LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
June 15, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Storie). It complies
with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 55,000 children depend upon the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS several studies have pointed out the
cost savings of preventative and treatment health care programs such as the
Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS the Children's Dental Program has been
in effect for 17 years and has been recognized as extremely cost‑effective
and critical for many families in isolated communities; and
WHEREAS the provincial government did not
consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to
eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assistants providing this service;
and
WHEREAS preventative health care is an
essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that
the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me
to report progress and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the
Annual Report of the Manitoba Development Corporation for the year ending March
31, 1992.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention
of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from
the
Also this afternoon, from the
On
behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this
afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Health
Care Profession
Layoffs‑Impact
on Patient Care
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, when the minister and his U.S.‑based
multimillion dollar consultant said they were going to cut $45 million to $65
million from St. Boniface Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, we stated that
this would cost hundreds of jobs and would make our hospitals more like U.S.‑based,
profit‑orientated institutions.
Now
that the cutting is going on according to the Connie Curran plan‑‑it
is right here in the contract, Mr. Speaker, in the schedule, page 6‑‑going
exactly true to form at St. Boniface Hospital, can the minister advise this
House how many more caregivers, how many primary caregivers are going to be
laid off at Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface Hospital before they are
finished their cutting, and how can this not help but cut the quality of
patient care?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am
rather shocked that my honourable friends the NDP and their colleagues would
applaud such an erroneous statement.
First of all, let me tell my honourable friend‑‑and
he can contact the president of St. Boniface Hospital to have this fact
confirmed‑‑this initiative of layoffs announced today is not
connected to the Connie Curran consulting contract.
Let
me explain to my honourable friend, because from time to time they wish to have
information, and I intend to provide it for them, and they can have this
information confirmed by contacting Mr. Litvack.
Firstly, as I explained in Estimates, and this
Estimates explanation was given to my honourable friend Tuesday last, Thursday
last, and it involves a closure of 39 surgical beds because St. Boniface is now
managing surgical patients according to an experimental admissions process, a
not‑for‑admissions process, replacement of inpatient to outpatient,
all of the things that a changing health care system demands be done.
They have proven that system will work. They can deliver their surgical slate in the
same quantity as before with 39 fewer beds.
My honourable friend would not expect St. Boniface to staff empty
surgical beds. That is part of the
layoffs.
The
second part of the layoffs that were announced today is as a result of an
investigation internally undertaken by St. Boniface which identified that they
had a more generous staffing ratio in nursing, and that was identified a year
and a half ago, and the investigation that commenced a year and a half ago was
completed approximately a year ago. They
have now worked through that process and have established this staffing mix
which led to this layoff.
I
repeat, Sir, and my honourable friend, if he has the courtesy to do it, ought
to check with Mr. Litvack. He will find
this is not attached to the Connie Curran process as he would like to allege
and mislead Manitobans about.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, we are even more worried by what
the minister has stated. That means
there are more layoffs and more multimillion dollar cuts as a result of the
minister's initiative.
Mr.
Speaker, then, if the cuts are not related to Connie Curran, the paper
indicates they are related to the budget funding cutbacks of this
government. It might be related to a
certain extent to some reorganization, but why‑‑and there is $20
million more cut in the hospital budgets this year.
How
can the minister stand up and say this is somehow reorganization and will not
affect patient care, when they have cut millions of dollars from the hospitals'
budgets?
* (1340)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, it is not me who is saying
that. It is the management of St.
Boniface Hospital reacting to budget realities and program changes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am sure my honourable
friend understands not‑for‑admission surgery, where you move a
surgical procedure from inpatient, where the individual is admitted to
hospital, occupies a bed, where you shift that surgical procedure to outpatient
where there is no admission.
Surely my honourable friend would agree that
you do not need the bed. Surely my
honourable friend would admit that you do not need the staff who cared for the
patient in that bed. Surely my
honourable friend would not want to have empty beds staffed, because that is
the shift in the health care system that is identified.
That is why St. Boniface is able to say that
with a change in admission procedures, where patients are admitted only on the
day of surgery, for instance, not the day before, you use fewer beds. St. Boniface has also done substantive work,
as other hospitals are doing, in terms of not‑for‑admission surgery
replacing former inpatient surgical procedures.
Surely my honourable friend is not disagreeing with that better
management of resource.
Now, it is unfortunate, Sir, that in
downsizing the beds required for surgery, there are layoffs, but the number of
surgeries, the quality of surgery and patient care is not compromised in that
better management of resource.
Role of
Licensed Practical Nurses
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that only 30
of the 148 layoffs are surgical nurses.
Why does the minister keep going off and not dealing with the question?
My
final supplementary to the minister is:
Why is the minister allowing the virtual decimation of the LPNs at St.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Now, Mr. Speaker, for
the second part of the answer my honourable friend received in response to his
first question, which I now know he will understand when I repeat it the second
time, the staffing nurse mix in St. Boniface Hospital was under investigation
internally by
The
process will be as it has been in other acute care hospitals, the new staffing
mix being registered nurses and nurses' aides versus the mix that is currently
in place of registered nurses, LPNs and nurses' aides.
Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend says,
what confidence do I have? I have
confidence that the management, the board, the individuals planning care at St.
Boniface Hospital, when they say these changes will not compromise the quality
of care, I believe them.
I
suggest my honourable friend, if he does not, he maybe should enlighten himself
by phoning that hospital and having that information provided directly as I
have given him here today.
Airline
Industry
Government
Support
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, today, upwards of a thousand Air
I
know the government makes light of this matter, but this is very serious to
these employees. The employees have
asked that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) be presented with this Air Canada political
action committee banner displaying the signatures of all the Air Canada
concerned employees, and I will send it across for the Premier's information.
My
question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism. What specific steps is this minister and this
government now prepared to take to protect the airline jobs in
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have to correct part of
the preamble from the member for Transcona.
I did not suggest that I valued only the Air
As
I outlined today on the steps of the Legislature, and as the Minister of
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) has done on previous occasions to questions from
the member for Transcona during the Estimates process, this is a process we
have been monitoring through the National Transportation Agency. We have been monitoring it through the compliance
review that was undertaken.
We
are in ongoing dialogue with representatives from Air
Recognizing that this is a national issue, the
situation affecting the airline industry is not unique to
In
terms of his very specific question, he knows full well the emphasis and
importance we put on the airline industry and transportation in
We
will continue to help the airline industry in those kinds of ways as well, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question
when asked what specific steps he was prepared to take to support the jobs in
this province.
Since the Minister of Industry and Trade has
stated his government will be supporting the Air Canada employees, will he be
extending the same offer to the employees of Canadian Airlines, and if so, what
form will that support take, or is he only doing as his Premier (Mr. Filmon)
has stated and as he just stated a few moments ago, that he will be continuing
to monitor the situation as events unfold, and what good will that do for the
employees?
* (1345)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, once again, I have to correct
the honourable member. We did not say we
were supporting one over the other, and he knows that full well. He has asked questions before.
In
fact, he asked questions in this House when the proposal was being put together
in terms of Canadian, and they were looking for financial support from
provinces. The
We
have indicated we are prepared to meet with the employees of Air
Airline
Industry
Reregulation
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): My supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the government now saying, since they are
expressing some form of support here for the airline employees, that this
government is prepared to call upon the federal government to reregulate the
transportation industry in
Will the Minister of Transportation be calling
for such action in light of the fact that
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the pleasures of being in
opposition and the statements you can make is something that is quite puzzling
at times.
The
member who asked the question of my colleague here just a minute ago made
reference to a thousand Air
Mr.
Speaker, during the Estimates process, when this member asked me what our
position was with the air industry between Air
Today, when there are a couple of hundred
people out there, the member sees fit to stand up and support the Air Canada
group, and here he has changed his position again and is asking if we are going
to support the Canadian group as well.
The
position we have continually put forward, this government, the Premier (Mr.
Filmon), my colleagues and myself is that we are monitoring it. We would be foolish to take a position at
this time on either side because we are concerned about what will happen to the
economy and to jobs in this province, and that position is still maintained by
us.
Public
Hearing Schedule
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Last night, the Clean Environment Commission
held its first hearing. One has to
question the timing of these hearings being in the month of June when the
government knows full well the farmers in rural
The
minister's representative was very clear in demonstrating that it was the
minister who wanted to have these meetings conducted in the month of June. In fact, Ed Connery, the former member for
Mr.
Speaker, my question to the minister is:
Given that this proposal has been in the works for so long, why is the
minister holding the hearings in the month of June?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, it seems
to me when I look around on this side of the House that there are substantially
more people on this side who have been involved in the agricultural community
than I see over there, particularly in the Liberal ranks.
Mr.
Speaker, in April, farmers are on the land in many cases. In May, they are on the land. In June, they are probably on the land, and
as well, in July, August, September, October, and in November, we are getting
into the holiday season.
So
it seemed to me when the information was brought forward, when the process was
ready to proceed, we recommended to the commission that they begin the process
upon receipt of all of the final documentation.
That was received in April, and the commission was advised they could
begin preparing for hearings.
* (1350)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the reason why it is occurring in
June, to be honest, is because this government is trying to fast track this
project. That is the reason why they are
trying to do it.
Information on the construction, operation and
maintenance of the water storage facility‑‑Mr. Speaker, the
minister cannot even tell me where the pipelines are going to be going, yet the
CEC is supposed to be evaluating‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: Why is this government proceeding with CEC
hearings before we even have the necessary information in order to justify a
decision?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, for this member to say this is
on a fast track, they are pretty slow over there if they think this is a fast
track. The fact is this proposal has
been around for years. The information
was brought forward, and it seems to me about three years ago, the Pembina
valley began this process.
But, Mr. Speaker, the more important part of
his question is whether or not there is adequate information available to the
commission.
Mr.
Speaker, I have said before, and I repeat again for the record, this will be a
complete, open and unfettered operation on the part of the Clean Environment
Commission. If there is information they
believe they need to make a decision, then they will request it.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the
My
question again to the minister: How can
CEC make a decision when, in fact, not all the facts are presented, when the
minster or no one from his department can say where the pipes are going to be
going, where the construction‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, the Clean Environment Commission
will have a number of areas which they will examine to decide if it is
appropriate to recommend a licence. I
would think the first part of their inquiry will be regarding the volumes of
water and whether or not there are impacts or mitigations.
Any
other information they want in addition to that, they will be perfectly free
within their authority to request, and, in fact, they have power of subpoena if
they need additional information.
Mr.
Speaker, I am fully satisfied they will seek whatever information they need if
it is not already in front of them.
Information
Release
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Last night, the Clean Environment Commission,
as was mentioned, held the first public meeting on the proposed
Given the admission that many documents are
shown only if they are asked for, I ask the minister now, will he publicly
release a list of all relevant documents concerning the projects and where
Manitobans can view these documents?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to table this information which is the entire information
from the Manitoba Department of Natural Resources that will be presented to the
Clean Environment Commission as these hearings proceed.
Pipeline
Route
Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Environment.
I
want to ask: When will the route for the
project be finalized, since the government is asking for approval for the
project without people even knowing where the pipeline is going?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, let me
address the preamble from the previous question.
It
seems to me that all the information that is relevant to this hearing has been
made available through the public registry process.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): On a point of order,
Mr. Speaker, a question was asked. The
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) responded.
Our
rules prohibit debate. I think it is
entirely out of order for the Minister of Environment now to attempt to answer
the previous question that presumably had already been answered by the Minister
of Natural Resources.
I
would ask him to answer the current question, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps we can get
some more information from this government.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I would like to
remind the honourable minister to deal with the matter raised.
* * *
Mr. Cummings: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, they are a little
sensitive on the other side when they are trying to misrepresent what is a very
open process.
The
process is open and unfettered and you know it.
You are trying to reflect on a process that is clear and open to the
public. Any information that is required
for the process is available.
Mr.
Speaker, the Department of Environment has always said any additional
information that people want is available.
The records that he is, by a backhanded method, trying to refer to as
not being on the record have been made voluntarily available to anybody who
wants them.
Public Hearings‑Selkirk
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it is very clear there are a
number of unanswered questions concerning this particular project, and it has
very serious impacts upon the community of Selkirk.
Since this government has reversed its
decision twice and has agreed now to hold hearings in
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, for a
bunch who do not like the hearings and criticize the process, now he wants more
of it.
* (1355)
Education
System
Medical
Services
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): After that punch line, it is a difficult one
to follow, Mr. Speaker.
Last week, the Minister of Education confirmed
that she supposedly is the lead minister developing a protocol and a procedure
in support services for children in schools with special health needs,
procedures such as catheterizations, tube feedings and so on.
After nearly 18 months of supposedly working
on a priority issue as this is for the government, we have seen no
developments, no results. No action plan
has been developed. We do not even have
a time line for the protocol or even consideration of how it will be delivered.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Education, in light of this important
issue and how important it is to the teachers, health professionals, teachers'
aides, school boards and parents, why is the minister wasting so much time in
getting this procedure and protocol and services and training in place for
medical services in the schools?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, as I have explained to the member over the several hours we have
discussed this, the Department of Education and Training has been the lead
department. We have been working with
the Department of Health. We have also
been working with the Department of Family Services and the Department of
Justice on a co‑ordinated approach.
The
care and treatment of medically fragile children is one of the issues we have
been looking at. I have explained to the
member that the method we have used has been a committee, that our deputy
ministers have worked together. We have
also had a working group that has worked together, and we expect to have
information available as soon as possible.
We
recognize, however, that it is a very serious issue, that it does require
information from more than just one department.
Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Speaker, lots of working groups and
strategies, but no action.
Education
System
Medical
Services
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): I want to ask the Minister of Health: In light of the fact the provision of medical
services in schools is cost‑effective, is consistent with health care
reform, Mr. Speaker, and in light of the fact that the Minister of Health
received a proposal from the rehab centre for children on February 4, about
four months ago, I want to ask the Minister of Health, why is he not responding
to this cost‑effective report and proposal that was put forward on
February 4 to him? He has not even given
so much as the courtesy‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, with all
the respect I can muster to my honourable friend the member for Dauphin who
talks about cost‑effectiveness when he sponsored a bridge to nowhere at a
cost of $40 million to the taxpayers of
The
process this ministry is participating in with the Minister of Education is one
with integrity that will lead, hopefully, to reasoned solutions. But for a minister who squandered $40 million
on a bridge to nowhere, I have no time for his‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I have a concrete proposal this
minister has received.
Why
is the minister not responding to a $200,000 proposal that could ensure these
services are offered throughout the schools of
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the only concrete that my
honourable friend has is the concrete that cost $40 million in a bridge to
nowhere.
Licensed
Practical Nurses
Redeployment
Program
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, we have heard
recently of the layoffs of a number of LPNs at the St. Boniface Hospital, and
we have certainly asked this Minister of Health and this government for a
strategy for health professional redeployment and retraining.
Given that I am sure that the minister, his
staff and the institutions have been aware of these pending layoffs as part of
health care reform, can the Minister of Health tell us today and also tell
Manitobans what steps have been taken to redeploy the nurses laid off or to
ensure they can be retrained?
* (1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in the course of the last number
of months, the ministry has been a part of a Labour Force Adjustment Committee in
which there is some 26 members inclusive of the federal government, the
Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health, along with management of our
major institutions, as well as some 11 unions that are part of that committee
structure.
Mr.
Speaker, some of the goals and mandates of that Labour Adjustment Committee is
to attempt to provide redeployment, retraining and opportunities to find
alternate employment, alternate opportunities for any individuals who suffer
the unfortunate consequences of layoff in terms of some of the restructuring
going on in the health care system.
In
the instance of these individuals at St. Boniface Hospital, the abilities of
that committee will I think be of assistance.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, well, it is wonderful to hear the
mandate of this particular committee.
Could the minister actually tell us and
certainly tell the LPNs who will be affected, what exactly has that committee
accomplished? What plans do they have? What can they tell the LPNs in regard to any
retraining or re‑employment opportunities?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not have numbers and
specifics, but it is my understanding that there have been some retraining
opportunities already investigated and certainly in process for at least a
number of the individuals affected at St. Boniface by the layoff notices today.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary to
the Minister of Health.
Can
the Minister of Health tell this House why a number of LPNs have phoned
certainly to their MLAs and indicated they are not able to get into some of the
retraining programs, into the RN courses at other hospitals? Can he give us an update on that today,
please?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give specifics, but
certainly I think my honourable friend would understand that these programs do
not have unlimited capacity. That is not
a possibility.
To
the best of the ability of the system to accommodate individuals seeking
retraining, the Labour Force Adjustment Committee, in collaboration with
various training facilities or opportunities, are working diligently to try to
provide as much support as is possible, given the capacity of training programs
and the availability of training slots.
Public
Libraries‑Winnipeg
Borrowing
Fees
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
In
just a couple of weeks, July 1 to be precise, we will see the death of a public
library system in
I
want to ask the Minister of Culture, since the province has the responsibility,
the jurisdiction and the mandate to oversee our public library system, what is
this government's position on the matter of fees and this shift in our publicly
accessible library system?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, ultimately, the City of
The
kinds of decisions that the City of
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, if it is the City of
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what the NDP
opposition would like us to do is run the City of
Maybe the NDP would advocate that the City of
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, we are simply asking this
government to uphold its responsibility and ensure a hundred year tradition for
universally accessible public libraries in this province.
I
am going to ask the minister, rather than initiating and supporting this
amendment to The City of Winnipeg Act condoning fees for borrowing books, if she
will instead follow the path of a number of other provincial jurisdictions and
initiate an amendment to
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, again, I repeat, the NDP policy
might be to be big brother to the City of
Mr.
Speaker, we have indicated in the past that our commitment is 11 percent of the
funding of the City of
It
will ultimately determine how it is going to tax the citizens of
Agricultural
Marketing Boards
Minister's
Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Since the Minister of Agriculture finally admits
that he does support the move to a continental barley market, which will
undermine the Canadian Wheat Board, an excellent example of orderly marketing,
can he tell us his position today on other marketing boards? Does he support the weakening of these boards
as well, just to cave in to the demands of those who want to take control of
agriculture away from the farmers?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, farmers
in
The
Canadian Wheat Board is not being attacked by any change in barley marketing in
If
farmers choose to sell through the Wheat Board, I am sure they will. The Wheat Board still has total monopoly on
barley sales outside of
So
I do not see that as an attack, Mr. Speaker, and for that member to ask what my
position is on other marketing boards, I have stood in this position, in this
session, talking about protecting the marketing boards of
It
is unbelievable that she stands here today and says that, when she came into
this House attacking me because I would not attack the Manitoba Milk Producers.
Barley
Marketing
Government
Analysis
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture,
since the federal Minister of Agriculture said his department did no studies on
the consequences of moving to an orderly marketing board, and this minister
said he would analyze all the studies before he made a decision, will he table today
any analysis he did and tell us what information he found that made him move
toward a continental barley market?‑‑which is undermining the
Canadian Wheat Board whether he will admit it or not.
* (1410)
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
member has to recognize that there are two opinions here. There is a group of producers and producer
organizations who are on her side. There
is also a group of producers and producer organizations who believe they want
to see the opportunity of choice being addressed.
There is a review in six years and an
opportunity to change the process if for some reason the opportunity of choice
does not work as well as we would all like to see it work.
I
do not accept her position that it is undermining the Wheat Board, not at
all. I think it is giving farmers an
opportunity to have more revenue back at the farm gate.
Mr.
Speaker, she stands there day after day saying farmers should accept less and
less and less and let the system beyond the farm gate get more and more. If she would just read some of the material
that has been published as to what has happened to farmers over the last 10
years where the costs from the farm gate that the farmer has to pay go up and
up and up, and he gets less and less.
She
constantly supports that position. I do
not support that position.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Ms. Wowchuk: I want to ask the minister, how can he say
only a small amount of barley will by‑pass the Wheat Board when it goes
into the United States, when he knows that when the North American Free Trade
Agreement is signed, any barley going into Mexico is also going to by‑pass
the Wheat Board and again undermine the Wheat Board and do nothing to improve
farm gate prices?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we grow
a lot of barley in
She
wants to build a wall and say, we will not allow farmers to sell. She does not want to see us grow at export
and bring revenue back into this country, Mr. Speaker.
She
constantly says, I want farmers to have less and less opportunity to
survive. She says farmers should have
less opportunity for choice.
I
do not agree with her. I believe farmers
need to have a better return at the farm gate, more of the value of their
products back at the farm gate and more choice, because farmers can make the
right decisions. I believe very strongly
in their ability to do that.
Licensed
Practical Nurses
Redeployment
Program
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Will the Minister of Health today tell the 148
laid‑off LPNs what new community positions are available to them?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend might be
aware that there are recruitment and opportunities on an ongoing basis in the
Continuing Care programs.
What I will attempt to do for my honourable
friend is attempt to give my honourable friend some sense of the staff turnover
and opportunities that are created there, because I think that would help her
understand.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, can the minister be very specific
and tell the House today how many new positions have opened up in Continuing
Care for licensed practical nurses in the past year?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am unable to provide that
number. Surely my honourable friend would recognize that as part of this year's
health care budget, one of the sole and singular areas of increase in budget
year over year has been the Continuing Care programs which we have some
considerable faith will be able to accommodate some of the shifts and
transitions the health care system is going through.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that
they overspent their budget last year and that there is not a real increase.
Can
the Minister of Health tell the House how many LPNs laid off today will get
work in the new community‑based model system the minister laid out for us
a year ago, in that there have been no LPNs hired within the last few months in
Continuing Care?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, if my honourable friend has the
answer as one would conclude from her preamble, why would she pose the
question?
My
honourable friend is attempting to say that the Continuing Care budget is not
increased this year. That is simply not
an accurate assessment that my honourable friend would make. The Continuing Care budget is increasing this
year.
Chairperson
Replacement
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, today in committee, we heard one
of the most bizarre revelations I have ever heard coming from the chairman of a
significant provincial Crown corporation.
The
chairperson of the Manitoba Mineral Resources attempted to suggest in committee
today that a corporation with reserves in excess of $8 million, at one time $24
million, did not prepare a budget for the 1993 year against which to judge the
government's decision to grab $16 million from its reserves.
My
question is to the minister responsible.
Will he now replace the chairperson and put in someone who is
responsible to the Manitoba Mineral Resources corporation and to the people of
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I think the member does not do himself or this House or the committee
system any favours when he brings the kind of information to this Assembly that
he has.
In
reference to the chairman, I think Hansard should be checked. I do not recall the chairman of the board
saying they have not prepared a budget for this year, Mr. Speaker. I do not recall that, and I think he should
check that and be prepared to apologize to the chairman of the board of MMR.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Nonpolitical Statements
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, beginning last evening and
continuing today, we have been watching with some interest the Peter Gzowski
Second Annual Golf Tournament for Literacy.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) and
the Leader of the second opposition party (Mr. Edwards) were all playing in the
tournament this morning.
Last year, the Gzowski tournament was
successful in raising some $25,000, half of which was given to Beat the Street
and the other to Journey's Education for the purpose of educating those who
through their early years were unable to achieve a sufficient level of literacy
within our province here in
This year, it is the committee's hope‑‑and
I am a member of that committee‑‑that we will raise some $40,000 in
the province in order to add to the funds of money available to those
organizations to fund literacy projects.
I
thank all of the members in this House for their support of this
organization. I know that members such
as the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar)
certainly played in the tournament last year.
We missed them a little bit this year, but we are pleased their Leader
was there this morning. I recommend it
to all members in the future.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Flin Flon have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to, on behalf
of the NDP caucus, on behalf of my Leader, join with the member for River
Heights in expressing our support for the Peter Gzowski invitational, a cause
that is extremely worthwhile and one which has gathered support from the
Manitoba community, people interested in pursuing the goal of improving the
rate of literacy in our province, improving the opportunities for literacy
programming in the province, a goal which we hope the government, in its
program, will share and will demonstrate a commitment to.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Education and
Training have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the government, I would also like to just make a
statement about the Peter Gzowski tournament and also the worthiness of the
projects that the funds raised actually go to support.
Last year in
We
are very pleased that we are also able to take part and commend him for lending
his name to such an important and worthy matter.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, after
discussion with the opposition House leader, it has been decided that rather
than going into Committee of Supply today, that bills will be called.
Therefore, I would ask you to call Bill 22.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 22‑The
Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.
Manness), Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation
Management Act; Loi sur la reduction de la semaine de travail et la gestion des
salaires dans le secteur public, standing in the name of the honourable member
for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), who has 32 minutes remaining.
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied on that one.
Also standing in the name of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), who has 22 minutes remaining. Stand?
Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
* (1420)
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the debate on
this very important Bill 22, which is a very regressive piece of legislation
that is facing this Legislature and one which gives autocratic power to the
employer, namely the government of
Mr.
Speaker, it is very regrettable that we are dealing with such a regressive move
by this particular government, which has a very important public union to deal
with, the Manitoba Government Employees'
I want
to make it clear, however, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning, that the New
Democratic Party caucus goes on record in being in favour of a cut in MLAs'
salaries. We are in favour of a
reduction in the income to the MLAs. We
have absolutely no opposition to that. I
want to make it very, very clear that we stand totally in favour of a reduction
in MLAs' salaries. That is mentioned in
this bill. That is about the only thing
we would agree with, however, in this bill, because we are totally opposed to
the rest of the bill and the unfair treatment that it provides to civil
servants and to other public sector employees in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, without question it violates the principle of collective
bargaining. There was no consultation
with the union, with the employees, and it was simply imposed upon them.
Therefore, the employees who work for the government of
Mr.
Speaker, Manitobans are served by an excellent quality of civil servant. We have one of the finest, if not the finest,
civil service complements anywhere to be found in
I
think it is a tragedy that we are treating them the way we are in this
particular bill, Bill 22. The employees
are demoralized, and I can tell you that based on conversations with many
employees who have come to me to complain about this particular bill. I have also received a fair share of
correspondence from employees who believe that their fundamental rights are
being violated by this particular bill, that indeed they believe that some of
the basic values and some of the basic principles that hold Canadians together
are being challenged by this particular legislation.
The
employees believe, and I agree with them, that the basic principles, values and
beliefs that have evolved in
The
government, by proposing 10 days off without pay, has imposed a change on this
contractual agreement without due democratic process. Therefore, it has acted in direct violation
of the very laws enacted to prevent the occurrence of such a situation.
What this bill does is it deprives
employees. It deprives civil servants
and other public sector employees of monies, of needed income, either through a
shorter workweek, noncontracted holidays without pay, or through wage
rollbacks.
So
without question, Mr. Speaker, the government is violating contracts with its
employees. It is also, through the
auspices of this bill, forcing other agencies, Crown corporations, such as the
Manitoba Telephone System and Manitoba Hydro, to also violate contracts that
they have with their employees.
The
many, many workers, many, many civil servants believe that this is in
contravention of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The proposed mandatory 10 days off without
pay is certainly not a democratic procedure, and, indeed, Mr. Speaker, as has
been pointed out, the general population was neither consulted nor allowed to
vote on the policy.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we have this bill before us, and I am sure there will be many
organizations who will want to be heard at the committee stage. I believe that we will be here for some time
listening to various groups who will be complaining and who will be making
suggestions with regard to this bill.
Another feature of the bill or a consequence
is that what it does is lower the level of service to the public of
I
use as an example the Child and Family Services agencies that we have, who are
doing a lot of emergency work, but they are also doing a lot of preventative
work. I have been told that through the
forced holidays that are being required through this legislation, that are
being brought about because of this legislation, that a considerable amount of
preventative work may not be able to take place, and indeed on certain days the
staff will not be available.
There may be families who in the end, who are
in trouble, who may be suffering with some difficulties, who may be having
problems, who will have indeed more problems and who will in the long run end
up costing us more money in terms of requiring more staff attention, more
service from the Child and Family agencies that we have. In other words, the argument is that it is
false economy.
I
think there is another example we could look at and that is in MPIC, the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
Many members may not know this, but it also offers, beside the basic
Autopac insurance that we are all required to take, risk‑extension insurance
which is sold on a purely competitive basis with the private sector.
MPIC has done an excellent job in competing,
but now because of this policy they are being required to close down on certain
days. I believe they have already had
some closures. On those particular days,
and there was one Friday, I remember the first Friday that occurred a couple of
weeks ago, in effect, they were not available, staff were not available to
answer queries from particularly trucking companies who buy a considerable
amount of extension insurance.
* (1430)
They get calls from companies and their
clients throughout
I
think this is absolutely foolhardy and foolish.
I think it is absolutely foolish.
In the end, it could cost the corporation profit. Therefore, instead of accomplishing the end
or the objective that the government seems to be intent on and that is to save
money, you may be indeed causing a very important Crown corporation to make
less money, to make less profit, and therefore we are going backward instead of
forward, Mr. Acting Speaker.
There are other examples, as well, as to how
this legislation is going to impact on the quality of service. I have no doubt in my mind that the quality
of service is going to be reduced by simple logic. The people of
One
could look also at all kinds of details of the legislation whereby it seems to
be unfair with regard to employees at various levels of income. Indeed, one could look at other details that
causes it to be unfair in the way it would be administered and the impact of
it.
But
basically, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are looking at the principle of the bill, and
without question, it is a bill that really I guess fundamentally challenges the
whole matter of trust. It is a question
of trust. What is the word of a
government to its employees, when it can come along and do what it is doing in
this bill? There is absolutely no trust
whatsoever left because of the actions of the government.
There is absolutely no consultation
whatsoever, and as I have said before and as other members on this side have
said before, it is a clear and direct attack on the collective bargaining
process which is presumably one important element in our democratic processes,
in our democratic procedures.
So
this bill, therefore, can be seen as an attack on labour, just as we have had
other attacks on labour by this government, the loss of final offer selection,
the laying off of 1,400 provincial workers plus other public sector layoffs in
health care, some of which were reported today in St. Boniface Hospital, LPNs.
There were others laid off in other
institutions including the
There are many people, particularly in remote
areas, that simply will no longer obtain the dental service for their
children. So that is another example I
use of this government reducing public sector service, and in this area,
children's dental care service, a very important area, we have had another
blatant example.
We
are creating a legislative environment which is more hostile to labour in this
province than ever before. I do not know
what the long‑term consequences are going to be, but there are other
consequences as well in terms of the economy.
I talked about consequences in terms of the individual employees losing
income. I talked about consequences in
reducing the level of service to the public, but I also talk about consequences
in terms of the economy itself, because there is absolutely no question in my
mind, or anyone's mind who gives some thought to this, that this bill will have
an impact of dampening the Manitoba economy which, God knows, is dampened
enough already.
In
other words, our economy is very weak; it is stagnating. The fact is that this
bill will take tens upon tens of million dollars out of the economy and will,
therefore, have a negative impact on many areas of this province.
I
think particularly of some of the rural towns where there are many public
sector workers. There is no question
that there is going to be a reduction of purchasing power. There is going to be a reduction in the
retail sector, and with the multiplier effect we are going to see millions and
millions of dollars of reduction in purchasing throughout the year because of
the forced layoffs and the reduction in salary created by this bill.
As
a matter of fact, there are specific estimates of the amount of reduction that
is going to occur, and it is going to mean‑‑I know in the Westman
area, we are looking at 40 or 50 million dollars reduction in purchasing power
because of this particular bill.
So
it does nothing for the economy, which is already very, very weak, the economy
which has an unemployment level of 9.6 percent, Mr. Acting Speaker. That is higher than it has been for the past
decade, in fact even beyond that. It is
an historic high level of unemployment.
I think we are probably at the worst level we have been since the Great
Depression of the Dirty Thirties.
Month after month, the figures come in. We have 50,000 or more people unemployed, and
those unemployed workers certainly are not in a position to buy goods and
services. They are suffering a great
deal, and many of them are living in poverty today. We have got this high amount of unemployment,
and now we are going to add to the problem by reducing the amount of income
that is available out there for the economy as a whole.
So
this is a bill that is causing the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we could go on at some length dealing with other aspects of the
bill. However, my colleagues on this
side have spent some considerable time in debating the bill, so I do not intend
to repeat some of the arguments that they have made.
What I will repeat once more is what I said,
the only part of the bill that we can agree with is the reduction in the MLAs'
salaries portion. We are, as an NDP
caucus, in favour of the reduction as it affects members of the Legislature,
but we are certainly opposed to the rest of it, which we believe is not fair,
which violates the fundamental principle of collective bargaining, which is
antidemocratic and which is causing a great deal of demoralization in the civil
service of Manitoba.
For
that reason, Mr. Acting Speaker, I, along with my colleagues on this side, will
be opposing this legislation. Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise
and speak on this particular bill, Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week
and Compensation Management Act. I would like to make it very clear at the
outset of my debate that I support the provisions to reduce our salaries. However, the rest of the bill, we reject in
its entirety.
A
couple of years ago, we debated the repeal of final offer selection, and I
listened very carefully to the speech of the Minister of Labour, and in fact, I
dug it up. He spoke in debate on November
9, 1990, The Labour Relations Amendment Act.
The reason that I was listening and found his speech so fascinating at
the time was that the Minister of Labour clearly defended the principles of
collective bargaining. So what he said
then makes for fascinating reading now in the context of Bill 22.
For
example, right at the outset of his speech, the Minister of Labour said, and I
quote: "Mr. Speaker, the
fundamental strength of the collective bargaining process is an agreement which
incorporates the different positions of labour and management while allowing
for a win‑win solution which both sides can accept and live
with." Page 998 of the, I believe
it was, second‑‑no, it was the first session of the 35th
Legislature.
So
three years ago, the Minister of Labour and his government were defending free
collective bargaining and talking in the loftiest terms about the wonderful
benefits of free collective bargaining, something that they thought was worth
defending at the time of withdrawing the final offer selection legislation.
(interjection) Well, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) says, it is not
free; you pay dearly for it. Well, the
minister has his own bias, of course, and now his government has figured out a
way to make workers pay. They call it
sharing the pain, but if you look at their budget, there is very little
equality in sharing of the pain of this budget and of their legislation.
* (1440)
What they are doing is they are making civil
servants and the poor pay for their inability to budget adequately for this
province and, in fact, running up the highest deficit in the history of
The
principles in this bill are totally contradictory to what the Minister of
Labour said in debate on November 9, 1990.
For example, he said: " . .
. are the benefits of this method of dispute settlement so miraculous, so
wonderful that it is worth compromising a basic and fundamental principle of
collective bargaining? Members on this
side of the House answer clearly, no, it is not. Let me point out to all Members that there
has been a tradition in this province which respects and supports free
collective bargaining, a tradition on both sides of the House."
In
fact, the minister said there is nothing free about it. Well, that was the
expression that the Minister of Labour used in debate, free collective
bargaining, but they have totally repudiated this defence of collective
bargaining with this piece of legislation.
The
Minister of Labour goes on in his speech in the very next paragraph to make
another quote, and it is from someone else.
In fact, it was a quote from the Honourable Edward Schreyer in an
address to the Manitoba Federation of Labour in October 1972, and I will repeat
this quote that the Minister of Labour used.
"It is our conviction that the parties themselves should have as
much freedom of action as possible to develop their own collective bargaining
and dispute‑settlement procedures.
We believe that this approach will produce more acceptable results than
would rigid legislative procedures that would inhibit the parties from
exercising their own ingenuity in finding, developing and refining ways of
resolving the difficulties."
Well, I am really quite amazed that the
Minister of Labour would talk about the advantages of collective bargaining as
opposed to rigid legislative procedures, and now in June of 1993, less than
three years later, his government, and he as the Minister of Labour, are doing
exactly that. The only difference is
that the bill today stands in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
instead of the Minister of Labour, but this is exactly what this bill is
doing. I would be interested in knowing
what the Minister of Labour thinks, that the Minister of Labour who, on
November 9, 1990, defended free collective bargaining, as he called it, and now
in this debate he is totally tossing out his views out the window. They are no longer relevant. He does not believe in collective bargaining
anymore. He believes in imposed settlements which he quoted as calling rigid
legislative procedures, and that is what he is doing today. He has forgotten all his lofty principles
that he enunciated on November 9, 1990.
The
minister goes on and on in this speech defending collective bargaining. I was listening to that speech. I remembered that speech. I looked it up today. (interjection) Well, I
am sorry that the rules prohibit me referring to the presence or absence of a
member; however, I have already talked about that in my speech in response to
some heckling from the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst). (interjection)
Well, I am sorry but you missed that. I
did address that.
An Honourable Member: No. Do
not say too much because if . . . .
Mr. Martindale: Well, I do not think there is any danger of
you quoting back statements that we made about collective bargaining, because
unlike you we are not going to change our position on collective bargaining,
unlike what you did between November 9, 1990, and the present.
I
will read some more comments from the Minister of Labour. I quote: "Yet I still maintain that free
collective bargaining is one of the best means available for negotiating
contracts that are equitable and generally acceptable to the parties directly
affected by the outcome of collective bargaining."
He
was quoting somebody well‑versed in employee‑employer
relationships. That is what he said on
November 9, 1990, and by supporting this bill he is totally repudiating all his
quotes about the good things about collective bargaining.
I
have one more quote from the Minister of Labour to remind him of what he
said. On page 1002 he said: "One need look no further than the 1968
Woods Report to Parliament in Canadian labour relations to find compelling
arguments which support the necessity of respecting the fundamentals of the
collective bargaining process."
Then he went on to quote that report:
"In a system of free collective bargaining, employees must be free
to organize into unions, have a right to require the employer to face them at
the bargaining table through their union representatives and, in the event of
failure to agree over the terms and conditions of employment, have the right to
refuse to work without permanently quitting their employment."
So
that is what the minister said. (interjection) Now the minister is saying they
could have laid off 500 employees.
Well, in Winnipeg School Division No. 1, they
entered into collective agreements with their employees. They said we are going to guarantee your job
security, and we are not going to lay off any employees. We are not going to roll back your salaries.
They were able to do that without imposing and without using this bill. Some school boards are not going to use
it. They are going to make an imposed
settlement because that is what this government permitted them to do.
The
difference between the Premier of Ontario and this government is that they
tried a negotiated settlement. This
government did not even try, did not have the courage to even try. In
The
minister wants to talk about the exceptions.
The minister does not want to talk about his speech of 1990 or about
Bill 22.
I
would like to talk as well about the taxation implications of this legislation,
not just the collective bargaining implications. This really represents a regressive tax levied
on the broader public sector.
This government has singled out civil servants
and asked them to shoulder, unfairly, part of the deficit of this government, a
deficit of $862 million, one year. The
largest deficit in the history of
This legislation gives autocratic power to the
employer. It provides for imposed
settlements where previously people had to come to agreements, something that
this minister used to believe in, apparently does not believe in anymore. In spite of that, other jurisdictions are
able to come to agreements, but not the
This is also enabling legislation which means
that some employers, particularly school boards, are going to use this
legislation. Teachers across the
province will thus be treated differently from school division to school
division. They have different employers,
but all of them have negotiated settlements.
They have different rates of pay which they negotiated with school
divisions. (interjection) My understanding would be that normally parties would
agree to go to an arbitrator. People did
not agree to Bill 22.
This bill is really a flat percentage
reduction in salary. Leave days are to be imposed without any consideration for
existing wages, unlike
This minister knows there are great
differences in salary pay among civil servants and that the reduction in pay
for a deputy minister is much, much less as a percentage of their take‑home
pay than a civil servant making $20,000 a year.
Well, let us consider the total impact on the
total income of those individuals. This
minister used to believe that the right to negotiate a contract, the right to
negotiate hours of work, the rights of seniority, all union rights, were won
with a struggle. Now, those are all out
the window during the time that this bill is imposing settlements on
people. To win those rights, workers put
their jobs on the line. They gave up
either wages during a strike or in lower settlements, and all that has been
taken away by this government‑‑(interjection)
* (1450)
The
government has their own rhetoric which is that we all share the pain, but what
about the private sector? Is this
government asking the private sector to share the pain? Are you asking your suppliers to the
government to take 4 percent less? No.
This bill is also going to impact directly on
government service to individuals. Many
of us are already aware of that, because we have already had civil servants not
working on a Friday.
If
you have tried to phone a government department, in fact, I phoned a government
department last Friday and asked them to do something. They said, well, phone the other department. I did, and they said, well, we cannot do it
because it is in the department that you just phoned. You will have to wait till Monday.
Now
that is a very small inconvenience for me because I am paid to be here five
days a week, but for individuals who are trying to get service from government
departments, that is a problem.
It
is a severe problem when it comes to Child and Family Services, when children,
for example, might be apprehended on a Thursday night and normally they would
go into court on Friday morning, and they cannot go into court until Monday.
What this government is doing is they are
putting children in Place Louis Riel and the costs are estimated at $200 to
$400 per day. They are stuck there from
Thursday night till Monday morning. In
fact, there are many, many examples of where this legislation is going to cost
the government more money. A number of
them have been brought to my attention, for example, people whose hourly rate
is $22 an hour being called into work on Saturday and paid $44 a hour. I believe that this government's calculations
about the amount of money they are going to save are totally out of whack and
inaccurate.
Unfortunately, there may be an expectation
that people make up for on Monday the work that was not done on Friday. Now fortunately, some people are benevolent
employers, and they are saying to their employees, we do not expect you to make
up on Monday for what did not get done on Friday. In fact, that is what I was told by one of
the Child and Family Service agencies, and I am glad that some agencies have
executive directors who are reasonable, unlike this legislation of this
government.
We
know that this is going to negatively impact on universities and colleges. In fact, there is a concern from some
faculties at the universities that it may impact on their ability to be accredited
or to continue their accreditation.
This is going to impact on health and personal
care homes. This is going to affect Family Services staff. This is a thoughtless policy that was hastily
thrown together, and the impact on essential services was not considered, not
thought out.
This government is hurting the people who are
the poorest the most, because poor people depend a lot more on government
services than the rich. For example, I
represent an inner‑city constituency.
Most of my calls have to do with welfare problems or housing
problems. I suspect that many people in
the suburbs do not phone their MLAs, they phone the right government department
because they know where to phone, they know where to get help. That is not true of people in the inner city
and low‑income people, and so this legislation impacts more on my
constituents than it does on suburban constituents. (interjection) It is true
that I take the calls. I will grant the
minister that, but we are‑‑
An Honourable Member: Just ignore him. I know how hard that is.
Mr. Martindale: I am being advised to ignore the Minister of
Labour (Mr. Praznik). It is not easy for
me to do.
It
is obvious that this bill impacts more on low‑income people than on more
affluent Manitobans, because they are much more likely to be involved with
government departments‑‑social assistance, for example, where we
have 18,000 cases on city welfare. How
many on provincial? Something like
40,000. (interjection)
Well, the minister wants to talk about Easter
Monday. Well, we are talking in the past
about a small number of statutory holidays.
Now, we are talking about 10 days for this year, and possibly 15‑‑(interjection)
Well, that also is a matter of contention.
Some people think that civil servants should not get Monday, but there
is a reason for that. In fact, the
reason they got Monday was because it was part of their collective
bargaining. It was something that they
won through negotiation, something that this minister used to believe in and
does not anymore.
An Honourable Member: What about service? What about the service to the public you are
so concerned about?
Mr. Martindale: Well, the minister wants to talk about service
to the public. You are the ones who are
saying there is going to be 10 days less service to the public now, and next
year possibly 15 days‑‑(interjection) I did not say I was in favour
of that, I said some people that talked to me questioned that, and there is a
historical reason for it, which I just explained to the Minister of Labour (Mr.
Praznik).
This government is on a collision course with
labour, and of course, they have been doing this for a number of years. The repeal of final offer selection is one
example, Bill 22 is another, where this government used to believe in
collective bargaining, and they used to have a relationship of trust with the
government, and they used to be able work things out through negotiation.
Now
they are giving up on this relationship of trust, and they are on a course of
confrontation. What they want is
confrontation with labour, because they do not have the skills to negotiate
with every public sector union. You
negotiate with one or two unions, you do not have the skills to negotiate with
all of them. You did not even try. This government could not negotiate its way
out of a paper bag. They have imposed
this with no consultation.
This government likes to talk about
partnerships, partnerships particularly with business. Sometimes they even talk about partnerships
with labour, like the Crocus Fund, for example, but then when it comes to
labour negotiation there is no partnership.
They are imposing Bill 22.
I
think the real impact of this legislation is that they are going to expect many
workers, particularly health care workers, to do in four days what they used to
do in five days, if there is not a reduction in service. In fact, I was at a meeting where there were
home care staff, and they did not know what the impact of this bill was going
to be yet, about a month ago, but they suspect that there will only be
emergency service on Fridays, that there will not be any delivery of basic
services or standard services on the 10 days off. So that is a real cut in service to
Manitobans.
I
think that this minister and his government are going to get complaints when
people are unable to get the kind of service that they are accustomed to. This minister should not lecture us about
being able to afford something when they cannot deliver a balanced budget and
have the highest deficit in the history of
An Honourable
Member: Do you support balanced
budgets?
Mr. Martindale: Well, I point to the example of governments
like that of Allan Blakeney in
* (1500)
I
point to the budget of
I
think one of the fundamental problems is that we have a basic disagreement
between what is a reasonable level of public service, and how your party and
how our party looks at public service, because I think a lot of your supporters
see public service as the public trough.
One
of the examples of that is the Fraser Institute and other right‑wing
groups that talk about tax holidays.
What do they call it? Tax freedom
day, which is near the beginning or the middle of July, I cannot remember, and
they say, oh, all our income for six months is used up in paying taxes. Then finally we hit tax freedom day and then
the rest of the money that we earn for the rest of the year goes into our
pocket instead of government's pocket.
What they are saying is we do not believe in
all those services that they pay for.
But if they thought about it, they would believe in it, because their
children go to university and they pay for that partly through their
taxes. They drive on provincial highways
and they pay for that through their taxes. There is hardly a thing that people
do not do from morning till night that does not involve taxes that pay for
services that those people enjoy. Yet
when they talk about taxes all they do is complain, as if they did not benefit
from it. (interjection) Well, you should not be taxing my poor constituents to
pay for it, but you are.
You
are raising their taxes more than you are raising the taxes of the rich. That is one of the things we object to.
(interjection) Look at the property tax increase. By having a flat $75 reduction amounts to
something like a 7 percent impact on low‑income people in constituencies
like Burrows compared to about a 2 percent in constituencies like Tuxedo.
(interjection) Every time I introduce a new issue the minister wants to change
the topic on me.
First of all, I was talking about the benefits
of public service and the fact that we pay for them through taxes, and then I
was talking about the impact of your regressive taxes.
What this minister should be doing is defending
the public services that our taxes pay for, many of which are equalizers
between the rich and poor in society, particularly when it comes to health and
education, because if you look at the cost to my constituents, none of them
could afford to send their children to private schools like St. John's‑Ravenscourt
that charges over $7,000 a year for a student in junior high school.
That is why 99 percent of my constituents go
to public schools. This minister would
agree, I am sure, that education is one of the levellers in society, and we do
that through our tax system.
The
same is true of health, and you only have to look to the United States to see
how medicare in Canada is a leveller in our society because everybody is
entitled to accessible, affordable health care, unlike the United States, where
something like 30 million Americans have no health care insurance and where
many millions of Americans have very limited health insurance, and if they
become sick, it is a major catastrophe.
Particularly, it is a financial catastrophe for them. That is why we as Canadians are proud of our
health care system.
I
would suggest that all three parties, at least in their rhetoric, defend our
publicly financed health care system. We
know that for decades people like Senator Kennedy have been promoting a
publicly funded health care system, and now President Clinton is looking at a
publicly funded health care system for those people who are not covered.
That is one of the things that distinguishes
Canadian society from American society, is the things that we voluntarily pay
for through our tax system. In fact, one
of the reasons why there is pressure to change in the
I
remember seeing, I think it was, on W5 they did a story about medicare in the
Mr.
Acting Speaker, in conclusion, this bill is really about an attack on organized
labour. It is an attack on collective
bargaining.
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): Order here, please. The honourable member for Burrows has the
floor.
Mr. Martindale: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. I would really like the Minister of Labour to
get up and participate in this debate and repudiate the things that he said on
November 9, 1990, since he is supporting this bill and totally disagreeing with
what he said on November 9, 1990. He
should get up and participate in the debate, but members on the government side
do not even get up and speak on their own bills.
An Honourable Member: When we do, you tell us we filibuster . . . .
Mr. Martindale: Well, I remember one day when you did
filibuster because you did not have your members here, and you had to put up
speakers and delay the vote until you got all your people in here. That is the only time you get up and speak.
(interjection)
Well, stand up and put up one speaker; then we
will not accuse you of filibustering.
In
conclusion, this bill is really an attack on collective bargaining and on
organized labour. This government is
unwilling and unable to negotiate collective agreements with its employees,
because it is eager and it is easier to impose settlements on people and do it
by way of this draconian piece of legislation.
Finally, we will be supporting the cut in our
own salary and voting against the rest of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in
the debate today on Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and
Compensation Management Act. First of
all, I would like to begin my comments by stating, although I am opposed in
principle to the bill, I do support the clause pertaining to the reduction in
the salaries of the members of the Legislative Assembly, and I support the
reductions in our constituency allowance as well.
It
is unfortunate, though, that our constituency allowance is being cut at this particular
time when, because of government actions, there is added pressure upon our
constituency offices to provide services to many individuals that are in
problem situations mostly because of the results of policies of the members
opposite, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Once again, I will begin my comments by
stating that although in principle I oppose the legislation, I do support that
particular clause in the bill.
As
was mentioned by many members earlier, I remember my colleagues earlier on in
different speeches here in the Chamber, there are many, many things that are
wrong with this particular piece of legislation. They have provided you with a very solid
reason why all of us in this Chamber should be worried about this piece of
legislation, why we as members of the broader community should be voting
against it. I know that we shall on this
side. Some of the arguments brought forward by some of my colleagues, I am
certain the members opposite would see the wisdom of their remarks and they too
would be anxious to see the end of this particular legislation.
One
of the more obvious problems is that it has no respect for the needs of
individual employees; it has no respect for the collective needs of
employees. This piece of legislation has
no respect for the negotiated agreements with many of the employees.
There is a clause which states that the
employer simply tells the employee what they are going to do and under what
circumstances they are going to do it, and that is it. It is very heavy‑handed. It is dictatorial in its approach to managing
the public affairs of this fine province, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Of
course, this particular piece of legislation affects provincial Crown
corporations, and I want to go into the Manitoba Telephone System in particular. It affects the employees of the provincial
government, hospital employees, personal care homes, municipalities, school
boards, universities, colleges and so on, all groups, of course, that are
funded by the government as well.
I
want to mention the friendship centre movement in particular. I had the pleasure of attending the banquet
of the Selkirk Friendship Centre this past weekend. The friendship centre in Selkirk is 25 years
old. It has represented the interests of
aboriginal and Metis people in the community for a quarter of a century. It has done so under some adverse times in
the past, but nothing like it is going through right now, when this particular
government chose to blatantly attack aboriginal and Metis people by cutting
their funding by 100 percent.
* (1510)
They were willing to accept a freeze. The employees that were working there were
willing to accept a freeze or a wage reduction similar to this particular
legislation. They were willing to accept
that, but they were not prepared to accept what actually happened, which was a
100 percent cut of their funding. All the fine programs that the friendship
centres offered in
They had the unfortunate situation,
unfortunate problem of having to lay off three very talented, very caring
individuals in the community, individuals that cared a great deal about the
plight of aboriginal and Metis people in Selkirk and the surrounding areas.
Again, I attended that banquet. Then on Sunday there was the Manitoba
Association of Friendship Centres. They
held an annual meeting in Selkirk. I
attended that particular function.
Again, they raised issues about government funding, having their funding
slashed by 10 percent by the federal government and now a 100 percent reduction
by this particular administration. They
were willing to accept a freeze or a reduction but were unprepared to accept a
100 percent reduction in their funding, and as such these communities, where
these friendship centres are, have lost a valuable member of the community.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, the members opposite were talking about Crown
corporations. I wanted to talk briefly
about the Manitoba Telephone System, for example. The minister I believe mentioned that there
is an agreement in place, and that is true.
I understand now that there are some issues that the management has been
imposing upon the workers. The original
agreement called for 10 days, that the Manitoba Telephone System would be
closed 100 percent for 10 days, 10 consecutive Fridays. Now we are finding out that it will not be
doing that. It will be open longer but
half‑staffed during those Fridays which is not, obviously, bad in itself
except the Manitoba Telephone System is preparing to deal with an application
brought by the Unitel Corporation to compete with the Manitoba Telephone System
in terms of the long distance market here in
Now
the CRTC recently ruled that competition would be allowed, and so the Manitoba
Telephone System is preparing for that.
If the federal legislation was passed‑‑I am not 100 percent
certain if it was passed‑‑but if the legislation is passed, MTS
falls under the CRTC which will now govern how Manitoba Telephone System
operates.
One
of the features is the deregulation of the telephone industry. One of the features means that MTS will now
have to compete with Unitel, compete with other companies which‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): I understand, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the
member speaking has kind of a one‑track mind and so on, but we are
talking about Bill 22 and he should be relevant.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): The honourable minister did not have a point
of order, but I would mention that they are debating on Bill 22.
* * *
Mr. Dewar: I did not hear what the Minister of Housing
had to say, but I generally accept that it was of absolutely no value to myself
or anyone else in this Chamber, because very few things he says actually are.
The
reason I am talking about Manitoba Telephone System taking off 10 days is they
are going to make it impossible for them to compete against Unitel, because we
know that Unitel will be open on Fridays.
Unitel will not be closed on Fridays. Unitel will be competing with the
MTS which will have to close on Fridays.
This is why it is going to be negatively affecting the MTS. We are concerned that what the government is
hoping to do with it, of course, is put it into a very difficult financial
situation, one that unfortunately it is in right now.
They anticipate losses up to $100 million per
year because of the members' opposite love of deregulation and competition and
other Conservative buzzwords. It will
not be able to compete, and as such we feel that there will be an attempt by
the members opposite to privatize this Crown corporation. This is one of the beginning elements within
that privatization scenario, and we are concerned about it over here. We feel that the 10‑day reduction will
only, unfortunately, lead to this.
Getting back to this particular piece of
legislation, what this is, it is clear that this bill is an increase in
taxes. It is an increase in taxes on the
backs of the public service in this province.
The government's economic effort so far has been a dismal failure. It is fairly obvious that all can see that.
They have now recorded a deficit of $862
million, a record deficit, as it were.
They now have the distinction of having run up the highest deficit in
the history of the province, Mr. Acting Speaker. So bear in mind what this is, is that they
are going to try to recoup some of their losses, as it were, on the backs of
the public sector. The public sector
generally in this province fit within the middle class, so it is a basic tax on
the middle class in this province.
They have mentioned, in fact‑‑I
imagine they will be running on this in the next election‑‑that
they do not raise taxes. Well, that is obviously inaccurate. We have seen taxes come in the last number of
years. They are disguised as this, and they
are disguised as that, but clearly they are taxes nonetheless, Mr. Acting
Speaker.
In
the past budget, as a matter of fact, the government imposed approximately $435
worth of taxes on the average Manitoban.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) did not actually state they were a
tax increase. What they were saying was
they would be a reduction in disposable income.
That is the term he used. He
would not say they were a tax increase, but they were a reduction in disposable
income.
Again, this legislation is a form of
taxation. The average public servant in
the province will now being paying between $1,500 and $1,600 more. That will be, obviously, a very large net
impact on the reduction in the disposable income of public sector workers in
this province.
In
my particular community, there are, I have estimated, around 1,000 public
sector employees. When you work out the
mathematics on that particular problem, you find out that it represents $2
million that will be withdrawn from the community, a community that is already
suffering under the decision making of the members opposite with the closure of
the school of nursing, the closure of the Human Resources Opportunity Centre,
and many other negative decisions by the members opposite, Mr. Acting Speaker,
would have a negative impact upon the community.
Many businesses‑‑at least between
12 and 15 businesses have closed in Selkirk since the government took over
opposite. This particular legislation,
if passed, will even extract more money from the local economy. The government opposite pretends to be the
friend of the small‑business person in this province. They all recognize that small business is a
generator of new jobs in our economy.
Yet they are willing to extract millions, absolutely millions of
dollars, in potential earnings from that small business. Obviously, the effect would be a very
negative one on the small business.
In
communication I have had with businesses in my area, they acknowledge this and
they reinforce this in their comments.
They know that a public sector employee will now be going through a 4
percent reduction in pay, a 4 percent reduction in disposable income, and will
not have the ability or the luxury to spend on certain items that may not be
considered a necessity, such as an evening out in a local restaurant or a video
or many other potential impacts upon the community, upon the local business.
Yet this government pretends to be such a friend of small business, but it is fairly
obvious that they are not. They are
paying, the public sector in our province, for the government's economic
failure, for the government's economic and fiscal failures of the past.
* (1520)
The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), as I mentioned earlier, has the distinction
of having the highest deficit in the history of the province, Mr. Acting
Speaker, and he has chosen to take it out on the backs of public sector
employees in our province. It is a tax
increase to public sector employees. It
is an unfair tax. It is a dishonest
tax. They are not up‑front with
the people of
We
are now seeing this government in its frontal attack upon them increasing their
taxes by 3.8 percent. Instead of raising
a surtax on some of their high‑income earner friends, they decided to
attack the middle class, much the same as their federal cousins have done with
the introduction of the GST and the other unfair taxation methods and systems
brought in by the federal government.
Another aspect of its unfairness is that it
hits someone making $20,000 significantly more than it would someone making
$100,000. Granted, the amounts they
would be giving up are larger, but the difference between those two levels is
quite large. The effect to someone
making $100,000 is marginal, so there is an inherent unfairness in that
particular issue. Again, it is a tax
increase on the middle class and it is unfair.
It
reminds me of some of the issues surrounding Sunday shopping, and members
opposite are supposed to stand up for rural Manitobans. We have many members opposite in prominent roles
within the government who have failed to stand up for rural Manitobans. Again, this is just another example of that
particular piece of legislation.
Another reason why this legislation is wrong
is that it does not respect the collective bargaining process here in
I
would argue that negotiated agreements are more successful. Negotiated agreements even at the zero
percent level are for more successful than this. This, again, is unfair. It is autocratic. It is unfair to low‑income
earners. It is unfair to the employees
of the government, and it is unfair to employees of the Crowns, particularly
Manitoba Telephone System which will now have to compete with Unitel which will
be open on Fridays grabbing away at the customers of the Manitoba Telephone
System, while the MTS will have their doors closed. So you try to phone, you phone to reach the
Manitoba Telephone System to find out about service and, unfortunately, you
will get a recording saying, due to government cutbacks our offices are closed
today. But you can phone Unitel. Unitel
will be open on Fridays. Unitel will be able to grab that business away. They are coming into the market with an
unfair advantage to begin with, 15 percent less than what MTS has to pay, just
to begin with.
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, as I mentioned before, the legislation is clearly
wrong. Although we do on this side of
the House support the MLA wage rollback which, as the members opposite
remember, we volunteered to accept two years ago with Bill 70, a freeze. Now, we on this side of the House are willing
to accept the wage rollback of 3.8 percent.
Again, it is a form of unfair taxation on the
middle class, on the public sector employees, on teachers, on employees of the
Crowns. It does not respect the
collective bargaining process and it does not really reflect an understanding
of the fine services that are provided by the many men and women who work in
our public sector, and now are told that they have to take 10 days off because
of this government's economic and fiscal failure.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Well, Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I
will now yield the floor to my colleague from
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
When we look at this province, we have a
province that has been known, in many cases, for co‑operating with its
employees and treating them fairly and negotiating with them. Unfortunately,
that is not happening at this time.
Employees of government have negotiated in good faith, and they have had
those negotiations broken.
We
talk about this province and we talk about this country, and in fact we are in
difficult times in this country. We are
in an economic recession that is critical for many people in this country. But why are we in this situation?
This situation has been created by Tory
governments, Tory high interest policies that have had our debt balloon. We have seen deficits going out of control by
Conservative governments who talk about restraint but do very little with it
except choose to attack the workers.
They do this in a very difficult way. They choose to do it without
consultation, just as in other areas this government has made decisions without
consulting those people who are affected by this decision.
Mr.
Speaker, they did have a choice. They
could have gone to the workers and their employees and try to negotiate, but
instead they chose to bring in legislation that dictated what had to
happen. As other people have said, we
will oppose this legislation because of the impact it will have on the
employees of this government but also the impact it is going to have on many
communities and the impact it is going to have on services in many of the rural
communities as well as urban centres.
I
want to say, to begin with, Mr. Speaker, that there is a clause in this bill
that deals with our salaries as members of the Legislature, and I want to make
it clear that, even though there has been much discussion on this matter, we
will not oppose the clause that deals with the members' salary, but we will
oppose the other parts of the bill because we feel it is very unfair and very
confrontational.
* (1530)
Mr.
Speaker, we have to look at what the impacts of this are going to be. I would like to look at how it is going to
impact on the residents of my constituency and the people that have raised
concerns with this. The large majority
of the people in my constituency are very low‑income people. I have a large population that is unemployed
at the present time because of policies of both this government and the federal
government who choose not to address the real concerns, choose not to invest in
jobs, but just choose to cut services, so let us look at what the impacts will
be.
As
I said, one of the areas that I have had people raise concern about is the
areas of Family Services, health care services.
We wonder how much money is actually going to be saved in the health
care field, in the personal care home field.
If some people are taking a four‑day workweek, and if they are an
essential service, someone else is going to have to come in and fill these
jobs.
We are
not sure where this government is going on essential services. They have not made up their minds which ones
are going to stay, which ones are essential and which ones are not. But in my way of thinking, the health care
and personal care home services are essential, and people will have to be
replaced in them.
Mr.
Speaker, looking at Family Services, now to have these offices closed down on
Friday, when we know that many people face very difficult situations on
weekends or towards the end of the week, what are they going to do for services
on those days? Of course, that probably
does not matter to many of those members across the way. The impacts of these services will, in most
cases, hurt the poor. Rich people will
always find alternatives. They have the
money to buy alternative services when they need them, but we have to think
about those people who need the services.
The
other thing that is very hypocritical in all of this is to call this a holiday,
to say people are going to get a long weekend and can go fishing. It is a long weekend for everybody.
Well, Mr. Speaker, there are many people who
are on very low incomes, and this reduction of pay is going to hurt them
dramatically. Single parents who have
the responsibility of children will not be able to take a holiday, and I would
love for all people to be able to take a holiday‑‑(interjection)
But the members across the way do not recognize that the majority of the people
and a large number of the people in my constituency cannot afford to go golfing
and they cannot afford to go fishing either.
That day off, all it is going to do is put additional pressure on the
family on how they are going to feed those kids, let alone go fishing.
When I talked to some of the people who are
working in Family Services, when we refer to this long weekend, in actual fact,
they are told that they have to stay in their community just in case there is
an emergency and they are going to get called back. So they have to be on standby, without pay,
and cannot leave the constituency‑‑(interjection)
The
minister is saying that is not true.
Well, there are people who work in Family Services who have indicated
that they have to decide how they are going to do this, but some of them have
to be on standby in case there is an emergency, so it is not a long weekend.
Mr.
Speaker, this government may be implying that it is long weekends, but civil
servants are being told that they have to be on standby in case there is an
emergency, and they can get called back in.
So in actual fact they will be on call without pay. (interjection)
The
member across the way referred to my brothers, and I can assure him that they
are very honest people and would respect those people who had negotiated
contracts with the government far more than they respect any of the people that
they have negotiated with when they bring in legislation like this. When they were in government, they treated
people fairly, far more fairly than civil servants are being treated by this
government.
Mr.
Speaker, this government is a lazy government that has no idea what they are
doing and what the long‑term consequences of this legislation are going
to be. They have no idea of how this is
going to impact on low‑income workers and how it is going to affect those
people who are in crisis and in need of service. They have not thought through
this legislation very well, and I am disappointed that this is the route they
would take in dealing with people and in dealing, particularly, with people who
depend on government services. They have
no understanding of people on low incomes, and they do not know how to listen
to people.
A
good example, as was indicated by my colleague just earlier, was on the idea of
Sunday shopping. Although people across
rural
Mr.
Speaker, one area that I want to touch on that affects all of us very much is
the whole area of education. Through
this legislation, we will see that some school boards may decide to implement the
elimination of professional development days, and what will be the consequences
of that? Is this government saying that
professional development days are not important? What is the long‑term ramification if
over two years professional development days are gone and teachers do not
upgrade their skills to meet the needs of our children?
I
think that with the ever‑changing technology it is necessary for teachers
to have that opportunity to upgrade their skills. In fact, just a couple of days ago, there was
an article in the paper that indicated that many teachers do not have the
skills to bring in the proper computer services to teach the children, which is
a very important part of our society today.
So
I think that as you take away these professional development days from
teachers, we are going to see a reduced quality in education, and education is
the basis of our society. Particularly when this government talks about how
much they are in support of education, I would think that they would be in support
of having teachers get every skill that they could to educate our children
better.
One
of the modern technologies that rural people are very interested in is distance
education. It is necessary for teachers
to get those skills as well. Some of those
skills can be gained on those professional development days.
So
I think that it is a very short‑sighted move to say that on one hand it
is up to the school boards, but on the other hand, open up the doors to take
away professional development days which are essential for the improvement and
to have a high standard of education here in this province, Mr. Speaker.
So
those are some of the points that are very important, and I think that we will
see a reduced service. But I want to
refer back to the health care system and what is going to be the impacts of
this. How will personal care homes be
maintained on a four‑day workweek?
There are many areas also that will be affected. How will our laboratories work in
hospitals? Are they going to be kept open
Friday? Are they going to be considered
an essential service?
When you look at the statistics of accidents,
Mr. Speaker, many accidents, the majority of accidents occur on weekends, and
how will this be addressed? Are they
going to call in emergency services, and what is the cost of those emergency
services going to be if the person is on standby and has to provide this
service?
In
reality, we will probably see that there will be no saving of money, but we
will see a tremendous reduction in service. This government has put together a
very hasty plan that they think is going to address their needs, but in reality
this is something that they believe in and it is an attack, it is an attack on
organized labour. That is not something
that this government believes in very strongly, Mr. Speaker.
* (1540)
So
I think that there will be negative effects by this legislation, and I do not
think the government has thought through what the impacts will be on those
lower‑income people. To say that it is a fair legislation is not true,
because those people who are at a low income are going to be affected much more
dramatically than those people on a higher income. The employee who is making $20,000 versus the
employee making $70,000 will certainly feel the consequences of this
legislation much more severely than the higher‑income people, Mr.
Speaker.
That is what we have to think about. We have to think about fairness and how we
can be sure that those who are on low income are not affected more severely
than those on higher income. We have to
look at what the impacts will be on services in rural communities and remote
areas where there is limited service as is right now. To have that service further reduced through
this legislation will do nothing to enhance the quality of life in those
communities.
Mr.
Speaker, this government has, with one stroke of a pen, transferred to
employers a very great power. They have
the ability to now just decide without any negotiations how much time, how much
salary they are going to eliminate from their employees. In many cases, the employees are going to be
expected to do the same amount of work.
That work is going to have to be done.
We
have talked to many of those people who have said that is happening
already. They are feeling the
consequences of it. We talk to people
who work in Highways departments, talked to people in Agriculture. We talked about this in Estimates for
Agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) said that if there is an
emergency those people will have to come into work, do the work and take the
day off somewhere else.
So
they will have the reduced salary. They
will be expected to pick up the work.
They will not have the holiday long weekend, because many of them will
have to be on standby to do the work, and the work will have to be absorbed as
well.
As
I say, we have talked to other people in the Highways department, many jobs
that have not been filled. These
employees are carrying a very high workload as it is right now, and these extra
cutbacks will only delay the work, and employees will be expected to carry on
with it.
Mr.
Speaker, this government could have much more easily sat down with its
employees, worked through this and come up with some sort of a negotiated plan
rather than using a broad brush to try to cover off everything in one
move. In other provinces they have sat
down at their table, provinces that are facing difficulties as well, and they
work through negotiations. But they have
not dictated what should be.
That
is what this country is all about. That
is a right employees have, they have the right to negotiate. Government has the responsibility to
negotiate in good faith. This government
has not done that. They have destroyed a
very important part of our environment here in this province by eroding the
collective bargaining process and destroying that co‑operative spirit
that we have come to know in this province.
Mr.
Speaker, that will have a serious impact for many years when we try to
negotiate with employees and have a harmonious climate in this country. I guess I wonder what will happen to those
people who choose not to follow this legislation. Will the government intervene in those
areas? There are a lot of problems that
could be created by this, and I find it difficult that this is the route that
they should have taken.
It
relates very much to all areas that this government is working in. They do not have an understanding of the
people who use the services. It is just
as in other areas. They have cut back in
funding, in programs that impact mostly on poor people. Now they are cutting
back on services that impact on poor people.
They have not looked at the consequences of the whole broader picture of
what this is going to do.
To
a degree, that does not surprise me because, as I say, that is just the same
thing we have had with this government in the farming community. This government implies that it listens to
people. They go about holding public
hearings and pretend that they are consulting with people, so in that sector at
least we had the image that they were negotiating and willing to listen, where
we have not had that in the public sector.
Mr.
Speaker, in the farming community they said they were out listening but have
not listened. Again, the federal
government, with the support of this government, has taken away services and
not listened to the people in the rural community and with the public sector
they have not even pretended to respect the wishes or the concerns. There is no respect for the collective needs
of employees; there is no respect for the negotiated agreement with employees;
they basically do not respect their employees and that creates for a very bad
climate in this province.
When people are dealt with confrontationally,
there are ways of reacting, and we will see that reaction in many areas of the
civil service.
You
walk into some of the government service offices now, and if you talk to some
of the people, they are very frustrated that they have been dealt a piece of
legislation, and in fact I refer to the Department of Family Services, where I
talked to some of the people who got this legislation, who had told them, well,
here, this is what we have, you figure out how we are going to deal with it in
each individual office. This has
happened in other offices as well: You
decide how you are going to work out this shorter workweek.
You
also have to figure out how you are going to handle those emergencies. Yes, somebody is going to have to be on call
during the Christmas holidays and that long weekend you have over the
summer. We saw the beginning of it last
week when the offices were closed down the first day. In fact, there was quite a disarray when you
tried to phone into one office to get some information and you could not get it
there. You ended up having to phone to
another office with nobody there to answer the questions. To me that sounds very ridiculous.
I
wonder what people from out of province think if they happen to have business
to do in this province, and they call in on a Friday and they are told that
government is shut down. I do not think
that sets a very good image for the province.
Mr.
Speaker, I think that the government has made a mistake with this legislation,
because they could have dealt with it by sitting down to the table. As we have said before, we will not be
supporting this, because it goes completely against the collective bargaining
process. In the long term, the
government may think they are going to save some money, but what they have done
is set up a confrontational environment.
They are not dealing co‑operatively with their employees, and we
will see the impact on services right across the province.
* (1550)
I
am particularly concerned about what the impacts will be in the services in the
rural communities, in the health care services, in the schools, and how the
quality of education is going to be impacted when we have the ability to reduce
two years of professional development days.
I believe that the government has not thought this through very
carefully and will pay the consequences for it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): People want it.
Mr. Lamoureux: The Minister of Finance says that people want
it. Well, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you
that people are disappointed in this government's inability to be able to come
to an agreement with the civil service and other government‑sector
employees, to be able to come upon a negotiated, in the free bargaining
process, an agreement in which all sides will in fact win. I go back to debates that have occurred in
this Chamber over the last number of years, whether it is the final offer
selection debate, whether it is the freezing of the employees of the MGEU
before, and I am concerned, very much so, about labour relations in the
Province of Manitoba, that this particular government has consistently done
what it could to disrupt labour relations in the province in terms of the
public employees. (interjection)
The
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) talks from his seat about Premier Clyde Wells. Well, I know one thing that this government
has not done that Clyde Wells did do, and that is that he went to the
people. He felt so strongly on the issue
that he brought it to the people.
Mr. Manness: We are going to the people.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
says that we are going to go to the people.
When are we going to be going to the people? This government is not even calling the by‑elections
that are out there, Mr. Speaker. We have
had a vacant seat for over six months, and the government does not even have
the tenacity to call a by‑election.
I watched the Minister of Finance set up this model while he was in the
press conference room, he and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). They seemed quite happy and quite content; we
have come up with a plan, a model, this wonderful model in which, not only is
it good for our government, we want other governments, local governments in
particular, your school boards and your municipalities, to emulate, to come to
grips with the problems that the provincial government says that it has come to
grips with and implement something very similar to it.
Then the government went and they started to
talk about how fair this particular bill was and that they are treating
everyone equally, that the public sector itself has to put in their fair share,
and given the financial situation or status of the province, that this is
really the only option that this government has.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I can recall a few months
prior when the Minister of Labour was somewhat‑‑well, I hesitate to
use the word "boastful," but was somewhat happy in the sense that
they have achieved an agreement with the union, and it had an increase for the
government employees. You know, the first
thing that came across my mind is that, well, here we have a minister that goes
out, enters into an agreement. Three
months later, we have the Minister of Finance saying that this agreement that
you entered into, we are not going to be able to keep for the simple reason
that our financial picture does not allow for it to occur.
Mr.
Speaker, it is disappointing in the sense that one would have thought that the
Minister of Labour would have known the financial picture of the province prior
to entering into an agreement with Mr. Olfert and the Manitoba Government
Employees'
But
I want to address some of the issues in terms of fairness. The government says that it is fair. Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not convinced that it
is fair. I believe that it is very
unfair. If you take a look‑‑and
let us use some specific examples‑‑at government agencies or Crown
corporations or departments and you look at the services that are being
delivered, whether it is with this government, whether it is a school board or
whether it is a municipal government, you will find that the staffing
complements of each of these different organizations and departments differ
substantially.
Now, if you take a look at a school division
as an example and you say, well, if you have a 2 percent cutback or you say
that you have to give a certain number of days off to a school division, in
some cases, if you have the luxury of having a larger civil service or working
group or number of public employees, you are better able to be able to
compensate to ensure the same service or same quality or standard of service is
in fact being delivered; you have a better chance of minimizing the negative
impact in terms of the service and the quality of service that is being
implemented.
In
terms of fairness to the individuals that make less than $30,000 a year
compared to those civil servants that make in excess of $50,000 or $60,000 a
year, Mr. Speaker, the impact is much more severe on the individuals that have
the lower‑end civil service or public jobs.
I
recall during the freeze in committee when there was an MTS employee that came
before the committee. She had alluded to
the fact, and I cannot recall the exact amount of dollars, but I believe it was
in the low $20,000s that she was making.
She had said that the impact that it was having on her herself was very
significant, and what frustrated her, and I had the opportunity to talk to some
of these individuals afterwards, especially if you look at MTS, you will see
that on the one hand you have the substantial increase at the upper level, in
the chair of MTS. On the other hand you
have this freeze on someone that is making, let us say, $25,000. There is no fairness when things of that
nature occur.
The
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), when the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale)
was standing up and he was speaking about this fairness or this aspect of being
fair, the member for Burrows said, well, you have someone that makes $30,000
and you compare that to someone that is making $100,000. The Minister of Labour cut in saying
something to the effect, well, the person that is making $100,000, the
percentage of a cut will allow more real dollars being taken away. No one disputes that, that those individuals
that are making more are going to be paying more or, what the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) likes to refer to, contributing more.
But
the bottom line is, those individuals that can least afford a move of this
nature are going to be hardest hit. That
is not fair, Mr. Speaker.
Someone that makes $25,000 a year that is on a
single income or relies entirely on this one particular income is going to be
much more severely impacted than someone that makes $70,000 or $80,000 a
year. When the minister talks about
fairness and that this is the only way of ensuring that there is fair play, I
have to question that.
The
Ontario government, from what I understand, has at the very least acknowledged
that those that are on the lower end will be exempt from the legislation that
they are going to be introducing.
* (1600)
So,
Mr. Speaker, I believe that there are some things that this government can do to
make this bill a bit better in terms of some amendments that could be brought
forward. Even coming from their
philosophical approach to labour relations, I believe that there are a number
of things that they can do to make it better and still stick to that
philosophical approach.
During final offer selection and during the
wage freeze, I sat for hours and hours, as many members of this Chamber did,
and listened to the government, in particular, talk about the free bargaining
process and how very important it is.
That was, in essence, the reason why they were removing final offer
selection. At least, that is the
argument that they were putting forward at that time.
I
personally disagreed with most of the stuff that they were saying but at least
believed in principle that what they were talking about was something in which
the Minister of Labour at the time did sincerely believe in, in the manner in
which he presented himself and the amount of times he repeated himself on the
importance of the free bargaining process.
Mr.
Speaker, to see the government backtrack on that is somewhat unfortunate. They can say whatever they want; whether it
is Newfoundland, whether it is Ontario, whether it is B.C., they will point to
what other government administrations are doing and try to say, because they
are doing it, there is nothing wrong with us doing it, and that for anyone to
stand up and criticize it, they are being somewhat hypocritical, because if
they were in government, they would likely be doing the same thing because,
after all, other governments of different political stripes are implementing
it.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that might be the case, but
it does not necessarily justify the government doing what it has chosen to do
because, as I say, I believe that there are a number of things that they could
do.
The
Minister of Labour also made reference to the fact that this government is
trying to negotiate agreements, and the Minister of Labour and Minister of
Finance pointed to, I believe it was, the nurses and MTS, and said that here
are two organizations that have reached a collective agreement, that Bill 22
would not be necessary.
Mr.
Speaker, it was interesting to hear those sorts of comments when the fact of
the matter is that the government has introduced Bill 22, just like putting it
to the union's heads and saying, well, it is either you have to renegotiate‑‑or
read Bill 22, and you are going to find out that you are not going to have any
choice, because Bill 22 is fairly clear.
It is the employer, ultimately, that gets what it is that they want on
this particular issue.
So
I do not think it was a fair comment from the, in particular, Minister of
Labour, from his seat to say that here we are getting all these agreements
today not even having to use Bill 22. In
fact, Mr. Speaker, I would have encouraged the Minister of Labour and the
different Crown corporations and so forth to go out there and give a sincere
attempt at resolving some of these issues so that Bill 22 would not have been
necessary.
I
know, in terms of Bill 22, that this government did not even consider looking
at individuals that would have quite possibly opted to take days off without
pay, Mr. Speaker. Does the government
have any idea in terms of the numbers that they would have been able to save in
terms of dollars or hours from individuals that would have voluntarily given up
a day's pay for those 10 extra long weekends?
I
do not believe that this government even considered that, because we did not
hear anything about that from the union representatives that I have talked to
and the many different government workers.
There are a lot, a significant number, of public sector workers that do
want to be able to help, not only this government, but other, the Crowns and
the other local governments, in terms of coming to fiscal reality or facing or
looking at some of the fiscal problems, and would have volunteered, Mr.
Speaker, I believe, giving up on some of these days‑‑not everyone,
but I believe that there would have been a significant number of individuals.
But
rather than coming to grips with the problems that this government has, it
chose to bring in a piece of legislation as opposed to negotiating some form of
compromise, because compromise is what labour relations is all about. As the critic for Labour, I have had the
opportunity to read, at least in part, The Labour Relations Act. If you read the preamble, it talks about
harmony in the labour force and how very important it is. I had argued at one
point that this government was, in fact, in violation of its own act, at the
very least, the preamble to its act, because it was not adhering to some of the
very simple arguments that are put forward in support of the free bargaining
process.
This is the reason why I am most upset with
Bill 22. I, too, recognize the
importance of being able to save money where you can, but I do not believe this
is the best way of going about doing that.
You
know, it was interesting in terms of when you go through the bill itself and
you find out what it is that the bill does and, obviously, it is fairly clear,
but Part 1 applies, despite any other act or regulation, on collective
agreement, contract or arbitration award or arrangement of any kind.
There are other parts that go to it, but it
basically applies to everything from Crown corporations to hospitals, school
divisions, universities.
It
was interesting in terms of the MLAs and the amount that MLAs are receiving in
the sense that every New Democrat that stands up will comment to the fact that
we support the MLAs' reduction, and I commend them on doing that. In fact, if we go back to some of the
discussions that have occurred about salaries of MLAs and so forth, I believe
there was an overall consensus.
I
do not think there is any MLA inside the Chamber that I am aware of that in
fact disagrees with the 3.8 percent cutback on the MLAs' salaries. I believe the government in itself knew it
did not have a choice. As politicians,
we do not have a choice. We have to agree to the 3.8 percent for the simple
reason that you cannot say one thing to the civil service or public workers and
do something entirely different as the elected officials. That would be
outright irresponsible, Mr. Speaker, and I do not believe anyone inside this
Chamber actually opposes that, given the action that the government has decided
to take on the civil service.
Now, there are some principles of this
legislation, five basic principles. The
first one is a mechanism for public employers for fiscal management without
layoffs; the second is, the decision is left to the individual employers;
third, the 30‑day consultation process with employees; four is the
consistent treatment of employees; and fifth is, the benefits are
protected. That was very important, Mr.
Speaker, in terms of going over the bill.
You do not want benefits that in fact have been negotiated through the
free bargaining process to be put into jeopardy because of the government's
decisions.
There are other aspects of the legislation, in
particular why it is this government decided to go for two years as opposed to
one year. I think if the government was
wanting to have a serious attempt to be able to negotiate or to allow the
different Crowns and so forth the opportunity to negotiate in good faith that
at the very least there was no need to go the extra two years.
* (1610)
I
hope or I trust at least that the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Labour
will go into why it is they felt it was necessary to have the two years as
opposed to the one year.
Having pointed out some of the technical parts
of the bill itself, I did want to enter into the discussion about labour
relations overall because, as I say, over the last number of years and
particularly the last year and a half or so, as the critic for Labour, I have
had the opportunity to listen in and talk to a number of different
representatives both on the management and labour side. There has been, through me, a significant
amount of interest expressed about this government and the actions that they
have taken and, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that this government would look at
labour relations in the future in a much more positive light. I want to make reference to some of the
concerns that have been expressed to me.
One of those concerns has been in terms of the consistent treatment of
the public sector workers from this government‑‑and one of
disappointment‑‑because many perceive the government believes that
civil servants generally are overpaid and underworked.
I
do not personally believe that is in fact the case, that being in the civil
service, much like being a politician or any other occupation that is out
there, both in the private and public sector, you are always going to have
individuals that will‑‑we would term them as workhorses or workaholics
or whatever you might want to call them.
Other individuals are the last to punch in the time clock, maybe take
the extended coffee break and extended lunch break and then the first one out
and the first one to ask for a cheque, but that happens in every occupation
that is out there‑‑to at least try to give the impression‑‑and
in part this government is attempting to do that‑‑that there are
civil servants out there that are not being productive. That is the reason why they believe, at least
in part, that this model will not have an impact on the service that is being
delivered to Manitobans.
It
will be interesting to see at the end of the day the impact that it has had on
the civil service or the different services that are offered to the public
through the civil servants, in particular, our education and so forth, because
I believe that you will see a significant difference.
One
of the more interesting ones is the fact with the education and asking the
teachers to take their professional days as the 10 days off without pay. Well, there are a number of things that occur
during those days that I would argue are to the benefit of the children that
are being taught. It is very
shortsighted for a government to make a decision that those 10 days are not
essential days, that those 10 days could be done without for the simple reason,
this government has decided that they are not productive days, and there is a
substantial amount of money that could be saved.
Mr.
Speaker, in different areas of the civil service‑‑and you could
virtually go through each and every department, but some will have more of an
impact. If you take a look at the
Department of Family Services, you know, abuse, whether it is spousal or
children's abuse, it does not take breaks for the summer. When you have these extra long weekends, you
are going to find that you are going to have backlogs of sorts and at least
calling into question the impact on the children and abused individuals that are
out there because services have been closed down for that Friday.
The
government no doubt will argue that impact will be insignificant, but I would
suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that I think that the government is trying to
oversimplify the whole issue and that if the government was wanting to do it in
a much more fair way that they should have been looking at the different
departments and the different sizes of the civil service, by making a straight
statement of whether it is the 3.8 percent or the 10 days off without pay, that
it is a lot more complicated than just saying that this is the way it is going
to happen and there is not going to be any negative impact.
I
do not believe, in fact, that this government sat down, the different ministers
sat down with the civil servants and their department heads to see in terms of
how they would be able to implement a government policy of this nature. As a direct result of that lack of
communication, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that there are going to be a lot of
shortcomings of this particular policy, and that is going to be somewhat
unfortunate in the sense that it could have been minimized through a number of
different vehicles, first and foremost through the free bargaining process in
good faith and sitting down.
Unions have agreed to zero percent increases
in the past, and if you feel that you have such a strong case, that you were in
such a financial bind, that these individuals, I would argue, would have been
more sympathetic to government and you would have seen agreements that would
have been achieved without putting into jeopardy the level of service that is
being administered through our public sector.
That has been clearly demonstrated by some of the public union
organizations that have already come to an agreement with the government. What you need to do, Mr. Speaker, is to look
at some of these organizations, such as the nurses' union. These individuals have come to an agreement.
It
is not because of the government in a sense of good will and good feeling. It is more out of frustration from a
government that is prepared to do absolutely anything in order to be able to
achieve their bottom line. I think that
in itself is unfortunate, because there are many different professionals that
are out there, professionals and nonprofessionals throughout the Civil Service
that would have in fact sat down and come to an agreement in which the
government would not be losing faith with those civil servants.
I
believe, Mr. Speaker, that ultimately public servants are not going to forget,
that there is no doubt going to be a significant number of them that feel that
the government is doing the right thing by introducing Bill 22, but there is
also going to be a significant number of individuals that are very much going
to resent what this government has chosen to do.
Those individuals are the individuals that one
has to be concerned with, because you need to have a civil service that in fact
feels good about what it is that they are doing, and good employer‑employee
relationships. Mr. Speaker, if you do
not have that, you are not going to have good worker productivity. You are going to make individuals feel less
than what they are, and whether it is an individual that works within the
Department of Health or the Department of Housing or a nurse at a local
hospital, or a teacher in the classroom, it will have an impact in terms of the
manner in which they approach delivering the service that they do.
All
of them are caring individuals and want to do their part, I believe, Mr.
Speaker. By the government taking the
action that they have done, I am concerned about what is going to be happening
tomorrow with these individuals, and what it is that this government is going
to do after the two years has expired. If you take a look in terms of the hard
feelings that were generated when the wages were frozen, we have not even
gotten over that and the government has brought in another piece of legislation
to ensure those individuals who were upset back then are going to continue to be
upset.
* (1620)
Mr.
Speaker, that is, as I say, what I find most unfortunate. I sincerely do believe that even though you
have other governments and other jurisdictions bringing in legislation of a
similar nature, it is ultimately not the way that we have to go in the
At
least that government had the integrity to go to the people as opposed to going
around and saying that this is what the people want, and we are doing what is
in the best interest of the public. Not
only the first time, but this is second time that this government has
approached the civil service in such a manner.
If
I were Peter Olfert, and the next round of negotiations came up, what am I to
think? I negotiated an agreement in good
faith and what is going to stop this government from doing it again? They have already done it twice. What is going to prevent them from doing it
again? I think that is a legitimate
concern.
What is Mr. Olfert or his successor supposed
to do in terms of future negotiations with the government? Because, Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is
legitimate to believe that this government does not have any respect for the
Manitoba Government Employees'
Is
there any wonder why Mr. Olfert might feel uncomfortable sitting down and
talking to the government? (interjection) To the dean of the Chamber, Mr.
Speaker, I would put it on his lap in terms of‑‑if the dean of the
Chamber was Peter Olfert and he had negotiated on behalf of our largest union
an agreement, and months later that agreement is being torn apart because the
government of the day has had a change in heart, what type of an approach would
he have in terms of the next time he sits down with the government negotiators,
knowing full well, whatever you might negotiate might not come to fruition for
the simple reason that the government has its own strategy in terms of how it is
going to deal with the public sector workers?
That does not necessarily mean that it is going to be doing what is in
the best interest of the public sector union, in particular, the Manitoba
Government Employees'
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
I
like to believe that the government acts in the best interests of Manitobans,
but I would ask the minister, if in fact this is in the best interests of all
Manitobans, the individuals that earn less than $30,000, the individuals that
are going to be much more hard pressed as a direct result. Had the government, as I say, had the will,
it could have done a number of different things, Mr. Acting Speaker, to ensure
that at least in part it would have been able to achieve what it is that it is
hoping to achieve through Bill 22. We
are not even convinced of that.
Where was it‑‑I believe it was
MPIC. They had their first Friday
off. The following day on the Saturday
some individuals were working overtime as a result of having the Friday off‑‑it
was Autopac that had that particular incident.
So on the Friday they are at the golf course. On the day off, on the Saturday they are in
claiming time and a half.
I
am not too sure in terms of if in fact that matter has been clarified within
government, and there was a certain amount of money that was left in the
department for overtime, but I would suggest to you, Mr. Acting Speaker, that
is defeating the purpose of this particular bill that the government has introduced.
Again, I believe, I sincerely believe that
this government brought in Bill 22 not knowing what the impact was going to be
on the different departments and agencies and Crowns and so forth, because if
it did know what the impact was going to be, it would have been better prepared
and better able to answer a number of the questions that were being put
forward.
We
asked, on a continuous basis of the government, how this particular model was
going to have an impact on the different government departments, on the
agencies, on our prisons, on other departments, Mr. Acting Speaker. The government was unable to provide us with
any form of a response that would have been able to alleviate the concerns and
legitimate concerns of individuals that have been posing questions to us as
members of an opposition and in turn posing to the government, unsuccessful in
answering many of those questions, especially in some of the more remote and
smaller communities outside the city of Winnipeg.
If
you have a small hospital in rural
You
could virtually go through department by department and talk about what are
essential services and what is the government doing to ensure that the
essential services would be maintained, and that you would not see the quality
of service being dropped, especially in areas of essential services, Mr. Acting
Speaker.
That is, at the very least, what the
government should have been prepared to be able to tell us. This is why, as I say, the government, I do
not believe, has done its homework on this particular bill.
I
do believe that they know what it is that they want to be able to do. They want to be able to save dollars and
nothing more than that because they have a fixation on the deficit. They believe that this is what we have to do
in order to address the deficit.
It
does not necessarily matter how they go about doing it or the resultant
effects. But let me suggest to you that
there is a number of things that the government has done because of that
fixation that are going to result in more money having to be spent, more public
tax dollars that are going to have to be spent.
I
had the opportunity, for example, to raise one in Question Period about a
constituent of mine who could not get a daycare position and was offered a
job. As a result of not being able to
get that daycare position, she had to say, no, to this particular job. She was on social assistance.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, there it is fairly
clear in terms of action that government takes that does not result in the
savings of money. It might not
necessarily be as clear overall for government to say that we are going to save
so many millions of dollars by reducing the work year by 10 days. But there is no way that they have
demonstrated to us that, in fact, they are going to be saving money. In some cases they are going to spending more
money.
These are the type of questions that the
government should have been prepared to be able to answer before they brought
in Bill 22, Mr. Acting Speaker.
* (1630)
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Acting Speaker, we are getting the hoots
from the yellow dogs across the way.
I
want to, first of all, say that Bill 22 is an imposed solution, an imposed
solution that indicates probably better than any other decision of this
government, any other action, the admission of failure of this government.
It
epitomizes the failure that has characterized this government in its inability
to develop partnerships with the people of
This will not do that, Mr. Acting
Speaker. It is clear, and I say that at
the outset. There are many examples
where they have taken this power upon themselves. It is clear in Bill 16, in education, for
example, that they did that with the school boards. They could not come to any agreement or
develop a partnership. So they imposed a
solution.
They did not even try to negotiate, as they
did in
Mr.
Acting Speaker, therein lies the genesis of our opposition to this particular
piece of legislation because of this government's failure to develop a partnership
and to negotiate. Now, we are not
talking about this bill as it applies to MLAs.
In the situation of MLAs, clearly up to this point in time at least,
MLAs have agreed upon the various levels of remuneration, the levels of support
services allowances that were made for MLAs.
Of course, we can agree to reduce those.
So I am not objecting to that agreement that we have in this Chamber
with regard to MLAs' remuneration and allowances. We do advocate an independent commission
would set these, though, and we hope the government will be looking at that
piece of legislation, if it is required, and move swiftly to ensure that kind
of solution is in place.
But
when we are talking about negotiated settlements, free collective bargaining
and this government's lack of respect for that process, then we have a
fundamental difference with this government.
The failure to negotiate, the failure to respect and to recognize the
democratic right of the working people in this province, the right to free
collective bargaining and respect for the process that it involves and the
results of that process, that is what is missing here by this government. They cannot hide from that fundamental
difference, and that is why I am saying that the actions they take now will not
hold them in good stead. They will not
be able to withstand the test of time in this
This Tory government has no sensitivity to
working people and especially low‑income people. We see that in the decisions that they have
made across the board in many different agencies in all departments of this
government, where they have hit the poor the hardest, those most vulnerable the
hardest, and they have not put in place any mitigating programs or supports for
those who are most vulnerable in society.
That is what epitomizes this government.
That is how this government can be described.
So
they have not considered pay equity as
They tend to want to do this, Mr. Acting
Speaker, with many programs, just like with the student loans, for example, or
student bursaries. When they eliminated
student bursaries, they said, oh,
You
see, what this government fails again to recognize is any sensitivity to those
in the lower echelons of the economic scale in this province. That is the difference. Clearly, this government will be tested on
that in the next election, their failure to ensure a caring and responsive
society to those most in need in this province.
That has been eroded by Tory governments nationally and certainly by
this provincial government.
Mr.
Acting Speaker, we can look at examples when New Democrats have been in power,
the
They can only use the heavy hammer and the
power of legislation. Where is the
negotiation, as Winnipeg No. 1 did with many of its‑‑(interjection)
Well, we have many New Democrats on the school board of Winnipeg School
Division No. 1. This government knows
that. There is no revelation in this
House on that aspect. They know
that. They have been shooting at
Winnipeg No. 1 continuously. We all know
that. All of a sudden, this is some
great revelation for these ministers.
Wow, they just learned something.
I will tell you they have been aiming at Winnipeg No. 1 for the last
while.
Now, that example of collective bargaining is
something that these people, if we can call them that, in government could in
fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, take a lesson from.
They could look at how it was done, how trust was built up, and how
through negotiation you can arrive at a partnership. You can arrive at decisions that are not
imposed, like this government chooses to do time and time again, to impose
solutions rather than to negotiate.
There is their failure. They do
not like that when we point that out because it attacks them at their soft
underbelly. It is clear this is where it
hits them, because they are weak here, they are soft here. It is one of their weaknesses, and we will
point that out time and time again.
Now, let us look at the impact of Bill 22 as
it applies to school divisions in this province. Bill 22 is inequitable in its application
because it encourages school boards to cut days, to force teachers to take
unpaid days from their professional development and in‑service days. It encourages them but does not require. Therefore, depending on the relative wealth
of one school division versus another, some will require, like Mountain, eight
days of unpaid leave for its teachers and other employees, where Assiniboine
South, for example, will take five days. Others will take three, two, one, or
none, as in the case of Winnipeg No. 1, which I just mentioned earlier. That is no coincidence that they have done
that.
What we have seen there is an application of
this legislation which is imposed on the collective bargaining system in this
province without regard or respect for it, imposed in a way that hits many
employees in different ways from division to division. There is an inequitable
application as to how it applies. I see
that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) says in the Estimates‑‑
* (1640)
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Acting Speaker, I
wonder if my knowledgeable friend from Dauphin might entertain a question which
I know he will be abundantly able to answer.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Reimer): That is not a point of order. The Minister of
Health did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of Health
has ample opportunity to question me after I finish my remarks here this
afternoon. I have no difficulty with
that. He certainly is not
knowledgeable. We know that from the
answers to the questions we got this afternoon.
I have no difficulty with any of those questions.
Let
us look at the situation with regard to school divisions. We are seeing tremendous inequities division
to division as a result of this government's policies. I say that, while the minister claims that she
is maintaining the in‑servicing dollars in her budget, she knows very
well, if there are no days left to take those in‑servicing days, to take
that professional development, that in fact she is just going to lapse that
money. She might have been more up‑front
if she had cut the money to reflect what actually is going to happen, but
because of her inability to project the kinds of impacts of these hastily made
decisions, naturally there is no change in that particular line.
We
will see the results of that this coming year when, even though in‑servicing
is so important and professional development and ongoing training is so
important, as I will demonstrate to these members who say they believe in time
and again in this House, that in fact learning is a life‑long
experience. We have to stay
internationally competitive, and people have to adapt and innovate.
All
of these slogans by this government are in direct contradiction to this bill, because
this bill attacks professional development head on in the school system in this
province. That is a contradiction and
shows this government for the hollow rhetoric with which they talk about
innovation and the ability to be flexible and compete and adapt to the changing
world situation. There is no legitimate
effort on their part to in fact do this when they bring in acts such as this
which directly contradict that kind of policy.
We
can look at some of those examples. We
look at the recent article that talks about computer illiteracy: Public school system flunking the test of
computer revolution. These members in
government are failing to ensure that new technology is introduced into the
school system. They are failing to
provide the resources, Mr. Acting Speaker, for that, for the technology that is
required for us to compete. Why talk
about being competitive internationally when you are taking actions that
directly oppose what you are saying? It
is hollow rhetoric. That is all it is.
You do not believe in it. Well,
let us take a look at it. (interjection)
The
members opposite are hooting again, Mr. Acting Speaker. I would assume they do
not agree that we are falling behind with regard to the computer literacy, that
we have to put more resources into new technology to ensure that we are
competitive. They talk about being competitive.
Where is the action? There is no
action. They are falling behind. They are standing alongside when it comes
time to meeting these essential needs.
How
do we ensure that teachers are able to teach what is required in terms of new
technology if we are going to remove the in‑servicing opportunities that
they have, the professional development that has been in place? How are we going to ensure that in fact they
are going to meet these needs of students? Where are they going to do it?
Now, the minister said she provides the money
but there are no days left. Some of the
poorer divisions, eight days gone, no in‑service, no professional
development days. And now the government
says they are concerned about computer illiteracy, they say they are concerned,
they say we have to be competitive.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Where is the action; where is the meat? There is nothing here from them because they
are not putting in the resources; they do not believe in what they say. Just like with sustainable development, it is
talk, talk, talk, all rhetoric and no action.
The
Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) continuously talks about education
reform. She talks about education
reform; she talks about new curriculum, new changes to the curriculum. Now, when that happens, you need to have
professional development for teachers because you want them to be able to
reflect that new curriculum to ensure that students will learn the latest
skills and requirements that are outlined in the curriculum, do you not? Is that not what the government believes
in? So then why will they not ensure that
there is provision for professional development so that this new curriculum can
be passed on in terms of the skills?
That is the difficulty. We see the contradictions by this
government. They introduce a Skills for
Independent Living course, but now suddenly there will not be any professional
development time for teachers. Now there
is an example. You see, they want to cut
these days out in the schools and at the same time they say they want to have
the latest methods and they want everyone in the professions to keep up and
change and be innovative and ensure they are meeting the latest needs and
ensuring that the province's labour force is competitive.
Where does this start? It starts in the schools. You have to be competitive in the schools,
and you have to ensure that the teachers are providing the kind of information
that will ensure that students are flexible, that they can adapt, that they are
thinking, that they are able to change and adapt to new situations. If you do not have teachers who are informed
of the latest developments, naturally you are not going to have that imparted
to the students. I am saying to the
members opposite that time and time again their actions contradict what they
say is important, and their actions in education are in fact a very good
example of that.
Mr.
Speaker, I think that they are following the agenda of the federal government
when they talk about Inventing our Future, An Action Plan for
When we look at Inventing our Future, they
talk about innovation almost throughout.
The government has patterned its so‑called reform after the
federal government's paper on Inventing our Future, yet when they are
practising their policies in terms of the results that are done, we see nothing
happening in the school system. The
cutbacks that are epitomized in Bill 16 and Bill 22 reflect that lack of
understanding and the need to ensure that teachers are dynamic, that they are
learning the latest techniques and latest skills and latest information so they
can pass that on to the students. That
is what is missing. The government has not put this together.
* (1650)
Now, we look at other places where the government
has provided incentives, private training dollars, because they believe,
theoretically at least it seems, that there has to be training provided for
young people, for workers. So they say,
well, we are going to provide tax breaks on the payroll tax. The federal government does it with the GST
for companies, for corporations that are providing training.
Yet, in our own schools, in our public school
system‑‑a fundamental contradiction. There it is not important suddenly to have
lifelong learning and adaptation and innovation. Suddenly, it is not important. So now how does this government explain that
contradiction to the public?
They talk about this on the one hand and, yet,
when it comes to the public school system‑‑no examples of it. As a matter of fact, they go the other
way. They cut the opportunities for
professional development.
The
government has to look very closely at the contradictions it leaves on the
table and they hope that people will not see.
I know that the public is becoming more and more aware of this
government's hollow rhetoric in the area of training and innovation as it
applies to the school system. It is not
there, and in terms of reform, it is not there either.
When we press the Minister of Education on
reform, do we get any concrete answers?
Do we get any direct and specific answers? Can she show us what she is doing with
reform? Nothing. She talks about a
series of fora that we are going to have this fall, but she has no timetable
for reform. She does not know if she is
going to have major reform, minor reform or any reform. We pressed her in the Estimates on this. There is no answer.
As
a matter of fact, that is one of the reasons why we are very unsatisfied with
the way this minister has been responding in Estimates. Her colleagues may wonder why we move motions
of nonconfidence on this minister. She
is failing to answer questions specifically and directly in Estimates. She talks
in circles.
I
have had many people who have come to me that have read Hansard, these
Estimates. They say, you certainly do
not get any direct information, and I am sure the minister prides herself in
not giving an answer to a question. I
think she is actually proud of it. I
think that is a shame. It is a shame
that a minister would be proud that she does not answer a question in the
Estimates.
It
demonstrates to us the closed nature of this government, the government's‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Manness: On a point of order, I believe that the member
must have misspoken himself. I know he
would not want to leave on the record the impression that the Minister of
Education does not provide answers, because in my attendance at the committee
meetings, the minister is answering fully the questions of the member opposite.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable government House leader does
not have a point of order. That is
clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, there once again we see the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) riding to the rescue.
This is what we have seen.
Rather than allowing the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) to stand on her own two feet and let her actions and her work
stand the test of time, stand the test of the people of Manitoba, we have the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) running into the Estimates and spending an entire
afternoon answering questions for the Minister of Education.
Now
we have the Minister of Finance standing up in this House and feeling he has to
ride to the rescue‑‑(interjection) Now, another minister is going
to stand and ride to the rescue.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just for clarification,
because I know the member for Dauphin does not want to leave wrong information
on the record, when I have been in Estimates for the Department of Education,
it is very difficult to understand what the line of questioning is because he
does not know how to ask questions.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order, and I would remind all honourable members, a point of order should be
used to bring to the attention of the Chair a breach of the rules, not an
opportunity to try and clarify the record.
The
honourable Madam Minister did not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: I thank you for raising that with government
members who are here because they are clearly abusing the points of order. It is interesting that they have to rise, one
after another, to give testimonials to the minister here on the record to leave
the impression they are supporting her.
We
know the Minister of Finance is just clamouring to get that Education portfolio
as soon as he can. He is just waiting to
get out of Finance and into Education. I
know that those words he just put on the record, and his colleague, are hollow
words, simply to leave the public impression that they are supporting the
Minister of Education and that she is doing a good job. It is embarrassing to see that, Mr. Speaker.
Do
you know why I say that? Do you know why
I believe that? I believe he is waiting because we know there has been a
massive miscalculation by this government on the education front. They are going to have to find a scapegoat
and, unfortunately, or fortunately, it is going to be the Minister of Education
because, in fact, the public will not stand for this attack on the public
education system. They are going to need
a major change to show a change in direction, and that is what we are going to
see.
We
get 4,000 people rallying at the Legislature.
We get 2,000 teachers. We get
hundreds of students in Stonewall, in
What we have seen is one set of rules for the
private schools, one for the public schools.
They will not tolerate an attack on the public school system. They know the continued preoccupation with
the private school system at 10 times the rate of inflation increases over the
last five years, 10 times as much as the public school system received from
this government, is undermining the public school system. They know that and they are not going to
stand by while this government destroys a very good public education system in
this province.
That is why this government is in
trouble. That is the evidence that they
have miscalculated. That means, Mr.
Speaker, the government is going to have to take some drastic action to turn
this around, because this issue is getting away on them and they are not
controlling it. They are not on top of
it.
Bill 22 reflects a massive mistrust by the
government of the people who work for them and is resulting in a massive
mistrust by the people who work for them of the government, a mistrust of this
government, because there has been no effort‑‑(interjection) Now,
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) comes in at the eleventh hour here to talk
about Bob Rae.
I
covered that about
It
is an attack on working people in the public sector. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that they will
say: Well, what choice did we have?
We
know they had choices. They left
hundreds of millions of dollars on the table.
They gave it back to high‑income earners and the corporations in
this province. They have a choice. They could have chosen to take that money
back, to regain that lost income‑‑hundreds of millions. As a matter of fact, some people will project
that the money they have left on the table, that they have forgone, that this
Minister of Finance has forgone in a vain attempt to stimulate this economy
with his trickle‑down economics is in the area of a billion dollars in
the last five years. I am not saying it
is that high; it may very well be.
There are those who say, and I agree with
them, that this government could have used that money to fund the public school
system rather than the private school system, so they would not have had to
bring in such draconian measures as they have done here without consultation. An admission of defeat, a failure to
negotiate, a failure to develop a partnership with the people of
It
reminds me of a Vander Zalm B.C. That is
where they get their agenda, turning the clock back to Vander Zalm in B.C.,
when he fired 25 percent of all the workers in the public sector in the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Dauphin will have 10 minutes remaining, unless the
House is willing to waive private members' hour.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No, okay.
* (1700)
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed)
Also standing in the name of the honourable
member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) who has one minute remaining.
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202 (The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation),
standing in the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed)
]
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203 (The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205 (The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed)
]
Bill 208‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), Bill 208 (The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 209‑The
Public Health Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 209 (The Public Health
Amendment Act, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique), standing in the name
of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 212‑The
Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), Bill 212 (The Dauphin Memorial Community
Centre Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre
commemoratif de Dauphin), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
SECOND
READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 214? No.
Are we proceeding with Bill 216? No.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 34‑Workforce
Revitalization Strategy for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
WHEREAS it has become undeniable that
WHEREAS the skill level of the workforce is
key to the prosperity of the workers, companies and to the Canadian economy as
a whole; and
WHEREAS this government has demonstrated in
recent budgets its lack of commitment to retraining; and
WHEREAS this government did not undertake an
analysis of the potential impacts of the Free Trade Agreement before lending
its support to the deal nor has it studied the impacts since the agreement was
concluded and therefore no action plan exists to facilitate adjustments in the
Manitoba workforce that would allow it to respond to the problems posed by free
trade, and no plan exists to safeguard threatened Manitoba jobs, to retrain
workers facing layoffs, or assist businesses threatened by free trade; and
WHEREAS no joint labour force strategy exists
between the two levels of government; and
WHEREAS the report of the Skills Training
Advisory Committee was a scathing indictment of the lack of action by this
government and the Pawley administration in the area of job retraining.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba recommend that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik)
consider undertaking an in‑depth analysis of the Manitoba economy and its
workforce needs, particularly the requirements for basic education and
retraining in order to develop an action plan for positioning the labour force
to meet successfully the challenges of the international economic environment;
and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly recommend that the Minister of Labour
consider establishing a system to track industries in order to predict those
facing a shortage of qualified workers, and those facing business closures and
job losses, and use that information in planning worker retraining programs.
Motion presented.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, since 1988 and the Free Trade
Agreement, we have seen some 61,000 manufacturing jobs in 1988 in the
They can say that free trade with the
Mr.
Speaker, when the resolution itself was drafted, there was no agreement with
our federal counterparts with respect to labour training. Last night, in the Estimates, I did have the
opportunity to ask some questions of the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey)
with respect to the agreement that was, in fact, achieved from this government
and have to question in terms of what it is that this agreement is actually
going to do, what ray of hope it gives to the unemployed or to the individual
that is looking at a shutdown of a factory or being laid off or anything of
this nature.
I
do believe that the government did not need as long as it did to get an
agreement put into place, because I believe it is very important that
government does what it can to ensure the workers in the province of Manitoba
are continuously being upgraded and trained and retrained where it is
applicable, so that we do have a skilled workforce.
Now, we talked in the resolution in terms of
asking the government to look at certain industries, to try to develop
priorities. Coincidence has it, I had
the opportunity again last night to talk about that with the Minister of
Education. One of the industries that I
had talked about last night was the garment industry.
The
garment industry, I believe, is an industry in which this government is blowing
a wonderful opportunity to see additional jobs coming to the
Mr.
Speaker, when I was raising the question with the Minister of Education last night,
I said to her that I quite often drive by a garment factory and I will see
experienced sewing machine operators are required. After having that discussion, I did take up
Notre Dame and I did see another sign that did request experienced sewing machine
operators.
The
government has tried to address, different governments have tried to address
this particular issue through different means.
In the '70s, we had an immigration wave that filled‑‑actually,
the Fashion Institute went out and recruited individuals to come to Canada to
fill those jobs, because we did not have individuals, whether it was who were
wanting the job or who were qualified or had the experience in order to get the
job.
Mr.
Speaker, I asked questions again last night on this specific industry. The Minister of Education talked about, well,
now they have one course that is going to be expiring and I believe it was
somewhere in and around 150, and there is another one where there is 70, but both
of these things are very recent.
If
you take a look at the garment industry, it does a great deal to add to the
province's GNP in terms of numbers of products that are actually exported. What you do is, if you provide a skilled
workforce in an industry that has good potential, chances of being able to
create jobs is that much more enhanced.
I
use the example of the garment industry, because it is fairly clear in terms of
what type of action this particular government takes when it comes to providing
jobs for Manitobans, for upgrading skills and so forth.
The
only real response that I got from the Minister of Education on this particular
issue was the fact that she said, well, this is an industry that has a high
turnover, and, yes, she believes that they are doing what is necessary in order
to have labour market for this particular industry.
* (1710)
Mr.
Speaker, I would suggest to the Minister of Education that, no, they are not
doing what is necessary, that they are in fact doing a disservice of sorts to
that one particular industry by not ensuring that there is training that is
available for individuals that do want to enter into that particular industry.
Even though I talk about the garment industry,
we could talk about the different industries and apply the same principles to
those different industries. Last night,
again, I made reference to the aerospace industry. One can make argument in terms of our
agrifood industries that the government does have a role to play in
establishing those industries where we have a good opportunity, good potential
for real growth. Those are the
industries in which government has to ensure that we have the expertise or the
trained individuals, skilled individuals, to meet that labour demand.
The
minister made reference to tourism. I
agree, Mr. Speaker, tourism is in all likelihood one of the greatest potential
growth industries in the
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, by providing the courses
that will enhance the service to would‑be tourists that would be coming
to the
You
know, the government can talk about what it is that it is doing, and saying
that we are attracting businesses, that we are, in fact, moving in a positive
direction, but you have to ask them in terms of, well if that is in fact the
case, why are we not hearing of the concrete results? Why is it that our unemployment has not been
going down? Other areas of
If
the government had a plan in labour force strategy‑‑what a
wonderful term‑‑if there was a labour force strategy that this
government had, many of the industries that we have today would, I would argue,
be that much more healthy and better off and better prepared and able to
provide or to enhance the number of workers in our workforce. Because the government has felt that inaction
seems to be the order of the day in terms of training, to leave it up to the
individuals to belittle the role of government, as a result, Mr. Speaker, we
are not maximizing. That is unfortunate.
It
is not to say that only industries that are designated from government are the
ones government should be concentrating on, or putting efforts into, I should
say. There are other industries that are
out there. I was really pleased, for
example, with McKenzie Seeds. Here we
have a viable company that actually brings in seeds, packages them and then
sends them away.
I
think this is the sort of thing that government needs, also, to look into, and
how it is that training dollars could be spent to ensure that things of this
nature occur.
I
am thinking in terms of processing plants.
In
Well,
Mr. Speaker, if you had a more proactive government, at the very least, trying
to provide a labour force that would be able to take advantage of those
resources that we have in terms of processing‑‑and you are talking
about management. Training courses do
not have to be all labour‑intensified.
There are other areas in which government can also ensure that there are
industries that are not necessarily there today, but would do very well
tomorrow if they were given the opportunity.
Those are industries in which, again, I
believe the government should, at the very least, be talking about, because we
do not see that talking, that discussion, that debate occurring inside the
Chamber.
In
fact, Mr. Speaker, when I had asked the question in terms of, tell me some of
these industries, the minister alluded to the service industries. She alluded to some manufacturing industries
or manufacturing as a whole. I guess
what I was trying to get out of the minister was a few more specifics, what it
is that this government is doing to enhance industry A or industry B, and so
forth. But we did not see that.
Had
the government taken an approach of more openness in terms of, this is what we
are doing and this is how we are doing it, I believe what you could see happening
is more constructive opposition‑‑and when I say opposition,
opposition parties‑‑in terms of some of the ideas that we might
have. We also consult outside of this
Chamber, some would argue more than what the government does. We do have a number of ideas that we believe
would enhance
In
the leadership bid that I attempted to win, Mr. Speaker, the major plank in my
campaign was education training and retraining, because if we do not come to
grips with that issue,
When you take a look at some of the resources
we are selling off, the world is becoming more competitive, and we are not
going to be getting the same sorts of prices potentially that we are getting
today.
So
I think there is more than ever a need for government to sit down with all of
the stakeholders and come up with what it is that we want, or what type of
direction we want the
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this resolution because I am very
pleased to take an opportunity to put on the record the skills training
initiative of this particular government.
* (1720)
When the member across the way, in his doom
and gloom, speaks of
So
I am pleased to speak about the initiatives we have. I would like to start with an historical
reference to the Skills Training Advisory Committee, which was a committee that
put forward some goal statements for
In
the establishment of a training culture, that means Manitobans would see the
issue of training as one which is an ongoing one. Within a training culture, it would not just
be those individual Manitobans who are seeking that training but it would also
involve private sector, because business, industry and labour also recognize
that the skills Manitobans have may continue to be developed throughout their
working life and they continue to be enhanced.
As
those skills are enhanced, in partnership with the private sector as well as with
government and the employee, then we recognize that the business or industry
those individuals are operating in will in fact continue to be successful. Employers and employees will also have a
greater level of skills, and should they wish to move around and apply those
skills in other places, it will still make them extremely employable.
Secondly, in the STAC Report, there was a
recommendation that the community colleges move to the governance model. I am very pleased to say to the member across
the way, in terms of the action taken by this government, that as of April 1
this year, our community colleges have moved to independent governance. They
are now governed by a board of governors.
It
allows the community colleges to negotiate directly with the federal government
for market‑driven training. It
allows them to speak directly to employers across
Secondly, the STAC Report also spoke about
consolidation. I would like to point to
another piece of action that this government has most recently done within the
Department of Education and Training. We
have most recently consolidated programs that relate to skills training for
Manitobans. We have brought into the
Department of Education and Training the Apprenticeship area, formerly in the
Department of Labour, because we have recognized that the needs and issues that
present themselves in the Apprenticeship area are very important for us to be
aware of on our K‑12 side and also very important to integrate into the
whole Advanced Education and Skills Training area.
We
have also integrated into the Department of Education the Employability
Enhancement Programs that were previously within the Department of Family
Services. These are programs such as the
Single Parent Job Access Program, the Gateway Program, where some Manitobans
need some particular assistance and counselling and also some work experience
opportunities as they gain their skills training.
So
that consolidation has been accomplished, and now we have renamed that division
of the Department of Education and Training, Advanced Education and Skills
Training. Now we can offer, within one
area, the spectrum of training opportunities.
In
addition, the STAC Report also spoke about the partnership of the private
sector with government. I am very
pleased to speak about the initiatives, again an initiative that is already
ongoing, Workforce 2000. Workforce 2000
is a very concrete example of partnership between government and business,
industry and labour.
I
point to the most recent statistics as of the end of May 1993, where over
54,000 Manitobans have received training through the Workforce 2000
program. That program, through the funds
that government has put in, has also levered funds from the private
sector. So it is not government alone
trying to support the total training, but we have developed the training
culture. We have involved the private
sector. The private sector has put money
on the table to assist in the training of their employees.
The
fifth area that was recommended by the STAC Report, and that we have already, this government, taken
action on that area, was the issue of vocational education credits. With our new funding formula, we now allow students
in the K‑12 system to take a single vocational education course. Previously, students had to be totally within
that program, or they were unable to take vocational education courses. Now we have said to students, this is an
opportunity that all students should have and all students should be able to
take a single course. That might lead
them to areas of study and training that previously they had not
considered. So certainly we have taken a
great deal of action that has arisen from the goals that were outlined within
the STAC Report.
Then the member has referenced the Canada‑Manitoba
Labour Force Development Agreement. I
was very happy to sign that on behalf of the government of
The
member has asked about the timing of that signing, and it seemed to have taken
some time. Yes, we considered what we
were signing. I would also remind him
that, from the summer of 1992 through the end of October 1992, there were
constitutional talks which were ongoing.
In those constitutional talks, one of the major areas of consideration
was training. There was an opportunity
to look at whether or not there would be a devolution of some of the training
responsibilities that have traditionally fallen to the federal government, if those
responsibilities would fall to the provincial government. That was not accomplished in a formal way
through an agreement at that time, but we had to wait before we signed the
Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development Agreement to see if there would
be any changes which needed to be incorporated.
Within that agreement, the signing of that agreement now changes the way
that we do business.
Previously, these agreements have focused on
buyer‑seller agreements. We have
had these buyer‑seller agreements since the mid‑1970s, where the
federal government flowed their money through the province, and the province
looked at administering it; however, places like the colleges, for instance,
were not able to have direct negotiations with the federal government.
In
this new agreement, we now have some changes.
Now, we are looking at a shared planning and a shared co‑ordination
within the agreement. We recognize that
two parallel systems need to be working together in the area of planning, we
need to co‑ordinate the kind of work that we are doing. We need to collaborate, and we also need to
look at complementarity. We need to look
at what the federal government is offering and the provincial government is
offering. We need to see, is there
duplication? What is the most efficient
way for us to put forward training funds so that they will benefit Manitobans?
This new agreement also looks at economic
development, and it looks at these developments as a partnership. One of the areas that I covered last night
was the fact that we now have action in this area as well. The provincial government and the federal
government are now working together in a joint‑management committee, and
we are looking at the joint planning. We
do now a number of pieces of joint work.
One
is the planning for the Canada‑Manitoba Labour Force Development boards,
and we are looking to enter into a consultation process. I will have an announcement about the process
of consultation and how we will move ahead into the formation of those boards
fairly shortly.
In
addition, however, the member has asked about a labour force strategy, and what
I have described so far is the action that we have taken, things that are
already in place. But in addition to
that, the labour market part of my department and the labour market part of the
post‑secondary area of this department is working with the analyst from
the federal government. In the past,
they did separate work. They simply may
have used the same figures from the
The
research areas are looked at together, so that when we look at the figures and
when we look at the reports, we know that there has now been some actual
discussion about the kinds of programs that are being put in place. So we are very pleased with that kind of
sharing that has been occurring.
As
a result of that, there is a great deal of work that is being done within the
Department of Education and Training on behalf of the labour market. Last evening, I focused on a couple of
publications which the Department of Education and Training have put out. Last evening, I looked at the high‑demand
occupations in
I
had an example last evening of the May 1993 high demands in Manitoba
occupations, and what Manitobans are able to do as a result of this is, when
they are looking at what kinds of skills they might like to enter into, they
can look to see what are the high‑demand occupations, and what might they
look at for an area of skills training that will actually lead them to
employment.
When I spoke about this book last night, I
said that in the development of this book we look at the demand from the
employers within
* (1730)
Also, in terms of planning for the labour
market, I spoke last evening about Manitoba Prospects. This was a tabloid publication that was put
together in co‑operation with the Department of Education and Training
and the federal government. We looked at making sure that Manitobans would be
well acquainted with information about skills training.
There is one section in here which looks at
job title, work description, what the job outlook is for each of the jobs
described, what the educational routes are and what the high school courses
recommended are. So that is there to
assist Manitobans. It has had a very
wide distribution and has been received very well.
So,
Mr. Speaker, with those publications, with the signing of the Labour Force
Development Agreement, with the concrete actions from the staff report, I move
an amendment.
I
move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Resolution 34 be
amended by deleting all of the words following the first WHEREAS and replacing
them with the following:
WHEREAS the
WHEREAS the government has a number of
policies and programs which predict and train for skill shortages; and
WHEREAS common labour market interests and
program principles of the two levels of government are embodied in the Canada‑Manitoba
Labour Force Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba support the government of
Motion presented.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
speak on this motion and indicate at the outset that I do not support the
amendment to the motion. I must say, the
Conservatives must have developed a new software program, the pat‑on‑the‑back
software program they take at private members' hour. They input the title and then out spits an
amendment to the motion that says that we pat ourselves on the back. That is not the purpose of private members'
hour.
I
must say that I particularly find it difficult here when you have a member of
the Treasury benches coming in and bringing in this kind of an amendment. I would like to hear from some of the members
of the upper benches, as it has been designated, because I think it would be
far more appropriate for them, Mr. Speaker, to be speaking on this particular
issue because it is something that affects all of us.
I
must note that once again the Conservative caucus is attempting to turn private
members' hour into an extension of their caucus meetings. There is a difference in terms of what this
House is all about and what private members' hour is about. I do not believe
that any item of business in private members' hour should be dealing with a
motion that is amended to say that "the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
support the government of
We
have opportunities in this House to have votes of confidence on the government,
Mr. Speaker, on the throne speech, the budget, concurrence, on key
legislation. Private members' hour is an
opportunity for us to go beyond that, and I really have some problems with the
Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) to bring in this kind of
amendment. I am really surprised that
the Conservative members in this House continue to bring in this kind of
amendment on private members' hour.
Mr.
Speaker, I do not think that the Liberal motion is one that could be supported
necessarily without amendment. There are
some difficulties with the motion. But,
instead of just gutting the entire resolution and bringing in a pat‑ourselves‑on‑the‑back
type of motion, I mean, we are here to have some debate on important
issues. This is an important issue. We need to have some reasoned debate. This motion does nothing to contribute
towards this‑‑this amendment to the motion.
I
therefore say that we in the New Democratic Party and I as a private member
will not support this kind of motion. I
would ask if perhaps government members could be a little bit more creative
when they bring in amendments to motions.
The only result in this amendment is to pat the government on the back,
period.
Mr.
Speaker, we do that when we debate the Estimates of the Department of Education
and Training. We have discussions. We have motions. We have the opportunity there. We do it on throne speech. We do it on the budget. We do not need to have private members' hour
distorted for this type of opportunity.
If
the government is so insecure, it feels it has to turn private members' hour
into an opportunity, with its majority, to prove that it has the support of the
majority of this House; that goes without saying. This really distorts the purpose of private
members' hour, which is to get some reasoned discussion and debate on these
kinds of issue.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I return speaking as I
do on the amendment to the original motion, to point to some of the features
that I think are commendable in the original resolution and to some of the
problems with the particular motion.
First of all, I think that the motion that is brought forward is an
important subject. I do not think we can
disagree with that.
There is some mixing in here between training
and retraining because they are two rather different components, and I will
address that. They are related,
obviously. Retraining is training, but
there are two different types of clients that are dealt with in terms of
training and retraining and there are two different types of mechanisms for
delivery, et cetera.
I
want to say at the outset, though, that I have some difficulty with
particularly the WHEREAS that talks about the report of the Skills Training
Advisory Committee as "a scathing indictment of a lack of action" and
refers to this government and previous governments. I think that, by framing that motion in this
particular kind, the member for
There are a number of other statements‑‑well,
we could amend it accordingly, but there are a number of other statements in
this particular motion I do not think are accurate, including comments on the
government. I am critical of the
government in a number of areas of Education and Training, but I think it is
clear that systems have been in operation for a number of years to track
industries in order to protect shortage of qualified workers. That is contained in the result. That has been in place for a number of
years. I do not think it is particularly
new to this government. It is not new to
the previous government.
The
Department of Education and Training has always tracked that, as has the
federal government through Canada Employment Centres. I mean, there has always been some degree of
planning to a greater or lesser extent.
We can be critical about the degree in which it is done, and we can be
critical about decisions, but I think that is a redundant statement.
* (1740)
Now, in terms of those businesses facing
business closures, job losses, I am not sure what the member was referring
to. I do not know how one can predict
beyond those that have given notice that there is going to be closures other
than in a general industry and general trends, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously one cannot go around and predict
that such and such a business is going to go out of business. I assume the member was really referring, not
to those businesses that are facing closure, but those industries that maybe,
through the development of certain trends, are in a position where they might
find there will be a declining demand.
We
have seen, over the last number of years, a reduction in the manufacturing
sector, in particular, some of us feel, as a result of the Free Trade
Agreement. Obviously, if NAFTA continues
to go through, there may be job losses, job shifts in certain areas.
Mr.
Speaker, I think the better statement in this resolution, on behalf of the
Liberal members, would have been to say that we were referring to declining
industries. I think that is something
that I would say could go even further.
I point out that in this Legislature, I have introduced on a number of
occasions legislation that would provide greater notice and provide clear
mechanisms when plant closures do occur, to ensure proper retraining. We do not have that mechanism now.
We
have limited notice; it needs to be expanded.
We do not have severance pay. We
do not have an opportunity for workers laid off to be able to buy into the
plant. There are a lot of opportunities,
I think, to improve on the way we handle plant closures.
I
note, by the way, that it was not just the Conservative government that
rejected that legislation; the Liberal Party rejected that legislation. The former leader suggested it was too
draconian on business. I note that it is
certainly not present in this current resolve.
The
resolve portion, and this is always the key portion of any resolution, also
refers in the Liberal original form to the Legislative Assembly recommending
the Minister of Labour consider undertaking an in‑depth analysis of the
I
would say, in terms of the current situation, that it is being done in a
routine way, but one of the concerns I have expressed, going back to the
introduction of the Free Trade Agreement a number of years ago, was the fact
that there was no monitoring mechanism set up in place to assess the impact of
the Free Trade Agreement, to assess the impact of changes in the economy.
In
fact, when I moved the plant closure legislation in 1988, I predicted at the
time there would be significant increase in the number of plant closures and
layoffs to the province because of Free Trade, because of the recession.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, that has happened. At the time, there was no analysis. There has not been any analysis since. We are seeing now in terms of NAFTA, while
the government is sort of against NAFTA, there has been no analysis, once
again, of the impact this may have.
I
think that is something that perhaps, if it had been stated a little bit more
clearly in the resolution, we could all have agreed to it. Surely we have to be recognizing the dynamic
nature of the
We
can debate the benefits or the lack thereof, but everyone agreed, I know, in 1988,
there would changes because of the Free Trade Agreement. Certainly there have been. It is the same thing with NAFTA. There are sectors that will suffer. There may be others that may benefit, but you
need to assess the changes in the
So
I think that the statement in the motion could have perhaps been a little bit
clearer in terms of that. This reference
to the requirements for basic education and retraining, developing an action
plan for positioning labour force to meet successfully the challenges of the
international economic environment. I
think that, Mr. Speaker, is something of a platitude, but I think it is
something that all members certainly could agree with. I think that is important.
If
one looks at our international situation, one may recall, for example, the
United Nations that said that on a combination of factors they rate us as
being, for this year, the second best country in the world in terms of quality
of life, standard of living, et cetera.
We were first last year.
One
of the reasons, by the way, that we are upgraded from our, I think, ninth
position on income, our 11th position on gender equality, on a whole series of
measures, Mr. Speaker, where we are not anywhere close to the top is because of
our education system. We rise from ninth
or 10th or 11th in terms of income to No. 1 and No. 2 in this current year
because of the emphasis we put on education.
Very few industrialized countries spend more money on education than
other countries, but I sometimes feel that is a bit misleading.
I,
by the way, think that Canada does have one of the best standards of living and
quality of life in the world, but we do have a great deal of lack of co‑ordination
in terms of education and training between the federal and provincial
governments in different jurisdictions.
I know there has been some talk recently in addressing it.
I,
having had the opportunity of having most of my schooling in the Manitoba
system through junior high and high school, but having spent a year in Ontario
found that the adjustment, the year I spent in Ontario, was quite significant,
Mr. Speaker. There is often very little co‑ordination in terms of
programs between different provinces. I
think that is something that does hurt the system. We have an increasingly mobile
workforce. I have seen that in Thompson,
because we have a mobile population. The bottom line is that these kind of
issues are not being dealt with. We may
spend a lot of money on education, but we often do not spend it effectively.
I
would say, Mr. Speaker, that the unfortunate thing is that where we had
previously some federal‑provincial agreements of substance, in terms of
education, now those are declining. We
are seeing in terms of the decline in funding for post‑secondary
education because of the lack of cost sharing, particularly under the current
federal government. It has declined
significantly in terms of transfers to the province, particularly for post‑secondary
education.
We
are seeing the elimination of such federal‑provincial agreements as the
Northern Development Agreement, which funded education to the ACCESS programs
in northern
In
fact, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that what we really need to be looking at is
going back somewhat to what we had developed a number of years ago which was I
think a far greater sense of this country, a far greater sense of federal‑provincial
co‑operation. I think, because of
some of the problems that have developed constitutionally, we have seen a
tendency to want to splinter this country when it comes to education and
training. Education and training is the key to the future in the international
economy. We can debate Free Trade
Agreements and NAFTAs, and we can debate what happens to our economy in
I,
by the way, Mr. Speaker, am critical of some of the government measures in
terms of education and training, particularly the privatization of our
education system. I think the key to
retooling the economy in terms of the context of this resolution is to make
sure that business takes far more of a responsibility for training than it
currently has, not by giving out rebates on the payroll tax, but by requiring
and developing sectoral agreements that require increased training.
The
Japanese spend far more on education than we do in terms of within the
workforce which is one of the focuses of this resolution. The average company in
We
are used to retooling plants on a regular basis, modern technology. Every five or 10 years, we have to retool
plants to make them competitive. I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, the same concept applies to our human capital, the
people. People have to be ready for
being retrained. I throw this as a
challenge to the government, because I know even in terms of within their own
domain there are concerns that have been expressed.
I
have had people contact me from the Children's Dental Program who are now out
of jobs who are looking at retraining, and they are very frustrated with the
lack of follow‑through on earlier commitments to that. I see it today in terms of LPNs at St.
Boniface; I have talked to LPNs in Thompson.
I know the situation in The Pas.
What retraining mechanisms are put in place for those very capable and
committed LPNs who are now losing their jobs because of budget decisions that
are being made, Mr. Speaker?
We
can argue back and forth those budget decisions. We will do that in another context, but I
feel the measure of our ability as a society to develop our human capital is in
that.
Thank you very much for your attention.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? (agreed)
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Wednesday).