ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities Act will be dealt with tonight in committee. Should the committee not complete their work, I would propose to call the committee again--in fact, I will call the committee again for tomorrow evening at 7 p.m.
At 10 a.m., on October 22, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet to consider Bills 52 and 53 amongst any other bills that might be referred to the committee later.
Tuesday, October 22, will be Opposition Day.
Madam Speaker, there may be a will of the House to waive private members' hour.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to waive private members' hour? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, would you then call Bills 46, 45, 28, 29, 22, 32, 62, 58 and 67.
Madam Speaker: In the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, if business on Bill 49 is not completed this evening at 7 p.m., the Committee on Law Amendments will reconvene tomorrow, Wednesday, October 16, at 7 p.m.
The Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, October 22, to consider Bills 52 and 53. Tuesday, October 22, will be Opposition Day.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 46--The
Securities Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), Bill 46, The Securities Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les valeurs mobilières), standing in the name of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson). Is there leave to allow the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I will be the last speaker on this bill, and, hopefully, we can move it on to committee stage.
Bill 46, The Securities Amendment Act, came about following a recent court
decision in
The bill essentially reasserts the authority of the Manitoba Securities Commission to make regulations governing all aspects of securities trading. As I had indicated, we are in support of this bill and, with that, I would like to conclude my remarks and pass the bill to committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 46, The Securities Amendment Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
* (1440)
Bill 45--The
Consumer Protection Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 45, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection du consommateur), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), who has 25 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Firstly, is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
The honourable member for Elmwood, who has 25 minutes remaining.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I will be the last speaker on this bill. At the end, I would hope that we could move it to committee.
I spoke for approximately five minutes the last time out about this bill, and so most of the details of the bill are a part of the record at this point. Bill 45 is The Consumer Protection Amendment Act and, as a background and as I explained before, this is part of the federal-provincial agreement on internal trade in 1995 and was a commitment by the provinces to harmonize direct seller legislation.
The idea was to present businesses with a uniform set of rules across the country and to harmonize upward to the highest provincial standard. You see, up until now you have, at any given set of regulations, 10 jurisdictions or 11 jurisdictions and 11 sets of rules. So a small business trying to operate in more than one province will find it detrimental and costly to get licensed in several provinces because of the different standards that apply.
What we are doing here, especially since we have a free trade agreement
which covers Canada and the United States and Mexico, we have yet to have such
an agreement among the provinces. So while we are nearly 10 years behind in
catching up to the free trade agreement rules, in spite of
that
Just so that we are clear here, the bill will allow buyers up to 10 days to
cancel sales agreements. This is up from seven previously, and I believe this
is
The bill will also allow a buyer to cancel an agreement up to a year after the purchase if the vendor has not lived up to the requirements of the act. It also gives the minister the authority to regulate the form of all written agreements for retail sales in retail hire purchases.
As I had indicated, our caucus is in favour and in support of this bill. At this point I would like to conclude my remarks and send the bill on to the committee.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 45, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act.
Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 28--The
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 28, The Winnipeg Stock Exchange Act (Loi sur la Bourse de Winnipeg), on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), standing in the name of the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I will be the last speaker from our caucus on this bill, and at the end of my remarks, I would move that we send the bill to committee.
This bill, Madam Speaker, The Winnipeg Stock Exchange Act, by way of background, the Stock Exchange was originally incorporated in 1903, but the legislation was effectively repealed a few years ago when it was not re-enacted in English and French in 1987. The Exchange has functioned without a legislative basis since then, but it has asked to be reincorporated with a slightly updated mandate and corporate structure.
The Winnipeg Stock Exchange will be a nonprofit corporation with its head
office in
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 28, The Winnipeg Stock Exchange Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 29--The
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on Bill 29, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Act (Loi sur la Bourse des marchandises de Winnipeg), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I will be the final speaker on this bill from our caucus. I would like to say at the outset that Bill 29, The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Act, is a bill that calls for the incorporation of the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange. The objects of the corporation are to advance domestic and foreign trade by trading in commodities. The board of directors may authorize persons other than members to trade on the exchange subject to such terms and conditions as are imposed by the board.
Madam Speaker, prior to the tabling of this bill, members of our caucus met
with the Exchange. We were told at the time that the new legislation would be
largely based on existing and draft
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, we support Bill 29 going to committee. Our understanding is this bill will incorporate the Commodity Exchange by an act of the Legislature and put on the same footing the stock in futures exchanges across the country. As in the case of the Stock Exchange, this act provides corporate objectives, procedures for elected directors, powers of the board and nonprofit status. It is a companion bill to Bill 28, which restores the Stock Exchange as the body incorporated by an act to the Legislature.
The Exchange was originally incorporated by an act of Legislature in 1903, but that was effectively repealed when it was not re-enacted in English and French. The Exchange has remained as a corporation in The Corporations Act. They wish to be reincorporated through the legislation to meet its current and future needs. It is hoped that an exchange will facilitate the listing of securities for small- and medium-sized business. The objective of the corporation is to operate in exchange for the trading of securities by members of the corporation. Members will be admitted according to the by-laws of the corporation. Directors are elected by members annually, and the balance of the act provides for the election of officers of the corporation, powers of the board.
Both bills, 28 and 29, we are pleased to support and happy to see it move on to committee, where we will anxiously be awaiting any public presentations that are made. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 29, The Winnipeg Commodity Exchange Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 22--The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act
Madam Speaker: To resume debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ernst), Bill 22, The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les caisses populaires et les credit unions), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I will be the final speaker from our caucus on this bill, and at the end of my remarks, I would hope that we could pass the bill to committee.
Bill 22, The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act, involves the first updating of the act since it was introduced in 1987, and it follows a review and consultation process involving the directors of the credit unions. Most of the proposed changes address issues of accountability, stability and potential conflicts of interest involving directors. For example, among the changes are the following: The audit committees will be mandatory for all credit unions and their duties will be prescribed by the act. The maximum loan to any member is reduced from 10 percent to 5 percent of the share capital. Minimums for capital reserves are raised. Minimum requirements for board reports of the membership are expanded and directors in arrears of debt payments to credit unions will be disqualified.
I think, Madam Speaker, that we have dealt with this bill adequately and would move at this point to send the bill to committee for further study. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 22, The Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
* (1450)
Bill 32--The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 32, The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act (Loi sur le Conseil de l'enseignement postsecondaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied.
Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I will be the last speaker for this side of the House on The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act.
Today, I rise to join with my colleague from Wolseley in order to address Bill 32, The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act. My colleague when she spoke last week pointed out that this bill is one of a series of education bills which includes Bills 33, 47, 48 and, of course, Bill 72 which we see as a particularly notorious and obnoxious bill and, of course, we will be talking about that bill later on in the session.
These education bills share a common vision and purpose and that common
vision and purpose is centralizing power over education in
Now Bills 32 and 48 are added to the mix. The former would have power--that
is, Bill 32 would have power not only over the purse strings but also over
programming at all
Clearly, in the long march of universities from medieval times when universities were first established as refuges of learning and knowledge until the last decade of the 20th century, that is until now, universities were not intended to serve political parties, not even intended to serve the political party that forms government. Bill 32 could well reverse a thousand years of tradition, and a good tradition it has been, especially if one respects scholarship, humanism and disinterested research.
One of my constituents, a woman who spent over 40 years of her life in education, encapsulated her view of the current crop of education bills this way, and I quote, although I am not using her name because I have not asked permission, but I quote. She writes: The bills confirmed--
An Honourable Member: Anonymous.
Ms. McGifford: Now, I hear some calls of anonymous. If the person who
is shouting anonymous at me really wants to know, I can check with my
constituent and inform him. I am sure she stands by her word: The bills
confirmed what I already knew, that this government is determined to undermine
public education in
Point of Order
Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): On a point of order, just to clarify, I believe the rules of the House state that we are not to read from documents unless we are willing to table them. If that is the correct ruling, perhaps--just asking.
Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member
for
Rule 34 is explicit. If it is a private letter, I do not believe--[interjection] Order, please. I am not aware that the honourable member for Osborne was reading from a private letter, but I will do the honourable thing and ask the honourable member for Osborne if she is reading that quotation from a private letter. I assumed she was reading from her scripted notes, but I may have made an incorrect assumption.
The honourable member for Osborne, for clarification.
Ms. McGifford: Madam Speaker, I am reading from material presented during a public meeting.
Madam Speaker: But you are currently not reading from a private letter.
Ms. McGifford: No, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Therefore the rule is very clear. Our House Rule 34 states that if a member requests that a member table something being quoted from a private letter, the member is obliged to do so. Therefore, my previous ruling stands. The honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) does not have a point of order.
* * *
Ms. McGifford: The gist of what I wanted to say was that this
government appears to be determined to undermine public education in
I want to reiterate that these comments are those of an internationally respected educator, a woman who is a poet, a champion of human rights and who, I proudly add, was my elementary school principal and is now one of my constituents in Osborne.
So ends my preamble. I only want to add a quick note about Bills 33 and 47
before moving on to Bill 32. I want to add this statement because I am speaking
generally of the context of Bill 32 and the attack on education at all levels
in
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Anyway, I wanted to add that having been brought up on the theory that co-operation is more important than competition--and here I want again to refer to my wise constituent who has told me that she believes the kind of choice which Bills 33 and 47 would foster inevitably leads to destruction of an important social principle, and that is that schools should not be competing for pupils but, rather, they should be sharing ideas.
Furthermore, as she told me, in the current proposed legislation choice will be limited to those children whose parents can afford to pay for transportation, leaving out those whose parents cannot, as well as young children who are not old enough or responsible enough to use public transport and have no other means of going to a school. In fact, the so-called choice schools may well syphon off pupils from what might have been a good school but did not happen to meet the expectations of an influential group of parents. This, of course, could be irreparably damaging, not only to our education system and to a particular school, but to a whole neighbourhood, indeed to a whole community.
I think we are extraordinarily fortunate to have the wisdom of our elders, and I thank my constituent for sharing her ideas with me. I am sure she will be interested in reading Hansard and the debates on public education.
Back to Bill 32, I know that in her address to the House, the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) discussed the genesis of the bill in the Roblin report. She noted the general move on the part of this government towards central control and the empowering of nonelected officials in domains which have hitherto been the jurisdiction of elected officials, and this is something that she lamented.
In addition to addressing the bill's genesis, its purpose, its importance, the member for Wolseley also addressed the concerns about centralizing powers over education. She expounded on what she saw as the government's disdain for education in general. She compared and contrasted the government's educational agenda to that of other jurisdictions and, finally, she spoke and I think she spoke most eloquently and movingly about the need to protect the university.
* (1500)
Here I, of course, refer to the principles of academic freedom. She spoke about the rights of universities to determine their programs, their appointments, their admission standards, their graduation standards and all other academic policies. In these ways, as in other ways, the university is accountable to the public.
When the member for Wolseley addressed the idea of the university and the role of the university as an institution which should foster debate and dissent, which should be a crucible of creativity, to use her words, and which should also be a guardian of liberty and which should reflect for us the best of human endeavours, when she spoke in this way last week and used to illustrate her argument one of her former professors, a person for whom the member for Wolseley has great respect and great affection, I noticed that members on the other side of the House were catcalling and chortling and that one member called from his bench and described my critic's attitude as maudlin.
Well, it seems to me that nothing could be further from the truth and, clearly, this member lacked the discernment to really separate sentiment from sentimentality and melancholia. It would seem to me he would do well to set his personal house in order and that he owes the member for Wolseley an apology, but, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not really raise this point particularly to chastise this member, who well knows who he is. He is no better and no worse than many of his colleagues though, in fairness, I think it is important to acknowledge that many members opposite do behave with respect, and I honour their behaviour and I also sympathize with the embarrassment they must often feel--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would like to thank the member for giving the House the reference to decorum, but at this time we are debating Bill 32, and I would appreciate if we were being relevant to the bill. The honourable member, to continue.
Ms. McGifford: Yes, you are right, my real concern is not rudeness
but the contempt for learning that underlies this member's outburst and with
the contempt for learning that characterizes much of the caucus opposite. As I
said, there are exceptions. This same contempt was clear in last year's
attitudes towards the
The contempt for learning is clear in the fact that consultation with the
university community or, indeed, with any community which reflected the diverse
face of
Contempt for higher learning emerges clearly in the composition of the interim transition committee which government appointed to prepare Bill 32. It seems to me that the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) wants to ask me a question.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Minister of Education, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Education and Training): For clarification, the member said that she alone spent more hours than my entire interim transition committee in consulting with the universities. I wonder if she could tell me how many hours she spent and how many hours my consultant spent. Rather than just allude to it, if she could please provide the number of hours she spent consulting, et cetera, and then if she could also provide the number of hours that the government team spent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
The honourable member, to continue.
* * *
Ms. McGifford: Now, the Minister of Education is talking about courtesy and courage from her bench--[interjection]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The decorum is starting to lack a little bit in the Chamber at this time. Could I ask those honourable members wanting to carry on their conversations to do so in the loge. At this time, the honourable member for Osborne has the floor, and I ask the House to show a little respect.
The honourable member for Osborne, to continue.
Ms. McGifford: To return to Bill 32, as the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) pointed out last week, there were one or two exceptions in this
post-secondary education council, but basically the council was composed of
persons unfamiliar with higher education. Like the Roblin commission, I
understand they were again not a representative group of Manitobans, that there
was not a fair representative group from rural
Mr. Deputy Speaker, can anyone begin to imagine a provincial initiative which involved, let us say, mining? Can anyone begin an initiative involving an industry like this which did not include representatives of the community? Can we begin to imagine legislation involving the mining industry and affecting the mining industry and not involving these captains of industry in absolutely every stage of the drafted legislation?
Of course, we cannot, but I understand this is what happened in the drafting
of the post-secondary education council act. Indeed, there appears, Mr. Deputy
Speaker, to be two different standards in
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, contempt for universities and higher learning is evident in the concerns of the three university senates, in the concerns of MOFA and in those of the Canadian Federation of Students. When all key players, all the groups most affected by legislation are deeply distressed, then fair-minded governments usually take this as a sign that the purpose of their legislation and the proposed legislation is flawed, that it requires redrafting and that it requires amendments.
I am sure that the minister, herself, will have the opportunity to hear from the key players, including the groups that I just mentioned, at the committee hearings. I hope that the presentations at this level will lead her to re-envision, reverse and perhaps revise or redraft Bill 32. Again, I remind the minister that in democratically elected jurisdictions, the voices of those most affected do merit attention and respect. Their views simply must be heard and considered.
Other jurisdictions in
* (1510)
Back home, this government talks about education and training as the wave of the future, as key elements in the growth and economic prosperity of our province, as the key to employment. They even talk about education and training as the solution to welfare. Yet this government opposite, the Tory team, never lose an opportunity to undermine education, whether it be public education or post-secondary education, and I know that my side of the House has talked and talked about cuts to all kinds of university programs.
The ostensible purpose of Bill 32 may be, and I quote, to bring better co-ordination, articulation and planning to post-secondary education. This is what the minister told us when she spoke at second reading, but the subtext of this bill is everywhere apparent. It seems to me the subtext or the hidden agenda, the hidden meaning of this bill, is to erode the independence of universities and to curb the rational and thoughtful criticism of the those in power.
Let us hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the minister, given the opportunity, will recollect this bill in tranquillity and recognize the dangers inherent in this act. Let us hope that public response will move her and enable her to frame legislation that respects the traditions of scholarship, humanism and disinterested research. After all, the majority of Manitobans do want a province which is synonymous with excellence. The majority of Manitobans do not want a province which is synonymous with Philistinism, and this bill speaks with the voice of the Philistine.
With these remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I conclude my part and pass the bill along to committee hearings. Thank you.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Before the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) passes the bill to committee, I would like to put a few words on the record in regard to Bill 32, The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act. As said, this bill establishes the Council on Post-Secondary Education as recommended in the Roblin report. The council, it is hoped, will bring better co-ordination and planning to the post-secondary education sector by bringing universities and community colleges together under a single body. The seven institutions that will be affected by this act are the Keewatin Community College, Assiniboine Community College, Red River Community College, University of Manitoba, University of Winnipeg, Brandon University and Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface.
The Colleges Secretariat and the Universities Grants Commission will also be
replaced by an administration unit for the council.
We have taken a look at the last six reports to Parliament on federal and
provincial support to post-secondary education in
Regardless of the federal government's commitment, when it comes to spending
its own money on post-secondary education, the province has been reducing its
support. In 1991-92
The other concern, and it has been expressed by many, both in this Chamber and commentators, editorial writers, academics, is that this bill goes along with many other government bills and legislation about micromanaging society here in Manitoba by the government. Where so many other organizations are pushing down the level of decision making to the lowest level where the decision can be made, this bill puts more power into the minister's office, more power into cabinet, and more power into the czar of post-secondary education and this board. We are always concerned about the superboards, whether it is a regional health care board or this COPE board, Council on Post-Secondary Education.
Yes, Tories will support and appoint Tories to their boards; Liberals will
support Liberals to their boards; the NDP, when they are in power, put NDP
members to their board. But there is a danger in that. Do those boards really
reflect the society that they are serving? An example would be in my own
constituency, the
It is the same with these superboards on post-secondary education. Will they mainly represent Tory values, or will they represent the value of what Manitobans in general want? You must remember that the majority of Manitobans did not vote for a Tory candidate, if you look at the popular vote in the last election, so there is always a danger and, when we look at the superboards made of appointments from government, that is a very big concern.
Nowhere in this legislation that I am aware of are the criteria for being a board member ever stated and, yes, I am sure these people will have some background or involvement with post-secondary education, but which will be more important, their Tory connections or their background in post-secondary education? So we are concerned about that.
One of the objectives is to look at articulation, where a course that is taken at Red River could be used as credit for the University of Manitoba, and courses at University of Manitoba could be used as credit to Keewatin College, and I think this is using a sledgehammer to swat a fly to solve that problem. Many of those institutions were moving and co-operatively moving towards articulation of many courses, and possibly with assistance and help from the government they could have moved more quickly, but now we are using a sledgehammer by this Council on Post-Secondary Education.
The other thing that this bill talks about is efficiencies in courses, and
what could be viewed as an efficiency by the government, with the main priority
always being fiscal, we worry that if there might be other priorities that they
will be forgotten about, for example, teacher education programs in
But each program has unique aspects to it. For example, the teacher
education program at
* (1520)
I was pleased that the member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford) looked to
So the other concern that we have and has been talked about in this Chamber and elsewhere is about government control, about what happens to academic independence. This government-appointed superboard of, more than likely, people with Tory connections--because you do not appoint your enemies to your boards, you appoint your friends.
Now, if a university professor is very critical of the government and its program, does that mean that his program will be cancelled, or if he asked for expansion of this program it will be denied? So, you know, this is quite a concern, that politics will drive decisions on post-secondary education more so than any other concern.
So with those few comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we know that there are a large number of people looking forward to making presentations to the committee. We look forward to listening to them, and we hope that the government will listen to those presentations and make amendments to this very troubling bill. Thank you very much.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 32. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just received a copy of the letter tabled by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) earlier, a letter which was tabled under the requirements of our rules which require that reference to private correspondence which is quoted from has to be tabled in the House, and, in fact, the Speaker made a ruling on that earlier.
I note that the letter was only a partial letter and, in particular, did not include a transcript which was attached to the letter which is an integral part of the letter. I would therefore raise the point of order as to whether the Minister of Justice, who quoted quite extensively from this letter and was required by a ruling of the Speaker to table the letter, should have, in fact, tabled the entire letter and not edited out what was an integral part.
I would quote for the record that the letter itself refers to: Later the same day the CBC did provide a further transcript, and I am enclosing a copy for same for your perusal.
The bottom line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that this does not satisfy the ruling of the Speaker. This is only a partial copy of the letter, and I would like to ask that you require the Minister of Justice not to give us partial information but to table the entire document, as was requested in Question Period and as was required by the Speaker through her ruling.
I raise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the hope that you will be able to make a ruling on this--or perhaps the Speaker--as soon as possible, because we would like to have the complete information to us as members of the Legislature, which we feel is important for us to be able to raise questions on this very important issue.
So, once again, it is to do with the omission of providing only a partial part of the letter and not the entire letter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson. I will take the matter under advisement and will return to the House.
Bill 62--The Jobs
Fund Repeal Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the
honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), Bill 62, The Jobs Fund
Repeal Act (Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Fonds de soutien à l'emploi),
standing in the name of the honourable member for
Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 62.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just had a few comments to put on the record. We will be putting the bill through to a vote at this point in time, but I do want to indicate that it is rather interesting that this bill refers to very much what had happened in terms of the Jobs Fund, et cetera.
I think it is important to put on the record, and I think members opposite
may wish to put on the record, too, if they are to be given fair consideration
to what happened with the Jobs Fund, some of the significant improvements that
were put in place in many communities throughout Manitoba as part of the Jobs
Fund at a very difficult time for this province, the mid-1980s, when, in fact,
we were faced with the recession at the time which had affected all of the
country. We had led the way into the recession under the previous
I think it is rather interesting because it is an issue that is very much in the news today. We see nationally, just this past Friday, a major jump in the unemployment rate. What is interesting is that I think everyone is recognizing at the national level--even the Reform Party is talking about jobs, jobs, jobs. You know, the born-again jobs party at the federal level, they are talking about the fact obviously that something has not quite gone right in this country. Certainly, there is the promise we received at the federal level and also at the provincial level, but we still have significantly high levels of unemployment.
I think that is important because, coming from an area that traditionally
has had high unemployment, there are basically two
approaches that you can follow. One is a passive approach, and that is what is
being followed currently, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We do not have job creation
programs. We have very limited access to the few programs that might benefit
northern
What I find interesting is that people will lump together the Jobs Fund, and
they will not reflect on the fact that what there was--[interjection] The
Minister responsible for Environment (Mr. Cummings) says there were a lot of
signs out. There were a lot of projects. He should talk about signs. I notice
these blue signs that appear periodically, particularly those highway
development signs in certain select constituencies in
* (1530)
But the Jobs Fund brought together a series of programs that were in place
and expanded upon those programs to put in community resources. I want to
reflect on the kind of job creation projects that we saw. We have seen many
areas in
I think it is important to stress that this reached down to every single
community in
The most unfortunate aspects, I believe, of the last few years has been the fact that we do not have the same kind of recognition of the unique circumstance that many young people are in, in terms of getting first job experience, et cetera. The number of programs that we have in place are relatively limited. They have been cut back the last number of years, the CareerStart program, in particular. The fact that it continues to exist, I think, shows that what we are dealing with here is not a big debate over principle. I think even the Conservatives at times recognize the need for this kind of job creation, and I think it is important to recognize.
I will give you an example of some of the kind of benefits we saw in
northern
Every year, I survey the Grade 12 graduates in my constituency, my old high school, R. D. Parker Collegiate, and other high schools. You know, one thing that young people say is that they do need the opportunity to gain some experience, and that is where some of these programs have had a very significant benefit.
No one is suggesting that the Jobs Fund or any program can as of itself
solve the problem of unemployment, but I think there are certain people, and
particularly young people in rural and northern
There is I say a lot of argument, and I find it interesting because the
government talks about workfare, but the best way to get off welfare or
unemployment, get in the workforce, is a job. In areas such as northern
An Honourable Member: Lots of mining going on.
Mr. Ashton: Well, members opposite are talking about mining, but
mining is not hiring. The members should know that, and the
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) if he was to check the figures would know
that as well, that mining is not producing more jobs. In fact, at Inco in my
own community, in the last number of years we have lost 200 jobs because of the
downsizing at Inco, and, in fact, they are hiring back 100. We have lost a net
amount of 100 jobs. There are many resource industries who
are in the same boat in northern
The bottom line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there are a lot of young people in my community--I think most people on that side, particularly in rural areas, would see this as well--a lot of people working in my community in fast-food jobs, and those are jobs, that is fair enough, but at minimum wage, whereas 10, 20 years ago they would have been working at $22 an hour or $15 or $10 an hour. I ask the question if that is not what is happening in many communities--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am showing quite a bit of patience here, but it is getting a little bit beyond where I am ready to let it get to. All honourable members will have the opportunity to speak to this bill if they so choose. At this time, the honourable member for Thompson has the floor, and I would appreciate it if we would listen.
The honourable member for Thompson, to continue.
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I appreciate the fact that people are becoming more enthused to talk about this subject. I welcome that because--[interjection] The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) says that on that side, they are muzzled, but I will not touch that comment. I do not want to get into internal affairs in the PC caucus.
In fact, I must say that I miss the contributions that the minister made on frequent occasions when he was in opposition and makes on infrequent occasions in government, because the Minister of Agriculture has given some of the best speeches I have seen in this House, some of which I actually agreed with, maybe one or two. But whether I agreed with his speeches or not--and I remember some of the debate on this issue, job creation--
An Honourable Member: We are under new management now.
Mr. Ashton: The Minister of Agriculture says they are under new management. That is true, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There has been quite a management shift over there. We suggest it is a promanagement shift, but whether indeed that is a result of some of the reduced debate in this House, I do think these are important issues.
I look at this Jobs Fund, for example. I mentioned some members who were here and voted for the passage of the Jobs Fund and then went and criticized it, so I always get a kick out of them accusing us of trying to have it both ways. I could not imagine having it both ways more than voting for the Jobs Fund in the House--and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) remembers that; he was part of the Legislature at the time--and then they went around and they criticized it.
But, you know, whenever there was an opening in their constituency, they did
manage to kind of get their way into the ribbon-cutting ceremonies. [interjection] Well, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) says
there were never any in his constituency, and he knows that is not the case.
There were many in southwest
The fact is they voted for the Jobs Fund and it created a lot of good
benefits. I had the Tory candidate in my constituency in the last election and
the campaign manager running around saying, the Jobs Fund did not do anything.
I get a real kick out of that because, I kept saying, but you know your party
voted for it. It may be one of the reasons why the result went that way in
northern
We are not talking about job creation for the sake of job creation. I can point to very specific examples in my--[interjection] Well, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) says, that is exactly what it was, but I can see improvements to service clubs in my constituency, to churches, to community facilities. They were all part of the Jobs Fund. All of them passed because of that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can point to many areas, and I will just take my own constituency as an example, where you have many areas that could be developed by a similar sort of project. What I found was perhaps the most interesting in dealing with the Jobs Funds was how we could learn a lot of lessons from many First Nations communities, because they made sure that the employment that was available for these Jobs Fund programs was used to the betterment of the community and was also shared between people in the community, because it really is a concern in communities that have 80-90 percent unemployment that everyone have some option. What I found most particularly encouraging was the fact that most communities wanted to have a component built in for young people.
* (1540)
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think if you have a healthy private sector, as is the
case in many communities, perhaps you do not need that same kind of emphasis on
job creation, but put yourself in the situation of many communities in northern
But the bottom line is, I think there is a role for the type of program we saw in the Jobs Fund in the 1990s. It may be more focused, it may be on a smaller scale, particularly given the fact that the Jobs Fund was really brought in at the time of the recession, but I think there is a role.
What I want to point out is, if you look back historically in terms of economic performance in this province, that the combination of the Jobs Fund and hydro development through Limestone at the time produced one of the quickest and fastest recoveries from the recession of any province in the country. It is interesting because they criticized us on developing Limestone, they criticized us on the Jobs Fund, but you know, it was interesting, I was sitting, coming down today from Thompson, to a Hydro employee who said, yes, you know, people talk about Limestone, and that was a billion dollars under budget, a billion dollars, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is producing a hundred million dollars a year in profits.
You know, we got into this debate a little bit the other day, and I will not get into the Hydro debate again, but those were two key cornerstones of the economic policies of the New Democratic Party government in the 1980s. We are still getting the benefits from both, the Jobs Fund in terms of community facilities, and Manitoba Hydro, Limestone, we took a lot of flak in 1985-1986, but we delivered the goods. We had the best economic performance in the country as a result, and we are still benefiting. [interjection]
Well, the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), responsible for losing the Conawapa
deal, talks about Limestone. The bottom line is, you just talk to anyone, and
they were wrong in the 1980s. I remember when they were talking about buying
hydro from the
I will go back to square one, because I would like to see us look at the
same sorts of approaches we saw at that time. I want to just mention this
because, and I raised this a couple of years ago. In
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not know why we were not down in
I do not disagree with everything the government has been doing on the economic front. There are some programs, some initiatives that I certainly agree with, and I have stated that publicly. I have stated that publicly, and I will do that again. Where credit is due, I will give it.
I will give you an example of a program that I think is probably a very
useful program in some areas of the province but not in my own area, the Grow
Bond program. It works in many rural communities in southern
I am not going do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and our party is not going to do that. There are some programs that the government is looking at now in terms of regional development corporations. I think those are excellent programs. I do not think they go far enough, but, you know, the problem with what the government is doing, I believe, is that it has a smorgasbord of programs. I do not believe it has the consistent thrust of economic policy and development that we saw in the 1980s as a result of such initiatives as the Jobs Fund.
The Jobs Fund is really a collection of a series of initiatives, but it was based on a simple premise, and that is that we could improve our economic situation in the province by developing needed community resources, by providing job training, experience on the job, not with--and I will not use the Deputy Premier's (Mr. Downey) words extensively, but what he says about real jobs--believe you me, any job is a real job, and I even mentioned before that I do not criticize the minimum wage jobs that are taking place.
We have a McDonald's in Thompson now, and there are minimum wage jobs at that facility. Those jobs, I believe, are part of the economy. They are not the only jobs in the economy, and even then there are many people who cannot even find those types of jobs. We need to recognize, in particular, the vulnerability of young people.
So I want to apologize for taking up the time of the House in one sense, but I appreciate the fact that--[interjection] Well, I am being encouraged to continue here, but I really feel one thing I have been fortunate in, in some of these debates, and I consider this to be the ultimate luxury in one sense, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was here when the original Jobs Fund Act was put in place, as were some other members.
As much as now it is sort of the end of one chapter in the history book, I think that very much of the philosophy that was part of that applies today. I really believe that in the 1990s--and one of the ironies of the Conservative government is, where I do agree with them on economic policy, it is where they go against their announced political philosophy of the 1990s, the new management that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) talked about, this sort of new-right globalization, like government should not be involved in any way, shape or form in economic activity directly. [interjection]
The member for
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have always believed in the mixed economy. I know that the Conservative Party used to believe in the mixed economy. I remember the Minister of Agriculture in this House voting for the bill that would have taken over Centra Gas to run it as a public utility, in principle. He voted against it in the final stage, but he in principle supported the ownership of a public utility.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, that debate is just as appropriate today, because I am
going throughout the province about the Manitoba Telephone System, for example,
and I am finding a lot of Conservatives believe in public utilities, and they
want to see MTS publicly owned. [interjection] The
member for
The bottom line is there has been a sea change in political philosophy in the Conservative Party. Under the new management that was jokingly referred to before, the current Premier (Mr. Filmon) has decided--I do not know on what basis, I am still trying to find out the real basis, but has decided and swung this entire Conservative caucus and party in a direction that is a 180-degree turn from its entire political history.
Since the beginnings of Confederation, the Conservative Party always stood for public utilities. There are many individual Conservatives, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who stand for that. They believe in public ownership just in the same way they supported the Jobs Fund in the 1980s.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am sure the honourable member is going to be coming back to Bill 62. I would ask him to be relevant. I have been listening, and MTS is not quite relevant to the Jobs Fund Repeal.
The honourable member for Thompson, to continue.
Mr. Ashton: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My point was that in terms of the economic approach of the Conservative Party--I will perhaps just finish my comments of that particular aspect by saying, and I thought of this earlier today, that I would love to see a debate take place in terms of the Manitoba Telephone System. The problem is the government seems to be somewhat reluctant to get out and debate it, but there may be some people willing to do it.
I was trying to think of an organization that could sponsor this and would still not be seen as being biased. I thought of it today, and I would like to ask if the Conservative Party could arrange a debate. I will attend on behalf of the NDP. They can pick whomever they want from the opposite side. I would feel safe in that gathering because I know a lot of Conservatives who support keeping MTS public. That might perhaps settle it. I will challenge any person on the other side to debate the sale of MTS and the philosophy behind it, the policy approach adopted, and I will start at the Conservative Party. They can, perhaps in conjunction with the Chamber of Commerce. I will go right into that and perhaps then we can resolve it there and proceed from here.
* (1550)
You are quite right about the Jobs Fund, but it is part of the same issue because I believe that what has happened here is we have a consensus in this province in terms of economic approach. When the government does bring in programs that are not bad, there is a consensus even there that they do not want to admit. It is a small province. I think we are pretty moderate in--we may have our differences in terms of politics, but, you know, when I have someone approach me today, a small-business person in Thompson, yes, I am concerned about MTS or whatever, it is one of those things that crosses party lines. It is one of those kinds of issues. The same thing with economic approach.
Some of the most successful communities in
Is it not interesting that in the community of Steinbach they are following an active economic policy? They are getting involved. My goodness, they actually made a market transaction and then another one, so they actually were involved in the marketplace. This is Steinbach which, as members opposite know, is an area that certainly politically has been Conservative for many years. You know, in my wildest dreams if we were to win the next election with a massive landslide, that would be probably the last seat we would win in the province. [interjection] Well, it was traditionally Liberal. I thank the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) for that, as well. Of course, those were the right-wing Liberals, very right wing, which were probably more right wing than the Conservatives. That was another political era.
But I am saying this because where things work in this province is often by communities, by regions actually taking an active interest in economic development and not relying strictly on the marketplace. I will give you a quick example of how easy it is nowadays in this global economy that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) seems to be worshipping at the altar of.
I talked to some people--it is to do with the telephone system, but not on
the issue of MTS. I am talking about the job side of it. Right now,
We in
I remember the black armbands, you know; I remember following politics at
the time. It was a sad day for
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have reviewed Bill 62, The Jobs Fund Repeal Act, and that is exactly what it is doing, it is repealing. The Jobs Fund Repeal Act has nothing to do with MTS or the other areas that the member is speaking of at this time. If he could just maybe come around and explain to me the relevancy, and he has three minutes remaining.
Mr. Ashton: I realize with some of the interruptions that you might not have heard, but I am talking about the underlying economic policies of this province and the fact that the Conservative government has changed. It has turned its back as recently as the past year or two on what it stood for for more than 125 years in this province.
I have talked to many individual people in terms of Conservatives--[interjection] The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), she can participate in this debate afterwards. I certainly look forward to her comments. [interjection] Well, I am speaking in this Chamber on an important public issue. We have had maybe three speakers on this. This is not exactly a filibuster. I realize the Minister of Education's attention span may be fairly short and anything more than a five-minute speech may seem like a filibuster to her but, you know, in opposition sometimes the one option one has is to speak out in this Chamber.
I, by the way, would encourage the members on the government side to speak out, as well. We would like to see more of the debate that took place at the time in the 1980s when this was passed, by the way, because in those days there were some very good debates and government members did speak and, in fact, I did speak on many occasions as a government member. You are allowed to speak. I think your constituents would like you to speak, and I look forward, I will be finished my comments in a few minutes; if the Deputy Premier wishes to speak, we certainly welcome that.
But the bottom line is, I ask this question, Mr. Deputy Speaker,
rhetorically through you to the Conservative Party, and that is, do we really
want to engage upon a course over the next number of years which, funnily
enough, even in the United States, this sort of Newt Gingrich, New Right
approach is being rejected? But in
Has it not occurred to anyone that the kind of active, political approaches that were rejected by the apostles of the New Right that result in such things as the repeal of the Jobs Fund, which is very much part of it, have they not reflected upon the fact that in country after country and in jurisdiction after jurisdiction people are now turning back to a more balanced approach?
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe there is a role for the public sector in the 1990s. I believe that in their heart of hearts many Conservatives even believe that, and that is why I feel it really unfortunate that we are now seeing the repeal of The Jobs Fund Act, which the Conservatives voted for in the 1980s and still reflects, I believe, the views of many Manitobans. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not want to prolong or provoke further debate, but I do think it is important to put some things on the record for those members who may not be familiar with a little bit of the history of the Jobs Fund and some of the comments made by some other speakers and, as well, for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) who is so concerned about the Manitoba Telephone System bill. If he looks on his Order Paper, I believe he will find that Bill 67 will be dealing with that, and he will have ample time to debate, as all members will have ample time to debate, where they should be debated in this Chamber.
As well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a long-standing tradition in the Manitoba Legislature that there will be open public hearings dealing with legislation, when people will be able to come forward and make their case on Bill 67, so the point the member keeps talking about, not having a chance to debate it, not having public input, well, he is wrong on the first count; he is able to debate it in this Chamber. The public is prepared and can come forward to public hearings in the legislative process. So he is wrong on both counts, as he is wrong most times that he speaks.
I think it is important to note on the repeal of the Jobs Fund, and we as a government believe--and I have heard again the member for Lakeside (Mr Enns) comment about times when the Legislature should sit to repeal certain legislation that has been put on the books--that this is an opportunity to repeal an act that is no longer of any use.
As well, I think it is important to point out that, for the members interested in this kind of debate, they should look at what the former leader of the MGEU or the member who now represents Concordia, Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer), what he had to say about the Jobs Fund and what it would do. Well, he referred to it as hiring a bunch of apple polishers for the New Democratic Party of that day when Mr. Howard Pawley was in. Those were Mr. Gary Doer's words about the Jobs Fund.
* (1600)
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): In fairness, the apples were polished.
Mr. Downey: That is right; that is true. In fairness, as my colleague
from
Well, a couple of other points that should be made, and I think it is always
dangerous to take a particular snapshot in time, but I think I will do that
just to point out again some of the things that are happening in Manitoba. If
one were to look at the most recent reports from the labour force report for
September of this year, we have actually seen an increase of some 5,000 jobs in
September over August, with the second lowest unemployment rate in all of
It is not that we do not have a lot of things happening. We do, but there is one basic difference, and that is that today the private sector is generating and creating the jobs that are generating wealth for this economy. During the NDP years, it took a tremendous amount of government expenditure to try to accomplish what that government of the day tried to accomplish, and it cost us. We are still paying the bills on what the New Democrats tried to do with our economy. Payroll taxes were implemented, increase in sales tax; all the major taxes went up during the New Democratic years.
Yes, they were trying to make the people believe that there were jobs coming out of it. I have to say that the majority of the jobs were the short-term jobs that did not last and did not add a lot to our economy.
Just let me give you a few examples of what is taking place out there, because I think it is important for the members to know it. We are not just saying we are getting rid of this bill for the sake of getting rid of it. A lot of things are happening in our economy.
Let us start in the northwest corner. Let us start in the community of Flin
Flon, for example, where HBM&S, of course, is doing a tremendous job with
the smelter and the work that is done up there and the mining that is taking
place; again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, major employment opportunities. I believe it
points out in the job stats that we have got 2,000 more people working in the
mining industry in
As well, we look at Repap, and we know that there have been some major
expansions at Repap, a $250-million expansion, making sure the jobs are there. Louisiana-Pacific in
We drop down to the
We go to Carberry where we see Midwest Foods with their expansion of some $20-million plus, needing several thousands of acres of potatoes to supply the demand there, again hundreds of people employed for the long term, not government jobs, but private sector jobs.
The same example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could be applied to
We could talk about Can Agra at Ste. Agathe that are developing the new processing for oilseeds.
We could talk about the Schneider plant and the expansion of the hog
industry. You know, the hog industry in itself, it is projected, the doubling
of our hog industry in the
An Honourable Member: How many?
Mr. Downey: Nine thousand jobs, directly in the production, the feed
processing and the processing, whether it be Schneider
or whether it be Burns or whether it be any of the packing and processing
plants--9,000 long-term, permanent jobs to the
We have the old Abitibi pulp mill that has been sold to the community. We
put in place a $30-million loan guarantee, of which a small percentage was
used, again, assuring those jobs for the community of
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could go on and on about the manufacturing sector,
which we are seeing export product come from. Our exports--and again the New
Democrat Party across the way opposed NAFTA, they opposed free trade. Our trade
with the
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I am enjoying the debate that is going on, but, again, I have to rise as I did for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). The bill before the House is Bill 62. It is The Jobs Fund Repeal Act. If the honourable members could be relevant to that at this time, I would appreciate it.
The honourable minister, to continue, and if he was being relevant, maybe he could explain it to me.
Mr. Downey: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the relevance is, if you are wanting me to explain it to you, today the private sector and the economic climate that has been developed in this province by this Progressive Conservative government is generating the investment climate which creates the jobs, which creates the wealth for export of product, which generates the income for this province, so that we can have the health care system, so we can have the social services system, so we can have the education system. That is the relevance, and I thank you very much for bringing that to my attention, so it is relevant.
I could talk about the furniture industry. I could talk to you, Sir, about new developments that are taking place in the grain industry that will be supportive of the grain industry in this province, which I know you have been instrumental in working on, that will generate jobs, that will take away the need for a Jobs Fund Act. Those are the kinds of things that are developing in our province.
I could talk about the farm machinery industry. I could talk about the bus
building industry. I could talk about a lot of things, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and
I just wanted the record to show that we, the
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I am wondering, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I could add a few comments on this bill to repeal the Jobs Fund. I do have some experience with that because I, in fact, acted for the Department of Labour while this legislation was enacted, and I was asked to assist in attempting to create jobs through this legislative format.
What became very, very clear is that, in fact, no jobs were being created.
It was, in fact, one of the biggest boondoggles that the
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is no secret. It is no secret that what one company would do with another related company would simply be collapse the one job in the one company and then create the new job in the other company, getting a government subsidy in that respect. Simply, that was the way these jobs were created.
I remember one day I was sitting in my office, I received a phone call. There was a panic in the person's voice, and they said to me, in respect of a particular job creation project, that a company had not fulfilled its responsibilities in respect of half a million dollars. I said, have you given this company, have you advanced this company the money? They said, oh, no, no, we have not done that because they have not met their so-called obligations. I said, well, what is the problem then? You still have the half a million dollars, and the taxpayer is protected in that respect. The response to me was, you do not understand; if that money is not spent, it will be lost. I said, well, how will this money be lost? He said, well, at the end of the fiscal year, it would lapse, and the half a million dollars would be lost. I said, do not consider it lost; consider it half a million dollars saved for the Treasury, given the kinds of jobs that were being created under this Jobs Fund.
* (1610)
I can only say, from very personal experience, this was the largest fraud on
the
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 62. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 58--The
Parental Responsibility Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 58, The Parental Responsibility Act (Loi sur la responsabilité parentale), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Stand? [agreed]
Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to begin my participation in this debate about Bill 58 by citing an observation which could have been true today. The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority. They show disrespect for elders, and they love chatters in place of exercise. Children are now tyrants; they are not servants of their household. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, they gobble up dainties at the table, they cross their legs and tyrannize their elders. This quotation was spoken and observed more than 2,000 years ago, and it was attributed by the philosopher Plato to his teacher Socrates. It could have been true today, this description of the youth of today. That placed the setting why there is a need for this particular piece of legislative proposal.
It also reminded me of a conversation between a mother and a young child. What are you reading, Alfred, the mother inquired. It is a book entitled Child Training I borrowed from your friend Mrs. Jones. Do you find it amusing, asked the mother. No, I am not reading it for amusement; I merely wanted to see whether or not you had brought me up properly.
So there is a duty among parents to bring up their children properly that they may be able to conduct themselves in a manner acceptable to society and to other people.
In this debate about The Parental Responsibility Act, Bill 58, I shall try to ascertain what this piece of legislation is seeking to do by looking at some of the substantive provisions. I shall review some of the case law under the common law about parental liability on account of the behaviour of the children and then finally focus on some common sense understanding of the proper relationship between parents and children and the duties arising out of such parent-children relationships in the context of the family as a basic unit in our society.
What does the parental responsibility of Bill 58 seek to do? By Section 3 of the act, the proposed legislation, the parent of a child who deliberately takes, damages or destroys the property of another person is held liable for the loss suffered by the owner of the property as a result of the activity of the child. The term "owner "has been defined by the legislation to include any person who has the legal right of possession of property, so if we take the definition, even a lessee who has a right to possession will be comprehended in the concept of being an owner, even if you are actually only leasing the property, because you have possession, the legal right of possession, over the property that is damaged by the child.
The parent may either be the person who is the biological parent or someone who is responsible for the care and control of the child. He may not be the biological parent. He might be an adoptive parent, so long as he is responsible for the care and control of the child or, alternatively, such a person could be the court-appointed guardian of the person of the child.
The parental liability for the damages should not exceed $5,000 in respect to the property owners' loss which could be enforced by the person who is suffering the damage by means of a civil action brought before the small claims court. Parental liability attaches only when the act of the child in taking, damaging or destroying the property of another is done deliberately by the child. Deliberately implies a willfulness and intent to do damage. It implies it is knowingly done with a malicious intent to damage, or if it is a taking, there is an intent to benefit by taking the property or things. That is to say, there is what they call animo lucrandi, the intent to gain, intent to benefit. The parent is also not making any reasonable effort in good faith to prevent or to discourage the child from doing the behaviour, consisting of the taking, damaging or destroying of the property which belongs to another.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
In general, the purpose of The Parental Responsibility Act is to ensure that parents are held reasonably accountable for the behaviour of their children in relation to the property of other people. What are some of the old rules in common law relating to this duty of parents to control the behaviour of their child? How does the common law respond to the more basic moral question, am I my brother's keeper? Am I responsible for my neighbour's welfare, which is adversely affected by the behaviour of my children? Am I in some position, of a position of influence, to alter or to change their behaviour? The general rule under the common law is that no person is under any duty to control the behaviour of another person in order to prevent such other person from harming a third person. So, in general, we are not accountable for the behaviour of another. That is the general rule.
* (1620)
The exception to the rule is this particular relationship of parent and child. So that rule, therefore, that no one is responsible or accountable for the actual behaviour of another, there is an exceptional condition, an exceptional circumstance, by which there is a duty, and the duty arises because of this special relationship that emerges from the parent and child relationship. It is that special relationship that creates the duty on the part of the parent to be on guard and to monitor and control the behaviour of his or her child, because any third person is entitled to rely upon the parent for the protection of their own person or their own property of another as is stated in the old case of Beckerson versus Dougherty, 1953.
Thus, under this unique and special relationship of parent and child, there is a duty on the part of parents to control the behaviour or to monitor the behaviour of their minor children. It is incumbent upon such parents to maintain such control over their children and take reasonable care so as to exercise such control in order to avoid conduct on the part of the children exposing the personal property of another to unreasonable risk or danger. Failing to control the minor child, such a parent could be charged with negligence in connivance with the child's possession of any instrument, the use of which the children, lacking discretion, may bring about potential hazards to other people--Smith versus Leurs, 1945.
The minor child, therefore, is generally not considered as an independent personality because the child is bound to obey the directions of the parent, the person in whose charge such child is placed--Russel versus Jorgenson.
Now the question is, if such a minor child is really immature or for some other reason does not understand the meaning of his behaviour, could any negligence be imputed to such a child? The jurisprudence on this aspect of the issue states that if the child lacks capacity to understand and could not appreciate the nature of his actions, negligence could not be attributed to the child at all; however, given the perception of the risk, such a child must exercise the judgment of the standard child of his own age. In other words, even if the child is immature or lacks the necessary understanding, there is still a certain measure of care expected of the child of the same age and under the same circumstances.
What happens if the child engages in some kind of adult behaviour? In other words, the activity undertaken by the child is not really a childish act but an act of a normal adult in our community. What happens then? If the minor engages in some adult activity which initially we do not expect him to do, such as, for example, driving a car, a child, though minor, must conform to the standard of care expected of a reasonable adult person driving a car. Whoever is doing the behaviour is held to a degree or a standard applicable to that situation in accordance with the kind of activity and behaviour that the child is doing. If the child is doing an adult behaviour, he will be held accountable to a higher level of care as if he were an adult, such as when a child drives a car and that results in some accident or some damage to property. This is in the case of Tucker versus Tucker which involved a 16-year-old child who was driving a car which resulted in some damage.
Therefore, some safeguard to the public is afforded by the obligation of
parents to observe reasonable care in the supervision of the conduct of the
children who are under their legal control--Walmsley versus Humenick. This is
in contrast to what is obtained in continental European law, what we call the
civil law countries. The common law of
Of course, unless you fall to the exception, you will not be held accountable for the behaviour of another. What are these exceptions by which a person is held liable for a behaviour other than his own behaviour? The case of a parent, of course, when the child was, in fact, the agent of the parent and the child acted by the direction of the parent. There are some parents who are so irresponsible sometimes, and they want their child to do things that they themselves want to do which are not in accordance with the law.
If the child is acting according to the direction of the parent and doing some injurious behaviour, injurious to the personal property of another, such a person, such a parent will be held responsible. Qui facit per alium, qui facit per se. He who acts through another, acts himself, and therefore should be held accountable himself. Therefore, there is a failure if the parent is in connivance with the child in doing the irresponsible or destructive behaviour involving a taking or a damaging of the property of another.
Another exception where the parent is held responsible is when the parent fails in controlling the child's activity such that the activity no longer protects the personal property of another. The standard exacted by the common law is that of reasonable care and should be understood and construed according to the prevailing practices and usages prevailing in the community and the common understanding of what is reasonable and what is practicable. Such a standard of care requires the weighing of the risk of others against the difficulty of a parent in attempting to eliminate the foreseeable risks that could reasonably follow from a lack of care on the part of the child's activity.
So that is the background in the common law system about the liability of a child. In general, there is no liability of a person being responsible for the behaviour of another. To that general rule there is an exception in the case of parents in relation to their minor children because of the special relationship of parent and child. The special relationship gives the duty and an obligation on the part of the parent to be accountable and responsible with corresponding liability for the behaviour of their children that results in the destruction of personal property of another.
Now, let me go to the next topic that I would like to discuss, namely the relationship between parents and child. What kind of relationship is that? What kind of duty arises because of such a special and unique relationship between parents and child? How should parents try to control the behaviour of a child?
There are many styles by which parents try to influence the behaviour of their children. Some parents result in very strict disciplinarian ways of trying to control the behaviour of their children. There are some theories now about modern psychology, how we should try to control the behaviour of our own children.
An Honourable Member: That is the problem.
* (1630)
Mr. Santos: That is the problem. Modern theories, according to the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), of child psychology will discourage people from using physical disciplinary measures on the part of the child.
Let us inquire into that. Why? Why do they object where, for example, the child is spanked. The parent, should he spank their own child when they committed something wrong? Is there anything wrong with that? Modern psychology says, if you use physical punishment to control the behaviour of our child and to punish him when he does something wrong and if you do this very frequently or in a manner which is predictable as a matter of routine, then the child would soon learn to stay away from you, because it is very predictable. It is a routine kind of behaviour. The child will avoid you. That is one reason why you should not use physical punishment, they said, or use it in a manner which is routine and predictable. If your father, your dad hits you all the time, what do you do? You stay away from him. Any time you see your dad coming home, you stay out of the house.
So the second reason, why is it wrong to use physical punishment, according to these people, these child psychologists? They say the use of physical punishment by a parent with a child inculcates in the mind of the child a model which is not too good. What model? In resolving conflict, if you are the more powerful one, it is all right to hit the weak. That is according to the child psychologists. You are the more powerful parent. There is a weak little child. You hit him, it inculcates in his mind a model that it is okay, it is all right if you are strong to hit the weak. That is according to the child psychologists.
What happens when your child has now gotten stronger and bigger than you? What happens then? If they grow up and they become stronger, and if they become stronger than you as a father, what do you do? Ah, the model has to be consistent. He probably will hit you.
An Honourable Member: No, my kid would not do that.
Mr. Santos: They are not supposed to do that. In terms of our attitude, this is inbred in our upbringing as individuals and as members of society. If we become government and we hit the weak and the helpless, then we are confirming the fury. When this government is now hitting the weak and helpless and the vulnerable in our society, that means they were not properly trained when they were young. They are applying the model that the strong has a right to hit the weak.
You know what happens when your elder children are subjected to this strict physical punishment. When they grow up a little bit bigger, what will be their attitude to their younger brothers and sisters, to the young siblings? Ah, they apply the model again, consistently. They hit their younger brother. That is why some families are reputed to have been doing a violent kind of atmosphere in the home because this is perpetrated.
Those are the reasons why child psychologists said it is wrong to use unreasonable physical punishment. However, if you are just using a ruler, and you ask your little child to put his hand up and hit with the ruler with the understanding and explanation of what he has done and why this is being done to him, I do not think that is a strong physical punishment, no. How many of you remember your dad hitting you somewhere? I remember I was hit, but then I remember I was doing wrong, yes.
You should use the rule of moderation. You have to have an appropriate explanation to the child why this is happening. Unless explained, the child says, ah, my dad just dislikes me. He just is angry. No reason at all why he should hit me. But, when you explain the framework why the punishment is being given and the reasonableness of the punishment in relation to what he had done, then the child understands and the child will remember.
An Honourable Member: How old is this child?
Mr. Santos: Well, it depends upon their age. Your explanation will be more detailed the younger the child is so that the child will be able to appreciate and understand. The younger they are, the more explanation you need. At all events the explanation has to be given with concern for the child. Yes, with understanding.
On the basis of moral teaching, then, what are some of the parental obligations of people who become parents to their own children? There is no requirement in our society that you should have certain qualifications before you become a parent. In fact, there are some very minor children who become parents, and they are not ready for such duty and obligation.
An Honourable Member: Children having children.
Mr. Santos: Children having children, according to my colleague here.
What is the obligation of a parent in respect to the children? First, they have a duty to nourish and to provide for the material and spiritual needs of the child. Remember that, not only material, but also spiritual needs of the child. There are two kinds of food that you can give to the child, the food to sustain his physical body and the spiritual teaching that will sustain his moral character. That is the duty of every parent, the food for the physical body and the food for the mind, and the identity and the spirit of the child.
What else? To bring up the children in nurture and admonition without provoking them to anger, you should always be patient with them, you should always be generous with them, you should always try to do what is for their own welfare and concern, because a parent can teach best by his example, not by word but what he or she does in relation to the child. If your mouth has a cigarette butt and says do not smoke, what will the child get out of such an admonition? You cannot tell your child not to smoke because it will be bad for himself when you yourself are smoking. So it is not effective at all. The best teachers are those who do what they believe in relation to the people they are teaching. No one else is needed but the parents who become the best teachers of their own children.
If there is a duty from parent to child, what about the other way around? Is there a duty from child to parent? It cannot be just one way; it must be a reciprocal kind of duty. What are some of the duties? No matter how old we are, some of us still have some parents. Do we have a duty to them? What are those duties then? What are some of the duties of children toward their parents? First, children must obey their parents, for this is right. We come to this world through the instrumentality of our parents. Without them, how else can we come to this world? No other way. It is by our parents that we are here. So we come to the world through our parents, and when we were helpless, they were all the time there helping us, changing us day and night, changing our diapers, loving us, concerned about us, and what do we pay in return? We put them in old-age homes and forget about them. This is no good. It is our duty to take care of our own parents in the best possible way that we could.
* (1640)
An Honourable Member: We should not have personal care homes.
Mr. Santos: No, I am not saying that. I am saying if you can at all attend to your parents personally in your own home, there is no impediment, that is your duty to do it. [interjection] Why should we obey our own parents? Do you know the fifth commandment? Honour thy father and thy mother so that their days may be long on this earth. There you are. It is a commandment and a promise. If you honour and obey your parents, you attend to their needs, you visit them even if they are in a separate home of their own, you attend to your duties as a child, your days shall be long on this earth.
An Honourable Member: Where do you preach on Sunday?
Mr. Santos: No, I am not preaching. I am just quoting the commandments. We also have the duty of fidelity to our parents, some kind of loyalty that we care for them, particularly in their old age when they are feeble and helpless, because that is good and acceptable in the eyes of God and men. It is one of the fondest dreams of every parent to bring the child up properly.
I would like to conclude now because I saw the Speaker making the sign that I am lacking the time. Now this is the conclusion. I like this quotation, and I would like to conclude it with the consent of the Assembly until I finish it.
Build me a son, O Lord, who will be strong enough to know when he is weak and brave enough to face himself when he is afraid, one who will be proud and unbending in honest defeat, and humble and gentle in victory.
Build me a son whose wishes will not take the place of deeds, a son who will know Thee--and that to know himself is the foundation stone of knowledge.
Lead him, I pray, not in the path of ease and comfort, but under the stress and spur of difficulties and challenge. Let him learn to stand up in the storm; let him learn compassion for those who fail.
Build me a son whose heart will be clear, whose goal will be high, a son who will master himself before he seeks to master other men, one who will reach into the future and never forget the past. Thank you.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Bill 67--The
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant la réorganisation de la Société de téléphone du Manitoba et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to rise and make my comments on Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act.
This is a bill that symbolizes the government's agenda for economic motivation, one which is shortsighted, in my opinion, wrong. It basically sells off the Manitoba Telephone System as we know it in, I believe, a rather shallow attempt at looking at public shares. In the short term, I agree that it looks like a public sale, and I am going to argue against that as well, but, in the longer term, what inevitably will happen with the Manitoba Telephone System, which seems to be the record in many other jurisdictions and governments, is that ultimately that control cannot be held onto in the long term. There are no guarantees that Manitoba Telephone System will stay in the hands of Manitobans and that this is really a bit of fluff to appease many of the Manitobans very, very concerned about the sale of MTS.
This bill, as I said, sells MTS via share offering to the public. The
legislation specifically overrides previous commitments of MTS to serve the
public interest by continuing to provide affordable access to telephone
services to residents of
Madam Speaker, that is probably one of the most
significant portions of this change. We are moving from a corporation, in this
case a Crown corporation, whose main mandate was to serve the public interest
to a system whose main mandate is to produce profit. That is not necessarily,
and, in fact, works against the public good and works for the good of those
that hold shares in MTS, which will be very, very few Manitobans indeed. In
fact, you could argue that right now every citizen of
The commitment of MTS to Manitobans was clear in many of the policies that
it had implemented over its long tenure in
In fact, in a more direct manner, recently we were at
* (1650)
In fact, in my little farmhouse in Poplarfield we receive service. We
receive single line service. I can now phone out from my little cottage in
Poplarfield and I am not sharing a party line anymore. Whose investment was
that? That was an extremely expensive endeavour that the
The concern now is that when your bottom line is profit and not people, that is going to erode what we believe is a fundamental service and one that we built for many, many years. We can look at other examples of where telephone systems have been privatized, and, unfortunately, the record seems fairly consistent and consistent in a way that unfortunately impacts on the average ratepayer. We have seen either rates rising dramatically or, if the CRTC refuses to do those very rapid changes, we will see what will inevitably be the curtailment of services to areas that they do not find profitable.
Again, the motivation, the reason for being for a private corporation is the bottom line and is profit, and so when we view distance education, when we view communication as a vital link of holding Manitobans together, this government has taken a choice. It is choosing to cut off those vital links and move towards a profit system which looks at the money and the bottom line rather than service and people as its priority, which is very, very unfortunate.
Again, I would like to emphasize that, although the government has in the
short term tried to allay fears by saying that we are selling this to
Manitobans, we are going to put a guarantee that it stays in Manitoba, that is
not there, that guarantee is not in this bill, is not there for Manitobans for the
future. What we can see is that the Manitoba Telephone System in the longer
term can, in fact, become foreign owned, can be owned by--once the various
shareholders sell off their shares, once the commitment to the Manitoba
government has been paid off, there is no guarantee, as far as I understand, of
those mandates that it remain Manitoba-owned--most Manitobans feel they already
own it, thank you very much--and that it is going to remain here in Manitoba.
In fact, the headquarters could eventually be in
Madam Speaker, this bill offers Manitobans no long-term control over the new
privately owned corporation. In the short term, the government will maintain
ownership of a so-called special share. Such ownership gives the government a
limited veto on the privately owned company's activities. It will ensure that
the company's headquarters stay in
However, as soon as the new company pays off the debt owed to the province, the special share is automatically surrendered, and all the protective provisions listed above are automatically repealed. If what I understand to be, and this bill is inaccurate, I look forward to the minister providing on the record how, in fact, there is a long-term protection to Manitobans, and I urge the government to look at that protection, for in the short term we have that protection, in the long term there are no guarantees. In fact, when we look at other Crown corporations that have gone through privatization, we have seen some fairly disfavourable results and we could look--[interjection] I do not wish to stray from my agenda of my notes because I can get distracted, and from the other side, I would love to be into a debate and get some information.
Quite frankly, we have not heard the other side debate these issues seriously. In fact, much of what we understand is through our own research, and if the minister does not feel it is valuable to stand up and speak to Manitobans on this side of the House, putting it on the record as to why they choose to sell such an important Crown asset--I mean, the record shows for itself.
Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to continue with a few more points
on our opposition to the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. In fact,
Manitobans have a proud and long history of supporting MTS. We were actually--
The Manitoba Telephone System has in many ways, from those early days of
trying to provide telephone services for Manitobans, continued that legacy even
up to the future. As I mentioned earlier, we have a proud tradition of
continuing that service. In fact, just last year many rural areas received
single service, and that type of vision did continue for over 80 years, and
that investment was important to rural Manitoba and is a vital link in the North.
That type of investment, although it may seem expensive in the short term, in
the long term provides what Manitobans want, a secure and direct link between
people of
Madam Speaker, have Manitobans, in fact, endorsed the sale of MTS? I would
say no. Have they been given due notice of the sale of our telephone company? I
say no. This is such a serious and fundamental change of government policy that
if this government wanted to practise what was fair and reasonable they would
put the question to the people of
A year and a half ago, this government was before the people of
There was no mention of the sale of MTS at the time of the election, Madam Speaker. In fact, the record indicates: We have no intention of selling our telephone system; we have no intentions.
* (1700)
In the House, when our critic asked the other side, were there intentions to sell MTS, the answer was no from the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Do you have plans to sell MTS? The answer is no. We keep on asking the government, asking the government, when in reality--I mean, were there intentions to sell MTS? I mean, if not, did they decide overnight, in a month or two, to suddenly decide they are going to sell MTS?
Surely, something so critical to
Will the people in Vita support the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System? I
think not. Will the people in
All we are saying is, give it due process. Allow Manitobans the ability to think, to plan for the future. Is it proper to sell what is a cornerstone of our Crown corporations, the Manitoba Telephone System? Provide them the opportunity to vote. Provide them the opportunity to discuss this in a fair and reasonable manner instead of bringing it in through legislation, through short-term--what the minister claims was a sudden decision to sell MTS, based on, we are not quite sure--but within a couple of months, they have decided to sell off our telephone system, when during the election there were promises that there was no such consideration being given.
What we are talking about, too, is trust. Manitobans need to trust the government in power, and that is a goal, I would think, that a government would want. Unfortunately the record by this government has been very shaky and Manitobans do not trust this government in terms of the sale of MTS, and why? What was the government's record on the Jets deal? Vote for Filmon to save the Jets, it is the only way. We will only invest $10 million. What other promises were out there in the public? I mean, those things did not withhold the test of time.
What about education? Trust us on education--not, Madam Speaker. We now see such dissension in the world of education, teachers pitted against a government which is supposed to be the voice of education, which is supposed to be standing up for public schools. We do not hear that. What we hear is rhetoric that teachers are overpaid, underworked, our children are not receiving an education. Those types of things erode and, in fact, pit educators who are there in the classroom every day, dealing with the children in a more difficult situation because of the lack of resources by this government and having to face such rhetoric from the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), that we have never seen such dissension amongst teachers and the Department of Education and the minister and this government.
What about health? Trust us on health. Well, the voters of
Justice, Madam Speaker, let us talk about justice. Let us talk about tough on crime and then have--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member that debate at second reading stage should be relevant to the principles of the bill, and I believe the bill the honourable member is debating is Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, what I was talking about is Manitobans trust for the government, and we have had a series of issues that have eroded Manitobans' trust in this government, in the Filmon government. One of the examples is when they lead with the campaign of being tough on crime and the next thing you know you have got 60 criminals who have been sentenced to jail time not doing one hour. Is that fair? Does that create a sense of trust? No.
In terms of the Manitoba Telephone System, I would say that there is that
lack of trust, and, in fact, to re-establish their credibility in terms of this
issue, the least that they should do is put the question to the people of
Madam Speaker, not only is this government--[interjection]
Madam Speaker: Order, please. I am experiencing difficulty hearing the honourable member for St. James.
Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, I thank you for your intervention. The members on the other side appear to have a lot of comments, and I would ask them to be brave, stand up and put it on the record.
Madam Speaker, not only has this government lost trust, but to regain that trust, instead of going to the people of Manitoba to say yes or no on the MTS deal, they have decided to invest almost half a million dollars in a campaign of propaganda, half a million dollars of our tax money. You did not ask me if you could spend my tax money on that kind of propaganda. My answer would be no, absolutely not. I mean, the facts are not on the table. The government is not willing to talk about this seriously, and we have contracted some fancy, glitzy advertising campaign to perhaps Barb Biggar, who is going to what? Convince us that selling the telephone company is a good idea? I think not. Manitobans have much more wisdom than that.
Madam Speaker, I want to just conclude by saying there are a top 10 reasons to save the Manitoba Telephone company.
Number one is low rates, and we can all appreciate that we have experienced
some of the lowest rates in
Number two, province wide service. Manitobans
throughout the province are receiving telephone services. Madam Speaker, when I
was on
For example, we were able to contact Churchill regularly and could do that
through the Manitoba Telephone System. If we had a case of a health emergency,
if we needed further food supplies or if any other emergency measure, that was
provided, and I am sure that it did not come cheap. It was an investment. We
were out there, in my case we were looking for the mineral resources of
* (1710)
I mean, it costs an investment to send people out, and in the short term you
could question whether it is a wise investment. In the long term, as the
Minister of Mines (Mr. Praznik) should know, it takes many, many years to find
an economic deposit and in some cases you do not, but what you do get is a data
base and a survey that can provide you with the leadership and the information
for future groundwork, just as the Manitoba Telephone System provides us with
the ability to link to the future, and that is why we are opposed to the sale
of the Manitoba Telephone System. We are turning over what has historically
been a very great benefit to the people of
Let us look at what the North provides to the south. Having had some
experience in the North and working in an industry that has, in fact, provided
southern Manitobans with gifts that we really did not have to do much for, we
sit back, we enjoy the mining profits and now that commodity prices are up we
are seeing mining taxes; we all enjoy that. The revenue, the Treasury is
healthier for it. Forestry is another commodity that is coming from the North
and benefiting southerners. Hydro that we invest in is benefiting the south.
What do we invest in the North? One of the few things we did invest in the
North was a comprehensive, reliable telephone system, one that we have provided, felt that it should be affordable to the people of
the North. Is a private company going to think that it is important to provide
to
We would also like to continue by looking at all of the other benefits that
MTS has provided for
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for allowing me to put some words on the record on Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act. It says much about the ideological bent of this government that they see the need to privatize MTS, an important public asset. In fact, the sale of MTS is taking place without public consultation, nor was the sale of MTS on the agenda during the last provincial election. Our critic for MTS, my honourable colleague for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), has asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) whether or not the government had any plans to privatize MTS, and the answer was always no.
No, the government had no plans to privatize MTS. When the City Council of Flin Flon was concerned about the possible sale of MTS, they wrote a letter to the minister responsible asking for broad, public consultation before a sale would even be considered. The minister wrote back that MTS would not be sold without broad, public consultation. We have a letter to that effect, and yet two weeks later MTS was for sale, so there is obviously an issue of credibility here or, perhaps better put, lack of credibility.
Even if this government rides roughshod over the wishes of the people regarding MTS, we on this side of the house have gone out of our way to consult the people in Manitoba about the future of their telephone company, a company incidentally that they have owned for almost 90 years, a company that has given them good service over the years, a publicly owned Crown company, Crown corporation, and that Manitobans have no wish to sell. Manitobans have sent us, this side of the House, thousands and thousands of ballots on which they indicated that well over 90 percent of Manitobans wished to keep MTS as a Crown corporation. They want it under public control. That is their wish.
That is a fact, Madam Speaker. If you ask any large group of Manitobans to
choose whether they want to keep MTS publicly or sell it, well over 90 percent
will choose and, in fact, many have chosen to keep it publicly owned. The
people of
Now, I know that the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) talks about explosion of technology and that 70 percent of the MTS revenue base is under competition, and that is true, and that CRTC is continuing to open up the marketplace to a further, future and cutthroat competition, but that argument cuts little ice with many Manitobans, especially those in northern and rural Manitoba.
These Manitobans see telephone service as an essential service and are not
about to see their service priced out of the market merely to humour an
illogical whim of the Tory government faithfully following the
Now, if you live in
In some of those remote communities I have just mentioned, the telephone can be the life link to medical services. To deprive people of this link will lead to unnecessary suffering. Senior citizens, people on social assistance, may not be able to afford basic telephone service if those rates are going to skyrocket. Many people in Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake and Snow Lake cannot afford or can ill afford the additional $31.38 it would cost to cover the real monthly service costs, and for people in Cranberry Portage, the additional costs would be $35.80. For Flin Flon, the additional monthly cost would be $31.57.
The real cost for basic telephone service, if totally passed on to telephone
users in rural and northern
Bottom line and marketplace realities do exist, Madam Speaker. They do exist,
but the need to give basic telephone service to as many Manitobans as possible
is also a reality, and the irony may well be that those who need the telephone
the most may be the ones least able to afford it. That is also a reality in
northern
* (1720)
There are already grave concerns that MTS has lost too many jobs. There were 4,805 employees working for MTS as of December 31, 1990. Five years later, as of December 31, 1995, there were only 3,956 employees working for MTS. That is a drop of 849 employees. That massive downsizing can only continue to grow under privatization. I can only imagine what it does to the moral of workers.
Now, despite the government's claim that the
proposed sale of MTS will put Manitobans first, we on this side of the House
are not convinced. Supposedly the MTS head office will stay in
In the May 31 government news release, the Minister responsible for MTS is
quoted as saying, and I will quote the minister: "This legislation is
important for Manitobans since it allows them the opportunity to continue
controlling MTS. As well, it is the foundation upon which the new MTS--Manitoba
Telecom Services Inc.--will build a future that I believe will be just as
strong as its past."
Now, those are the minister's own words. Those are fine words, Madam
Speaker, allowing Manitobans to control a company they already own. Special
share offerings may put Manitobans first theoretically, but as in
So we are expected to believe it is progress to move from a telephone system that is now 100 percent owned by the people to one that is possibly 10 percent owned by the people, and possibly the richer people, nor am I comforted by the proposal that the maximum share holdings for residents and nonresidents or persons or groups of associated persons be restricted to 15 percent.
The control will move into fewer hands, and the direction will be more profits, not necessarily better service. The vast majority of Manitobans will be shareholders in name only, and this is particularly ironic now that MTS is doing well. In fact, the net earnings for the six-month period ending June 30, 1996, as my honourable colleague for Thompson pointed out, was $15,510,000, up almost $9 million for the same period last year, and we are very happy with that, which is one more reason for not selling it.
It is true that there is a large long-term debt for MTS, but much of the
debt was incurred in modernizing the service, bringing service to remote areas
of this province, so it is not bad debt. The serious question we have on this
side of the House is, will the privatized MTS be willing to incur major debts
in the future to upgrade equipment and services for all regions of
What is likely to happen, Madam Speaker, is that Bill 67, as a reflection of what is already happening in the transportation sector, rationalized similar changes in the communications sector. As privatized railroads, owners of railroads, like CN and CP, walk away from their moral obligations to keep railroads alive in rural, remote and northern regions, so will privatized telephone companies gravitate to where the population and the money is, and that leaves us in the North high and dry.
Yes, MTS subsidizes the rates that northern and rural Manitobans pay for telephone service, but this equalizing effect is not a bad thing. Telephones are not a luxury in this country. They are in some countries, but in this country they are a necessity. Seniors tell us how important telephone service is for them, not just for medical reasons to phone a nurse or a doctor, but for morale reasons, for psychological reasons. How else could elderly citizens stay in touch with their children who may well be scattered all across this vast country?
Bill 67 will result in a privatized system that will put telephone service
out of reach for some senior citizens. The system then exists to generate
profits for shareholders, not provide cheap accessible service to seniors or
people on fixed income or people on social assistance. There no longer will be
a mandate to keep telephone rates affordable for all Manitobans. We know that.
We know that under a privatized telephone system the rates will increase
dramatically. It happened in
Privatized telephone companies want full cost recovery plus. As is the trend
now in the transportation system in this country, that will inevitably mean
user-pay systems. The trouble with user-pay systems is that they might make
sense in a narrow bottom-line world but do not necessarily make sense if a
wider view is adopted. For example, it might make sense for CN to abandon the
Sherridon line, and it does make sense for their bottom line, but it does not
make economic sense for the people in northwest
What happened to the old-fashioned notion that citizens of this province, regardless of whether they live in the isolated North or in the crowded cities of the south, and I include Winnipeg here, should have more or less equal access to communication and transportation systems? That is how this country was created, Madam Speaker. If we deviate from this pattern, then we are prone to create a Canada where we rationalize as normal the creation of two Canadas or two Manitobas, one for the rich, one for the rest, or one system for the heavily populated areas of the south and another system for the less populated areas, the rural areas or the northern areas.
Madam Speaker, MTS has not failed us; this government has failed MTS. It is
for ideological reasons that this government wishes to sell MTS. They have no
mandate to do so. It was never raised as an issue during the election, and
although it is true that governments are elected to act and sometimes to make
difficult or tough decisions, that is true, Bill 67 was not a decision that
needed to be made at this time. The public did not press for these changes. In
fact, 90 percent of the public do not agree with these changes. There was
virtually no public discussion about the pros and cons of privatizing a
telephone company that is already owned by the people of
An Honourable Member: No, they do not. A lot of them do not believe it.
Mr. Jennissen: Well, my honourable colleague says that many of the backbenchers do not believe it either, and he is probably correct. However, it is not an opinion that I share or the people on this side of the House share.
In fact, if it were by some quirk of fate true that most Manitobans were in favour of privatizing MTS, then it would have been a major plank in the Tory election platform, because they surely run on gung ho issues that press all the hot buttons at the right time, and if 90 percent of the people were in favour of saving the Jets or if 90 percent of the people were in favour of saving MTS through privatization, they--
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Flin Flon will have 14 minutes remaining.
The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).
.