ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Before the election and during the election the Premier promised that he would not privatize Manitoba Telephone System. Why did the Premier break his promise to the people of Manitoba, and will he do the right thing and apologize to the people of Manitoba, resign, and get a public mandate which he needs to sell a Crown corporation with these assets and values?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind all honourable members in this Chamber this afternoon that you are the 56 leaders of this province and we have a number of young students and teachers, both from in-province and from outside our Canadian borders, and I would firmly believe that you should show each other more respect and behave in a more responsible manner. I would sincerely ask for your co-operation.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, as I said this morning when asked the question by the news media, I consistently said, as did my colleagues, when asked the question about privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System, that we had no plans to privatize the Manitoba Telephone System. That was accurate, that was honest, and that was straightforward.
Madam Speaker, I even recounted the fact that when I was campaigning, on numerous occasions, I had some people who were employees of the Manitoba Telephone System who attempted to persuade me that we ought to be looking at privatization of the Telephone System. I said at the time to them that I felt that there continued to be advantages of having a monopoly system of delivery of telephone services in Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, some time last summer when we received the annual report of the Crown Corporations Council, and they did their analysis of risk of the various Crown corporations which we as a provincial government and the people of this province own, they pointed out some very startling figures, one of which was that more than 70 percent of the revenues in the Manitoba Telephone System are now in a competitive environment, a field in which they must compete with private sector opponents for the market and the opportunity. They were in a very vulnerable position to do that competition in a variety of ways, one being that they had the highest debt-equity ratio of any telephone company in Canada, second, being that they were in a situation of rapidly evolving technology, in fact, the most rapidly changing technology of any sector of our economy, and in those circumstances their ability to make good decisions on a timely basis to be able to protect the future of the telephone company was impaired.
Under those circumstances, Madam Speaker, we--and the members opposite know it was several months ago--asked for a review to be done by a consortium of brokerage firms to take a look at the alternatives for capitalization of the Manitoba Telephone System so that we could make a rational decision about its future. We have chosen the way in which we can best assure Manitobans in the future that they will get quality services in telecommunications at reasonable cost and that they will not be at risk, as they are today with $840 million of debt that they have guaranteed, and under those circumstances, we believe that we have made the right decision for the present circumstances as well as for the future of this province.
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, I cannot believe the Premier, after seven years in office, last year, during the election campaign, did not know that his government decisions on fax machines, on other communication devices at the retail outlet, on cablevision, on deregulation proceeding five years ahead of Saskatchewan, would not produce the competitive environment that he talked about.
Is the Premier telling us today that he did not know what he was doing five years ago when he broke his promise of 1990 not to deregulate the long-distance market here in Manitoba? Is he telling us he did not know what he was doing as Premier of this province after seven years in office and he did not know that his decisions had made our corporation more competitive in the telecommunications environment, given that he had made those decisions?
Mr. Filmon: Of course not, Madam Speaker. The fact is that every telco in Canada will be under CRTC jurisdiction and regulation, and will be subject to all of those competitive forces. Saskatchewan bought a little bit of time. Saskatchewan goes under that, as I understand it, as of January of 1997. The future is the same. They will all be under CRTC regulation. They will all face the same competitive forces. They will all have the same decisions and choices to make, which is why Saskatchewan right today is reviewing their options for privatization of their telephone system.
* (1400)
Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier has just confirmed that he did know this fact during the election campaign, that he did know it was a deregulated environment because he made the decision in 1992, which was a different decision and a different vision than Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan did not proceed with the CRTC decision in '92. They have made $500 million because of it compared to $100 million in Manitoba. The Premier knew in 1995 that it was a competitive environment. He had to know. He cannot have it both ways.
Which one of the lines from the Premier should the public believe, that he did not know in 1992 when he deregulated the long-distance that it would have a major impact on the revenues of Manitoba by some $400 million, or he did not know that the corporation was 70 percent competitive in 1995 when he promised that he would not privatize the Telephone System? Which one of these two lines is the public supposed to believe? Either door leads us to a broken promise, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat, the commitment that I made was that we had no plans to privatize the Manitoba Telephone System. The issue was that over 70 percent of its revenues--70 percent of its revenues, not the environment, not the areas--70 percent of its revenues were subject to competition. Those are the differences; those are the issues which I dealt with when we got the report from the Crown Corporations Council and those are the circumstances that ought to be reviewed, not some blind ideology that is motivating members opposite. Their ideology does not allow them to look at facts, does not allow them to look at opportunities, does not allow them to look at reality. They are stuck somewhere quoting, as the member for Thompson did, the speeches of 1905 that led to the public ownership of the Manitoba Telephone System. We are talking about today, and we made the best decision for the future of this province, for the people of this province and for the Telephone System of this province.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I would like to quote some lines from 1995 from the Premier who said he would not privatize MTS, who in May in this House said he would not privatize MTS, and the minister who in September said they had no plans to privatize MTS.
I would like to ask the minister, since we had the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada yesterday resign because she promised one thing in an election and broke that promise, would he not consider, given the fact that he clearly did not tell the truth to the people of Manitoba in the last election about MTS, would he either resign, along with the Minister of Telephones, put it to a by-election, or perhaps do what even private companies do and put it to a vote of the shareholders of MTS, the people of Manitoba.
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Thompson for confirming the statements that were made on this side of the House that we had no plans to privatize.
Mr. Ashton: Perhaps, Madam Speaker, I will ask a supplementary about some quotes from the Premier today. In announcing this he said, and I quote: There will be no impact on rates or employment.
I would like to ask the Premier, if he would have looked at the experience of Alberta where they did privatize AGT and where that phone company just recently asked for and received a $6-a-month increase compared to the $2-a-month increase for our phone system, does he expect anyone to believe his statement earlier today that this will not impact on rates?
Mr. Filmon: I know that the member opposite will have difficulty understanding this, but the fact is that under CRTC regulation, it would not matter whether they were privately or publicly owned, they would have to make the same case for any rate changes and they would have the same analysis done on them by the CRTC. The CRTC approves some increases and does not approve other increases, and it would not matter whether it was private or public, they would have to face exactly the same scrutiny, same analysis and same decision, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, the Premier does not understand, if you do not ask for the increase as in Manitoba--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson was recognized for a final supplementary question.
Mr. Ashton: I would like to ask the Premier one more time, since he did not give us the opportunity to decide on this matter in an election, will he allow the shareholders of MTS, the people of Manitoba, to have their say? Will he at least call a referendum on this issue which will allow all Manitobans to have a say over the future of their phone company?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the shareholders are shareholders in name only. All they do is support the debt of the company. Shareholders normally get returns on their investment. There has not been a dividend from the Manitoba Telephone System to the people of Manitoba in its history, and that is the fact of the matter. They ought not to play games with the words. The fact of the matter is that people of Manitoba will invest in that corporation, the board will be conducted by a majority of Manitobans and Manitobans really will continue to own and operate a Manitoba Telephone System for the benefit of Manitobans.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I fail to see how you can get profits for investors if you do not have higher rates for phone users. I do not see how you can do that. There have to be higher rates.
Madam Speaker, it is an old truth that you cannot suck and blow at the same time. Yesterday, the Finance minister made a strong pitch for HydroBonds; they were a wonderful way to support the economy and to make Hydro a strong company.
Why is a HydroBond such a good idea and an MTS bond a bad idea, Mr. Premier?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I have the report of the MTS financial advisory group, and I want to ask a question about this report.
This massive document for which the people of Manitoba paid a lot of money is seven pages long--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member for Crescentwood have a supplementary question?
Mr. Sale: Yes, I do, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Would the honourable member for Crescentwood please pose his question now.
Mr. Sale: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the Premier respond as to whether this is the entire work of three brokerage firms over four months or five months that we paid for, seven pages, or is there some supplementary documentation that you might make available so we could see the basis for this decision to privatize?
Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) tabled some supplementary documentation earlier.
Mr. Sale: Will the Minister responsible for Manitoba Telephone System confirm that his much-discussed $500 million, half a billion dollar expansion over a four- or five-year period of MTS is substantially less than the annual capital expansion that has gone on for more than a decade now? It is a straw horse for privatization; it is just a straw man.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): That figure was used by the advisers and it came from the Beacon initiative the Stentor companies announced some two years ago, some $8 million across Canada as new investments that must be made. That is a two-year-old statement. We all know the rate of technology change and since then they have had a PCS licence, so that is a minimum figure at best. It is going to need to be invested. It is money that needs to be raised.
* (1410)
Home Care Program
Privatization--Public Hearings
Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. The government's only solution to every problem in Manitoba is privatize. Public schools--we will privatize; MTS--we will privatize; home care, which the minister has finally admitted is one of the best in North America, what are they doing with it? They are privatizing it.
My question for the Minister of Health: Is the minister so convinced that his plan to privatize home care is so good, will he not at least undertake immediate public hearings so the public of Manitoba can have some input into this bad idea?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the honourable member for Kildonan is indeed having a difficult time with this issue. We have had a private, nonprofit organization running a large segment of our Home Care program in Manitoba for many years. We think that that organization, as well as the MGEU, are capable of withstanding competition and taking part in it. Indeed, we have invited the Manitoba Government Employees' Union to take part in the future delivery of home care services through a competitive system of service delivery, so the honourable member is indeed having a difficult time with this one.
I learned with some regret earlier today, the president of the Manitoba Society of Seniors has resigned his position saying, we cannot risk being viewed as a lobbying group representing the ideological beliefs of various political parties. Honourable members are daily telling us that the MSOS has taken a certain position, and the president has sort of let us know the way he feels about the position that some of the other members in the MSOS take. I hope the general membership of the MSOS will get involved and make sure that the higher levels of the association truly represent the views of the people.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question again is to the Minister of Health. This government cannot produce one organization, one group or one single study that justifies their privatization plan, and the government still has not responded to the MSOS letter condemning the government for its privatization plan. How can the minister insist that his plan has the support of anyone in Manitoba?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, it does not help make the point for the honourable member when his friends in the union movement condone the kinds of activities that unfortunately I am hearing about today at St. Boniface Hospital. I am very disturbed that patients trying to get in and out of that hospital are being harassed, having their vehicles banged upon and struck by people on the picket line, and it does not help the honourable--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Health, to quickly complete his response.
Mr. McCrae: It does not help the honourable member convince me or anybody else when people that he supports are encouraging the sort of disturbing report that I heard this morning from a home care worker simply trying to do her job to provide services to vulnerable Manitobans and having her tires slashed. I do not think that kind of activity helps the honourable member make his point.
Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, does the minister understand that Manitobans are not only frustrated and angry but concerned that this government has not allowed them any input, any public hearings, any involvement and has not produced one single bit of evidence to support their privatization scheme? Does the minister not believe that his inciting comments, very derogatory comments in this Chamber and in the committee Estimates, may have a factor in Manitobans losing confidence in this government on their privatization plan of home care?
Mr. McCrae: I readily acknowledge my own agitation at times when I hear some of the stories that are sanctioned by members of the MGEU and members of the Manitoba New Democratic Party when it comes to this type of labour dispute.
This is not the type of activity where a labour dispute like this has any place. We are dealing with our fellow Manitobans who are vulnerable and we have the Manitoba Government Employees' Union which will not deliver services to anybody. They will not even deliver services to people who are terminally ill because they have failed to achieve their ideological end in all of this. We are talking about health care and delivering it. We are going to do that. We do hope the honourable member will use his considerable powers of persuasion with members in the union movement and get us--if they will not put a stop to this foolishness, at least give the people of Manitoba an essential services component here so that those vulnerable people who need services can access those services.
Manitoba Telephone System
Privatization
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Earlier this morning I saw the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province practising the art of deception. What we saw, Madam Speaker, was the government of the day trying to convince Manitobans that the Manitoba Telephone System is going to belong to Manitobans. Well, MTS currently belongs to Manitobans. The public share offering that this government is providing is going to see those who can afford the opportunity to invest in MTS have that opportunity.
My question to the First Minister is: How can the Premier say he is selling MTS to the public when they already own it?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): As we have tried to explain to the members opposite--and I would ask them to read the information that we put on the table here a little while ago--things have changed in the Manitoba Telephone System. It is technology driven, an excessive rate of technology change. Technology is now driving competition. Competition is challenging the regulator. It puts the whole operation of the corporation at some level of risk if it cannot operate fast.
Under government ownership, the ability of the corporation to respond to new initiatives is definitely slowed down. The involvement of politics slows it down. We want to free up that corporation so that it can respond to economic opportunities and increase the ability to deliver the highest quality services of telecommunications in Manitoba that are available anywhere in the world.
Madam Speaker, we have made a very specific announcement that Manitobans will be allowed to purchase particular benefits or investment options given to employees and retired members of Manitoba Telephone System. When this was offered in Alberta, 80 percent of the employees bought in and the actual citizens oversubscribed the issue, and I expect the same to happen in Manitoba.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister responsible for MTS not agree that today the government, through MTS, has the ability to have real influence in terms of ensuring that there is a basic standard of telephone service being delivered to all Manitobans in a system which reflects the general will of government in being equitable and providing rural Manitobans in particular the same opportunity?
By privatizing it, that is not going to happen. Would the--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
* (1420)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I want to remind the member that within Canada there are nine telephone companies. Seven of them are privately owned. As of five years ago, six were privately owned. Alberta privatized, and now we are down to Manitoba and Saskatchewan as the only two Crown corporations.
We have gone through an analysis that says that the public of Manitoba would be the better owner. We have guaranteed board membership by Manitobans in the form of a majority. We have said that the shares will be sold, the majority to Manitobans, which allows Manitobans, through ownership and through board membership, to control what they want in the form of telecommunications throughout Manitoba. The regulator controls all of the rates, and certainly there will be no impact on universality of the service available to Manitobans, because Manitobans are there making the decisions and the regulator specifies that that should be the case.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, is the minister responsible trying to tell us today that the level of services is not going to deteriorate in any region in the province of Manitoba? Does he really believe we are that naive to believe that the minister is saying that there is going to be a sense of equity throughout the province in terms of fees, in terms of services, that a private company is going to argue in the best interests of the province of Manitoba compared to MTS as a Crown corporation?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I will go further. I will say that the Manitoba Telephone System, owned by Manitobans as shareholders, will improve the quality of service to all Manitobans, improve the ability of Manitobans to be employed at the Manitoba Telephone System and improve the ability of everybody in business in Manitoba to do business all over the world.
Independent Schools
Funding Formula
Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, earlier this week in Estimates the Minister of Education said that she understood the French school division, and I quote: “ . . . in terms of the constitutional requirement, it is much like the private school issue . . . . ”
Madam Speaker, since the French school governance derives from a Supreme Court decision of 1990, could the minister tell the House which parts of the federal or provincial Constitution, or which court judgment, makes private school funding a constitutional requirement in Manitoba?
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, two parts to the answer I would like to provide, because I did indicate I would table some information about the government of Manitoba's position on independent schools. I say to the member that historically a parallel can be drawn between the nondenominational schools, the denominational schools and the Francophone population and their language rights in Manitoba as compared to other facets of society. I think she knows that as an historian there are very real historical presences as Manitoba came into Confederation that do have historical rights and obligations.
I will table these with the next question.
Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, I want to table a formal letter of 1988 signed by the present member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews) when he was acting director of the Department of Attorney- General which makes the argument that it would appear, and I quote, that the Manitoba Act does not provide constitutional support for the requested funding. Is this the constitutional act that the minister is concerned about? Does she have a more recent legal opinion that she is prepared to table for the House?
Mrs. McIntosh: I know that recently the member was tabling newspaper articles from 1985 and today she is quoting 1988. The government of Manitoba's position in 1986: Roland Penner indicates that an out-of-court settlement is the only way to go, much better than letting it go to court. In 1976, under Ed Schreyer, the NDP promised to ensure the moral and religious education of their children in conformity with their own convictions, to have respect for the liberty of parents to choose schools for their children other than those established by the state and signed in writing that primary education should be available and free to all and that they would enact legislation or other practical measures that are needed to give force and effect to these rights for independent school students.
Then, Madam Speaker, 1987, Minister of Education Jerry Storie, again a third--on paper, in writing--commitment of the NDP government, Jerry Storie writing on April 23, 1987, saying: It is the government's intention to move towards funding independent schools at 50 percent.
Ms. Friesen: Will the minister confirm that the material that she has just read out indeed confirms that in Manitoba the funding of private schools is now, as it always has been, a political remedy, whether it was Laurier speaking, Greenway speaking, whether it was the Norris government speaking, or whether indeed it was the Filmon government speaking? It is a political remedy, and will she tell us--
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. McIntosh: The member had indicated to me earlier that she wanted the government of Manitoba's position on whether or not this should have gone to court or been an out-of-court settlement. Roland Penner, Minister of Education for the NDP government under Mr. Pawley, says: It is my view and the view of our government, our NDP government, that a political solution of the problem, out-of-court settlement is the best approach to be taken.
That was by the government of Manitoba, May 30, 1986, Madam Speaker.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Education, to quickly complete her response.
Mrs. McIntosh: In other words, since the days when Ed Schreyer signed an agreement pledging that they would enact legislation if need be to ensure funding for independent schools, till the 1986 agreement when Roland Penner confirmed that the best way to go was to strike exactly the kind of agreement that this government then followed through with that finding. I will conclude by indicating in the letter that I have received, thanking the NDP government for initiating the process and the Conservative government for completing it.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Commission of Inquiry
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier. When justice comes into disrepute in this province, the governments in Manitoba are compelled to turn to the commission of inquiry whether that is regarding the Harvey Pollock matter, Aboriginal Justice Inquiry in the Harper matter, the Ticketgate matter, the Lavoie tragedy.
My question to the First Minister, although certainly at the risk of political embarrassment to this government, will he put the public interest first and get the Justice minister out of the way of a commission of inquiry and ensure that one is called immediately?
Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the public interest is being put first. The public interest is ensuring that we get an investigation of the matter underway as quickly as possible so we can ensure that we have restored the conditions at the prison to good circumstances, so that we can assure the security and safety of those who work in the system and those who are housed in the system, so we can ensure that we investigate to determine what procedures were followed that should have been and that should not have been, and all of the elements of investigation that will allow us to understand what led to and contributed to the riot last week at Headingley, correct anything that needs to be corrected and ensure that in future we have the safest possible circumstances in which people can work and be housed. Those are the circumstances that are in the public interest.
The only thing that is in the interest of the member opposite is to try and create a public forum for him to raise his face, and that is not in the public interest.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It is so unfitting of the First Minister of this province to make such an allegation, to attribute such motives to this side of the House. I ask that the Premier do the right thing, the honourable thing, and recognize that honourable members are here to do the honourable thing and that is put the public interest first. I ask him to withdraw those comments.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order, I will take the matter under advisement and I will report back to the House if necessary.
* * *
Madam Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns, with a supplementary question.
Mr. Mackintosh: To the First Minister: Given that again today we have seen an exposé of this government's turning a blind eye to what goes on in Headingley jail with the release of the report from Associate Chief Justice Murray Sinclair, an inquest report into a suicide at Headingley, a scathing report, would the First Minister ensure that a commission of inquiry is held on this matter? Will he instruct a representative of his government to meet with the correctional officers--so they do not continue to set them up, like they were lion tamers without even a little chair--to further safety concerns.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, we have just received the report of the inquest of the suicide which took place in 1991. The report took approximately five years to prepare, and it is about 165 pages, so we will be having a look at what is included in that report. However, I can tell the people of Manitoba that a number of changes have occurred even since that inquest has begun, things such as a risk assessment tool, a uniform risk assessment tool which is now in place, and also training for correctional officers.
In terms of our overall strategy of working with correctional officers, this government certainly understands the very difficult position and job that they have, and through our number of inquiries we will continue to support them.
* (1430)
Random Urinalysis
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my supplementary then to the Minister of Justice: Would she now admit that not only is there no court case that prevents a commission of inquiry--and indeed we are aware of one that says that a commission of inquiry can certainly proceed--will she also admit that she did not need any court case to announce that random urinalysis can now commence, because that has been done in Canada's prisons for years?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, certainly the information that I have received has said that as a result of a Supreme Court case this can now be done within our institutions, and we intend to proceed to do it. We will be, however, through four mechanisms, looking at making sure that all of the issues which are related to the running of Headingley institute and the issues surrounding the riot will be examined. I have spoken about what those four mechanisms are a number of times: the internal review, the independent review, the Rebuilding Headingley Committee, and, in addition, there is a police investigation which may lead to criminal charges.
Headingley Correctional Institution
Independent Review
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, the ability of every working Manitoban to perform their job duties and return safely to their families is a fundamental part of our society and is protected by law under The Workplace Safety and Health Act. The Workplace Safety and Health Act clearly identifies the employer responsibility to protect workers' safety and health.
I want to ask the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to explain to Manitobans how his secret closed-door investigation can determine the true facts regarding the cause of the Headingley riot, when yesterday, once again, we saw the Minister of Justice's senior staff prevent corrections officers from commenting publicly on this issue.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I understand that there was in some coverage some comment made--and I do not know if it was made by the individual in question--so we will certainly look into that. However, the important point here is that the people of Manitoba will have access to a report made public on the issues which will be dealt with during the independent review. During the process of the independent review, we will make sure that people who work in Headingley Institution have the opportunity to come forward and speak. However, as I have said in the past, people may decide that there are a number of different places in which they feel the most comfortable speaking. They may wish their anonymity to be completely protected. They may feel more comfortable working in the Rebuilding Headingley. They may feel more comfortable in the independent review. We certainly expect that a great deal of work will also be done within our internal review.
Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.