Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

On March 1 of 1996, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) sent the proposed amendments and changes to The Labour Relations Act to the Labour Management Review Committee. The Labour Management Review Committee, which reported to the minister on April 24, produced a number of recommendations that came about as a result of a series of meetings with business and labour representatives, a series of consensus recommendations to the government to have balance as a way of achieving the amendments to The Labour Relations Act.

I would like to ask the Premier today, why have they rejected the advice of Professor Fox-Decent and why have they not proceeded with consensus and balance, rather than the unilateral, autocratic way that the Conservative government is proceeding under The Labour Relations Act?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, one of the curses of being in this Legislature for a long time is you tend to remember what went on in previous administrations. I remember full well the debates that occurred here when the late Mary Beth Dolin was the Minister of Labour and she brought in changes that brought in things like first contract legislation and final offer selection legislation. Those and many other changes that she brought were not endorsed by the Labour Management Review Committee, so this is not certainly a departure from what has happened in the past with respect to the recommendations of the Labour Management Review Committee.

* (1355)

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the business and labour representatives of this committee that arrived at a consensus and produced a report, a consensus report, to this government have suggested that representatives of the committee meet with the Minister of Labour to discuss how they arrived at the consensus, how they arrived at the balance, how they arrived at a harmonious set of recommendations to move Manitoba into the 21st Century.

Has the Premier or the Minister of Labour met with those representatives of business and labour to look at those proposed changes, and why will they not work in a harmonious way with both business and labour representatives as recommended by Professor Fox-Decent?

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I have remained open to any suggestions. In fact, I have met with members of the business community who chose to meet with me. In respect to the labour representatives, specifically the MFL, they indicated that they would not meet with me to discuss those issues in that bill.

I might point out, Madam Speaker, the thrust of these amendments, without getting into the details, perhaps indicates why there is another party involved here, and that is the party of simply the individual employee who is affected by unions and employers. This is not simply a question of the opinion of employers and unions; this is a question of employee rights within the union, and so we listened to those employees.

Many dozens, if not hundreds, of employees have approached me in that respect and we have listened to them and consulted with them.

Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we have witnessed the way this Minister of Labour has dealt with employees in the past, either do it this way or be another seven days on strike. He does not exactly have a leadership position in working with working people in terms of his style of listening.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): A final question to the Premier: Last week the Catholic bishops, in speaking to the horrendous child poverty in Canada, talked about child poverty in terms of being child abuse across this country, recommended that Christians revitalize the labour movement because it is the role in generating higher wages and improving working conditions that will eventually in our society deal with and help child poverty.

Would the Premier like to inform Manitobans how he is revitalizing the labour movement with his backward amendments to The Labour Relations Act that are before this Legislature today?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, having an active participation by knowledgeable workers and employees in the decisions that are made by their unions on their behalf is the greatest way of revitalizing the union movement, making them more democratic, making them able to better represent the views of the employees instead of holding them as chattels. That is the greatest way in which we can revitalize the labour movement in Manitoba, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, Manitoba is very near to breaking the unenviable record for the most number of days lost to workplace strike and lockout. For over six months, 205 members of the retail/wholesale division of the Steelworkers have been on strike against Westfair Foods. The main issue is full-time jobs versus the company's desire for only part-time employees.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour to explain why he has let conciliation drag on for so long and has not appointed a mediator to step in to resolve the remaining issue, as has been requested by the union on October 3.

Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): When the brother-in-law of the Leader of the Opposition phoned me a few weeks ago to raise this matter to my attention, I said I would look into the matter. I discussed this with members of my department. There are conciliation officers working with that particular union, but this particular case presents certain challenges. For example, the only operation that is still operating, where the company is still operating, 92 percent of the workers have crossed the line, and so it is a very difficult situation. My advice from my officials is that mediation would not resolve this particular situation.

* (1400)

Mr. Reid: Madam Speaker, my question for the same minister: Since 86 percent of the employees have rejected the company's offer and there are only 15 employees who have crossed the picket line, can this minister explain his refusal to appoint mediators, when in 1993, during the North West Company lockout in Pine Falls, the then-Minister of Labour, in his own constituency and upon the request from the union, appointed Professor Wally Fox-Decent as a mediator to step in and resolve the 11 outstanding issues?

Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, each of these situations has to be looked at individually. We do not simply have the luxury of saying, well, it is a strike, therefore, this is the course of action that we take. Each situation must be looked at very carefully, and the best advice that I have received from my officials is that mediation would not be successful in this particular case.

Mr. Reid: Well, then I want to pose my final supplementary to the Premier.

Will the Premier explain how it is fair, once again, for his government to use a double standard of labour relations when one Minister of Labour under this Premier's leadership can appoint a mediator to solve a dispute in his own constituency, and now we have a Minister of Labour, a different Minister of Labour, saying that, for the same union that is involved in this lockout, he will not appoint a mediator?

How is it the Premier can explain the double standards that he has between his two Ministers of Labour?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, if there was an automatic same solution for every single issue, then there would be an automatic requirement to have the appointment of a mediator. There is not an automatic requirement because there is the intention that the leadership of the Department of Labour and the minister would evaluate every situation on a case-by-case basis and judge whether or not there is a probability of success in the appointment of a mediator.

If it were just an automatic and every one was exactly the same, then there would be no need for judgment on the part of Ministers of Labour, and that is precisely why the requirements of the law are as they are, and they require the individual judgment on the individual case by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the situation at Holiday Haven personal care home is far worse than dealing with just one or two individual complaints. In fact, the situation is so bad that it requires an extensive investigation, a very open and broad investigation, by either the department or an outside agency.

Can the minister today outline what steps his department has taken to deal with the investigation and to deal with protecting the residents of Holiday Haven Nursing Home?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, Manitoba Health has requested documentation from the Public Trustee and the Deer Lodge Centre and has followed up on the issues with the owners of the facility. There were visits by Manitoba Health on October 3 and October 21 of this year, and the facility was asked to develop a plan to deal with the areas of concern which arose from those visits, areas such as nursing care management, staff attitudes, physical environment and the perception of the home in the minds of the public and by home care staff.

They were also asked to hire a consultant to assist them in developing and implementing the plan. The plan for improvements is to be submitted to Manitoba Health by November 20 of this year, and the owners are to report back within a week on their arrangements with a consultant to assist in solving the issues that have been made known.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): I thank the minister for that response and for indicating to the House that there is some follow-up that is taking place. Can the minister therefore explain to me why the management of the home are suing or threatening to sue employees and former employees and anyone that talks about the situation, and will the minister outline for us what steps he can take to protect those individuals so they can tell their stories so improvements can be made?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): The honourable member has legal background, Madam Speaker, and knows that anybody can sue anybody for almost anything. The likelihood of success is another matter, which is a matter which is properly in front of the courts when a lawsuit is filed. There is nothing that anybody can do to prevent someone from exercising their legal rights in our country.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Will the minister give assurances to this House that an investigation will be ongoing to include families of past patients and families of present patients to review their situations because we see as recently as today's paper, families of past patients saying things like, at the home it was not unusual to see residents soaking wet or soiled clothing, et cetera? Will the minister ensure there is an ongoing investigation that includes families of past patients and present patients at Holiday Haven?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): It is very important to ensure that conditions in our personal care homes throughout the province meet the standards that are required of them. When there are problems in regard to that, then it is the responsibility of Manitoba Health to ensure compliance with the standards and the rules that there are. In the case referred to by the honourable member, any shortcomings that have been found to exist are being actively addressed at this present time.

If the honourable member wishes to share with Manitoba Health information that has come to his attention, we would be pleased to receive that information.

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): My questions are for the Minister of Natural Resources.

From March of 1995 till March of 1996 the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources submitted expense accounts to the tune of $11,500, $7,300 of which are for restaurant, liquor and lounge expenses; $4,800 was spent in Winnipeg at places like Rae and Jerry's and Hy's Steak Loft and at various lounges and local liquor commissions.

Can the minister explain how over 70 visits to Winnipeg's restaurants, lounges, liquor commissions, including 15 visits to Rae and Jerry's and five visits to Hy's Steak house, counts as necessary expenses while travelling in the service of Manitoba?

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, my deputy minister, Dave Tomasson, has been with the government over a period of time of, I think, 19 some-odd-plus years as director within the government at times and has been the deputy minister in government now for going on nine years. He is a man with integrity. I do not have to justify his expenses. Basically I think that--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Natural Resources, to complete his response.

Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, my deputy minister is my administrator of the department, of a substantive department. We have up to 2,500 employees in there. Basically my department affects people in all walks of life, whether it is the resource end of it, whether it is the water end of it, whether it is the forestry end of it. He meets with many of the people, as I as the minister meet many people in my office; he meets plenty of people outside of the office and that is part of the responsibility that I consider as the normal operations for a deputy minister.

Mr. Struthers: So much for accountability in this department.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin was recognized for a supplementary question that requires no preamble or postamble.

Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, can the minister, who has to justify to Manitobans because he is the one who signs these claims, explain why he approved claims close to $700 for his deputy minister's trips to the liquor store, including one bill for $321.21?

Mr. Driedger: Madam Speaker, that portion of the question I will take as notice. However, I would rather see my deputy minister, when he is out having meetings with people that he deals with, that he pick up the bill than have somebody else in the private sector pick up the bill and then be accused of having been unduly influenced by taking and being bribed on something.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin, with a final supplementary question.

* (1410)

Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, did this minister approve these exorbitant liquor and restaurant expenses because of the large political contribution this deputy minister made to the Conservative Party?

Mr. Driedger: No, Madam Speaker, but I might also say that I do not go and check exactly to which party he contributes to, but I would hope if he is my deputy that he would be contributing to the Conservative Party if he does.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Natural Resources, to complete his response.

Mr. Driedger: Further to that, I have never made it a point to go through item by item the areas of expenses that my deputy basically puts forward. I have the confidence in the administrative ability of that individual that if he brings forward anything, I feel that he conscientiously feels it is proper to do that.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for MTS. I will take the high road; I will not make allegations here.

Yesterday, I asked the minister about a company called MG Communications. The minister was kind enough to inform the House that MG Communications had formed a strategic alliance with MTS, but I have also been told that Faneuil now buys its long-distance time from MG Communications, along with a company called P R Response (West) Inc.

If MG Communications was created to expand the call centre business in Manitoba, can the minister explain why a U.S. company called Market U.S.A., with its Canadian subsidiary called Marusa, is also a customer of MG Communications?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, MG Communications is a company that purchases bulk time at tariff rates from MTS and then resells it to companies at a rate that makes it attractive for those companies to locate in Manitoba and do business from Manitoba. That is the purpose of the company, to create an opportunity for jobs in Manitoba, which, as part of the package, leads to over 84 customer-service call centre businesses in Manitoba employing over 5,000 Manitobans.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, to the same minister: If the purpose of Faneuil was to increase long-distance traffic for MTS, why is Faneuil now buying long-distance time from MG Communications at the discount rate?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I have already indicated in the previous question, they buy the bulk time at tariff rates from Manitoba Telephone System.

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Since MTS is soon to be privatized, will the minister table in this House a list of all strategic alliances that MTS has entered into with other private companies?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I will endeavour to get a list of those kinds of companies and activities that MTS is involved in, provided it does not violate any confidentiality aspects.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, I was quite surprised at the answers we received and the lack of accountability we received from the minister in terms of the deputy minister's expenses for the '95 and '96 year. This is a government that is preaching restraint to everybody. This is a government that cut the baby allowances for children under one year of age by 24 percent, yet we have deputy ministers eating and drinking all across restaurants here in the city of Winnipeg.

I would like to ask the Premier, does he find this standard of expense-filing by his deputy minister and his answers by his minister acceptable in terms of the standard he is allegedly setting in terms of everybody pulling their weight in these so-called difficult times?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this government needs no admonishment about expenditures from the likes of the members opposite. We have examples that are current right now of their former members and former bureaucrats who today in British Columbia are spending $65,000 a year in expenses, and they had those same appetites for expenditure of public money when they were here. Ministers, deputies and all of their senior officials spent far more than anybody in this government ever has. The finest restaurants in Manitoba, the finest places to stay in Manitoba and the hugest expenditures were made by those members when they were in government and we need none of their hypocrisy.

Mr. Doer: I assume that tirade was a defence of the minister and the deputy minister in terms of their expenses. Obviously the Premier is defending the filing of liquor commission receipts and fine restaurant receipts all across this province, in the city of Winnipeg, I should say, in terms of the expenditures by a deputy minister. This is a time when we cannot even afford to have young people working at the park gates in terms of our provincial parks across Manitoba.

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, there was a similar situation I can recall when the CEO of MPIC under our administration, a number of concerns were raised about his expenses and lack of judgment about his expenses and we referred that matter to the Provincial Auditor and the individual was fired after that by the previous government.

Will the Premier now, if he cannot accept any responsibility for looking at these bills, which I thought he would do in the question we posed, refer this matter to the Provincial Auditor to demonstrate whether in fact proper judgment was used in the filing and approval of these expenditures that we have for the Deputy Minister of Natural Resources?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Under these incompetent people opposite, they authorized the CEO of Manfor, a Crown-owned corporation, to be able to travel back and forth every weekend to Montreal, to have a $10,000 membership at the biggest golf course in Montreal and to file claims that were closer to $100,000 than they were to $10,000 a year, and they approved it.

Madam Speaker, the reason why we continue to have to be careful in the expenditure of money is because we spend over $600 million a year of interest on the debt that they developed because of their spending habits.

* (1420)

Mr. Doer: I recall the Premier stating before that some inappropriate filings by the former CEO of MPIC was morally bankrupt and it led to moral degradation.

Madam Speaker, I just asked the Premier a very simple question. The Provincial Auditor stated that the CEO of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation had shown bad judgment, and we had in turn dismissed him.

Will the Premier file these expense accounts with the Provincial Auditor so an independent review could determine whether bad judgment was used by the deputy minister and the minister in approving those expenses, so that we can ensure we do not have a double standard here in this province in terms of the citizens of this province versus the senior executive of the Filmon government?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the former Clerk of the Executive Council under Howard Pawley was shown to have spent $90,000 when he was operating in a similar role for the Province of Ontario--$90,000 a year. A former minister of that NDP government spent $65,000 the year before last in expenditures on behalf of the B.C. government. When they were in government, they authorized expenditures for a CEO that they hired at Manfor of almost $100,000 a year. Those are the kinds of expenditures that they authorize and that is the kind of hypocrisy that they show every day in this House.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, while we are dealing with the lifestyles of the rich and famous, I want to return to some questions about the Manitoba Telephone System and our three investment bankers, part of the MTS financial advisory group that is now going to be benefiting from the up to $25 million of commissions, something that the Premier also does not seem to see any problems with in terms of conflict of interest.

I would like to ask the Premier how much the MTS financial advisory group was paid to do the report which he used in his very extensive two-day decision-making process to make the decision to sell off MTS.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I will say, firstly, that in the course of their investigations, obviously the various firms that were doing the assessment did report to us periodically on an interim basis and, in fact, had met with cabinet prior to our receiving the final report, so clearly we knew and understood what would be in the final report and we had an understanding of the issues that we were dealing with.

I will take the specifics of the question that the member opposite has presented to us and I will report back to him on it, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Now we are getting some further information on this. I am wondering if the minister will care to table this extensive reporting process that he referred to in Hansard yesterday and the day before, when we know that MTS did not do a single study; they have confirmed that. What other studies were done, if any, on this major decision that he then made, based on the final report, in two days?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the member opposite to repeat the question.

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, to repeat his supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, since the Premier is now trying to say that there was some earlier consideration of this report and since he is on the record as saying that there was an extensive consultation that took place and since we know MTS--I mentioned about MTS, too--that there was no study done within MTS, I am wondering what other documentation that Premier has, if any, in regard to MTS and whether he will now table that information so we will find out what the decision was based on.

Mr. Filmon: What I indicated previously was that things that are known, firstly, MTS operates in the field of the most rapidly changing technology in the world's economy today, that is No.1, so there is a huge risk involved in that. Number 2, any system that involves government ownership and government decision making involves a very long and bureaucratic process in which decisions are made, and so if MTS were faced with a situation that it had to make an investment decision in the hundreds of millions of dollars to get into an area of market opportunity in which it is in competition, in direct competition with the private sector--[interjection]

Madam Speaker, if the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) would quit attempting to harass me and let me--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that, through common courtesy when a member has been recognized, only that member should indeed be entitled to have his or her comments on the record.

The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I think the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has derailed my train of thought, but I will try and get back to it. [interjection] No, I did not mean harassment in that sense, Becky.

Because it is in the field of the most rapidly changing technology in today's economy and decisions that may involve hundred-million-dollar investments in order for it to continue to keep up with its competition in the private sector, all of these things may require months and months, if not a year, for decisions in judgments. That is not the kind of management, that is not the kind of ownership circumstances that you could expect to be productive for the Manitoba Telephone System. So you have all of these circumstances, an $800-million debt, the largest debt-equity ratio, the highest debt-equity ratio in Canada of any of the telephone systems, the inability to make decisions quickly in a field of rapidly changing technology, the risk involved with 70 percent of its revenues in competition with the private sector, all of these things dictate that we have to look at it differently.

When the Crown Corporations Council indicated to us that it was the highest-risk Crown corporation that we had within our jurisdiction, it obviously caused us to take a look at it from all these points of view and to make our decision. We made our decision, Madam Speaker, with all of the information available to us.

* (1430)

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a final supplementary question.

Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I will try one more time, because on October 21--and we are not talking about broken election promises--

Madam Speaker: Question.

Mr. Ashton: When will the Premier indicate and table what the basis of his response was when he said the government listened to many, many different people and undertook analysis of a whole variety of different perspectives? When will he tell the truth in the fact that the only people they listened to were the three investment bankers that they paid to do the study and are now going to benefit from the sale of MTS?

Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, that is patent nonsense. As I said, the first red flag of warning came from the Crown Corporations Council when it said this is the highest-risk corporation that you have under your control because of all of these reasons that I have just listed. That--

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to complete his response.

Mr. Filmon: Obviously, that and the other information that was available to us, as it would be to members opposite if they looked beyond the borders of this province, if they decided to read a little bit about what is happening in the rest of the world, if they understood a little bit about the pressures that are developing in telecommunications or the rapidly changing technology--if they understood any of that, Madam Speaker, they would understand that there is plenty of information available on which one can arrive at a conclusion.

What we needed, obviously, from the investment bankers was to know whether or not we could get a fair price for the corporation before we made the decision to go ahead with the privatization, and under that circumstance, we became convinced that we could get a fair price for the people of Manitoba and that is precisely why we are going ahead with it.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.