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Margaret Hayward. Margaret Hayward, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Bill Sloane. Bill Sloane, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Jean Dixon. Jean Dixon, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Fred Tait. Fred Tait, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Ken Sigwdson. Ken Sigurdson, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Chris Tait. Chris Tait, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Ken Rosentreter. Ken Rosentreter, not here, name to be dropped off the list. Sorry, could not read the graphics here.

Ken Rosentreter's name has been dropped to the bottom of the list. Henry Reske. Henry Reske, name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Isabella Proven. Isabella Proven, name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Larry Reske. Larry Reske, name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Stewart Hamilton. Stewart Hamilton, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Raymond Froese. Raymond Froese, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Ken Winters. Ken Winters, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Wayne Sotas.

Wayne Sotas, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Brad Mcdonald. Brad Mcdonald, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Andy Baker. Andy Baker, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Elgin Tapp. Elgin Tapp, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Anna and Irwen Folick, not here, dropped to the bottom of the list. Mel Christian. Mel Christian, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Lydia Spitzke. Lydia Spitzke, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Laura Henderson.

Laura Henderson, not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Joan Scorgie. Joan Scorgie, 179 , not here, name to be dropped to the bottom of the list. Wilfred and Louise Hudson. An Honourable Member: They do. Mr. Sale: They have moved? Okay. They are a different Wilf and Louise Hudson then. Is there one in Fort Garr y? Mr. Cbairpenon: Now where was 1-Leo Spitzke. Leo Spitzke. Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Just for clarification, have these names not been called before, or are these ones that have just been added? These are new names? Okay. Mr.

Chai rpenon: They are not here; their name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Randy Proven. Randy Proven, not here, name is dropped to the bottom of the list. Jan Rogers. Jan Rogers, not here, name is dropped to the bottom of the list. That comprises the out-of-town presenters that are so marked. I will then start from the presenters from the city. Now call Jenny Gerbasi, Jenny Gerbasi. *

(1910) Mr . Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I do not know if she will arri ve. She was here today, this morning, with her child. She is a young mother of four children, I think it is, and I have a strong suspicion that Halloween would take precedence over MTS. It is difficult for people like her, because she works during the day and she had time off this morning. She thought she would get to speak because of her position on the list. I would just ask that the committee not put her at the end if she is here and able to speak. I know that child care and work are a problem.

So I would just make that point that in this par ticular case she was here this morning until twelve o'clock and thought she was going to get to speak. Mr. Chairpenon: I would think if she comes to the committee meeting and requests special leave that the committee will consider it at that time. So at this point in time her name will drop to the bottom of the list. Jack McLachlan, would you please come forward. Mr. McLachlan, do you have copies for distribution? Mr. Sale: I am not sure whether there may be an error, Mr.

Jack McLachlan (Private Citizen): I just have but I do not think that Wilf and Louise live out of town. notes. - -

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 329 Mr. Chairpenon: Okay, please proceed. Mr. McLachlan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Jack McLachlan, as a speaker speaking as a private citizen but also speaking from a Judea-Christian background. So I want to mention that at the beginning here. MTS, as we all know, is a publicly owned company, and I as a citizen own part of this company. It has provided a great service to Manitoba, both to the city and to the rural parts of Manitoba. Our assets as citizens are being sold off, and we are told that they will be more efficiently run in this process.

So as I look at this, sort of from the outside, can the government guarantee that all citizens will receive phone service and p�one service at a rate they can afford? Will that be true for Winnipeg and for the rural parts of Manitoba? Or, it is going through my mind, will it be like the railroad here in Manitoba where it has become privatized but the North is sort ofleft to its own devices. If that happens with the railroad, which is a very essential system, what will happen to MTS? Will the south have service, and will the North be abandoned?

I know the framework that comes as a bottom line sort of framework, and that bottom line says that we abandon that which does not pay. The bottom line says we can make real money for the shareholders if we cut the weaker parts adrift, and the bottom line says we will not share the cost of keeping the communities, such as Sarto or Sprague or Birch River or Manigotagan or Wabowden, we will not share the cost of keeping those alive and as part of our phone system. We do not care about the communities. We really only care about our profit.

Now I am saying you have misjudged us if you believe that we are, in the end, just a group of consumers. We, in Manitoba, are citizens. Now citizens want to look out for one another, and that is the difference between citizens and consumers. The consumer mentality says it is alright, turn the province into a market, and let market factors sway the day. It is the same when I am asked to subscribe to Sprint telephone, as they phone me up and inquire whether I will switch from MTS to Sprint, and when I say that I will not, I am asked, sort of in a clincher argument, do you not want to save money?

I reply, I want to save my community. People in the city who work for MTS are part of my community. People throughout the pr�vince are also part of my community, those who work for It and those who receive services, also the future. People growing up to look for jobs are part of my community and part of my future community. As it has been docum ented, as I have listened here, in so many of these briefs, the work of MTS can be moved to other parts of the country and other parts of North America.

So, is it just this bottom-line mentality that is going to take over and say that it is not the community that is a concern, it is just some consumers that had concern, and what will make the best profit for us as consumers? I believe history will show us we have taken a tragic fork in the road, and we have shamefully sold a heritage of this province for pocket change to entrepreneurs. It is like that we have cut down the apple tree for the apples. I would not like my grandchildren to be studying our history and to ask, why, as a community, did you allow this to happen?

What wiU be the legacy as leaders of this province when the record of history is examined in the future? *

(1920) Now, in conclusion, I would like to ask how did we get this way and how did we get into this kind of mindset. WeU, part of my work is to study history. The ideas that I see floated here and I have heard all in this debate, they arose in the 17th Century. They arose with Hobbes and Voltaire and now it seems that they have come to full flower, not only in this province but in the globe. It was Hobbes and Voltaire who said: I exist independent of anyone else. You may have heard the slogan: I exist, therefore, I am. All this says is that the goods of the world belong to the fittest and to the strongest.

The fittest and the strongest are the ones that can acquire these; therefore, it should belong to them. It is the engine behind this American philosophy and global philosophy. So many of us are a part of that and we are unaware of where it comes ftorn, what its implications are and where it is leading us. It is a form of social Darwinism. It is saying, in effect, humankind is like the animal kingdom and in the animal kingdom the strongest survive, and therefore, they should be let to have their way. Now, as I mentioned, I come from-

330 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 1996 Mr. Chairperson: Two minutes left. Mr. McLachlan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman-! come from a Judea-Christian background of which I am a part, and I believe that humankind is to care and to share with one another. Now you could say that that is a philosophy and a theolo gy, but I think it is a very basic one to humanity. I believe that when humanity moves to this other way of thinking, eventually not only does it destroy the weak but eventually it destroys the strong.

I believe that we are setting out on a road that is inherently dark and dangerous for the weak, but it is also dark and dangerous for the strong. I would ask the members of governm ent to rethink their position and to rethink this out of the heritage of which you have all grown, because you have grown out of this kind of soil, whether you realize it or not, and I believe this other methodology has taken over and has become, as it were, a fundamentalist's methodology and is accepted without any critical examination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman . Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. McLachlan. Questions? Mr .

Sale: Thank you very much, Mr. McLachlan, for your presentation. I believe you spent some of your working life in rural areas in Manitoba. Could you outline why this is a particular concern of yours, perhaps reflecting on the time that you spent in rural pastorates in Manitoba? Mr. McLachlan: Yes, I spent 30-some years in rural Manitoba, covering a good part of Manitoba, Steinbach, Carman, Dauphin, so I am well aware of the far reaches of the smaller communities and how essential it is that they be connected up and how essential it is that they be a part of any decision making.

I am well aware also of their wisdom. I feel, like so many of them being called tonight and are not able to be here,

whereas if a hearing was held in Swan River or in Brandon or in other parts, that many could be. I feel that these are the people, the ordinary people of the Earth that need to be heard, and it is essential that they be heard. Mr. Sale: Many ofthe people of churches, including the ones that you have served, are vulnerable people, and my own experience I guess is that telephones are both a defence and a means of social survival in not only rural areas but in urban areas where those who are mobility restricted or have other restrictions. Has this been your experience with people that you have served?

You talked about a dark road for the weak, and essentially I want to ask a bit about that road, and then I want to ask about the dark road for the strong. Mr. McLachlan: Yes, weU, I can remember back to the time when in early '30s, I saw telephone wires hanging aloogside the road and I asked my father what they were. He told me that is when we have telephones. In those times, if some of us were sick, we had no means of communication. My father would have to walk three miles to a telephone. I can see that coming in the future.

People in remote farms , in remote areas, remote villages, also in northern communities, they had to communicate by means of crank phone. So they are left vulnerable in a medical emergency and other kinds of emergencies. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chair, just my last question to the prese nter. You talked about a dark road for the strong, and I think often we do not recognize that some of the decisions we take around power and around privilege can have dark consequences for the strong and not just for those who are immediately impacted. Can you reflect on that, as you said in your presentation? Why would that be the case?

Mr . McLachlan: Well, in my reading-I read Jeremy Rifkin's, just one person, there are many others-if I think back over the last three years , I think of at least l 0 people who said like we were 10 years away from revolution. Rifkin is saying that people in the boardrooms are very uneasy that sales have flattened out and that Christmas sales are flat.

They are beginning to recognize that they are firing their customers, and though the stock exchange has never been higher and everybody is saying we are making more money, but that is only 5 percent of the population, those who are the stockholders and those who own essentially the wealth of the country. But below this is a great mass of people who are becoming very uneasy. I can sit down at a coffee shop and it is not long before it drifts around to the subject.

Five years ago, that would never happen that people would talk openly about their hostility and their anger about what is happening, and a sense of foreboding. So, if we think that we are going into nirvana by going - -

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 331 upscale and by placating the very powerful, I think we have to remember that they stand on the shoulders of the weak and those shoulders are getting weaker and weaker. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Time has expired. I would like to call Kim Milne. Kim Milne. I have also had a request for leave for the committee, speaker No. 191, Mr. George Marshall would like to present tonight. He was here for the previous three days and did not know he was on this morning and ended up at the bottom of the list. Is there leave for the committee to hear Mr. Marshall? Some Honourable Members: Leave. *

(1930) Mr. Chairperson: Marshall, please. distribution? Leave has been granted. Mr. You do not have copies for Mr. George Marshall (Private Citizen): No, Sir. Mr. Chairperson: Please procee d. Mr. Marshall: Mr. Chairman, Monsieur president, Mr. Minister, Monsieur ministre, other members of the committee, les autres membres. My name is George Marshall. I am a native Manitoban and a native Winnipegger. I have from time to time stood in this place in support of government, but not tonight. My 36-year career was spent in communications with the Manitoba Telephone System.

There is hardly a town in Manitoba that I have not either stayed in or driven through during that period I have seen Thompson grow from a stretch of pre-Cambrian rock into the thriving capital of the North that it is today. I have seen the extraordinary co-operation between the two sister utilities, MTS and Hydro, in the late '60s and early '70s when the people of northern Manitoba brought power to the south and the people of southern Manitoba took communications into the North.

I have seen the extraordinary growth in service in rural Manitoba at some cost, but on the fundamental premise that every Manitoban, wherever he or she may live, should have private access to the network. Imagine, private access to the world in your own living room wherever you live in Manitoba. That is not a small achievement. Mr. Chairman, communication since the beginning of civilization has been and is the essential human connection. To be involved in connecting people for some time is a somewhat noble endeavour and to be involved for 36 years in that endeavour brings to one a sense of mission.

I could not possibly discuss, with my background, the merits or demerits of the sale ofMTS. I will not even try. My academic background is in political science and economics. I hold a master's degree in political science. Not surprisingly, my argument will spring from my studies and not from my life's work. I hold that this government, my government, does not have a mandate from the people to privatize MTS, and when I say that, I guess I had better explain it.

At the last provincial election, that five-week window every four or five years when the people have power, one of the candidates for First Minister said, I have no plans to privatize MTS. Now two things spring from that. First of all, the people can reasonably conclude that MTS is not going to be privatized; secondly, other aspirants for government can reasonably conclude that the privatization of MTS is not on the agenda. Some weeks and several days past that date the people of Manitoba bestowed on this candidate their power, and he assumed power in the province.

At some point later, as a third milestone, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) decided that he was going to privatize MTS. Now let us be clear. We are not talking about something that occurred during the life of the government and something the government had to deal with as a governm ent, not at all. The three milestones I am talking about are clearly this, and I do not think there is any dispute about this: First of all, that the minister as a candidate said he would not privatize MTS when the people had power; the people bestowed power on this candidate; and then this candidate decided that he was going to privatize MTS.

Does anyone believe that this is appropriate political behaviour under our British parliamentary system? If anybody does, I would suggest a crash course in Political Science l 0 I. Mr. Chairman, the government does have two options. It can go to the people if it thinks the issue is strong enough, or it can shelve the issue and go to the people in

332 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 a general election with other issues that are important to the people of Manitoba. If the government pr oceed s, in my view, it is an offence of one of the fundamental principles of British parliamentary democracy. Secondly, in my view, they are an offen ce of the people of Manitoba we did not consult, we know, and strangely enough the government is even in offence of itself when it was a more considerate and more caring government in minority. In my political studies, I developed two theories.

Theory No. 1 goes like this: Temporary politicians and temponuy governments, and all politicians are temporary and all governments are temporary, if they are temporary for too long, they become arrogant. Theory No. 2 states that there is a direct relationship between the arrogance of the government and the size of its political mandate. With respect, Sir, if the government pr oceeds with the legislation, it will have fulfilled both my theories.

In my view, the government is guilty of an abuse of power, and the government is suggesting to the people of Manitoba that this is a temporary government that has been around for too long. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chair person: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Ashton: I want to thank the presenter for putting a very different view to this whole question. By the way, I raised a matter of privilege earlier today which goes I think to the heart of many of the things you were talking about, statements that were made during an election and statements and actions afterwards that contradicted that.

To my mind, it is more important than the politics of the day. I believe there is a real decline in this province in the sense of the parliamentary system that you talked about. You referenced temporary governments. I remember one politician who subscribed to that was a former Conservative Leader, Sterling Lyon. He often used to lecture governments about being temporary custodians of the public will and it seems to me that somewhere along the line that has been lost. I am wondering if you would care to comment on what you see is the essential balance yourself in this parliamentary system.

We have had a tradition not only of the kind of tough partisan politics we have in elections but also that sense that even when you are in power that you do listen to people because you are only trustees. I am wondering if you would care to comment on that. Mr. Marshall: Mr. Chairman, Churchill said, this is the worst form of government except for all the others. The minister, who sits across from me as the Minister of Transportatioo (Mr. Findlay), is putting a roadway in that I have been waiting for for 25 years, so I do not think I can gene ralize. I think I have to deal with this specific issue.

I think this issue needs discussion and needs debate. Mr. Ashton: In the province of Saskatchewan-I just want to contrast two different approaches dealing with the very same iss ue, Crown corporations. They have held public meetin gs throughout the province. They have had public discussions throughout Saskatchewan. Here in Manitoba, we have had no public meetings, no discussions. There certainly had not been any discussions around this during the election.

I am wondering, if you think the least the government should have done is followed some sort of process of consultation, some sort of development of a consensus in the province since they obviously did not have a mandate from the people in the election. Mr. Marshall: I think this process on this one issue is out of sync, and I would like to confme it to this one issue. Someone asked earlier whether this would be a model for future government behaviour. I do not know. It may well be but I doubt, I very much doubt. My political sense tells me that no further steps will be taken without an election. Mr.

Ashton: So you are suggesting that perhaps the public uproar that is following this process may be enough to, if not, stop the governm ent on this specific issue, perhaps not lead to a generalized situation where they feel they can do it again? I guess you are suggesting, that by violating the parliamentary approach in this case, they may perhaps learn their lesson? Am I sensing some sense of optimism? Mr. Marshall: Governmen ts tend to march to their own drummer, and I think this government is marching to its drummer. I just think it is marching a bit too quickly. Ms.

Ros ano Wowchuk (Swan River): Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Marshall. You talked about having seen the development and expansion of Manitoba Telephone across the province. Those developments, I saw lots of them, too. I grew up with no telephone and -

, October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 333 went from where we had a switchboard operator at the store, to party, now to private lines. We are very fortunate to have the service that we do now. Do you believe that-[ interjection] I beg your pardon, sir. Floor Comment: One long and two short. Ms. Wowch uk: That is exactly right. Our ring was one long and two short. Do you believe that we would have seen this kind of expa nsion to all parts of rural Manitoba and most of northern Manitoba had it been a private company that was in charge of our telephone services in this province? Mr.

Marshall: I think history teaches us that it would not be the way it was, because in 1908 it �carne a public utility because the private sector could not put it together. It is very different now. It is together. I do not want to get into merit. I am talking about the people having an opportunity to comment through an election, and I thought that aspect of this bill is not appropriate. I would hope that the government would not go through with it for the reasons I stated. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Marshall. Time has expired. Thank you for your presentation. Mr.

Marshall: Thank you for giving me leave. * (1 940) Mr. Chairperson: Call Thomas Novak. Thomas Novak, please come forward. Do you have copies for distribution? Mr. Thomas Novak (Manitoba Oblate Justice and Peace Committee): Yes, I have 15 copies here. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Just give them to the clerk right there beside you. You may proceed. Mr. Novak: I will skip a few paragraphs, otherwise I will be over time.

In his recently published book, Angus Reid, the well known Canadian pollster, has written: Pollsters have been struggling to express the sense of anger, pessimism and despair that has dominated the public mood. In a recent interview on CBC's Morningside, he explained that he believes that the source of this anger is the deep insecurity that is gripping our nation. This insecurity is largely due to the corporate and govern mental downsizing that has resulted in one-third of Canadians suffering from anxiety over the belief that their jobs are in jeopardy.

But, as he explained, another important source of this growing anger, pessimism and despair is the new and growing divide in political opinion in this country that is based on income. This division based on the gap between the haves and the have-nots, the haves whose preoccupation has been increasing privatization and reducing the debt, and the have-nots is relatively new in Canadian society.

He said if you look at the essential characteris tic of Canada as an inclusive society, as a civil society where historically we have tried very hard to include everyone who lives here, and at least some basic social programs and health programs, that is we move with this class divide, it is possible that some of the underlying civility of Canadian society is going to fall by the wayside.

In short, like an increasing number of Canadians, Angus Reid is concerned about the breakdown of the Canadian social contract, of the national consensus that has been developed over many generations about what constitutes the essential economic and social fabric of our society. For the second time in a month, members of the Manitoba Oblate Justice and Peace Committee have felt compelled to come and speak to members of our governm ent about our deep concerns about the direction the province is taking and how this new direction is deep ly hurting the most vulnerable and defenceless in our communities.

The Manitoba Telephone System was organized, so we understand, 88 years ago by the same government which built this magnificent building. That government, it appears, had an exciting vision of what kind of society the province of Manitoba could become. It was determined that the most effective way of running the telephone system would be a monopoly. Now the govern ment of Rodmond Roblin, by no means a foe of the business community, could have simply turned the whole thing over to the well-established private Bell

334 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 system, but they did not. They created a monopoly that would belong not to financial speculators who live thousands of miles away, not only to those who could aff ord to buy a substantial number of shar es, but to all the people of Manitoba. In doing so, they gave expression to the widespread conviction that if the province was to grow and prosper, then the people of this isolated comer of God's creation would need to retain control over some of the essential elements of the economic infrastructure.

Since, the people of Manitoba have been remarkab ly loyal to and proud of their telephone company. Indeed, recently new private long-dist ance companies have publicly exp ressed their frustrat ion that Manitobans seem to pref er to buy their long-distance services from the publicly owned telephone system rather than from their private- and fore ign-owned systems, despite a bedazzling variety of enticements fo r them to switch.

Although the curr ent publicly owned system appears to be as healthy as any private system in Canada, although phone rates are as low or lower than the rates of larger private companies in other parts of Canada, we insist on seUing it off to those whose primary interests are not the needs of the people of Manitoba but the size of their profit margins.

In another government department, although the Manitoba system of home care fo r the elderly and disabled has been fo und to be the most efficient and cost effective in Canada, if not in the western world, we lay plans to replace it by companies whose fundamental co ncern is not the physical and psyc hological well-being of our sick and disabled neighbours but the well-being of those comp anies' personal and corporate bank accou nts.

We cannot help but wonder what has happened to the vision of the government of Rodmond Roblin that erected this incred ible edifice at the same time as they were establishing our public telephone system . In 1908, Manitoba was still a very small and inconsequential part of North America, yet our government realized that if Manitoba was to become strong as a society, we would need symbols and institutions we could trust as looking out fo r our best interes ts.

We fe ar that if the spirit that animates the present government would have been haunting the government that built this edifice, the government of Rodmond Robl in would have decided that the people of Manitoba could not aff ord to own their own government building, that the resources needed to house the seat of government would be better spent on the private sect<I, and that the Chamber which embodies the communal needs and spirit of the people of Manitoba would be best housed in a privately owned suburban sho pping mall.

But what is happening in our province is far more serious than the erosion and dismantling of precious symbols and institutions . Like Angus Reid and others who reflect oo what is happening in our cities and town s, we are deeply trou bled. While we argue about who is to make profits on phone service or the deliv ery of med ical services, our comm unities are collapsing around us. The anger of dise nfranchised young people is burning up our inner city streets and the main roads of many isolated communities.

Angus Reid says that our society is splitting in two aloog the yawning chasm of an econom ic fault line, but the greater tragedy is that many of our governments, who fo r several generations have seen their role as creating bridges or occas ionally of even trying to eliminate that chasm, are now throwing dynamite into the fault so as to make the canyon even greater. Social assi stance rates are slashed over and over, and minimum wage rates fall below the poverty line. New regulations are brought in to make it almost impossible fo r workers to orga nize new unio ns.

Tuition fee s fo r universities are raised, programs designed to help the econom ically disadvantaged gain education are systema tically dismantled. Progres sive tax systems are replaced by reliance on raising revenue through VLTs and casinos, and a public utility is sold off despite the near certainty that the sale will result in a large segment of society no longer being able to afford a service they had once taken fo r granted.

In short, the government of Manitoba, like other governments across North America, appears to have bought into the current trend of govern ing fo r the interests of an eve r-shrinking circle of a fe w of us who possess wealth and power. For the rest, well, if we can only build a bigger and a deeper chasm between us and them, if we just build higher electrified fe nces to keep them out <I bigger prisons to keep them in, far away from the rest of us, then our own little neighbourhoods will be safe and all will be well with the world.

The gangs that are gradu ally taking over many neighbour hoods in the city of Winnipeg and the streets of - -

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 335 other Manitoba commu ntttes did not arise because suddenly a generation of young people has been born evil. Rather we believe that the rise of the street gangs is the almost inevitable result of this process of dividing the community into the haves and the have-nots , the powerful and the powerl ess. The children of the poor- Mr. Chairperson: Two minutes. Mr. Novak: -the dis empowered and the excluded have come to fee l they will never be able to share what the rest of us have on the other side of the divide.

They have come to consider government and most of the other institutions of our com munity as no longer their own. So they have created their own institutions, their own economy, their own laws and their own governm ent. That is what a street gang is. So we have come before you today to plead with you to set aside this divisive strategy of separating the sheep from the goats, the chosen from the damned.

We ask you to reconsider the direction in which our province is going, to try to regain a little of the sense of govern ing fo r the whole that has characterized so many previous Conservative governments in this pro vince. In the book of Deuteronomy, the sacred writers sought to give voice to the will of the Creator fo r the people of Israel. They stated, there shall be no poor among you. Our ancestors in the faith believe that the sign of society at rights with its Creator is that there be no chasms between us and them, no electrified fe nces to protect one segment of the society from the other.

As the Catholic bishops state in their recent pastoral letter on the elimin ation of poverty, it is God's intention that the good things of this earth be shared by all humankind. It falls to everyone to ensure that all are accorded here and now their just share. That is the challenge that we must face together. By collaborating with those who have been so sorely tested by poverty, Canadians can discover new, more equitable solutio ns. So we ask you, as you listen to the statements today , that we try to find a new sense of the common good, a new social consen sus. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you fo r your presenta tion. Questions . *

(1950) Mr. Sale: I find it really inter esting that tonight we have had three essentially moral and ethical presentations on what is probably seen by many as a narrow, technological and econom ic issue. Obviously, from my own background, I welcome the challenge that you are putting to us, and I hear echoes of Amos, Hosea, and Micah and all of the greater and the lesser prophets in what you say. You speak on behalf of a Cathol ic order . Can you just describe a bit of what you see as the practical consequences ofthis decision? You have challenged us with some theological vision.

Can you tell us what you see as some of the practical consequences that will be real fo r the peo ple you know? Mr. Novak: I have worked in northern Manitoba, and I have worked in the city especially, with abori ginal people in the inner city. Already, many of them have a hard time to afford a phone. If you are on social assist ance, as you know, the social assi stance does not consider a phone a necessity.

If you are trying to get a job and you are on welf are, you are stuck because you can send in all the reswnes you want but if you do not have a phone, no one is going to call you to tell you that there is a job waiting fo r you. If you have no phone and you have children in school and something happens, you have no way to know. I am very afiaid fo r the people that I work with of phone rates going up as they have in other provinces where the telephone system has been privatized, and especially the fe ar in the North where people are even more isolated, more dependent on phones.

Another practical-maybe a less practical--ron sequence I think I am very concerned about, is that decisions like this are being made despite the fact that hundreds of people have come to say that we have deep concerns , and when the government says , well, we have made up our minds already, it does not matter how many people come to talk, the people I talk to become more and more disc ouraged with the political system, and they just decide it is no use. It does not belong to us. There is a lot of anger, and you can see it especially in the native community.

This is white man's governm ent; this is rich people's gov ernment ; it does not belong to us. There is this incred ible sense of frustration among people, and it is starting to boil into violence. Now a lot of the· violence is not direct- people are not going out with picket signs,

336 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 1996 and they are not marching, and they are not taking up guns and setting up barricades. What they are doing is they are making, as I have said, their own governments out in the streets, and they are knocking little old ladies over and they are breaking into people's houses, full of anger and doing home invasions. To me, this is directly linked to the deep frustration that people are feeling, that they do not belong anymore, that our governments in Canada are run for someone else. Mr.

Sale: So then one of the things that you are saying, consistent with the pre vious two presenters, is that the price of this kind of unethical behaviour, that is, promising one thing and doing another, is not simply an economic price in terms of phone rates, but there is a social cost to the kind of consent that we all give to be governed, that ultimately people are withdrawing that consent, and at some point, it boils over. Mr.

Novak: I am active in elections sometimes like most of you are, and especially when I go in the inner city from door to door, people just say, well, it does not matter; it does not matter, they are going to do what they want. I just hate when I hear that. Every government is going to do what it wants to do. They are not going to listen to us. So we are having this breakdown. How can a democracy function if the people out there do not feel that it is worth voting and the only way they can be heard is to do something violent? We are very lucky in Manitoba our predecessors have instituted these kinds of discussions.

I think we are the only province of Canada where people can come and speak to every bill. It would be very sad if this kind of forum would cease to exist, but it is just as sad when the forum does exist and people say, well, it does not really matter if we go and speak or not, they have made up their mind already. What I hope that we can do when we come to this is that we sit down and try to find a consensus and take each other seriously, even those of us who feel we are not on the same side of the issue. Maybe there is some common ground.

It distresses me deeply when we make up our minds even before the committee meets. It is like there is no common ground. Maybe there is. That is what I have always been working for all my life. Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Ashton, for a quick question. Mr. Ashton: I just want to follow up on that because I know repr esenting a northern constituency, it is often a concern . What often bothers me the most is when I hear people say, it does not matter, they are going to do what they want. Even when I hear on this issue when I have talked to people, there are considerable number of people who say, what do you expect?

I am wondering if you have any comment on whether you see any sort of similarity to what the previous presenter talked about a few minutes ago in terms of the parliamentary system, because my sense of the parliamen tary system was always that it instilled a sense of duty amongst parliamentarians to do more than just simply get elected and then act in whatever way they felt was the appropriate course to go but to use their judgment which also included listening to their constituents. We have a direct election system in Canada where like the British system you vote for somebody that represents you.

I am wonderin g if you see some connection between this alienation and the decline in the parliamentary system that somebody referenced e& Her? Mr. Novak: I will try to be brief I grew up very excited about politics and very active in politics when I was young and convinced that this was a wonderful system and enjoyed the game of it and enjoyed the repartee that we see in the House. But then, I have the privilege of living among aboriginal people for many years and realizing that maybe this is not the most healthy system where we argue at each other and throw barbs at each other all day.

This would just be out of the question in an aboriginal community. People sit down, and they say there is a problem. They discuss, and they do not quit discussing until everyone in the room has agree d, and then they can go. That might take days, months, years. but we do not move until there is a consensus. I have been converted to that. That is how I function now when I am wOOcing in committees . My dream is that we would learn something from aboriginal people and be able to function more that way than the kind of adversarial system that just seems to be losing the interests of the people of our country. Mr.

Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Novak. I call Ami Arnasoo. Oh, Mr. Helwer with a committee change. Do you want to use that mike, Mr. Helwer? - -

October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 337 Mr. Helwer: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have leave to rescind the motion I made earlier because there was some mixup. Mr. Chairperson: Is there leave fo r Mr. Helwer to make a committee change? Mr. Helwer: It is not really a committee change. It is just rescinding the motion that I made earlier. Mr. Chairperson: You are rescinding the motion that you made earlier? Okay. Is it agreed? [agreed] The second call fo r Ami Amason . Not here? Mr. Amason's name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Jean Altemeyer.

Jean Altemeyer, not here, her name will be dropped to the bottom of the list. Btuce Campbell. Please come fo rward. You do not have cop ies fo r distribution? Mr. Bruce Campbell (Private Citizen): No, I just have my not es. Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed. Mr. Campbell: First I would like to thank you fo r listening to me and fo r having this opportunity to make this presentation. I would like to begin by saying that I definitely am a capitalist, so I am not here because of a union affiliation or because of a socialist cause per se.

I believe in capitalism to the point where when I turned 18 during the Vietnam War, I emigrated to the United States and served two years in the American Army. While in the United States during that era, I realized some of the things that I did not like about capitalism. As an example, while stationed in Texas, there was a strike-not even a strike, it was the way that the labour laws read in Texas. When a contract was not signed by the expiration date, the contract was null and void, and the employer could hire anybody that they wanted, which was exactly what they did.

A week bef ore Christmas, all the phone lines went down and nobody could make a phone call over the Christmas weekend. So when I saw things like that and living in Texas seeing the poverty there, I realized what I had when I had been growing up in Canada and that, yes, there is a place fo r capitalism but there is a place fo r a social conscience as well. That is why I made the decision to not remain living in the United States. It was because of the things that I felt Canada had along with the capitalist notion and the work ethic that many Americans have; there was also a social conscience.

That is what I see this bill as a part of taking away. Within that capitalism, there is a basic thought that if you are the one who drills the well, you are the one who gets the profit from it. We all heard the story about the chicken. Nobody would go out and help in the farm, and then suddenly the crop comes in and everybody wants it-wants their share as an example of how capitalism is better than socialism.

Well, capitalism to my mind, as far as MTS is concerned, means that those people in 19 08 that put the bucks up front, that took the chance, made the investment in what was an unsure technology at the time, are the ones that deserve the prof it, and they continue to deserve the pro fit. To take that profit away at any point because suddenly it is too successful is not fair to the people who made the original investment, the people of Manitoba and their children and grandchildren, fo rever. That is the way it works with an oil company when they drill a well.

That is the way it should work with MTS, fo r the people of Manitoba. *

(2000) I think that there is fundamental problem also in the way that we often calculate our costs of doing business. When we take a dollar out of the Manitoba economy and send it to Ontario or down to the United States, that dollar would have generated at least $3 within the economy.

So when we take a job fo r MTS, and, yes, that person living in Mexico may be willing to do the job fo r 50 cents a day, but the money that the worker in Manitoba would have earned would have been recycled again and again in Manitob a, so taking that money out of Manitobans' pockets fundamentally is not good capitalism, and it is not good fo r the over all economy .

The other area that I think we have to look at from an economic viewpoint is that when an individual in Manitoba earns a dollar, they are going to give probably 30 cents, 40 cents of it to the provincial government between PST and provinci al income taxes, so part of that money is already coming back to the prov ince. I work as an accountan t. When I worked at Inland Cement, we were building a new extension to the plant. We were

338 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 19 96 using our own cement purchased through another company. We were using contractors that were all part of our company, so when we looked at the real cost we factored in the profits that each of the companies within the family were making to take into account what the true cost was, so I do not believe that it is reas onab le in the case of a publicly held corporation to not use the same type of logic in taking into account what the true cost is when money is being recyc led, when money is coming back into the economy .

One other major concern that I have is our inability to reverse this. It seems that once this bill becomes law and ever ything is basically cast in stone, that this is how the sale is going to take place, it would be extremely difficult in five years under possibly a different Conservative government or an NDP or Liberal government to reverse that decision.

As despicable as I fmd the labour legisla tion that is coming into effect or appears to be coming into effect in Manitoba, and when my son asked me, what are we going to do about it, I can at least look to the next election and say that no matter what party somebody is from, I am going to make sure that they believe what I believe on that bill and that it can be reve rsed . I believe that that is a fundamental difference in selling off a Crown asset, is that once it is sold it is basically go ne. Whether it is Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Telephone or any other Crown asset, it is virtually impossible to get it back.

These were things, these were investments that were made by the people of Manitoba, and I do not believe that we should be taking them away from future generat ions . I also fee l that there seems to be a thought, and I know other speakers have addressed this, that if a company is profitable, well, it belongs in private industry, and then when we hear that som ething is not making money, well, private indusby could do it better so it belongs in private industry.

There does not seem to be a correct equation fo r how much or how little a government business or Crown corporation can make, whether it is the Manitoba Liquor Commission or MTS. It seems to me that if something is work ing and is working well fo r the people and bringing money into the gove rnment, that it would be foo lish to turn around and sell it off when the income that you are going to get fo r the sale will not be coming in in 50 years, but if we hold onto the asset, we can still be getting that income in 50 years .

We do not increase our net worth by selling off assets to pay down debts or to pay anything else off because they offset each other. There also appears to be ample evidence that the items that have been sold from MTS were sold at far below their market value in any case. There seems to also be a thought or an idea that the public sector, as opposed to the private sector, cannot do anything right and that whatever they are doing, it could be done better by the private sector.

I do not believe that there is any way that that has been shown, and I believe that that unde rlying assumption is wor king against the people of Manitoba. I fee l that if this government had intended doing that, taking these measures, that it should have been made clear at the last election . Barring making it clear at the last election- Mr. Chairperson: Two minutes . Mr. Campbell: -it should as a minimum have been taken to all of the people of Manitoba. I appreciate the opportunity here to get in my 2 cents worth, but I believe that everybody in Manitoba should have had the opportuni ty.

If that meant a travelling road show around the province, then I think that that would be reasona ble, so that at least there would be some honest interchange and feed back from the people. lbere is also basically a concept that we have all seen cartoons about and ever ything in various publications that would indicate that if somebody works fo r the government or for a Crown corpor ation, they are lazy and they are not going to be haid workers and, gee, as soon as they get out there in private industry, they are going to be good hard worker s.

I have worked in private industry and I have worked fo r the government, for the federal government, and it simply is not true . Employees want to go to work . They want to have a good fee ling about their job. They want to fee l good when they come home at night and that does not matter where they are wor king, an employee is an empl oyee. They want to fee l good about themselves . We all have seen many studies that indicate the importance of jobs to individu als, the importance of careers and how people fee l about themsel ves, which is why job loss is always so traumatic fo r individ uals.

That does not matter - -

October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 339 whether they are using the Manitoba model of a special operating agency to attempt to sell off some of the civil service jobs or the alternative service delivery that we are hearing about in the fe deral sector. I theref ore beg you to reconsider this position, take it to the people at an electi on-and hope fully not hidden in some other item like what is happening with the Jets and suddenly all the other issues kind of disappear behind that, but as a real choice in direction for the people of Manito ba. Thank you. Mr . Chair person: Thank you very much. Question, Mr. Ashton. *

(2010) Mr. Ashton: I want to follow up on some of the things you were talking about. I think you pointed very succinctly to the whole dilemma that those who support Crown corporations-which is I believe the vast majority of the people of Manitoba-find in the sense that you find governments arguing, wel l, if they do not make money sell them and if they do make money sell them, so I appreciate your looking at that particular aspect.

But I am wonde ring- just following up on your general talk about the economic system, et cetera-if you do not find it strange that in eff ect as you have said we are the shareholders of MTS in the sense that we have invested in it, you know, it is the people of Manitoba, and that if this was a private company there would have to be a vote of the shareholders,

whereas in this case the government is not only not pro posing any special vote now on the specific question but did not even have that as part of the election in the last election. Do you fe el that there should be the same basic prin ciple applied to this being a public company as would be applied to a private company? Mr. Campbell: I think that the basic concept has to be the same, but I do not fe el that we necessarily need a ref erendum .

Say, if you were in the United States to do a similar ma jor transaction, we have all seen that in the upcomin g elections in the United States, many states have 15 , 16 extra items for every individual to vote on, different types of money bills and different types of policies . In the United States I believe something this major that was this much of a sale of a government asset, they would be taken to the people with that opportunity, not in a separate ref erendum which is obviously very costly to run, but tying it into an election that says the people of Manitoba want you to sell this.

If the people of Manitoba say no, then it does not matter who is in power, they do not have the mandate of the people of Manitoba to do that. From what I understand, there has been a minimal amount of effort by the party in power, by the govern ment, to find out what the people want to do the detailed surveys that could have told them what direction the people of Manitoba want to go. It is more driven, from my viewpoint, by an ideology as opposed to either an economic sense or a sense of what the people want. Mr.

Ashton: I fmd your comment very interesting in terms of running surveys or having raised it in the election, because we know objectively this was not an election issue. I think it is very clear to everyone that the governme nt does not have that public support. In fact, I want to ask you what your thought is. I mean, if they had said in the election that we will sell off MTS, do you think that they would have received the same mandate they received by saying the complete opposite? Mr.

Campbell: Well, if I am right in the sense of what I am saying, other people whom I know, people whom I work with, what they are telling me, then, no, I do not believe that they would have had the same mandate. I think it is important that a government has a clear mandate, a clear direction of what they want to do, not simply an ideology that says we are capita lists.

It has to be, to my mind, a more solid-okay, we are capitalists, but this is what we believe is best for Manitoba and this is how we are going to implement it, not just a general sense that supposedly the NDP are all socialists and the other are all capit alists. I do not think that it is that straigh tforward. People are a combination of both, and it is important that the public know how an individual stands and can trust how they are going to vote based on what they are being told. Mr.

Ashton: I suspect what has happened is I would just think there was a consensus on such things as ownership in Manitoba Telephone System, Hydro and Autopac. It appears that there is a consensus of the public but that the governing group has shifted from that. I just want to follow up on your experience in the United States , because I mentioned this in the committee

340 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 last nig ht where there was an open-line show and somebody phoned in from North Dakota about six months ago. It was very interesting because that person said do not sell off your publicly owned phone system, and this person talked about how it was more expensive to phone from her home to the county seat in North Dakota than it was to phone to Winnipeg, and when asked why, she indicated it was because the private telephone company knew exactly where most of the traffic was . Most people had to phone to the county seat.

Very few had to phone to Winnipeg, so what they did was they maximized the price on the area in which people had the least choice in terms of phoning, and I am wondering if you feel that that is the kind of direction we are headed here, based on your own experience in the United States. Mr. Campbdl: From my own experience in the United States, it is very much more so profit driven instead of realizing that there is some social commitment to, say, areas like the North, you know, areas that may not be as profitable.

There is a commitment in the United States to say that those people can go die and that we are going to look after where we can bring in the absolute best return on the dollar, and that is a basic capitalist notion. I am not saying that that is wrong in every sense, but there are certain industri es, certain things like health care and education, where that is not better for the overall society, where it works against the social system. That is why, as I said, a big reaso n why I moved back to Canada.

I know I have met a number of Canadians who are quick to say, oh, if I had the chance, if l could get a green card, I would be in the States tomorrow. I just look at them, well, live down there for a while and you might be coming back up here. Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Campbell. Your time has expired. I call Barbara Martin. Barbara Martin, not here, the name wiU drop to the bottom of the list. Pat Martin. Pat Martin, not here, the name will drop to the bottom of the list. Alida Friesen. Alida Friesen, not here, name will drop to the bottom of the list. Robert Lang.

Robert Lang, not here, name will drop to the bottom of the list. Marilyn McGonigal, please come forward. Do you have a presentation for handout? Ms. Marilyn McGooigal (Private Citizen): No, I just have a verbal presentation thi s evening. Mr. Chairperso n: Please proceed. Ms. McGonigal: Mr. Chairperson and members of the committee, I am a lawyer and here speaking somewhat in my professional capacity and also as a private person. I have practised law for approximately 18 years in Manitoba, mainly in the family law area, and I have represented over the years many single parents, many poor people.

The vast majority of single, custodial parents are women. The vast majority of single women, custodial parents, are poor . Usually, single parent men do not have the circumstances that I will be referring to in this presen tation. My concern, I am greatly concerned about the women in our society and these women in our society particularly . The sale of MTS treats the telephone service as a luxury or a consumer commodity of choice. This is not true.

This government is by thi s action and by many other actions in other areas contri buting to the f eminization of poverty and indeed to what I call the war on single women and their children. They are doing this by offioading the economic and social costs of inequitable society onto women and their children. The federal governm ent offioads to the provincial govern ment; the provincial government offioads to the municip alities; the municipal and city governments offload to the di sadvantaged in society by cutting back on their services, by withdrawing and withholding necessary services.

The cutbacks to the social safety net are done to solve fiscal problems aeated by people with the power to create them and not by single women, sole parents, and their children . What does the sale of MTS have to do with sole parents, mainly single women and children? You have heard how the telephone service is a lifeline to the disa dvantaged. The very first speaker eloquently presented her case from a wheelchair, and she is one type of disadvantaged person in society. Telephone service is a necessit y.

One parent cannot leave children alone to seek help or go for emergency supplies or for any reason leave their children in the night or if they are ill or when -

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 341 they have no one else to care for them. Affordable and accessible telephone service is vital to single paren ts. As a government provided service, the objectives of equitably serving the vital needs of citizens are at least monitored by vote rs, and social policy can prevail with control of the service. In private hands, serving the bottom line, the owners' objectives, include no such social objectives . I want to teD you the story of a woman I encountered in my practice. She is a vegetarian. She is on welf are. She has two children .

She terminated an abusive relationsh ip, but being in an abusive relationship, it went on with an ongoing competition for custody of the children. It was clearly a control issue. The father, in what illustrates an abuse of the telephone services, telephoned welf are to say that she does not have the children 12 days a month because he has access to them then. So provincial welf are cut back $55 from the food budget of this woman. The father, of course, had no obli gation to take the children for his acce ss and frequently did not.

This father in fact refused to take the children if they had a cold or flu or were going to be in any way a bother to him. In order to keep her telephone and give her children meat in their diets, this woman becam e a vegetarian. Now I want you to consider the way in which selling MTS to private concerns is going to affect the women and children in this province when we already have circum stances , and I see a growing number of cases in which welf are budgets are cut back.

It is a very clever move by the way on behalf of provincial and city services who do this, or the provincial actually, usually with mothers and children. They cut back on food budgets because of the access orders that are given in court even though access is not positively enf orceab le. You can enf orce your access if you are being refused access to your children, but you do not have to take them and fe ed them for the weeke nd.

It seems to me to be contrary to justice to cut back on food budgets, but it is a fact that a telephone is such a neces sity that this woman gave up food-and other women have to give up many nec essities in order to have a telephone. *

(2020) I want to say this story illu strates a number of things including different forms of abuse . Abuse takes many sur prising form s. I am also very interested in the issues of viole nce against women; for instance, I attended the Lavoie hearings and I am looking forward to that report . I am a member of the coalition opposed to violence against women, although I speak as an individual here tonight. I am aware that the telephone has a lifeline, becomes an issue of lif e and death proportion s.

You absolutely have to have telephone service if you are either a single parent or sub ject to various criminal acts that come under the rubric of abuse, stalking, other crimes, threatening one's life- threaten ing one's economic well being is certainly one of the means of abuse that is commonly used . It also is a fact that the negative aspects of having a telephone are that the telephone cord may be used to strangle a woman . I have had a case in which an attempted murder was averted but attempted in that way. A telephone itself is used to bludgeon people; telephone services are used to harass women .

But I have to say that the existence of a telephone in a woman's home has saved many victims and prevent potential victims . The issue for you members of this committee and members of the prevai ling government of the day is that the telephone service must be afforda ble, and aff ordable services must be available to single women and to abuse victims and to rural women in Manitoba. How does the sale of telephone service owned by all, to be owned by a fe w, serve the needs of these women? I ask you to address that question. I can illu strate some of the problems that arise with costs. Mr.

Chairperson: Two minut es. Ms. McGonigal: Thank you. In terms of the cost, what will happen when the services become privatized is that there will be the piecemeal sale of servi ces. Already women who own simple telephone services must dial star 69 or 67-wh atever it is, I have forgotten-to block telephones who have call identification-which is one of the first things abusers do is get their call identification telephone s, and indeed it is part of the control syndrome that is a part of the abuse of women in society. You can do it.

You can learn how to block these calls, but you have to do it with every call you make out.

342 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 If you have paid fo r an unlisted number-and I believe some steps have been taken as a matter of government policy to reduce the cost of owning an unlisted number because it is necessary fo r one's personal safety-if you pay fo r that service you also have to pay, I believe, there is a service cost-per-c all fo r using the services to block identification of a telephone call.

These costs are beyond the budgets of women with chi ldren not only on welf are, but I have to say I have represented many, many women on legal aid certificates who are not on welf are , who have never been on welf are. They are either struggling on student loans or struggling with part-time work because there is no full-time work fo r them. Even if their salaries are good-and I say that fo r instance in the food industiy and the unionized industries and that, the salaries per hour are good but they cannot get more than 20, 21 hours a week to work.

They are not anywhere near the budget that you think they have if you think their hourly income is repr esentative of other peop le's, so these people have to now pay for that. What is a private company going to do? They are going to be selling off these services pie cemeal, and they are going to be adding this charge and that charge to every use of the telephone made by wom en. Mr. Chairperson: Excuse me. I am afraid your time is up. Ms. McGonigal: Okay, could I just make one last point because I want to support the rural lifeline. Mr. Chairperson: Leave? [agreed) Okay, go ahead. Ms.

McGonigal: I do not practise in rural Manitoba, but we must absolutely pay attention to the fact that rural women are very much in jeopardy of losing their ability to provide that safety line of a telephone line if services are not going to be provided by private owners to them. I will leave my comments there other than to say that the respo nsibility fo r violence and death of many women who canno t afford telephone services will be on the heads of the government of Manitoba who sells the MTS system. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you fo r your present ation. Ms.

Wowc huk: Thank you fo r that presentation on behalf of many women within the city and in rural Manitoba who need this impmant service. I want to talk about the rural aspect fo r one moment. You talked about afford abilit y, and we know that right now our basic service in rural and northern Manitoba is subsidized. In fact, we had discussion where in rural Manitoba we pay somewhere between $13 and $15 a month, but the actual cost can be up to $35 to $40 a month .

If a private company comes in-and, of course, the ob jective of a private company is to make money and make profits fo r their shareholders, so we are concerned about where rates will go and what the rates will be and how afford able it will be fo r all rural Manitobans but specifically women in rural Manitoba, many who are single mothers, women who often end up on social assistance. What do you think the impact will be on them? Do you see any private company that is going to sacrifice their profits in order to keep the rates low, so that we would have this insurance of services fo r rural people? Ms.

McGonigal: WeU, I have to say that as much as the ecoo omic aspects of this matter are not directly in my line of expertise, it is perf ectly obvious that if the service is going to cost a great deal or cost more than it should, more than the way it has been distributed in Manitoba now, then the service will be discontinued, or it will not be off ered by private intere sts. By analogy, any paper carrier would pref er to serve a large apartment building with 500 apartm::nts in it than to go down a countiy road serving people that are a mile or two apart to give them the same service fo r the same cost.

As such, one can easily see how the rural service is going to cost too much to be provided by private services unless there is a gov ernm ent policy. Unless there is go vernm ent ownership and government policy to back up the need fo r providing this service, I do not see how it can continue especially in Manitoba. *

(2030) Ms. Diane McGift'ord (Osborne): Thank you very much fo r your present ation, Ms. McGo nigal . The gist of your presentation, as I understand it, is that the sale of MTS and the escalating costs for telephone service would increase the risk of abuse, stalking, harassment fo r Manitoba wom en. - -

,. October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 343 Ms. McGonigal: Absolutely. The point about that is very clear, that one of the first things an abuser tries to remove from a woman is control over her com munications with authorities and any others who can assist her. Most abusers are, in fact, cowar ds, and when they are faced with authority or consequences, they will be deterred significantly from doing the harm they intend to do, and having a telephone is a significant advantage in this situation. Ms.

McGiffo rd: Then without a telephone a woman may well be left alone in her home with no way of communicating with the outside world and have a batterer or an abuser at her door or breaking in and really be left to it. Ms. McGonigal: Yes, that is correct. Absolutely. Ms. McGifford: On the, I suppose, brighter side of things, not when it comes to the sale ofMTS however, you have indicated throughout your address that Crown corporations can be instruments of progressive social policy.

My understanding from MTS is that it has indeed functioned this way as far as hiring women in some senior positions , and I wonder if this is one of your fe ars, too, that the progress that women have made in an institution like MTS may be reversed with privatization. Would you like to comment on that? Ms. McGonigal: Yes, I certa inly would believe that it is going to jeopardize the gains we have made for women in Manitoba to sell a profitable Crown corporation that has social policy, that reflects a social conscience that we fought very hard for.

You may or may not be aware that I fought a very hard battle, along with many other women in the '70s, for the changes in the family laws in Manito ba. I am very proud of that fight, and I am proud of the results that we gained with that lobby. I would certainly see that that is highly jeopa rdized by the policies of a government that would privatize- well, not only MTS but, in other ways, reverse those philosophical gains. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Your time has expired . Ms. McGonigal: Thank you. Mr . Chairperson: Thank you. I call Charlene Ball.

Charlene Ball, not here, her name will go to the bottom ofthe list. George Harr is. Please come forward . Do you have copies for distribution? Mr. Ge orge Harris (Private Citizen): No. Mr. Chairperson: No. Please proceed. Mr. Harris: Good eve ning. I would like to begin, because of some concern in the audience-<>ne of the members of the committee has been certainly busy re ading a magazi ne-and I would like to reassure everybody that in fact he is a very capable person who can do two things at once.

It was not disrespectful to the previous presenter who was presenting a very serious matter of a need of a telephone system for people who are subjected to incred ibly violent behaviour, but I would like to just reassure you that the member of the committee is in fact a very capable person and is able to do two things at once and because he was so intently read ing, I would li ke to explain to you why he was so intent on what he was readi ng because this is some new territory for him, although he reads some of the same materials I do. He was reading an

article about the gulf that grows between the rich and the poor, and I will just read from it for you so that you get that sense of why he was so intently rea ding. The wealth of the world's 358 bill ionaires is greater than the combined annual incomes of countries with 45 percent of the world's people, accord ing to a UN report . This is the logical consequence of turning over the world to market forces . What the market does is just concentrate more ruthl essly into the hands of a very fe w peop le-imagine, 358 people.

I will bet that there is probably gett ing close to that who have signed up to present to this bill, and those people, their wealth is equiv alent to the annual incomes of countr ies with 45 percent of the world's population. What a wonderful world. The other thing which would have surprised Mr. Helwer probably is that reading down in the article, the UN ref ers to five different kinds of undes irable growth, and the first on the list is jobless growth . Hey, we have heard that, have we not? The next one is ruthless growth where only the rich benefi t.

The next one they ref er to is antidemocrat ic voiceless gro wth. Hmm. Inter esting.

344 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 1 996 The fourth one is WlSustainable futureless growth, and the fifth one is rootless growth. When I see our govern ments-and it is not just this government here in Manitoba-selling off public assets that have taken decades to build to people who are already wealthy, because those are the people who will buy it, I see the government contributing to the same kinds of growth that you are talking about here.

This government is talking about selling off other public assets, but I guess we should just go through and catalogue exactly-when I am looking at these things trying to figure out-who benefi ts and who loses and that basically tells the story. The first one is, imagine a person on social assistance. Sell off MTS and what you will get with the person on social assistance is higher domes tic telephone services. That person is not going to benefi t.

You look at a person in northern Manitoba, that person is going to get higher rates because the private companies will not have any mandate to serve, and they will be trying to get into this whole game of cost-recovery kind of thing, and it is all in the interests of protec ting certain people. You look at low -income people, they are going to have higher domestic rates; they are not going to benefi t. Try to think of who is going to bene fit.

Well, what has happened with der egulati ng the marketplace is in fact businesses-w ell, our long distance rates have bee n subsidizing domestic rates, so we have been footing the bil l-wi ll certainly benefit, certainly businesses that do the longer distance kind of business. The very local businesses, your local bakery and all that, the family owned business that does not have to do too ter ribly much, they will not benefit from that because most of their calls are local calls but your bigger businesses will that have to do longer distance busines s.

I think you can go through any number of examples and just do some kind of a taxonomy of it, and you will see who benefi ts and who loses. So when I look at this bill, what I am seeing is a government that is working for these 358 bill ionaires. The government is not working for me . We are subjected to all forms of propaganda. In the Winnipeg Free Press I am always appalled each time I take out the page and I see the faces, the 10 Most Wanted, as ifthey are the ones that are doing the bigge st damage to our society . I would like to see some of the faceless people of these big corporations- Mr.

Chairperson: You have two minutes . *

(2040) Mr. Harris: Oh, you are tired of hearing this. I would like to see some of those face less people who contribute to the devastation of people's lives, not only here in Canada, but in other countries. They are nothing-in fact, they are far worse than those I 0 Most Wanted that we see portrayed regularly. I would like to see their faces, but they hide behind these corporate structures , these private boardrooms where with the stroke of a pen they can throw people out of work.

They are not mae efficient because efficiency is only measured in dollars, so if you can drive those wages down, you can make more profits and it looks more efficient, but it ain't. People are not working any better there ; they are just working for far less. So my presen tation is basically it is appalling that this government is deciding to sell this public corporation. The governm ent has no mandate; people have said that many times bef ore. When I talk to people about MTS, they tell me regularly, the government has no mandate.

We the public have invested in this, and we the public should have a say in how to proceed. Just simply succumbing to the market forces, the stock markets that basicalJy say to us, jump up in glee when corporations lay off tens of thousands of worker s. The markets jump, what wonderful news . What a perverse world we are living in. Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, sir, your time is up. Questions? Mr.

Ashton : I want to focus in on your ref erence to the faceless people in the corporate boardrooms because what particularly frustrates me is that the prime report the government is using to justify selling off MTS is a seven page document from three Bay Street brokerage firms that are now going to be benefiting from the sale of MTS. I have used the term "conflict of interest" because I think that is what it is, but I think personally that is scandalous that you have this group.

We still do not know how much the government paid for this advice, but one cent would be too much because I think anyone could predict that three brokerage firms on Bay Street are going to say, what, do not sell it. I mean, I think we know that. - -

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 345 I am wondering how you fe el as a Manitoban when the government is using this document which they re ceived, by the way, on April 30 and announced the decision on May 2, two days later. Mr. Harris: Well, I am not surprised. I am not surprised that instead of consulting the peop le of Manitoba they would consult brokerage firms. It fits into the model that I was trying to _pr oject that this govern ment appears to be working for the 358 bill ionaires and maybe quite a fe w other people with hundreds of millions of dollars .

They are certainly not work ing for the hard wor king average citizen of this province. Mr. Ashton: I am wondering how you also fe el, too, about the fact that AT&T -weU it is called AT&T Canada now, it is classified as a Canadian firni by the CRTC because the majority of the shares are held by three Canadian banks-has already indicated, in fact, Mr. Bill Catucci, the president of AT&T Canada who coinci dentally used to work for AT&T in the United States, they are interested in purch asing MTS. This is a comment that has been made publicly.

A lot of people suspect that if they do not purchase shares in the first round that this is the kind of potential buyer that we are going to be fuced with down the line. And this is, by the way, the same company that in the United States laid off 40,000 people. What happened was the share price went up, executive salaries went up. I am wonde ring how you fe el about the potential loss ofthe Manitoba Telephone System to a company like AT&T Canada. Mr.

Harris: I am almost certain, and I am not saying it would be AT&T, but it would be some company of that ilk that will take over MTS as soon as the very weak protections that are in this legislation are no longer there and that is only going to be a relatively short period of time because what we have here is a good public asset which will in fact liquidate any liability that is on the books. Mr .

Ashton: I am wond ering, too, if you are aware of the fact that I mentioned those bank s, and I think people may ask the question why three Canadian banks would invest in what was then Unitel, which was not doing that weU in terms of its finances until the Canadian Bankers' Association published an

article in the Free Press a fe w months ago saying that the banks do not make a lot of money. They said there are industries that have a higher rate of return than the banks, and guess which one of the sectors was? Pri vately owned, regulated telephone companie s. In fact, if you look at what happens under the CRTC which is supposed to protect rates-and the government is puttin g a lot of emph asis on that-this is what happened in Alberta. AGT went to the CRTC and said, we had a major problem with a tax liability, it was supposed to be a $2.5- billion write-off. They missed it by $1.1 billion.

They said, if we do not get a rate increase, we will only get a 2 percent return on equity. Now they got it up to 6. 1 percent and, in fact, they were allowed the ra nge. The officially allowed range is up between 10 .25 and 12 .2 5 percent. Well, to put it in layman's term s, essentially they can pass on their mistake to the customers in Alberta in the form of a $6-a-month rate increase, and they are seeking another $6 a month.

How do you fe el when now the government is saying, do not worry, we have the CRTC to protect us here and the CRTC in fact is ensuring that these private companies make a rate of return that is more than that made by the Canadian banks? *

(2050) Mr. Harris: Well, again, it is not something that surprises me. l have the greatest distrust for anything in the large corporate sector. I have seen it work ing internationally, that it is very, very difficult to get any reliable inf ormation in the first place from the private sector. Try to get any inf ormation of the behaviour of the tobacco giants or the oil companies; you cannot get any reliable inf ormation from them.

They are the worst type of-there is language I cannot use here-but they are despicable, evil people and nothing less than that, and we are now wanting to turn over our public assets into those hands. I am not for one moment saying that the publicly run corporations are perf ect. Of course, we are not living in a perf ect worl d, but we are moving to a much more imperf ect world with this kind ofmeasure. We are just concentrating wealth more and more in the hands of a fe w people with less and less accountab ility.

It was very interesting listening to news earlier today, and I do not know how true this is, but it seems that our government here is adopting much of that problem with discl osing inf or mation. There was an access to information request last year on the Winnipeg Jets and it

346 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31 , 1996 is now being disclosed, and maybe that is not the subject here, but it is just now being disclosed that documents were not released when they were asked for in public information. Now if governme nts can do that, the private sector is much more capable of that. They are only accountable to their shareholders ; they do not have to reveal anything to me. Mr . Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentat ion. I call Lisa Bukoski. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr.

Chairman, just for information, I want to ask whether we are following the same rules as we were for the last two nights, that we would sit till twelve o'clock and then not call names after 12. Are those same rules applying for this eve ning, or has any different decision been made? I ask the question because I was not here for the early part of the committee , so I am not sure if there was any decision made. Mr. Chairperson: Unless I get diff erent direction, I will probably follow the same procedu re. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you. Mr. Chairperson: Lisa Bukoski, not here . Her name will go to the bottom of the list.

Marc Beaudry, please come forward. Do you have handouts? Mr. Marc Beaudr y (Private Citizen): No, I have someth ing to read, but it is just for myself Mr. Chairperson: Please proceed . Mr. Beaudry: I do hope, though, that most of you have Bill 67 in front of you because I will be ref erri ng to it from time to time. Good even ing, Mr. Chairperson, honourable minister, members of the committee. I like to think that I am a fairly intel lig ent guy.

Heck, I have been to law school, but after learning as much as I could about MTS, after listening to many of the presentations to this committee and after studying the bill itse lf, I have to admit I just do not get it. By all accounts, MTS is a profitable company. We are told that between 1990 and 1995, it earned a hundred mill ion dollars in profit; in the first six months ofthis year, 15 million. That is not bad. By all accounts, MTS is providing top-flight servi ce. Rural party lines are largely a part of history now.

Fibre optics are virtually everywhere and most people say that MTS has the most advanced communications system in North Ameri ca. Also, by all accounts, Manitoba phone rates are among the lowest, if not the lowest, on the continent . So why are the Conservatives selling it? I do not know, but I would like to talk about a fe w things that I do know. The first point is that the government has no mandate to se ll. Many presenters have said this, so point two, public input has been minimal. Bef ore me, there have been a fe w dozen presente rs.

After me, if the list outside is accurate and everyone shows up, you may hear 200 people, maybe 300, in a population of one million. Public hearings, only after the bill is introduced . These hearings must conclude by November 7; hearings only in Winnipeg, and the weather conditions have excluded most people living in rural Manitoba, even though it has been suggested that people living in that part would be most aff ected. These two points alone lead to serious questions about the democratic accountability on this issue.

None of us in this room voted on this, and you people did not promise this, and you people do not agree to this, so, democratically, I cannot see why we are going forward. Obvious point three, MTS is a big corporation.

Now, just for comparison, my mortgage is up for renewal tomorrow, very small in comparison to MTS obviously, but, you know, I have thought it through, and I am not sure whether I should go for the six-month or lock in for a longer term, but I have thought of what is going to happen in the coming months and years, and I think that is important to do in deciding what I should do now, because I should be protect ing my future interes ts. Anyway, let us get to the bill itself.

I understand that the legislative agenda has been particularly heavy in this session, so I would not be surprised if many of you have not had the chance to read this, so I would like to go through several sections of it that may surprise you. To begin, Premier Filmon has reportedly promised, quote : Our first priority is to ensure Manitobans continue to -

October 31, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 347 control MTS. That way, all they have come to love and trust can be prot ected. This bill fails to satisfY the Premier's first priority, that Manit obans control MTS. Consequently, and for other rea sons, too, I think it also fails to protect much of what Manit obans have come to love and trust. Let us start with owne rship. There are two clauses that are escape hatches allowing individuals and corporations to own more than the legislated maximum of 15 percent aggregate shares in the company. These are Sections 18 (5) and 18 (8).

Just to ref er to them quickly, 18 (5) reads: "Notwithstanding subsection (l) , a person or a group of associated persons designated by the Lieutenant Governor in Council may bene ficially own in the aggregate up to twenty-five percent of the total number of issued and outstanding voting shares of the corporati on."

Section 18 (8) reads virtually the same: "Notwith standing subsection (6), a person or a group of associated persons designa ted by the Lieutenant Governor in Council may beneficially own in the aggregate up to twenty-five percent of the total number of issued and out standing voting shares of an affiliate of the corpor atio n." These clauses suggest one of two thin gs. The first, the government already knows who the 25 percent owner will be, and you want to facilitate the acquisition of effective control of the phone system either by AT&T or Bell or whomever it happens to be. This suggests, if you believe No.

I there, that the government is not being up front about its intentions to allow a single player to dominate the new MTS. That is wron g. The alternative exp lanation is that the government is concerned that an independent MTS, small and poorly capitalized, will founder in the continental market without a strong partner. This may be true, but if this is the case, it seems that the government has grave doubts as to whether a private MTS can survive . Based on that, I would invite the minister to recons ider this bill.

Beyond the question of owne rship, the government is saying that MTS will not be fundam entally changed by Bill 67. Bill 67 says otherwi se. There is a series of clauses on fundamen tal changes contained in

Section II . These clauses prevent the new MTS from dissolving, amalgamating, liquidating or leaving the province with consent of the Lieutenant-Governo r-in-Coun cil, so long as the province continues to hold its special share. The concern here is that the way this bill is drafted, it allows for dramatic changes without the consent of the Legis lature itse lf, even though changes may fundamen tally alter the intent of the original MTS act and the reconfigured act that this bill represen ts. I believe that sweeping changes such as this require more than an Orde r-in- Counci l; they should require amen dments to the act. Even beyond those fundamental changes of

Section II , Bill 67 has written within it something akin to a notwithstanding clause. I ref er to

Section 4(2), "The prea mble and subsection (

l) shall not be construed so as to restrict the business that may be carried on, or the power that may be exer cised, by the corporation or its affiliates." Now, this clause effectively nullifies those pro visions that require the new MTS to take into account public inte rest-that is the ref erence to the

preamble-and even continued access to telephone service. That is the reference to

Section 4(1). The business of any private company is to make money . This clause is a licence for the new MTS to raise rates and abandon customers in the name of pro fit. Now, I will admit this bill does appear to offer a fe w weak protections, but now let us turn to

Section 4(3).

Section 4(3), which kicks in under

Section 4(1 ), once MTS pays off its- * (2 100) Mr. Chairperson: Two minutes . Mr. Beaudry: Okay, I will just race through this.

Section 3 kicks in once MTS pays off its government debt. Now once this occurs, any protections off ered to Manitobans in Bill 67 are immediately repeal ed. This is an incredibly important

section of this bill. Just to skim it over very quickly. Once the debt is paid off, these sections are nullified : 3, 5(1) , 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, II , 13 (1) , 13 (2), 13( 3), 13( 5), 13 (6), 13( 7), 13( 8), 14 , 16 , 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 are deemed to be repealed once MTS pays off its debt to the governmen t. All protections vanish. At this point, the new MTS will be free to lift all re strictions on the consolidation of shares, to merge or combine with

348 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 31, 1996 another company and, indeed, to leave Manitoba altogether unrestrained by provincial legislation or any requirement in the pu blic interest of all Manitobans . I think this is bad legislation introduced by a gov ernment with no mandate to sell and hurried through the Legislature without adequate debate or public input.

I know my time is short so I will just like to conclude with a quote from the old American statesman, Henry Clay: "Go vernment is a trust, and the officers of the government are trustees; and both the trust and the trustees are created fo r the benefit of the people." Lady and gentlemen, you are the trustees. Please act fo r the benefit of the people. Minister, withdraw this bill. If he does not, I urge all of you, especially Conservative backbenche rs, vote against it. It will not help anyone in Manitoba. Thank you . Mr. Chai rperson: Thank you fo r your presenta tion. Questions? Mr. Sale: I appreciate, Mr.

Chairperson, the thoroughness of the presenteJ"'s look through the bill. We have had many presentations from many perspectives, but this was a very interes ting one from the point of view of a thorough read of the bill. In terms of the ma jor concerns that you have, no mandate and a bad decision to boot, and that is, even if you had a mandate, you would not agree with the sale, I presume, or am I wrong? Would you say if the public agreed to it, you would think it was a good idea, too? Mr. Beaudry: We live in a democracy.

If the Con servatives had put this as a major plank in their campaign platform in the 1995 election-and I believe they were saying the exact opposite at that time-if they had put it as a major plank in their campaign and if the Con servatives had won a majority as they did, I would still say that there are problems with this bill as it is drafted and there are things that sho uld be done, but as fo r the principle of the sale itself , the people had spoken on that. But the people have not spoken on this, and I think it is a horri ble decision and I cannot understand why they would do it. Mr. Sale: Mr.

Chairperson, I think that is perhap s the first time during the hear ings that I have heard as clearly stated, I guess, of how many of us in the opposition fe el. We would, of course, respect the democratic proce ss. If people had spoken democratical ly, we might disagr ee, we might argue, we might raise conce rns, but we would respect ultimately the democratic process because we deeply believe in it. I think that what is probably most off en sive about this process and this legislation is that there is not a shred or a pretense of democracy around it.

You are a re latively young person, at least by comparison with myself How do you and your peers view government, particularly in lig ht of examples of their behaviour such as this? Mr. Beaudry: I think people are losing trust in go vernmen t What is the point? By the time I get to the age that I think all of you are in this room, and assuming I develop some sort of semblance of confidence in public speaking and could perhaps run at some point, I do not think there will be much of a gov ernm ent left to run. I really have no idea what will be left then .

You know, MTS will be gone this year, Hydro will be gone bef ore the turn of the century, what will be left? Mr. Sale: I guess I am not so depressed about the future of the possibility of governmen t. What depres ses me are actions which betray the public trust.

Earlier tonight we had both older and younger presenters suggesting that many people, a high percentage, they implied, increasingly viewed gov ernm ent as not their game, that government was somebody else's game and that they needed to operate their lives in such a way as to, insof ar as they could, insulate themse lves, separate them selves, that they no longer had a stake and a role. Does that describe in any degree, or does it not describe, views of people in your friendship group? Mr. Beaudry: I would say fo r many people that I am friends with, they do see politics as a game.

There are other people who see it as an incredibly important game and are willing to do whatever it takes to make sure that there is sane thing left to govern by the time we have kids and all that sort of thing. Mr. Chairpenon: Thank you very much fo r you r presentation, Mr. Beaudry. Mr. Beaudry: Thank you. Mr. Chairpenon: I would like to call T. MacDonald. T. MacDonald, not here, the name will drop to the -

" October 31 , 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 349 bottom of the list. Yvonne Naismith. Please come forward. Do you have copies for distribution? Mr. Peter Flynn (St. Matthew's Maryland Com munity Ministry): Yes, I do. Mr. Chair, obviously, I am not Yvonne Naismith . My name is Peter Flynn. Mr. Chairperson: Peter Flynn. Mr. Flynn: Yes. I am the priest at St. Matthew's Anglican Church, a member of the board of the com munity ministry- Mr. Chairperson: Can I inter rupt you for one second. Is there leave of the committee for Mr. Flynn to pr ocee d? [agreed] Please go ahead. Mr. Flynn: Thank you.

As I was sayin g, I am here because I serve with Yvonne in the community ministry that operates in our church building. St. Matthew's Maryland Community Ministry is a joint ministry of Winnipeg Presbytery of the United Church of Canada and the Parish of St. Matthew's Anglican Church, serving the west central area of Winnipeg bounded by Portage A venue, Notre Dame, Balmoral and Arlington Streets . This is one of the most econ omically depressed areas in the city with a

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-pu8
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf pu8.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e1c9dc93d6a760a88416810f04b0db4d212950ec

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