Manitoba Hansard — 16 April 1987 (Sitting 30, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-30

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, 16 April, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs . , HON. E. HARPER: I'd like to table the Annual Report for Northern Affairs for the year ending 1985 and '86. MADAM SPEAKER: I have the pleasure of tabling some reports.

One is the Annual Report on The Election Finances Act 1986; also the Statement of Votes of the Thirty Third Provincial General Election, March 18, 1986, and the By-Elections, October 2, 1984, Fort Garry and October 1, 1985, Kildonan. Also The Elections Act Review and Recommendations, October 1986, pursuant to

Section 10 (1.1) of The Elections Act. Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, I'd like to direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery , where we have 10 students from Grades 10, 11 and 12, from Fort Alexander High School under the direction of Mr. Namath Hussain, and the school , ll is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member r 1J for Lac du Bonnet. On behalf of all the members , we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon .

ORAL QUESTIONS Sugar beet industry - tripartite agreement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Premier. I wonder if the Premier can indicate whether or not he has been informed that, as a result of the stubborn refusal on the part of his NOP Government to sign the Tripartite Stabilization Agreement for sugar beet producers in Manitoba, it will result in the closure of the Manitoba Sugar Refinery .

That closure will result in the loss of annual tax revenue to the province of approximately $550,000, and an additional loss of tax revenue to the city of over $150,000, in addition to the losses in tax revenue that we spoke about yesterday from the one contract with a trucking firm that will result in $200 ,000 of provincial revenue lost because of their stubborn refusal to sign the Tripartite Stabilization Agreement with Ottawa. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I thought the Leader of the Opposition would have heard what I thought was a very clear explanation offered yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture. This government stands prepared to sign an agreement. This government has offered to provide $315,000 this year, over $3 million in additional funding to the sugar beet producers over the next 10 years, in order to deal with the sugar beet issue in the Province of Manitoba . But what we reject, and what we will refuse to do, Madam Speaker, is to sign a blank cheque . The Leader of the Opposition is asking the government to sign a blank cheque.

We will not sign a blank cheque; we will sign an agreement that is based upon fairness and reasonableness to the sugar beet producers, to the workers , to the businesses affected and as well, Madam Speaker, is in the public interest to all Manitobans, not just to some Manitobans but in the interests of all Manitobans. Once we have such an agreement in place, this government is quite anxious to be cooperative. No blank cheque , Madam Speaker, an agreement that is reasonable to all parties, yes. Sugar beet industry - preservation of jobs MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, this Premier was willing to sign a blank cheque for a wealthy Saudi sheik last year.

Madam Speaker, has the Premier, who's playing with the lives and the livelihood of hundreds of Manitobans on this issue of Russian roulette , has the Premier been informed that, as a result of the stubborn refusal of his NOP administration in Manitoba to sign that tripartite agreement that has been agreed to, incidentally, by the sugar beet producers, both in Manitoba and Alberta , by the Province of Alberta, by the Federal Government, that is supported by the Keystone Agricultural Producers and the union at the Manitoba Sugar Refinery; has he been informed that, as a result of the refusal to sign that agreement , i_n addition to the 93 permanent jobs at Manitoba Sugar, in addition to the 150 part-time jobs at Manitoba Sugar, in addition to the 68 jobs in trucking that will be lost, in addition to the 400 farmers whose livelihood is put in jeopardy, up to 2,000 part-time jobs, temporary part-time jobs, each year in the sugar beet growing industry in the farms of Manitoba will also be lost to the Province of Manitoba? 1059

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minist er of Industry, Trade and Technology. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you , Madam Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a whole host of inaccuracies, starting with the numbers involved, starting with the numbers of employees , starting with the position of various people involved but, especially - and I think we should go back to what he said about Alberta . There 's a suggestion out there that somehow the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Manitoba can do everything that Alberta can do.

We can't, and the reason is very simply that we are not as wealthy a province . Our Gross Provincial Product on a per person basis , under the Conservatives before us and under us, is less than Alberta. We're coming up a bit but, Madam Speaker, just as an example, they have a Venture Capital Fund of several hundred millions of dollars ; we have several millions of dollars. They have funding assistance for business in the tenfold as much as we are able to provide here.

They have different agreements and we had a different agreement, Madam Speaker, with the Federal Government in 1985 than was reached with the Alberta Government, and we expect a different agreement , just as different agreements are expected in different parts of the country, whether it's the Maritimes versus Alberta, or Manitoba versus Alberta . We expect to be treated fairly . MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind honourable members that question period is not a tim e for debate? Sugar beet industry - tripartite agreement MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , in 1980, the Province of Manitoba was willing to put $40 million into a Drought Relief Program to save the farmers of Manitoba, and we're talking about a government here that's unwilling to sign an agreement for $300,000 a year. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Yes, Madam Speaker .

Given that the Government of Alberta is today signing the sugar beet agreement , the Tripartite Stabilization Agreement with its producers and the Government of Manitoba - sorry the Government of Canada - given that decisions will have to be made as early as next week by producers as to whether or not they will plant their crops for this year, will this Premier stand up for the workers at the Manitoba Sugar Refinery, for the truckers of Manitoba who depend upon this industry, for the agriculture workers who depend upon this industry, for the farmers of Manitoba who depend upon this industry?

Will he stand up for all these people and set aside his partisan differences with Ottawa and enter into a tripartite agreement, as all of the others who have a role to play in this want to see done , and sign 1060 that agreement and take these people 's lives out of the economic jeopardy he's put them into, and save their jobs and save the economy of Manitoba? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first I think when we are dealing with a matter that is one that is under serious consideration by all parties, we should ensure to keep our comments as factual as possible.

Certainl y when we're talking about the 1980 figures, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition referred to $40 million in drought assistance . . . MR. G. FILMON: That's what was put aside . Yes, indeed , that's what was committed. HON. H. PAWLEY: Thirteen million. I know that the Honourab le Leader of the Opposition, being part of the government at the time, wanted to bloat those figures up to $40 million as being available; $13 million dollars was made available, Madam Speaker. Anybody -' can inflate figures, if they desire to do so and attempt ' to design them accordingly .

Madam Speaker , the beet producers in the Province of Manitoba are extremely well subsidized as it is. They 've been been well subsid ized for quite a period of time but, Madam Speaker , the Leader of the Opposition should be aware it was the former Prime Minister of this country , the Right Honourable John Diefenbaker, who launched a federal program in which the Federal Government, because they recognized that sugar was an international trading commodity , they recognized there were international trading implications, established a national program .

What we are faced with at the present time, Madam Speaker , is despite a commitment which dates back to 1985 from the present government, there has been an abandonment of the position which is historic, and I believe economically and in a fair sense correct. A national program, an international trading issue , and it is a responsibility therefore of the Federal Government.

It does not help the cause of the sugar beet farmer ~ in the Province of Manitoba or the businesses or the workers for the Leader of the Opposition not to join , in order to ensure there is a clear message to Ottawa , to the Conservatives in Ottawa, that the program launched by John Diefenbaker should be continued SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . Hog Tripartite Agreement - term of and province liability MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden . MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Agr iculture .

Madam Speaker , in 1985, the Federal Government made amendments to the Agricultural Stabilization Act

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 relating to commodity stabilization. Following these amendments, the Minister of Agriculture signed a Hog Tripartite Agreement on behalf of Manitoba, Madam Speaker . I will ask the Minister to inform the House, in this agreement, what was the term of the tripartite agreement in terms of years? Secondly, what is the province's responsibility regarding the deficit at the end of this tripartite agreement, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture . HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the legislation that was passed in Ottawa in 1985, about one month after we signed the agreement dealing with sugar beets, was enabling legislation . It did not, as has been suggested by their federal counterparts, the only thing on the table , the only aspect of support is tripartite. That is , false, Madam Speaker, it is not true . 1, .. Secondly, Madam Speaker, the Agriculture Ministers . 'l of this country signed a national agricultural strategy ii J in which programming for agricultural programs should be regionally sensitive from the stabilization point of view.

So, Madam Speaker, the tripartite plan that we had in hogs, that Manitoba cooperated in, was signed on the basis that provincial producers would have a reduction in the premiums that they paid to a long term provincial plan which we had set up. Only by reason that producer premiums would decrease by virtue of federal contributions was the reason that we went in, because federal support levels also were below the provincial program. It was on that basis that we signed that program .

But, Madam Speaker, we have not signed the tripartite beef program , nor are we intending to until support levels come close in terms of that program . So those programs are wide open to negotiate, but not be unilaterally imposed, as is being done now by the Federal Government. . Hog Tripartite Agreement I f MR. G.

FINDLAY: Given that the term of the agreement that the Minister signed was 10 years and the liability for the province at the end of the 10 years is 50-50 with the Federal Government, Madam Speaker , I would ask the Minister : Was he not aware of those conditions when he signed that agreement, because he did not give them in the answer to the first question and, in those terms , then sign a blank cheque on behalf of Manitoba? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, what the honourable member seems to forget is that there was an agreement signed in 1985.

He just wants to throw that agreement out the window, Madam Speaker, and we're not prepared to let them . There was an agreement signed on two fronts, a national sugar sweetener policy beyond the 1985 crop year and, secondly, that there will be no further funding required from Manitoba in 1985. Madam Speaker, what the Conservatives here want to do is to continually apologize for Ottawa. We have always said we're prepared to sign an agreement, but not a blank cheque . 1061 Sugar beet industry - meeting with Minister responsible for Wheat Board MR. G.

FINDLAY: Given that the Province of Alberta is signing a sugar beet tripartite agreement today, Madam Speaker, and that the weather is such that beet growers of Manitoba need to go to the field within a week in order to maximize production, I will ask the Minister if he has discussed, with the Minister who just talked with him, his statement yesterday that the government, this Provincial Government , is willing to negotiate on several issues in search for agreement with the Federal Government .

That being the case, Madam Speaker, has the Minister of Agriculture, as he said yesterday , arranged a meeting with the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to be held here in Winnipeg this weekend so that this issue can be resolved for the good of the beet growers, the jobs and all members of the Province of Manitoba Madam Speaker? ' HON. 8.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, it should be pointed out that not only did I attempt to arrange another meeting with the Federal Minister , I met with him within 10 days after we made our original proposal to them in which they totally rejected our proposal with no counteroffer, as members often on the other side have suggested that there has been one. I sent a telex yesterday to the Federal Minister of State for the Wheat Board . We have not received a reply to this point in time.

We have always been prepared to sit down and discuss this matter, Madam Speaker, but when there is total refusal of any offer that is made, after we had an agreement saying something completely different, I find I have great difficulty with my honourable friend's definition of who is stubborn on this issue . Madam Speaker, I want to point out to my honourable friend in the hog industry, had we subsidized the hog industry to the extent that the sugar industry has been subsidized, we would have pumped ·in some $50 million to $60 million in the hog industry in comparison to the sugar beet growers, Madam Speaker.

Sugar beet industry - reply to telex to C. Mayer MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden with a final supplementary. MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will ask the Minister of Agriculture, has he gotten a reply from that telex which didn't arrive till this morning, Madam Speaker, and is he prepared to involve the sugar beet growers . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FINDLAY: . . . in the meeting this weekend? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please . The Honourable Member for Virden to complete his question.

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 MR. G. FINDLAY: Thank you, Madam Speaker . Given that this is a very serious situation, I consider the catcalls on the other side extremely inappropriate, Madam Speaker. That is why we pursued from this side to be sure that this meeting occurs. We've been after this for many days, Madam Speaker, as the beet growers want it to MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . MR. G. FINDLAY: . . . happen, as the workers want it to . .. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . MR. G. FINDLAY: . . . sugar beet growers in a meeting to be convened in Winnipeg this weekend, Madam Speaker. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, now we know who is negotiating on behalf of Ottawa. We stand up for Manitoba and Manitoba's workers and farmers . They bend down to Ottawa , Madam Speaker, that group . Now we know the real issue of who is negotiating on behalf of Ottawa, Madam Speaker . There is the mouthpiece, Madam Speaker, on behalf of the apologists of Ottawa. We have not received a response from the Federal Government. We sent the telex late yesterday afternoon from my office . We have not received a telex.

In fact, I asked my staff whether there was any communication back this morning, but obviously my honourable friends SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order. HON. B. URUSKI: . . . are already negotiating on their behalf. St. Boniface Hospital - admission policy MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. -(Interjection)- Order please . The Honourable Member for River East has the floor to place her question . MRS. B. MITCHELSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Health . Can the Minister inform this House whether the St.

Boniface Hospital has in place a receiving procedure that would restrict admission of pregnant women when their delivery time occurs? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, the only admission policy that I know of, the admission policy with all the hospitals , is that they are trying to inform the public as soon as possible when the facilities are filled. This is something that you can't control.

It might be a hospital down the road that is not busy, and I think it's much better to inform the people than wait until they get at every single hospital and send them to the next one. It's a kind of cooperation with all the hospitals for admitting and discharge that we're trying to set up. St. Boniface Hospital - expansion of maternity ward MRS. B. MITCHELSON: My supplementary question is for the same Minister . When the Seven Oaks Hospital and Concordia Hospital obstetric wards were closed , was the long range plan for St.

Boniface Hospital to expand the labour floor to meet the increased demands that would be placed on it, and when is this going to occur? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, the increased demand was very small , and the switch to these hospitals, where the people felt the care would be there , ,, because they were ready for any cases at the Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface , and many people were choosing to go to these hospitals . That resulted in the Seven Oaks Hospital having less than one delivery a day, with an average of ab.out 35, 37 staff to take care of that. Pregnant women - ensure not at risk MRS.

B. MITCHELSON: My final supplementary, Madam Speaker . Can the Minister assure this House that pregnant women will not be placed at risk as a result of a cap being put on the number of deliveries at St. Boniface Hospital? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I'd like to make sure that I understand this question, because one day they want something; the next day they want something else. We were told that -(Interjection)- Why don't you keep quiet and listen? Madam Speaker , we were told that we were spending too much money for Home Care just 1 a day or so ago, and that we should stay within our budget.

It doesn 't matter if somebody needs more care but , if we spend that money we should stay within this budget . Then we're told today that , fine , are you going to spend the money . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please. The Honourable Member for Pembina on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, on a point of order . I wouldn't want the Minister of Health to leave on the record an incorrect statement . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, the program in Home Care is financially out of control.

That's what we want the Minister to straighten up. 1062

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 MADAM SPEAKER: Order pleas e, order plea se. The honourable member does not have a point of order. The Honourable Minister to complete his answer. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Madam Speaker, the statement was made that the financial situation was out of control, and that is exactly the case that whoever prepared that did not look at the programs at all as an issue . It's right that the situation - in fact, th<1t's why we asked for the report because we felt that a lot could be desired. We felt that the system should be strea mlined, and it will be .

This is the same member who was asking last year that we should spend more than $65,000 on one person for Home Care . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . I remind Honourable Ministers that answers should deal with the matter raised . Consumers' Association of Canada - funding of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you , Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs . Madam Speaker , the Manitoba

Chapter of the Consume rs' Association will have to close its door as a result of the withdrawal of federal funds from that most important organization . Has the Minister met with the association and what offers, if any, of alternative funding has he made? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs . HON. A. MACKLING: I want to thank the honourable member for the question and confirm that, indeed, I have met with the organization and they pointed out to me that the Federal Government had withdrawn iunding.

I regret that very much because that organization, being in receipt of funds from both levels of government and other sources, is in a position to be at greater arm's length from government and, from time to time where they deem it appropriate, be critical of both federal consumer legislation and programming and provincial consumer protection , where they deem is necessary. I regret very much that the Federal Government did withdraw that assistance because it's been longstanding for many, many years under previous Federal Governments .

However, I did indicate that our government is not in a position to put up money when the Federal Government withdraws from funding arrangements. We are trying . I indicated that if there was any way I could assist in finding alternative sources of income , I would do that. I made certain suggestions to them. I also indicated that we would endeavour to find any space that might be available, and such is the case in other jurisdictions, that governments assist by providing space. We are looking at that. That hasn't been too successful, but we'll continue to look.

Consumer and Corporate Affairs Dept.- ability to handle calls MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a supplementary question to the sam e Minister. Madam Speaker, will the Mini ster's department be able to handle the additional 500 calls per week which the Consumers ' Association presently receives, if this association is forced to close their doors? HON. A. MACKLING : The short answer, Madam Speaker, would be yes , we will have to cope with it.

But I would point out that the kind of inquiry that is made to the Consumers ' Association is one where there is a request for consumer information that compares products, and our Consumers ' Bureau is not mandated to do that kind of work. So it is regrettable that kind of information would not be available to Manitobans. Consumers' Association of Canada - Provincial Government to fund MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: With a final supplementary to the same Minister, Madam Spe aker.

In that the Minister agrees with me that communications is the most important function of this association, will the Minister agree to a reduction of $12,000 from his Communications budget in order to finance this organization? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I know that the Federal Government spends a great deal more on communications than we do , and I'm sure that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs federally - a comparison of his budget with ours , there would be far more latitude in providing some spending. I think that question should be addressed to the Federal Government.

Brandon General Hospital - closure of beds MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you , Madam Speaker. I'd like to ask a question of the Minister of Health. Madam Speaker, has the Minister of Health given approval to the decision at the Brandon General Hospital to close 49 beds from June to September of this summer? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker , I'll repeat what I said a couple of times , at least, in this House .

There have been discussions with every single urban hospital , including Brandon , in a way to reduce and do away with the deficit of the different hospitals , and they are coming back with proposals. That will be looked at and nothing will be done without the approval of the Commission . This approval will be given only if there are other methods of serving the public . Also if there is any closure of beds and staff being released , it will be done only in an orderly way, and there is a committee of the unions working with the government on this to make sure that is done in an orderly way. 1063

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 No, there hasn't been a single cutbac k. Hospitals - bed closures MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, the residents of Brandon, the users of Brandon General Hospital , would differ on the Minister's last statement. Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister is, in the orderly cutback of beds in our hospitals , has the Minister given approval or consideration to the cut of 150 beds this summer at the Health Sciences Centre , 100 of those beds to be permanently closed?

Has he given consideration to the closure of 28 beds in July, 34 beds in August at Concordia Hospital, which is half their surgical beds? Has he given consideration to the closure of 48 permanent beds at the Victoria Hospital , which is one complete surgical floor? Has he given consideration to the closure of 40 beds at Grace Hospital for this summer as part of his orderly cutback of hospital beds in the Province of Manitoba? HON. L. DESJARDINS: My honourable friend, as usual , would like to present this to scare the public of Manitoba, and he knows well that we will look at the proposals .

We're not looking at giving consideration to anyth ing at this time until we rece ive the proposals of the hospitals. Then we'll look at it and, I repeat, it 'll be done in an orderly way. We will try to do everything we can , even without the help of our honourable friends to see that we conserve and improve the health care system that we have in Manitoba which is still one of the best in the world . Manitoba Developmental Centre - reporting of deaths MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Last week, I undertook to make available to the House information concerning the reporting of deaths at the Manitoba Developmental Centre. Briefly under

Section 6(1)(

d) of The Fatality Inquiries Act, the Manitoba Developmental Centre is required to report the death of a resident to a medical examiner.

Upon receiving a report, the medical examiner is required to "take charge of the body, inform the police, and make diligent inquiry respecting the cause and manner of the death of the person." If, after examination of the medical records, the medical examiner determines that the resident died of natural causes under 6(1.2) of the act : " he may determine not to take charge of the body or inform the police or make an inquiry into the death of the person." · In the second instance, when no inquiry is made , the medical examiner is not requ ired to report the death to the Chief Medical Examiner .

This was the case in 5 of the 24 deaths at the MDC in 1986. In these cases , the death certificate would be completed and signed by the attending physician. However in each case , Madam Speaker, an autopsy was performed. Springhill Farms - request of government intervention MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West . MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , I direct my question to the Minister of Labour . A few days ago , the workers at the Springhill Hog Processing Plant asked the Minister to instruct the Labour Board to appoint a new panel to look into the situation at Springh ill Farms .

Has the Minister responded to those workers ' requests and what was the response? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the honourable member continues to suggest that it is incumbent on the government to intervene or interfere in a process , a long-established process, that workers apply to an independent tribunal and that tr ibunal makes its decision . This Minister will not yield to the inducements opposite to interfere with what is a fair and reasonable process. Manitoba Labour Board - criteria for appointments to MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker , the Minister has referred to the Manitoba Labour Board as an independent tribunal. Can the Minister tell us the criteria for appointments to the Labour Board? HON. A. MACKLING: The honourable member, if he will consult the act , will appreciate the fact that the chairperson of the board solicits names from both the union sector and management sector, forwards those names to government as recommendations for appointment , and that board is comprised of people from both segments , from both management and labour .

If the honourab le member is questioning the integrity of the members of that board, that is shameful , Madam Speaker . Manitoba Labour Board - appt. by Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , a new question to the Minister . I had understood that appointments to the board were made by the Lieutenant-Governor -in-Council on recommendation . Well, are the criteria for appointments to this independent tribunal of the Manitoba Labour Board , are the criteria any different from the criteria used for appointments to the Brandon University Board of Governors?

I have in my hand , Madam Speaker, a document , a Cabinet submission respecting Dr. David Stewart. It says : " Dr. David Stewart should be appointed to the Board of Governors of Brandon University ." He's a retired physician , he's active in the Doctors for Peace Movement and he's . .. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please . The Honourable Minister of Labour is not respon sible for the University of Brandon . 1064

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: Thank you , Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable Member for Brandon West on a point of order . MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, I did not ask the Minister about the responsibilities of the former Minister of Education . I just asked if the criteria are the same as the criteria used for appointments to the Board of Governors for Brandon University . That has nothing to do with the Minister of Education. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour is responsible for appointments to the Labour Board .

The Honourable Minister of Labour is not responsible for appo intments to any other board . ;• MR. D. ORCHARD: He's not responsible for any • member of Cabinet . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader . MR. G. MERCIER: A point of order, Madam Speaker . The Member for Brandon West asked if the Minister of Labour applied the same criteria as those used for the appointment of the Brandon University Board, and referred to a Cabinet paper and the criteria that was used in that paper . I submit to you, that is completely in order .

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West can rephrase his question . As he originally phrased it , it's my opinion it was out of order. Manitoba Labour Board - criteria for appointments to MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker , the criterion for appointments to the Board of Governors for Brandon University is membership or support for the New Democratic Party . Is that one of the criteria for appointment to the independent tribunal the Minister refers to, the Manitoba Labour Board? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I don't accept the narrow, partisan political premise that's contained in the honourable member 's question , but the honourable members opposite have to come to appreciate the fact that at least close to 50 percent of the people in Manitoba are either members of the New Democratic Party or . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please . That particular paper has not been tabled in the House . The Honourable Minister of Labour. Are you finished? The Honourable Member for Ellice then . MR. H. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I think all of us in this House . . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Does the Honourable Member for Ellice have a question? MR. H. SMITH: I only said about four words , Madam Speaker ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please . MR. H. SMITH: Yes, I have a question , Madam Speaker, and I'd like to ask . MADAM SPEAKER: Good . Place your question . Consumers' Association - Min. to contact Federal Government MR. H. SMITH: Madam Speaker , all of us in this House should be concerned about the Consumers' Associat ion cutback by the Federal Government.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer Affairs: Is he willing to approach his federal counterpart and register our protest as a government against this cutback that interferes with consumers getting information? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs . HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker . I want to thank the Honourable Member for Ellice for indicating to me earlier on that he did want to ask me a question about that .

I appreciate the concern he has and many Manitobans have that the Federal Government would withdraw from participation in an agency which is a very great help to consumers across this country, consumers who wield a great deal of power and influence. I hope that they will exercise their influence, not only directed toward this government , but directed toward a government that today in the newspaper - and I find it obscene that there 's such lavish spending on the Prime Minister's residence and all of his things and they can't spare $12,000 to continue fund ing for a consumers ' agency.

Group Homes - criteria for placement in MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland . MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Min ister of Community Services . Madam Speaker, I wish to first of all express my deepest sympathy for the Gowler family on the loss of their son . 1065

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 My question to the Minister is: Is it nor mal practice to place someone as severely retarded as this person was, who was stated as having the mentality of a one year-old , into a group home? MADAM SPEAKE R: The Honourable Minister of Community Services . HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the principle on which people are placed in group homes is whether their needs can be adequately met, and there 's a process working with their families and with the providers of care . Great care is taken to see that they are well cared for.

This particu lar tragic incident has moved us all, and I know the home that is operated by DASCH has been taking it very much to heart and is investigating thoroughly whether there was any additional precaution they could have taken . Madam Speaker, my deep sympathy goes to the family of Mr. Gowler, and I will be looking closely at the report of the incident. Mentally retarded - training for volunteers working with MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister .

We have received reports that persons who help with mentally retarded receive no training or very little training before they are allowed to take charge of a retarded person. Can the Minister say whether Mitch Gowler had any training whatsoever so that he would know how to cope with a difficult situation? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I can't speak as to the specific case. I understand the young man was a student in the Faculty of Social Work and had been volunteering for several years . Again, I think the incident has raised concern and we intend to look into it.

There are many volunteers involved in the enrichment of the program and the support of the program , and I think it behooves all of us to ensure that appropriate supports are there. Gowler, Mitch - investigation re death of MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. The Minister has ordered an investigation . Will the Minister make the results of that investigation public so that all of us can make certain that an incident like this can be averted the next time? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, the group DASCH is the group that has the official responsibility, and I think it's to them that the questions should be referred. My concern is that the policies and programs are as good as they possibly can be. I don 't think we'll ever arrive at a situation , Madam Speaker , where we can give 100 percent security , wherever the mentally retarded are cared for, but it's the goal of all of us to bring their care as close as possible to that point. MDC - release of Ombudsman's Report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland with a final supplementary. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you.

I have anoth er question to the same Minister . An incident happened last night where a resident of the MDC wandered into a slough away from the residence and would have drowned if some residents of Portage had not retrieved him. The reason given for this episode was that lack of staff could not keep track of residents who wandered from the MDC. Will the Minister enforce stricte r security at the MDC , and will the Minister now make public the Ombudsman 's Report on the MDC? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Speaker, I'll take the specific question as notice with regard to the report , the draft report that cam e to us from the Ombudsman , our comments upon it and a return of that information to the Ombudsman . In fact , I'm making the same comment / I made consistently last week and the week before that it is now his report to make public , as he wishes . MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired .

SPEAKER'S STATEMENT ..,ADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Orders of the Day, I would like to take a moment to apologize to the Honourable Member for Ellice for my assumption that he was about to participate in the general racket that was happening at the time , rather than trying to place a question above it. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan . MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you , Madam Speaker . I move, seconded by the Member for Elmwood , that , the composition of the Standing Committee on Publi c Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: M. Dolin for the Honourable J. Cowan.

I further move, seconded by the Membe r for Elmwood, that the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: D. Scott for the Hon . L. Harapiak; Hon. A. Mackling for the Hon . H. Harapiak ; Hon . L. Evans for the Hon. M. Hemphill. ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, on House Busines s then, I would like to advise the House that it has bee n agreed between the Opposition House Leader and myself and the critic and the Minister respon sible that the Standing Committee on Economic Development should meet on Tuesday , April 21 at 10:00 a.m. to 1066

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 consider, first , the Report of the Manitoba Mineral Resources and, if time permits, the Report of the Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation. On Thursday, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet to continue the consideration of the Annual Report of Manitoba Hydro, at 10:00 a.m. as well. Also, Madam Speaker, . . . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I believe in our discussions the Government House Leader indicated the committee would meet to review ManOil on Tuesday and Hydro on Thursday alone. HON. J.

COWAN: MMR on Tuesday. MR. G. MERCIER: MMR on Tuesday. HON. J. COWAN: ManOil if time permits. MR. G. MERCIER: Is the Government House Leader now adding Economic Development? HON. J. COWAN: No, I'm sorry. The Manitoba Mineral Resources Corporat ion normally goes to the Standing Committe e on Economic Development, so it will be the Standing Committee on economic Development that considers tha t report. Then on Thursday, we will revert back to the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources to consider Hydro.

If there's any difficulty with that, perhaps the Opposition House Leader and I can discuss it during the course of the afternoon and make any changes that are required before the House adjourns this evening. Madam Speaker, I also understand that there 's a predisposition on the part of members, by leave, to forego Private Members' Hour today, and to continue on with the consideration of Estimates until 6:00 p.m. Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour , that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented . MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Brandon West . MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present a grievance on behalf of the working people of the Province of Manitoba .

Madam Speaker, in the face of great difficulty imposed upon them by a regime in this province which tends to forget the rights of the average working Manitoban, in the face of that we have a government which steadfastly holds to its position of standing up for the union bosses of this province , standing up for those who support the New Democratic Party, standing ,up for all those people and not standing up for the average working man in this provinc e and the average working woman in this province who pay the bills in this province .

Those people who are trying to raise famil ies and lead productive and useful lives, those are the people for whom I grieve tod ay, Madam Speaker. I also grieve on their behalf for the elected representatives that they elect to speak for them on matters of importance.

I grieve, because certain elected officials have been accused of interfering with the rights of Manitobans when, in fact, those elected representatives have been intervening as opposed to interfering, intervening in the hope of trying to restore for people in this province their freedom to choose who they want to represent them, their freedom to choose what their future should be and what the future should be for the ir family and for themselves and for their workplaces.

Madam Speaker , I speak today not only on my own behalf as an elected representative but also on behalf of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose, and all honourable members on this side of the House who have been speaking and attempting to bring about justice for working people in this province in the face of very difficult odds . In the case of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain , he has to be subjected to threats that he is acting illegally when he acts on behalf of his constituents.

When the Honourabl e Member for Turtle Mountain attempts to represent his constituents, he is stymied by union bosses who make telephone calls, threatening that the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain is acting illegally . The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose and myself have done what we can to speak out, Madam Speaker, for working people in this province, and specifically working people in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose . The workers there overwhelmingly at the Springhill hog processing plant want a say in what their future should be.

They want a say in which union should represent them, if indeed they want any union at all. The same goes for the workers at the Sooter Photo plant. Those people are willing to accept the wish of the majority in their workplace. All they want is a chance to be heard . This Minister of Labour, Madam Speaker , refuses to involve himself , as he is entitled to do. He's refused to involve himself and to stand up for the democratic rights of working people in this province. I say, the Minister of Labour should be ashamed of himself.

Honourable members opposite should be ashamed to share the same side of the House with him . That Minister is not doing his job as Minister of Labour . He is not standing up for the rights of working people in this province, and that Minister should resign, Madam Speaker. The people of the Rural Municipality of Lorne, the people who pay the bills there for work done by their mun icipal employees, had no opportunity to have any say whatsoever in what the future should be for the working people and for themselves in terms of the taxes they pay, Madam Speaker .

Those people were denied the right of freedom of speech under one of the

section s of our Manitoba Labour Relatio ns Act, a

section that this Minister of Labour refuses to put to the test of Charter of Rights scrutiny, Madam Speaker. Why? This is the government that says it's in favour of freedoms for people, Charter of Freedoms. This is the 1067

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 governme nt that says it wants to protect the rights of people as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Why then , Madam Spea ker, has the Minister of Labour consistentl y refused to allow The Manitoba Labour Relations Act to be put to the scrutiny of charter compliance? Why is that? The Minister sits mute , refuses to answer that question . He's done so repeatedly in the question period in this Hous e, Madam Speaker . Who does that Minister stand up for? Well, Madam Speaker, we already know that Mr. Wilt Hudson is the President of t he Manitoba Labour Federation.

We know that Mr. Hudson is often seen in the halls of this building . We know that Mr. Hudson contr ibutes generously to the New Democratic Party annually. We know who the Minister of Labour stands up for, Madam Speaker, and I can tell you, it's not for the average working man and woman in this province . The Minister stood today in question period, Madam Speaker , and proudly announced that the Labour Board members are chosen as a result of a solicitation by the Chairman of the Labour Board for names from, and he said , union and management sectors .

Madam Speaker, I think, if nothing else, we 've demonstrated in the last few weeks that unions don't always speak for what's best for the working man in this province or anywhere else. Unions most often do, I concede, but in some cases they don 't. What strikes me strangely, Madam Speaker, is that he's proud that union and management sectors are consulted before appointments are made to the Labour Board. What about the average working person in this province? Is that person consulted? When I see what happens at the Springhill farm plant , Madam Speaker , I have to wonder .

Is the union movement always working for the best interests of the worker in this province? And if the answer to that is no, Madam Speaker, then perhaps the Minister of Labour should be not quite so satisfied that only the union and management sectors are being consulted with respect to these appointments. Maybe that plant worker out there, maybe someone at Springhill Farms, maybe someone at Great-West Life , maybe someone in some other workplace should be consulted. Some working man or woman in this province should be consulted.

Madam Speaker, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities is concerned about The Manitoba Labour Relations Act; the City of Brandon is concerned about The Manitoba Labour Relations Act. On February 3, 1986, Madam Speaker, as a result of the turmoil this government put our city through with respect to labour problems at the T. Eaton Company in Brandon, the Council of the City of Brandon passed a resolution . I admit it wasn 't unanimous. There were two members at least on that council who did not wish to pass that resolution .

One of them was Ross Martin and another one was Arnold Grambo, and I'll refer to those gentlemen later in my talk today if I have an opportunity. Those two gentlemen did not support that resolution, but the resolution passed by the City of Brandon , unanimously except for those members and perhaps one other . I can 't remember offhand , but the resolution was that this government should re-examine its first contract legislation and other aspects of The Manitoba Labour Relations Act.

The Minister of Labour responded to the Mayor of Brandon in a single-spaced, three-page letter, Madam Speaker , lauding the labour relations in this province , and talking about how wonderful our Manitoba Labour Relations Act is and how it protects the working people in our society . But not once in that letter did he use the word "Eaton's" except to refer to the Eaton's down east, never mind Eaton's in Brandon .

We in the City of Brandon , Madam Speaker, were concerned about what will happen to .our downtown which , as you kn ow from having resided in Brandon , the downtown of our city is very, very important to our economic life. As our city grows westerly and northerly, there are suburban malls that are crop ping up, and those malls are taking away the business from our downtown. So consequently , our city fathers are very concerned about the viability of the downtown. The Eaton's store, Madam Speaker , was the only full fledged department store in the whole City of Brandon.

The Eato n's store was the anchor store of our downtown . It's what held our downtown together and , Madam Speaker, as a result of the first-contract legislation brought in by this government, the workers there and the union and the management there had ~ a con tract thrust on them which was certainly satisfactory to Mr. Bernard Christophe , the President of the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union, certainly satisfactory to him, but Eaton's was operating in a very competitive world . There were other smaller stores in Brandon closing down because of competition problems. A store at Moose Jaw closed down.

So Eaton's response to the first contract imposed by this independent tribunal , the Manitoba Labour Board , was to say, well we'll have to lay off 43 people and we're going to shut down the third floor of our operation and change our store into a bargain-basement-type operation, as opposed to quite a fine department store as it has been for generations in our city. That was the response of Eaton's , and Bernard Christophe's response was to threaten to sue Eaton's of Canada. At that point , the workers at Eaton 's got mad. They said , now hold on here, we have some rights too.

We say we want to keep our jobs at Eaton's . We don't want 17 of our full-time people to become part time people . We think that we can work with Eaton's without having to push them out of business. They said to Bernard Christophe , we're going to sue you, Mr. Christophe , if you don't yield to our demands and back down and allow that first contract to be amended . Mr. Christophe waited and pushed and waited and pulled. Madam Speaker, an election was on the horizon. Suddenly Bernard Christophe pulled in his horns, Madam Speaker.

Bernard Christo phe agreed , publicly at least, to amend that first contract so that Eaton 's store cou ld retain those 43 employees and put the store back into business . Madam Speaker , Eaton's wasn't fooling around . I was there one afternoon on the third floor , and I was seeing the workmen tearing down the store operation . They meant business. After Mr. Christophe backed down, Madam Speaker , Eaton's began to restock the third floor . Eaton 's rehired or didn't lay off those 43 people.

Madam Speaker , that's the effect of the first-contract legislation, confrontation, and it certainly goes beyond the workplace. Our whole city, our city council, all the people who have shopped downtown for generations , 1068

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 Madam Speaker, for years , for decades, were upset that we're losing the biggest, I guess, department store in all of Brandon. The whole city was in a turmoil, thanks to the first-contract legisl ation of this government. So what's happened since at Eaton's? The Ministe r tells us, Madam Speaker, that it 's the duty of the Minister of Labour to remain aloof and to stay away from these issues . How many members on that side of the House, Madam Speaker, have found themselves in picket lines or perhaps cutting up their credit card when it came to the Eaton 's dispute?

How many members over there have involved themselves in labou r disputes, and they have the gall to tell me that I'm interf ering in labour relations in this province ? Well, Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour understan ds The Manitoba Labour Relat ions Act well enough to understand that interferi ng in labour relations is an unfa ir labour practice. Does the Minister even know that? He appear s to be nodd ing his head , Madam Speake r, so I assum e the Minister is accusing me and the Member for Ste.

Rose and the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain of interfering with the rights of workers and thereby committing unfai r labour practices. I say, if that's what he wants to do, let him make a charge, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please . Order please. On a poi nt of order, the Honourable Minister of Labour . HON. A. MACKLING: The honourable member is seeking to put on the rec ord some affirmation of support for the nonsense that he's saying , and he alluded to the fact that I appeared to be nodding my head . I am shaking my head in disbelief at what I'm hearing, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister does not have a point of order. MR. J. McCRAE: Well, Mad am Speaker, . the Honourable Minister can say that he disbelieves it if he likes but, on the 13th of April in this House , the Honourable Minis ter of Labour said: "Fo r honou rable members to be trying to interfere in that process is offensive . The honourab le members are interfering with the rights of workers themselves." Now, Madam Speaker , did the Minister say that or didn 't he say it?

Now if he did say that, he's saying inside this House because he hasn't got the courage, I guess, to say it out side this House, he's saying that we honourable members on this side of the House are committ ing unfair labour practices . If he's saying that, why doesn 't he have the guts to make a charge? I have a reputation too , Madam Speaker. I tak e offence to being told that I'm committ ing unfair labour practices. I can take it from Will Hudson who , to me, isn't very impo rtant , but certainly is to this Minister. I can take it from Bruno Zimmer.

When these two gentlemen say that I'm interfering and I'm intimidating workers, I can put up with that. But when an elected member of this House and a representat ive of Her Majesty in this House makes the charge that I'm committing unfair labour practices , Madam Speaker , I say let him make a charge. Make it st ick, or else say it outside . I am getting sick and tire d, Madam Speaker, of the hatred that I find on the part of honourab le members opposite. Their veins flow not with blood, Madam Speaker, but an ugly venom that hurts people in th is province, and it's about time it stopped.

Madam Speaker, there is provision in The Labo ur Act for anyone suggesting that, if anyone else is committ ing unfair labour practices , to file a writte n complaint with The Manitoba Labour Boa rd . Madam Speak er, I've heard or seen nothing to that effect with regard to me, the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain, or the Honourable Member for Ste. Rose , or indeed any ot her honourable member on th is side of the House . If the Minister 's got the guts to say in th is House that I am guilty of unfai r labour prac tices , let him make a cha rge and let him prove it.

If wants to attempt to prove it, let him start by asking the workers at the Sprin ghill Farms Plant. Let him start by asking the workers at the Soot er Phot o plant here in Winnip eg. Let him talk to the worker s at Eaton 's. Ask the wor kers in those three workplaces or anywhere else, if they like , where and how has this honourable member intimidated or interfered with the rights of work ers in this province . Madam Speaker , I take sincere offence to that kind of irresponsibility on the part of the Minister of Labour of this province, and he does that - now I heard the Honourable Minister refer to an

article in the Brandon Sun . The honourable members should know that, a week or so previous to the editorial he's talking about, the Brandon Sun editorial that day, which the Minister conveniently forgets to mention, that editorial comment was that the workers at Springhill are not being treated fairly . The wor kers at Springhill are entitled to be heard, and this issue deserves the maximum publicity . Now the Brandon Sun may take issue with the way publicity is generated. That's not my problem . The other point is that the Brandon Sun is not the peo ple of Brandon, Madam Speaker .

The Brandon Sun is a local newspaper and a very fine one. For the most part, I agree with most of the things I read in the Brandon Sun . Obviously I'm not going to agree with the editorial the Minister refers to , but if that's the only case this Min ister has, if he wants to take that edi torial to the Labour Board and use that as Exhibit 1 in the case against Jim McCrae , the Honourable Member for Brandon West , the Honourable Memb er for Turtle Mountain , and the Member for Ste .

Rose, if he wants to use that as Exhibit 1 in the case against us for interfering with the rights of work ers, let him do it, Madam Speaker. I'd be delighted to defend myself, because I've got 140 wit ness es at Springhill Farms. I' ve got 106 witnesses, or 104 witnesses at Sooter Photo . If you want to find four witnesse s like the kind who showed up on Friday at a press conference to complain of intimidation and coercion on the other side of the fence , let them come forward too .

But above all, let this Minister do his job, let him do his job and see that a vote is held among the workers in those plan ts so that democracy can live in thi s province . Madam Speaker , we on this side sent out questionnaires recently and it's comical to see some of the responses that came back . One of them that springs to mind is one of our questions in the 1069

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 questionnaire which was: Do you think the deficit should be reduced? One respondent sent back and said to me, "Of course , it should. What are you - stupid?" That was the response I got . On another one, Madam Speaker, it wasn't quite so funny. The one that wasn't so funny was the one that said, "The only difference between Manitoba and Russia is that there's more paperwork in Manitoba," Madam Speaker . That's a little upsetting. Madam Speaker, during the question period today, I brought to the attention of the House a document that has come into my possession.

Your Honour was cautious in respect to whether it was a proper question to put in the question period, and we seemed to get that resolved. The question did finally come out . Madam Speaker, this document is perhaps quite a telling document in terms of the policy of this government respec ting appointments to boards. The Minister of Education, last summer, when I was complaining that he was being misled by the board of governors, at that time, Dr. David Stewart was the Deputy Chairman of the Board of Governors and, as far as I know, was the one who was advising the Minister of Education at that time .

We all know that the Minister misled this House at that time. We know it wasn't deliberate , Madam Speaker , because he was misled by certain people in Brandon . Well, if it was Dr. David Stewart, Madam Speaker - it says here , "Dr. David Stewart. " This is a Cabinet submission , Department of Education, Brandon University was the subject, background - apparently there are three vacancies on the Board of Governors at the Brandon University. Recommendation: "It is proposed that the following be considered for appointment to fill the vacancy: Dr.

David Stewart," and the reasons are given , one of them being that he's a supporter of the NOP - a Cabinet document. Isn't that interesting, Madam Speaker? The reason I ask that question is because we were told by the Minister of Labour repeatedly that they have a fine board of governors, they're autonomous, they 're independent, they look after things the way they 're supposed to be done . They don't show any partiality or anything like that. Well, Madam Speaker, I have here a list of some of the members of the Labour Board .

One recently passed away and I don't think I'll refer to that member, but another member of the Labour Board - 1986 donation New Democratic Party, $357, Madam Speaker. Here's another one, Madam Speaker, donation 1986, $870.00. Here's another one, Madam Speaker, 1986, $250 to the New Democratic Party; and another one , $595 in 1986. Madam Speaker, I'm not referring to 1985 figures or 1984 figures or'83 figures. The Minister tells me that this is an independent tribunal.

Well, how independent is it, Madam Speaker, when we go through - and I apologize, the latest listing I have here is for the year ended 1985, and some of these members may be gone now and some replaced but, as I understand it, there are about 24 members of the Manitoba Labour Board. Here's one, Madam Speaker .- (Interjection)- What did he say? Well, I'm sure glad the Honourable Member for Kildonan isn't in charge because his responses certainly don't take care of the problem either.

At no time have I said that the board, Madam Speaker , has acted in a biased way, but I am suggesting that the law with which the members of the Manitoba Labour Board have to work is certainly slanted against that union sector that the Minister referred to earlier, nothing about worker sector, but union sector; and this Minister and honourable members opposite would do well to start understanding that the union sector does not always have the interests and the well-being of workers at heart. What is Shirley Carr 's position, Madam Speaker , on free trade?

Does that help the working people of Manitoba , the position of Wilt Hudson on free trade, does that help the workers of Manitoba? The position of the Honourable Minister of Labour and the First Minister, newly taken on free trade, does that help the working people of this province? Madam Speaker, this man shouldn't be the Minister of Labour if his interests are only to wriggle in and out of the pockets of the union leaders of this province . A MEMBER: They don't know where to put him anymore. MR. J. McCRAE: Here 's one member of the Labour Board, Madam Speaker, a member of the Manitoba Federation of Labour.

Well, isn't it Mr. Hudson, who's the President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour? Two weeks ago, Mr. Hudson and Mr. Zimmer of the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union held a press conference, Madam Speaker, to complain about me and about other honourable members on this side of the Chamber interfering or intimidating workers . Will someone come forward and tell the Labour Board, after the Minister has laid his charge of unfair labour practices against me and my colleagues, after he's done that, what kind of evidence is he going to build for his case, Madam Speaker?

It's an irresponsible Minister who makes that kind of comment in th is House and honourable members opposite get involved in making comments like that all too often, and it's time that venom was removed from their bloodstreams, Madam Speaker. Here 's another one , Madam Speaker. President, Manitoba Federation of Labour, 1984-85 - the President of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, 1984-85. Here's another one - Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers' Union . These are members of the Labour Board, Madam Speaker.

And another one - Sheet Metalworkers ' International Association , international representative for Amalgamated Clothing and Textiles Workers; Winnipeg Labour Council ; Winnipeg Union Label League . These are the union sector representatives, but a number of these representatives are the same ones I referred to earlier who donated and contributed so generously to the New Democratic Party. And these are not your average working guys, Madam Speaker .

I can 't afford to make donations like that, and yet certain union leaders in this province do, so we have to wonder about just whether we make any comments about the members of the Labour Board or not , we certainly can make comments, Madam Speaker, about the law with which they work, the law they apply in trying to apply so-called justice to workers in this province . Madam Speaker, there's got to be some changes. I dealt a little while ago with the Eaton's situation and the first-contract legislation. Let me talk just for 1070

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 a minute, Madam Speaker , about the situation at Neepawa. The workers there sent me a letter, Madam Speaker, just in case honourable members opposite were interested - which I doubt - but because of a technicality, they are now forced to have a union they don't want, the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union . That union will not back off , Madam Speaker; that union knows full well what the wishes of those workers are, but that doesn't matter. They're going to confiscate their hard-earned dollars on their first pay cheque after certification.

Those workers were not against joining the union, Madam Speaker. They would like to be consulted and have a say as to which union it is they join . A MEMBER: They should have that right. MR. J. McCRAE: I'm just looking for a letter, Madam Speaker, I received from the workers there. I don't seem to be able to find it at this point. Here it is. I'd like to read this letter into the record, Madam Speaker, just so the record is clear for honourable members opposite, just about the situation this in-plant union is in.

I remind honourable members opposite, this union is not a wealthy union like the United Food and Commercial Workers' Union . Mr. Colin Trigwill is a union representative and he said to the union head for the in-plant union, "We're going to fight you all the way on this . We've got the money and you don't and we're going to win." That's where we're at. We've got the rich and powerful on one side and the average working union on the other side , and that's where we're sitting, Madam Speaker.

Another union representative in the plant , a worker in the plant, on the day of the demonstration a week ago last Friday - that was the day after certification - one of the people representing UFCW came into the coffee area as the rest of the workers were outside picketing and said, "Fire the bastards ." Now, Madam Speaker , that hardly strikes me as a good way to represent workers and to look after their needs by asking th at they be fired. It doesn't make much sense to me, and maybe that's one of the reasons that most of the workers there don't want that union because they are afraid of the future.

This letter, Madam Speaker, is from the in-plant union, and it's to me: "Here is the information as requested concerning the steps taken by Springhill Farms Employees Union ." I suggest the Minister of Labour stop chattering long enough to listen to this and he might get an idea , because he doesn't seem to have been listening the evening he met with those workers. Madam Speaker, I understand the Honourable Member for Kildonan wants to know why the members signed the cards. Ask them, Madam Speaker. They claim that promises were made to them . They claim they were intimidated.

So in defense of that, four workers representing UFCW had a press conference last Friday to say, 'Oh , we've been intimidated, too.' Madam Speaker, if there are all these complaints of intimidation on both sides , why will that Minister not put the whole thing to a vote so that we know what the situation is? Why will he refuse the workers' request to have this matter reviewed by another panel of the Labour Board? Why? I think we know why, Madam Speaker, and we know it' s because of the friendship between Mr. Zimmer and the Minister, and the friendship between Mr. Hudson and the Minister.

I'm sure the Minister was helpful in helping those two gentlemen put on their press conference. Maybe the Minister can tell me that's not true. If it's not, I'll withdraw that. He sits silently, Madam Speaker. The letter goes on: "We filed our first application for certification January 28, 1987. The people at the labour board took our application , checked through it and informed us that it was improperly prepared. We had neglected to fill in the constitution, the amount of the membership fees and the dues to be paid. " Technicalities , Madam Speaker , those were technicalities . There's a

section of The Labour Act that says, "Technicalities should not prevent anyone from putting forward a bona fide app lication." · "Also we did not have signed, individual membership cards." Madam Speaker, what they had, being an inexperienced union, they had a petition. The rules call for cards to be signed. Is that not an understandable mistake?

I'm sure you would agree with me, Madam Speaker, that is an understandable mistake by an inexperienced union, and I'm sure you'll also agree with me that in a democracy the people have a say, and in a democracy the people should have a right to a vote on an issue like this where there has been such misunderstanding. The letter goes on, Madam Speaker: " Also we did not have signed , individual membership cards . We had the people sign on one sheet of paper. Our lawyer in Brandon had adv ised us on this application.

"The labour board instructed us that we had seven working days to file from the date that the UFCW had filed which was January 26/87. "We took the constitution back to the people and had it accepted again. This time we had the people sign individual cards. We took the application back to the labour board, Wednesday, February 4/87 . The people at the labour board said that this application looked to be in order.'' Madam Speaker, not long after their application was thrown out and UFCW certified . The letter goes on: "Included is a copy of the incorrect procedure of signing up that we had used .

This was the second time that the people had signed up. The first membership applications were not signed individually and was therefore incorrect. You can see by the dates on this list that people had signed previous to the UFCW application for certification. This list indicates that we were working on our application for certification long before the date the UFCW appl ied for their certification. "The UFCW claimed we were not a duly constituted union at the time they applied for certification, so therefore our application should not be considered. 1071 "We feel that the board 's ruling was unfair.

Perhaps with your help we can persuade the minister of labour to intervene on our behalf." Madam Speaker, that letter might have been signed by 140 people at the plant, but it was signed by the president and the secretary of the in-plant union. Those were the same people, Madam Speaker, who demonstrated in Neepawa, the same people who

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 demonstrated on the steps of the Legislature . Members oppos ite were not to be seen that nigh t, Madam Speaker .- (Interjection)- 140 out of 160. Those are the same people who had to demonstrate a thi rd time in Neepawa, Madam Speaker , to get their right to have a vote on who should represent them . Lord knows, Madam Speaker, the people of Manitoba have a right to vote . They have a right to vote on the government they have to look after their needs. Surely , in a workplace , the people there should have a right , also, to a vote. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker , the Minis ter of Labour will only say what Wilf Hudson allows him to say. That's pretty clear around here. The United Food and Commercial Workers Union is organizing at the Sooter Photo plant in Winnipeg . Just to get back to Springhill just for a moment, Madam Speaker . There were 55 percent - and this will answer the Honourable Member for Kildonan's question - 55 percent of the workers at Springhill did sign UFCW cards . As many of them will tell you today, Madam Speaker, that was because they were misled and intimidated as to what would happen if they did or didn 't.

Eighty-two percent of the workers signed for the in-plant union , the Springhill Employees Union, Madam Speaker. So it is a confusing situation, I must admit . The Minister of Labour, he won 't admit that because his friends have signed up their 55 percent which is all that this Minister 's labour law calls for. All that's ever been needed to clear the air is a vote. This Minister can order it; he's got the right to do it. The board can order it; the board has the right to do it. The board can reopen any matter that it wants to according to the law. It won 't do it, Madam Speaker.

The Minister says, oh, it's shameful for me to say anything about the board . Well, I can say all I want about the Minister of Labour within parliamentary rules, Madam Speaker, and I will. I'll do my best to see that the workers of this province see the end of that Minister. They're an oppressive group opposite, Madam Speaker.

They 're putting constraints on freedom in every kind of respect that I can imagine, and when it hits the working man and woman of this province, Manitoba , we have to say "enough " not only for the Minister of Labour but for everyone on that side who supports the Minister of Labour and who supports trampling on the rights of everyday average working men and women in this province. There's something wrong with that. There's something wrong with a government that will continue to refuse to act to protect the rights of working people in this province.

The people out there are very angry, at Springhill, Madam Speaker. They're very angry with this Minister, with this government, and the regime this government has put into place to deal with labour relations in this province . The workers at Sooter Photo suffer from a similar situation, Madam Speaker. In that case , there's only one union. Guess which one , Madam Speaker? The United Food and Commercial Workers Union - Bruno 1072 Zimmer again . The workers there claim they have been intimidated. They've been threatened, they claim. They want the board to conduct a vote in their workplace.

The numbers are not the same, but I do know that of 130 or so workers or 140, 104 addressed a petition to me. Some of the members of the work force in this petition , I understand , are supportive of the UFCW. Some are not. That's fine. No one is against UFCW if the UFCW is going to operate properly . No one is against not having a union either . The point is, Madam Speaker, the workers here also would like an opportunity to pass a judgment. I always take the example , Madam Speaker, of a door-to-door salesman .

The Minister of Labour is also the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and I think he would be in charge of legislation dealing with protection for consumers . If I buy a vacuum cleaner at my door because somebody has pressured me into buy ing a vacuum cleaner and sign ing a cheque, and perhaps misrepresented how good that vacuum cleaner is, and I find the vacuum cleaner won 't even pick up a few , feathers , Madam Speaker, I want my money back. There's protection built into our consumer and corporate law that gives consumers protection from that . There's a cooling-off period.

There's a time for people to change their minds. And there's the other thing about a secret ballot . Nobody can intimidate when you're making a secret ballot. I'm sure there are people who claim they have been intimidated and threatened . They don't want to raise their hand and say, oh, I vote against the UFCW, Madam Speaker . They don 't want to do that, because if that union is certified , there are going to be problems for those people ahead because they 've been told there are going to be problems .

So I'm telling you , Madam Speaker , a secret vote does not lie, and the workers in those workplaces are entitled to have a say as to who should represent them. The workers at Sooter sent this petition to me, which I presented to the Labour Board , and I hope the Labour Board will take note of it. These people have been led to believe that they 're going to have fines levied against them , that they're going to be fired. They were told things like that , so they tell me, when it came time for organizing and signing the union cards .

The petition says that they would like to opt out of the union and not be governed by unio n policies , such as paying dues and other monies which may cost $500 or more a year. Madam Speaker , these people are not wealthy peopl e like the Minister of Labour and his friends . Thes e are working people. If they don 't want to put out $20 or $25 a month for union dues, for questionable benefit , well then why should they have to? At the very least, they should be entitled to vote as to whether that should be imposed on them .

They don't want to have their individual rights of dealing with their employer taken away from them . They think that's what will happen if the union takes over. They don 't want to have fines levied against them. They want to know all the facts from both union an d management , so that they can make an informed decision about what' s best for their future. There 's been lots of talk in the plant and out of the plant. There '_ been talk in this House , and there 's been talk of interference on the part of elected representatives . I

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 still suggest that the Minister of Labour should, if he means those words, stand up and say them again and then say them outside, that I am commiting unfair labour practices, Madam Speaker. If that Minister will not lay a charge against me and every member on this side of the House, then that Minis ter should resign from his office. It's an irresponsible person indeed who goes around making statements like that. I don't expect much more from Will Hudson and Bruno Zimmer, but I expect more from a member of the Executive Council.

If that's the way he is going to besmirch my reputation, then I want some satisfact ion. Lay a charge and let's go on with it. Let's go down to the Labour Board and fight her out. Let 's do that. The Minister laughs, Madam Speak er. He thinks it's all right to make ugly accusations like that and to spread venom around about members of the Opposition who are elected to represent people in this province. The Minister certainly questions my motives. He should not be allowed to do that. Let him make a charge. If that Minis ter has the courage of his convictions, either lay a charge or resign.

COMM ITTEE CHANGE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson has a comm ittee change. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Yes please, Madam Speak er, if I might, because of the late change in the sitting, I'd like to make a com mittee change. I move, Economic Dev elopment: Enns for Ducharme; Derkach for Pankratz. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEA KER : The Honourable Mem ber for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Madam Speak er.

I rise on a grievance, a grievance, Madam Speaker, brought on by what I feel was one of the most incredible speeches I have seen made by a member of this Legislature, incredible because I think it shows truly how desperate the members of the Cons ervative party are when a member of the Conser vative Party has the gall to get up in this Legislature and state that he speaks for working people and his party speaks for working people. Madam Speaker, the people of this province know better. The people of this province know who those members opposite speak for. They've said so time and time again, Madam Speaker.

It's for the rich; it's for big business, but it is not for working people. Come to my riding, Madam Speaker, where there are many working people, and talk to them about the Conservative Party. They will tell you wher e they feel the loy alties of the Conservative Party lay, and it's not with working people, Madam Speaker.- (Interjection)- Madam Speak er, the Member for Brandon West had his opportunity to talk. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honou rable Member for Brandon West on a point of order. MR. J. McCRAE: Yes, Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

When the honourable member makes comments in this House about me and other honourable members, I would ask him to withd raw any comments that this honour able member represents the rich and th e powerful in this countr y. As a nine-year union man, Ma dam Speaker, as a worker for the Mani toba Government, I resent those comments. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: The member may resent those comments but that is the fact of the history of the Cons ervative Party.

If he speaks for working people, he's in the wrong party, Madam Speaker. MR. G. DUCHARME: What union were you a member of? MR. S. ASHTON: What union was I a member of, for the Member for Riel. Madam Spea ker, I went through two strikes. I was on strike when I was elected as a member of the Steelworkers Local 616 6, and I'm proud of that. Madam Speaker, I'm proud of that, and I'm proud of a system that we've developed in this province that does protect the rights of working people to organize, to unionize, if they so decide, a system that has an impartial labour board which protects those rights.

I'm proud of being in a province that does respect those rights. Tha t is why I'm so concerned about what I'm hearing from members opposite. We saw tod ay, I think, an incredible attack on the integrity of the Labour Board. Does the Member for Brandon West not know, does the Member for Arthur not know what the Labour Board is, who is appointed to it, and how those appointments are made? The Member for Brandon West, Madam Speak er, attempted by referring . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Could we please conduct the busine ss of the House in an an orderly fashion. MR.

S. ASHTON: Madam Speak er, does the Member for Brandon West not know the full composition of the Labour Board? He read through, in typical selective fashion, some of the members of the Labour Board who do, Madam Speake r, happen to represent working people through their unions. Did he read the other mem bers of the Labour Board and the busi ness organizations that they represent? No, Madam Speaker. Did he make clear mention of the fact, Madam Speaker, that we had a Labour Board when they were in office with the same methods of representation that ensured tha t both labour and mana gement would be represented ?

Did the Member for Brandon West mention that in debate? No, Madam Speaker, because he only wants to read into the record the kinds of personal attacks we've seen on members of unions 1073

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 who serve their unions well , vicious pers onal attacks which I think have no place in this Legislature . He's done the same thing, Madam Speaker .. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Membe r for Brandon West on a point of order. MR. J. McCRAE: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The honourable member is saying things that aren't so. I made no personal attacks. I named no names, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: A dispute over the fact is not a point of order . MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you , Madam Speaker . Let's talk about the attack of the member opposite on first-contract legislation.

Does he not understand the background of the first-contract legislation, Madam Speaker, legislation that was brought in to achieve first contracts without strikes? Is he not in favour of that, or would he prefer that those contracts were not settled through that legislation and that there would be long and costly strikes? Is that what he wants for the Province of Manitoba? If that is the case, let him say so.

But let him not lead what I think is a very sneaky attack on a fine piece of legislation, because that is all we have seen from that member is sneaky attacks, Madam Speaker, of the type we saw in the first-contract legislation . Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair .) Let's compare the record in regard to working people . What happened between 1977 and 1981 in regard to the rights of working people in this province, in regard to the labour legislation, Workers Compensation, Workplace Safety and Health? Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, nothing happened, nothing happened whatsoever.

Let's talk about Workers Compensation. I remember full well in 1981, when I was first elected, the degree of fru stration in regard to Workers Compensation in this province. Now what had the previous government done? Does anyone recall on that side the Lampe Report? Does anyone recall that? Well it appears, not too many. Some do. Does anyone recall how many of the recommendations of the Lampe Report the Conservatives implemented when they were in government? A MEMBER: 46 out of 49. MR. S. ASHTON: Try 2 out of 129 for the Member for Lakeside, 2 out of 129. What a sorry record!

What were the two recommendations that they agreed to? The provision of long - distance telephones and the installation of a computer system. My God, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the working people of my riding were saying, thank God for the Conservatives. They 've sure got their priorities straight - 2 out of 129. When we came in, we immed iately acted .

The Minister of Cooperative Development, the Member for Churchill as Minister responsible for the Compensation Board, brought in the Cooper report , and we acted on 13 out of 15 of the recommendations that were made in response to some very serious charges that have been made. Since then, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we brought in a rehabilitation system, which did not exist when the Conservatives were in office. We acted on all 19 of the recommendations of the report that recommended the establishment of a rehabilitation system in this province. We've reacted time and time again.

I'm sure I can state for the record that Conservative members of this House will react once again when the review on compensation that is currently being conducted and is currently being prepared is tabled, because I think we will once again act on behalf of working people in Manitoba. You know , Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think what typified the Conservative approach in regard to working people was the line of ques tioning that the Leader of the Opposition got into one day in this House on the Compensation Annual Report.

I'm sure all members of this House will remember how he and the critic for Compensation, how they constantly harped on about the unfunded liability for rehabilitation which , as the Minister quite rightly pointed out, is something we're not ashamed of. That's something that's there for the benefit of working people. But regardless of that, I recall the Leader of the Opposition 's response to the Minister responsible for Compensation expressing his concern about injured workers and their families. What did he say, Mr. Deputy Speaker? He said, I'm not talking about injured workers. I'm talking about the deficit.

That's what he said, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and that shows their priorities. When it comes to Compensation, where are their priorities? The injured worker? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Deficit, that's all they can think of - deficit , deficit, deficit. They can't even understand the difference when it's a deficit or an unfunded liability. Those are their priorities . Let's talk about workplace safety and health. I remember from my days at lnco, I remember from talking to people who worked a lot longer at lnco than I had of some of the extreme concerns that existed about workplace safety and health. What happened, Mr.

Deputy Speaker? What did the members opposite do when they were in government in 1977-81? Did they bring in changes to workplace, safety and health legislation? Not a chance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It took the election of a New Democratic Party in government in 1981 to bring in comprehensive amendments to The Workplace Safety and Health Act that included such vital things as the right to refuse unsafe work. What priorities did those show? Once again , that the Tories were not concerned about working people. It was the New Democratic Party that was, not only concerned in words , but act ion as well. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if we compare the Conservative time in office to the NDP time in office , I think we can show , not in words, but in action the fact that it is only the New Democratic Party that has stood for working people, and it's only the New Democratic Party in this Legislature that has acted on the concerns of working people. The Member for Brandon West can talk all he wants, but no one is going to believe him, given that sorry record that his party has opposite. Well let's talk, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a little further about what we see going on.

What I see, for the Member for Brandon West , is I think echoed in the editorial that he was so sensitive about in the Brandon Sun. A MEMBER: Why was he sensitive? 1074

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 MR. S. ASHTON: Why was he sensitive? Well let's look at the headlines, " Stay in the Legislature." This is the Member for Brandon West's home newspaper, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It said, " Stay in the Legislat ure ." It made reference to a meeting that had been held between Spr inghill farm workers and represent atives of the UFCW. It made mention of the fact that the news media people should not have been there. It also said , another of the people who wouldn't have normally been inside those doors was a member of the Legislature.

I continue: "Jim McCrae, the Member for Brandon West, the Labour critic for the Progressive Conservative Opposition , also attended." But what did the Brandon Sun say about it? Well they said quite clearly that the Legislature is where Mr. Mccrae should have staye d on Wednesday . "Mr. McCrae is making a mockery of his position as an elected MLA by physically going inside the hall in Neepawa and participating as if he had a direct stake in the battle ." I want to read it again at the suggestion of members here. " Mr.

McCrae is making a mockery out of his position as an elected MLA by physically going inside the hall in Neepawa and participating to get a direct stake in the battle ." That's what the Brandon Sun says, not what the Minister of Labour says, not what a member of this side of the Legislature says . That's the Brandon Sun. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the problem. It is not a question , I think, as the member opposite tried to talk about with such great bluster about suggesting he was responsible for unfair labour practices . That's not for members of the Legislature to decide or suggest.

That's a question that is decided by the Labour Board . But I think what it shows is how inappropriate his own activ ities are in this current situation . Really what the member keeps talking about I think is quite ironic. He suggests that the Minister of Labour is taking side s in this dispute. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker , it is the Member for Brandon West who is taking sides in this dispute, and I would suggest on a broad range of questions. And whose side is that member on? Not the workers, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but on the side of those who would see us go back 10 and 20 and 30 and 40 years in terms of labour legislation, in terms of rights for working people . It's the same type of philosophy we see in the right-to-work movement in the United States. (Madam Speaker in the Chair .) I wonder if any members on the other side of the Legislature, the Conservatives, would have the guts to say that's the type of philosophy that they support. I suspect that many of them do. What is the right-to work group? -(Interjection)- democracy, says the Member for Morris.

He thinks the right to work is something equated with democracy . Well the right to work -(Interjection)- liberty, freedom - is the most anti worker development in the United States in 25 years. Here in the Province of Manitoba in this Legislature, we see their spokespeople. We see them, the Member for Morris, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition . We see them stating quite clearly that they equate the right to-work movement with democracy. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose on a point of order. MR. G.

CUMMINGS: Would the member ente rtain a question when he has finish ed his rema rks? MR. S. ASHTON: I think it depends , Mad am Speak er, on whether I have any time left. I've got a lot that I want to express on this particular matter . I think there's a lot that needs to be put on the record. As I said , Madam Speaker , they're clearly talking today about supporting right-to-work legislation which takes away the very basis of the right to organize that has been accepted by a broad cross

section of society for so many years. It fundamentally attacks the right to organize . Let it be clear on the record that the Member for Morris and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are clearly in favour of that sort of approach here in Manitoba. Madam Speaker , I take offence to the comments that the Member for Brandon West is making from his seat about preaching hatred. That member , Madam Speaker , got up on a vitriolic attack on unions and a number of individuals representing those unions for 40 minutes in this Legislature .

It was then, Madam Speaker, followed by a five-minute harangue from members from their seats who could not contain themselves . If there is any hatred being spread, Madam Speaker, in this Legislature, it's not from me -(Interjection)- venom. Well let's look at it, Madam Speaker . We've seen they are in favour of right-to-work legislation. What else would happen under a Conservative Government? What is their true agenda? First contract legislation , that would be gone clearly. They don't like that.

The Labour Board, apparently the Member for Brandon West has objections to labour representatives being on the Labour Board. So what's he going to do? Take them all off? Have only the business half of the Labour Board? What happened to having a balanced Labour Board, Madam Speaker? What has happened to the idea of having a balanced Labour Board that has representation from both sides. Well apparently, that is not what the Member for Brandon West wants . We hear, time and time again, him talking about specific incidents that have taken place , incidents that are before the Labour Board .

I would like to know , Madam Speaker, what he is basing his assumptions on. Is he assuming that the working people who were involved in those disputes cannot express their concerns themselves? I think that's what he is doing and that's what I find particularly insulting . I think the working people who are involved in those disputes have stated their views on both sides of the issue and will continue to do so. It's up to an impartial body, which the Labour Board is quite clearly for anyone who understands how it's appointed.

I think it's then up to the Labour Board to decide, and I think it's highly irregular for a member of the Legislature to try and insert himself in the middle of that. You know, the Member for Brandon West tries to talk about taking sides , as if the Minister of Labour was taking sides on the dispute within Manitoba. He keeps making reference to the Eaton 's credit card incident . I, quite frankly, agree totally with the Member for St. James, the Minister of Labour, when he did tear up 1075

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 his Eato n's card. I did that during that dispute . I did that because I supported the workers who were on strike in Ontario ; and I think the Minister of Labour had every right to make his own personal statement in that regard. It was not an item that was within his jurisdiction . It was not an item that was within his jurisdiction at all. A MEMBER: And he says he supports workers . MR. S. ASHTON: And this is the same member opposite who talks about freedom in this House, freedom , and yet he tries to muzzle the Minister of Labour in expressing his view.

Well as I said, Madam Speaker, I take offence to this concerted attack that we're seeing on working people, the suggestion that somehow unions do not represent working people. What nonsense, Madam Speaker . Does the Mamber for Brandon West not know how unions are certified? Does the Member for Brandon West not know the number of criteria that have to be met before a bargaining group can be certified? Does the Member for Brandon West not know that those principles that were established in that legislation have been accepted by consecutive governments, including Conservative governments, for many years?

Is he now suggesting that we turn that back? Is that also on his agenda? Is that also on his agenda, Madam Speaker? He talks about labour legislation being slanted in favour of labour. What would he change? What would he change, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West on a point of order . MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the honourable member would entertain a question. MR. S. ASHTON: I believe I already answered that question for the Member for Ste . Rose.

I will continue despite the continuous efforts to interrupt me by members opposite who apparently do not like what I have to say. But I want to say, Madam Speaker, I want the member opposite, if he feels that the present legislation is biased, I want him to say what provisions of the legislation are biased. I want him to say what he would change. We've seen a number of members of his caucus talk about so-called right-to-work legislation as being on their agenda . Is that on his agenda as well? What would he change?

You know, it's very easy for the member opposite to get up and make headlines on this type of an issue, to insert himself in a very sensitive labour matter and, Madam Speaker , I, as someone who has been through two strikes - I went through a strike before I was elected to this Legislature and know some of the psychology that can develop in a labour dispute - I want to say that I wholeheartedly believe in the system that we 've established, the Labour Board system .

I believe that it's important to have mechanisms to resolve disputes without the kind of agitation that we've seen from members opposite because that does nothing to assist the situation. You know, when I was first elected, the first thing I did as a member of the Legislature , in fact even before 1076 I was officially a member of the Legislature, was to contact !NCO and steelworkers in Thompson to see if there was any way in which we could get discussions resumed to resolve the strike situation.

I want you to know that I'd gone from being on the picket lines to trying to talk to both sides ; and the then Minister of Labour , the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology , did follow up on that and met both with !NCO and representatives of the steel workers and that strike was resolved very shortly thereafter. I say that, Madam Speaker, because I believe that there has to be a proper system of resolving disputes, not the kind of agitation that we're seeing from the Member for Brandon West . That serves no reason whatsoever .

What we need is a system in place that will resolve disputes such as this , and that is what the Labour Board does . That's what our legislation does in regard to collective bargaining. There are very stringent requirements on both sides, on behalf of the union and on behalf of management, Madam Speaker, as to what is fair labour practice, what is unfair labour practice, how much support a union needs to be certified , voting ' procedures. I think it's a system that's served us well. So what is the Member for Brandon West and his Conservative colleagues , what are they placing on the agenda?

What is their real agenda, Madam Speaker? We'll look at it. Look at it. We see today the same sort of tactic that we've seen so many times from members opposite. I've seen it in my own constituency. They conveniently ignore their past record and they conveniently ignore the statements by the Member for Morris and Deputy Leader , which are clearly not in the interests of working people, which are clearly on the sides of those in management that would like to prevent unions from being organized, and there are unfortunately some, although not all.

I think some people in management are quite open to unions and to collective bargaining and I think that's positive. We've seen that. We've seen the true agenda of the Conservative Party, and I think we're going to see it again and again as the next few months come up. We're seeing it on compensation. We're seeing clearly that the members opposite are concerned not about the compensation system and injured workers .

We've seen that from their actions in government when they artificially kept premiums down and prevented workers getting the kind of compensation that they required when there was no rehabilitation system , when there were terrible abuses taking place in the Compensation Board as wer e documented by the Cooper Report. We've seen their past record . But it's continuing today, and that is why I find it particularly galling, to the Member for Brandon West who talked about the interests of working people , when here is an issue which clearly addresses the concerns of working people - compensation.

Where was he when his leader, the Leader of the Opposition, was so clearly putting himself on the side of reducing what he call s the deficit in compensation? Reducing the deficit instead of standing up to the injured workers and their families and addressing their real needs, Madam Speaker. He was nowhere. So we know where they stood. We know where they 're standing , but we keep getting about weekly, I think , new indications of where they would go.

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 The Member for Portage, in debate on tree trade, talked about, oh well, the real reas on the New Dem ocrats are against free trade is that somehow society here might follow the society in the United States where there's been less and less unionization and how he crit icized that. Does that mean that he wants that society established here? Is that what he wants? Pure, pure unions? If that's the case, let him say so direct ly. It was certainly the statement in his speech on free trade. Is that the real agenda of the Conser vative Party? Is he only one member who's saying that?

Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand on that? Is he in favour of workers having the right to organize colle ctively under the fair principles that we've esta blished? Well, a member on this opposite side suggests no. I think there's no evidence to argue to the contr ary. I think there's every indication that the members opposite would restrict the right of workers to organize. Let them stand up over the next few years and put their agenda clearly on the record.

And if they can somehow explain how tearing apart the Labour Board, an impartial body , ' which it clearly is, that helps working people, I am waiting to hear it, Madam Speak er. If they can explain how ignoring the needs of injured workers for four years when they're in government and then opposing now methods that have been put in place to deal with those needs through compensation, if they can say how that helps working people, well, let's hear it right now.

If they can say how ignoring the needs in terms of workplace safety and health, Madam Speak er, for four years, and then waiting for an NDP Government to introduce changes to workplace safety and health, if they can explain how that helps working people, I want to hear it right now. If they can say to me how their statements about unions and officials who have been elected by the unions that are democratic bodies that represent the workers in the plants of which they're certified, how they somehow do not speak for workers.

When they were elected democr atically in an election, just as those members opposite were, if they could suggest how changing that system, not having those representatives somehow is in the interests of working people, I am waiting to hear it. But you know, Madam Speaker, I know that they don't have any answers to those question I've raised. It's all rhetoric as the Member for The Pas mentions. And you know, we've heard this rhetoric for years and years and years and years. I've been hearing it in my constituency in Thompson for years.

The Conservatives, every election, they try and say, oh, we're on your side, too. We're in favour of the rights of working people. MR. J. McCRAE: Of course, we are. MR. S. ASHTON: But when they're in government - "Of course, we are," says the Member for Brandon West. When they're in government, on issue after issue, they ignore the plight of working people and in fact go further, as would those who support the right-to-work legislation, and go totally against the rights of working people in this countr y.

Tha t is why they've never had any cred ibility with the working people of this country; tha t is why, at the present time, they have no credibility with the working people of this country; and that is why, in the future, they will continue to have no credibility with the working people of this count ry.

The working people of this country will not be fooled by the rhetoric of members of the Legislature of the like of Brandon West, who wants to impose himself on labour dis putes wherever he can in this province to gain publicity for his own personal views and the views of his party on labour relations, which I suggest are not in favour of the inte rests of working people, are totally against the interests of working people. They won't be fooled by that, Madam Speak er. They know where their party stands. The Conser vatives, his torically and today, are not supporting the interests of working people.

Only the New Democratic Party has historically and only the New Democratic Party will continue to do so in the future. Thank you, Madam Speak er. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Is the member prepared to answer a question at this point? Can he make it very clear how he can say it is und emocratic for the majority of the workers to be opposed to the union that is being foisted upon them and not have the right to have a vote? MR. S. ASHTON: I think, Madam Speaker, the member is alluding to a specific situation, the Springhill situation.

I want to say that unlike the Member for Brandon West , I will not involve myself in the details of that dispute. I believe cards were signed for the UFCW; there were workers who were suggesting that is no longer a valid representation of the interests of workers. That's what we have Labour Boards for, impartial Labour Boards, to decide questions such as that. We don't need those discussions in this Legislature. That's not fair to anyone, including the workers in that plant. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West with a question? MR. J.

McCRAE: Yes, does the honourable member have a little more time left, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: Yes, the honourable member has more time. MR. J. McCRAE: Good. Ma da m Speak er, the Ho nourable Memb er for Thompson spoke in glowing terms about the first contr act legislation, about the fact that freedom of speech is denied in our Manitoba Labour Relations Act, ab out the tact th at our certification and decertification provisions are second to none, and about the successor rights provisions being very good for workers in this province.

Now, Madam Speaker , the Labour Management Review Committee has been set up to review legislation that comes forward, and that commit tee is charged 1077

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 with the responsibility of passing judgment on legislation that comes to this House. Have those provisions received the approval of the Labour Management Review Committee? MR. S. ASHTON: Madam Speaker, a number of those items would predate the process that was set up in terms of that. Many of those items have been in the case, in terms of labour legislation in Canada, for nearly 30 and 40 years, so I don't know what the member is referring to .

If he is somehow suggesting that the approval of that body should be required for all legislation that goes ahead, I think he would find that there would be no legislation whatsoever on either side . Governments have to make those decisions.

But I think in matters regarding certification, which is the matter I was referring to in the previous question , that is best dealt with by the Labour Board, outside of the political arena, outside of partisan politics, outside of grandstanding, in an unbiased forum with labour and management representatives who can deal with the facts and be fair to all sides, including both management and the workers. So as I said, in the answer to the previous question from the Member for Ste . Rose, that's where disputes such as this lie, with the Labour Board.

QUESTION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture, and the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet in the Chair for the Department of Health . CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - HEALTH MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Baker: Committee, come to order. The Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you , Mr. Chairman . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I wonder if I might just ask a question which is not on this line , but we'll be on it later on, just for clarification . I'll give this to the Minister. This is information that the Research and Planning Directorate have put out. It's November 1985; it's on ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorry , Don . Did you want to give it to him? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm just reading it now. MR. D. ORCHARD: I just want to ask if this information could be updated for the committee. The last year is 1984-85. It's on Mental Health Services in Manitoba.

If that could be updated prior to us getting into the Mental Health line, it would facilitate debate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister? His answer is yes. The Member for River Heights. 1078 MRS . S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask some very specific questions about the Manitoba Continuing Care services available in Manitoba. As I understand, there are three basic types of workers.

There are those who perform an orderly service; those who perform what we could call a homemaking service, which would include cleaning tasks or cooking tasks; and those who provide attendance services, which may include the feeding or basic caring for individuals, such as toileting. Are those basically the three categories of services offered? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Well, actually, we have the following: home care attendance, home care orderly service , home support workers , licensed practical nurses, registered nurses , resource coordination, training, overnight workers, daily workers, Fokus in The Pas, service coordination and others. Transportation, that's the same. Of course, there's the Victoria Order of Nurses that we have an agreement ,. with, a contract with, and then there are some therapists . I guess that's about it. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: What are the major centres from where the home care work takes place?

For example, I know that there's a major home care centre at the Health Sciences Centre. But does that look after all of Winnipeg or does each hospital have its own home care system? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Of course, you know we have the regional districts and each district has its own , and each hospital also. We would like to try to see if we can coordinate that also, but it is up to the region and more and more working with the hospitals to try to deinstitutionalize but making sure that there's home care in there. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Of the 29,000 Manitobans who , it's estimated, will receive care, what is the rural-urban mix of that? HON. L. DESJARDINS: All right, this isn't bad. I've got February '87, actual. There's the rural regions - 6,300, and the Winnipeg total - 10,295, for a total of 16,995. That's the one month of February. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: One of the complaints that I, as an MLA, have received from a number of sources, and I know the Minister has received the same kind of complaint, and that comes from the individuals who perhaps are best described as those who will require home care over a very extended period of time as opposed to those who require it for a week or 10 days following their release from hospital, and that is the need for an appeal procedure whereby instead of taking their complaints to the deliverer of the service , they could in fact take their complaints to an independent board who would evaluate whether they had a justifiable complaint or not.

I know the Minister has turned down that request. Why is the department reluctant to provide these individuals with that kind of an appeal procedure?

Thursday, 16 April, 1987 HON. L. DESJARDINS: We have suggested and we have accepted an advisory committee, and also we would certainly look favorably, I suppose , if there was an appeal to the Minister or something, if need be, in certain cases. But we're afraid - I'm bei ng very candid on that. I'm very much afraid of having an independent assessor to say this is what you must have. Then you're going to have more of that. More and more the people want that, I think, since we've had the human rights and so on.

They were talk ing about that in The Mental Health Act also, to say this is what a person is entitled to get. But can you see the danger of that? Also, we've got the judges running the show now, not the Legislature , and the next time is you are going to have somebody outside who has no responsibility for providing the funds and no one who will decide at what level. In practice, I think it would be terrific , but it would come back to haunt us. They would go to court, we would be in court all the time, and it would be very, very difficult . I'm ready to explore that with them.

We said, well, , let's try the voluntary advisory committee and work with you, and they were talking about this was a certain group, like you were saying, mostly the physically handicapped who will be like that for the rest of their lives and they were talking about being on this committee themselves. You know, when the consumers decide themselves on the appeal, if there is an awful lot of money, it might be great, but then there is the other side of it, and frankly I'm worried that we wouldn 't catch up. You know, there seems to be kind of a direction in that.

We saw the report that the Minister of Community Services brought in and they suggested so much money. I had the Pascoe Report a few years ago on mental health and everybody was fine, except that Pascoe was talking about $5 million a year for so many years , and that's very difficult. That's the main reason, rightly or wrongly. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: I think there is a difference between the type of procedure that I would see as valid and the type of thing that you're concerned about, and that is that I would agree with you completely that you can't have the client determining the level of service that client gets.

I mean, that's not an appropriate thing, any more than the individual who appeals a UIC judgment has the right to decide what level of service they're going to get from the Unemployment Insurance. But what they do have is the right to appeal as to whether the judgment has been correctly made with regard to the level of service. In other words , these are the service guidelines, and I don 't think that I have been correctly evaluated according to those service guidel ines.

They haven't the right to change the guidelin es and that, it would seem to me, would be an appropriate place for some of the complaints that have been raised with me by a number of individuals about poor orderly care or about the lack of availability of orderlies or the lack or availability of attendants or, one case that I know you're very familiar with in terms of somebody actually having her home, she feels , broken into.

That kind of complaint I don 't think should go to those individuals to judge, but I think that there is legitimate room here for a group who are not civil servants and who are not delivering the service eithe r who can say this individual has not received the kind of treatment that we're capable of providing. HON. L. DESJARDINS: But could you not achieve that by having an advisory committee to do exactly that , a fair advisory commi ttee , but then not take away the responsibility from the elected representative?

Because that in itself, we have to accept some of the responsibilities and we can be turfed out of office. But we're the ones who have to raise the funds also. In years like what we're going through now , if you had that in all areas in the schools and, you know, then I would imag ine that you could, if you carried that on through all the departments, that would be a great way probably to achieve what I've been trying for a long time to make sure that there is aid to private schools, but you take that away from the politicians.

I don't know, and it should be the ones who raise the funds who have that responsibility. I certainly would be ready to go with an advisory committee. Then in most instances , I certainly would try to go ahead with that decision voluntarily , but at least it's not that added thing that they can take me to court everyday on this, and they're not getting enough. It's the same thing if you put something in the act that a person is entitled to this.

You can do the same thing about Medicare, you can do the same thing about everything else and, if you feel that one time if you haven 't got the funds or something , fine, and then it becomes a decision from that board who decides yes, the way you explain it, that yes, they 're entitled to three hours, not two hours of orderly service. So that's the concern that I have. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: As the Minister may be aware , there are a number of hospitals in the United States, and I grant you, private hospitals who do have an individual and sometimes a board or group on staff to whom a patient can in fact go to , to act as an arbitrator, if you will, on their behalf. In other words, they represent the patients as opposed to the doctors and the medical staff who have a tendency of thinking that they're fully in control and the patient would like to think occasionally that they are in control.

That is more of the type of thing that I am thinking of here, that we are dealing with individuals, some of whom are dependen t on a daily basis , some on an hourly basis, for care. Some of their complaints are probably totally unjustified . In fact, I've heard more than my fair share of unjustified ones. Some of them are perhaps legitimate, and I don't get the sense that these people , because of the pressure of delivering the service , that they often get a fair hearing on the huma n side of their comp

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-30
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 30.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e59a0bf6f837f4df261a618255623c92aa703044

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