Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature

of the

Legislative Assembly of

DEBATES

and PROCEEDINGS

(Hansard)

Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker

Vol. XLVI No. 86A- 1:30 p.m., Monday, November 25, 1996

ISSN 0542-5492 MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature

Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation

Name Constitnencr �!art>' ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C. EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATH LIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Ross mere P.C. P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P. 5207

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, November 25, 1996

The Bouse met at 1:30 p.m. In fact, it was George Bain, a respected Canadian political observer, who made a warning about the growing power of theexecutive, thecabinet, when he said PRAYERS that this power is accountable for the use of more and more drastic measures-the 1983 shutdown of the MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Canadian House of Commons while the bells rang, for notable example-to focus attention. It has become the Rules Interpretation case that only ifa generally torpid public opinion can somehow be galvanized is there a hope that the gross Mr. (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, disproportion of executive power can be redressed. I rise on a matter of privilege.

Speaker Walding specifically, back in 1984, ruled, Today, I rise on a matter of privilege further to a contraryto the wishes of individuals in his political party, decision made by the Chair in this House on Thursday, contrary to the wishes of individuals who were and events that led up to that decision by yourself. I am responsible for his appointment to the Speakership, raising this at the earliest opportunity which is the first disregarding the demands from the front bench, from the time we have met since the decision and the matter of House leader of the day, and concluded-when he was privilege that was raised on Thursday. asked to turn off the bells that were ringing and ringing and ringing, he said there is no right of government that The matter of privilege that is being raised is based on would see its proposed legislation enacted. There are the most fundamental precept and underpinning of numerousexamples of government bills introduced to the parliamentary democracy. It is no less, in paragraph 1 of House and not proceeding into legislation. He then Beauchesne, where it states, the principles that lie at the replied to a written request by the Premier of the day basis of English parliamentarylaw have always been kept asking that he limit the bell ringing. He said, the rules steadily in view by the Canadian Parliament. These are and procedures of the Legislature are well known and "to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or well established. They constitute a clear set of tyranny of a majority ...." procedures which the House expects to be enforced by its Speaker with fairness and impartiality. Those words have been echoed in this Chamber many times, and it is strange that it is in this Chamber, of all Speaker Walding went on. He said: Since the House the chambers throughout parliamentary democracies of is close to effecting a change in its rules, I am surprised the world, where the Manitoba public and the legislators that you, Mr. Premier, would request that I contravene the here have been faced with some of the most dramatic existing rules and procedures at this time. Any unilateral events, whether it be the bell ringing crisis, the French action on my part could only be a betrayal of the language crisisas it was called or the Meech Lake crisis, impartiality of the Chair and would seriously undermine for example. the integrity of the Speakership.

A precedent has been established in this House that is * (1335) applicable throughout the modern world in parliamentary democracies. I refer specifically to rulings by Speaker I was thinking yesterday how many millions and Walding and Speaker Rocan, Speakers who recognized millions and millions of people we have on this earth, what Eugene Forsey reminds us of, that Parliament is not how people are just passing through and very few a mere creature of the cabinet, deliberating only when for individuals who come into being have a role to play that so long and under such conditions as the cabinet thinks will have meaning in futureyears, let alone generations. fit, pronouncing or not pronouncing judgment as the Once in a while, individuals indeed are given a rare cabinet may choose. opportunity to serve their community, to serve the 5208 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

institutions that have proven to serve us well. You, Manitoba v.ill be amended as soon as possible to Madam Speaker, are one of those. I ask you to reflect on encompass the following changes." What the your decision of Thursdaylast, but I think it is a time that memorandum of understanding's role was, was simply to we also reflectas members of this House and particularly say, here are some ideas; let us go and put these into the members of the government reflect on what took place. rules. Once the rules were put into effect, the memorandumof understandinglived no longer. There is It is our belief that what took place on Thursday was no memorandum of understanding. the Chair not merely filling a gap in rules. You made a ruling and in your ruling you are required to set forth There are now rules of the House that were agreed to authority. You failed to do so, any authority that was on by the rules committee in March, several months after point. You cited rulinga by Speaker Fraser of the House this memorandum was concluded, and which were of Commons bearing on nothing that is before this subsequentlyagreed to by members of this House. From House. The circumstances were entirely different, but the time of the memorandum of understanding to the you seem to be relying on his words, which include the adoptionof the new rules, there were significant changes following: The House is nevertheless facing an impasse in how the ideas were to be expressed. One of the most which it· has been unable to resolve for itself When obvious was that, while the memorandum of circumstances change and the rules of procedure provide understanding said all bills so introduced will proceed to no solution, the Chair must fall back on its discretion, a voteon thirdreading and royal assent not later than the and so on. If those are the conditions precedent for the final day of the fall sitting, words to that effect are not Speakerdoing as you did, those conditions were not met found in the rules. in this Chamber. I asked Madam Speaker what impasse this House was facing. You did not address that There * (1340) are many options auilable to the goYernment in the circumstances. First of all. I noticed that Speaker Now. Madam Speaker, I, as one member of this W aiding w·hen the bells were ringing sununoned the Assembly, am entitled to rely on these rules, as are my House leaders to his office to attempt a resolution of the constituents. The rules were agreed to by the House matter. Even such a self-evident attempted solution was leader personally, by the members opposite, by the never pursued. Premier (Mr. Filmon). I am entitled to rely on the rules. What does the rule say? Rule I 02 says very clearly that But I now want to enumerate what options were all government bills v.ill normally-normally-receive a available to the members of the government and to you vote on third readingoot later than the fall sittings of that and what must have been considered before you made session. It does not say that there shall be third reading. that terrible ruling on Thursday. Very briefly, there was It said, will, which is not mandatory. It does not say all a memorandum of understanding entered into by the will receive a vote on third reading and royal assent. It House leaders in this Chamber. The memorandum of just says, normally. understandingwas datedin Decemberof 1995 and I often hear people-and I think it was last Thursday-talking Well, it is interesting. I believe it was just two weeks about an agreement that has been broken. Well, ifthe ago thatyou gave effectto the word "normally" when you memorandum of understanding is what was being said that the House did not finish its deliberations after referred to, that memorandum of understanding is no eight weeks, because the word "normally" is usedin the longer applicable to the members of this House. This is section saying, the House will normally sit eight weeks. no longer in force. Why is it that shortly, a few days later, you did not give effect to the word "normally." We are not in a normal The memorandum of understanding is no longer in situation, and you know that and you said so in your force because the government made sure of that, because ruling with regard to the eight-week session. in the memorandum in the preamble it states: "It is herein agreed between the Government of Manitoba and Whatdid thegov ernment want? It wanted that section the Members of the Opposition, that the rules and written in there that normally all third readings will be procedures governing theoperation of the Legislature of held thelast dayof the fall sittings. In exchange for their November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5209

right to continuethe session on a simple notice of motion, People oftenthink that they are electing a government, they specifically insisted on the rules being drafted to but they are not. They are electing a Legislature. A allow them tosit beyondthe normal fall sittings. Why is Legislature is not accountable to the government. It is that? Because theyknow that thingsare not oftennormal theother wayaround. The government continues only so in this House. They know that they were bringing in long as it has the confidence and support of the controversial legislation, I suspect, and they wanted to Legislature, and theLegislature is given certain tools in preserve that right. So what have you done, Madam order to check the power of the executive and thecabinet Speaker? You threwout Rule 102. You have supplanted to make sure there is not tyranny and dictatorship. What and in fact abrogated a rule, and not just one, I suggest. thegovernment did last week and what you ruled, Madam Speaker, has eroded those tools, taken those tools away from the public of Manitoba. It has detracted from our Now the government has not come to the opposition ability to make the government accountable to the people seeking an agreement. Not once did they come to this through the members of this Chamber. side saying, hey, we have some very controversial legislation before this House and we have time . What happened last week, Madam Speaker, is an constraints that we are concerned about because we, after ominous sign of a new power of the Speakership only in all, are minions of the marketplace and we have to get the province of Manitoba in Canada, because how can we this bill ready for all our friendly stockbrokers. They did now rest assured that the Speaker will respect the rights not do so. As I said, they did not seek an extension of the of the minority, because as I said, not only have you not sittings. had a gap, there were rules fully in place that covered all the situations, but you supplanted the rules and made up Madam Speaker, the government did not move closure. rules of your own and the government sadly requested It is not unprecedented that closure be moved in this that you do so. Legislature. In 1929 it was moved and again, many, many years later but recently during the French language In the future, how can we rely on the rules to which we crisis, it was moved I believe not just once but twice. are entitled to rely on? How can we ever again trust the office of Speakership unless this ruling is expunged? They have the option of the previous question, a form of closure. They have the option of speed-up, something It has often be said, but I think we must reiterate-and that was brought in every year in this House till about 10 it was said on Thursday by the opposition House years ago. In fact, the government can move a motion to leader-the Speaker is the servant of the House, not its change how the House conducts its business in any way master. You are here to enforce the rules and procedures it sees fit. It can restrict debate in any way it sees fit. It established by the members. No one has given the canhave sittings anytime. It could start it at midnight if Speaker the authority to make rules up, especially when it wanted on an ordinary motion and the majority vote of they contravene not just what happened in Erskine May this House. These rules are not the Constitution. They in Britain, not just what is in Beauchesne, but what is in can be varied by simple motion. our own rule book It is only the House that has the right to determine its procedures and ensure the functions.

But what did it do? It did something heinous. It put You know, Jeanne Sauve, the former Speaker of the you, Madam Speaker, in a position where your oath has House of Commons, was one of the first ones in modern been violated and where you, in that chance in your day to have to face the serious difficulty of reconciling lifetime, that rare opportunity to continue to pass on to bell ringing, and I think it was well put. Philip Laundy, future generations a system of government that protects the former table officer in Ottawa, once argued: A the rights of minority, put you in a position of breaching discussion of the Speaker's impartiality normally lays your place in history, of abrogating your responsibilities stress on his duty or her duty to protect the rights of to the members and to the people of Manitoba. minorities. This is a duty of which no Speaker can ever lose sight, but impartiality also implies a regard for the * (1345) rights of the majority as well as minorities, and in a 5210 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

modernParliament no Speaker can ignore the claims of matter and one that ought not to often appear in a a hard-pressed government striving to achieve its Legislative Assembly. While the member for St. Johns legislative program. has brought forward a matter of privilege not substantially different from that of the member for Certainly, Madam Speaker, you took that fully into Thompson last Thursday, nonetheless it is a very serious view. But then what did Madam Sauve respond? Did matter and one that should not be considered lightly. she do as you did? She acknowledged that she was obliged to protect the minority against oppression and, Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns, I do not indeed, to protect the majority against obstruction. She believe, has made any kind of a prima facie case at all admitted, however, she could not turn the bells off, with respect to a matter of privilege, but nonetheless I because she could do nothing to reconcile those two would like to comment on a few of the things that he obligations and still remain impartial. raised here.

Madam Speaker, as a result of the situation you were He indicated, firstof all, Madam Speaker, with respect put in and the expectations you had of your office and to Beauchesne Citation 1, to protect a minority and to neglect of what your oath required of you which you restrain the impro\'idence of a majority. I refer him agreed to, this institution has been undermined. It has to the very next words in Beauchesne Citation 1, "to not just been undermined since last Thursday up until secure the transaction of public business in an orderly whenever. It has been undermined seriously, perhaps in manner . . . . " That also is a principle of Canadian perpetuity. parliamentary law.

* (1350) Madam Speaker, he referred also to Speaker Walding, particularly in the 1983 French language debates where The government, I am sad to say, I believe perceives he cited that Speaker Walding told the then-Premier of this Legislature as a mere inconvenience to its exercise of the day he would not contravene the rules, and that is power, and because of the legislation that is before this exactly as he should have. However, in this case it is not House and which has led to this dire situation, it has contravening the rules; it is enforcing the rules. It is shown, I think, to Manitobans just how powerful are the enforcing a rule that every member of this House voted forces of Bay and Wall Streets because they have now got on back on April 2, 1996. We agreed collectively and we their sticky fingers on the very tenets of parliamentary all knew what the principles were behind that, democracy. notwithstanding the fact that the memorandum of understanding was supplanted by the rule. The fact of the So, Madam Speaker, in light of this threat, in light of matter is we all knew what the principles were behind it: the difficulties that each member of this Chamber will introduce legislation in the spring; vote on it in the fall. have-and I warn the members opposite that they are in That was the principle. The trade-off, as it were, to government only temporarily, and this ruling and the provide for early notice of legislation, because situation you were put in also threatens their ability some historically, prior to that, bills were introduced and in a day. We believe that there should be a rethinking of what matter of two or three weeks were at third reading stage. has gone terribly amiss and that members of this House have something much greater to uphold, have something * (1355) much greater to attainthan see a particular bill pass in an undemocratic and, I would suggest, illegal way. We, Madam Speaker, in that agreement said, we will introduce all of our legislation in the spring. It was all I therefore move, seconded by the member for introduced prior to June 6. There were several months Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that this matter be referred to available then to the public, members of the opposition the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. and others to review that legislation so that when the House reswned itsfall sitting, everyone would have a fair Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): understanding, everyone would have had the opportunity Madam Speaker,a question of privilege is a very serious to consult with whomever they wished in order to November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5211

understand, inorder to get opinion, in order to determine number of discussions. Several of those bills passed in how they would address the debate on that particular thespring sitting becauseof an agreement by all members piece of legislation or, for that matter, all pieces of of the House who felt it was important to pass those legislation that were introduced there. But the rules are early. MadamSpeaker, in order to expedite the business different. They are not the rules that Speaker W aiding of theHouse, what happens is that the opposition House ruled on. Madam Speaker, the ruling that you ruled on leader and myself agree each day as to the bills that the was one that was adopted by this House on April 2. membersof the oppositionwish to have called in order to debate orpass or do whatever they wish to do with those Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns (Mr. pieces of legislation, and that is a convenience that has Mackintosh) said we did not discuss this with the arisen as a result of the large legislative agenda and the opposition, this controversial piece of legislation. I can fact that there is not much point in calling every bill on think of at least six or seven occasions I raised with the theOrder Paperif they are on ly prepared to debate two or opposition House leader the question that they were not three or four of them. debating Bill 67. For the first four weeks or so of the session, Bi11 67 was not debated. We had one debate on Madam Speaker, as a matter of trying to expedite the September 16, the next on October 15. I raised the issue business of the House, normally that is what I do. The with him knowing that time was running out. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) sends me a list of opposition House leader told me that they would have the the bills he wishes to have called that day, I call those bill into committee 10 days before the November 7 bills, theyget debated, and whatever happens, happens to anticipated date of concluding and in his view that was them, but as a matter of expediting House business as plenty of time. So let them not raise the question with opposedto anything else. I did on a number of occasions respect to the fact that there was not opportunity. There encourage him to call that bill, Bill 67. I have listed was. There was also encouragement on my part on a earlier what the result of that was. number of occasions to get on with the major pieces of legislation, to get them into committee. I have told you MadamSpeaker, I think you did the appropriate thing what the reply of the opposition House leader was. in making your ruling last Thursday, when in fact you saw that there was a gap-the terminology that you used Madam Speaker, the member for St. Johns is quite in your ruling-in the rules, one where members of this right when he says that we have to rely on the rules, but House have an expectation that if they put a rule into a reliance on the rules is not just for the opposition, it is place, they have a right to expect it to be enforced. They also for the government. It is also for the members of the have a right to expect it to come forward for Liberal caucus. All of us in this House have a right to consideration and not hide behind the variety of rely on the rules and when we relyon those rules, we also procedures and other wrangles that can be brought up in have a right to expect them to be enforced. When the order to delay consideration of any piece of legislation. mechanism for enforcement of those rules is absent, I I see no prima facie case for point of privilege at all by submitted last Monday that it was in your purview to the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh). establish a way of dealing with it. It was not a question of leaving it until Thursday afternoon at three or four or ... (1400) five o'clock to determine that but also to determine it in a point so that all members of the House would have Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I, ample notice so that there would be sufficient time to do too, was wanting to put a few words on this very those things that the members of the opposition, the important motion that has been brought forward. members of the Liberal caucus want to do in their considemtionof this bill, whether it be amendments to be MadamSpeaker, in Beauchesne's, and I have used this entered into or other things. citation in the past and I will repeat it once again this afternoon, and that is Beauchesne's 33, which states that Thefact of thematter is though,that when we deal with themost fundamental privilege of theHouse as a whole this kind of legislation, very often-we had a very large is to establish rules of procedure for itself and then to legislative agenda this year, some 77 bills. We had a enforce them. 5212 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

Madam Speaker, what we all have before us is in fact that is specified in Rule 3. The member for St. Johns provisional rules which were adopted by each and every (Mr. Mackintosh) did make reference to a latter rule, I member of thisChamber. What I have seen, and tried to believe it is 103, that says, would normally pass. There sit back in as objective a fashion as I can, is a bit of an is very little doubt in my mind, in the minds of my art of politics in one sense where we have the official colleagues, that all the legislation was to indeed have opposition who was wanting to do what it could to passed. prevent the sale of MTS. Even though it was not a clear victory, forcing the government to bring in closure would Wherewe are a bit at odds is, did you act prematurely? have at least been something fairly significant because I would argue that you did act prematurely, prematurely governments in Manitoba have a tradition of not bringing in the sense that if the government this Thursday decided in closure. to introduce closure and was frustrated by the combined opposition to see the MTS privatization bill pass, then, The government has a valid argument when it argues Madam Speaker, through the interpretation of the rules, and articulates that there was an agreement in principle. you could interpret that all the legislation was to pass, I know of that, I participated in those discussions and there was an agreement by all members of this Chamber there is absolutely no doubt that there was an agreement. that every piece of legislation was to pass and the The rules were supposed to reflect what those discussions minority in thisHouse was trying to frustrate the rules or thatwe had were. Unfortunately, the rules do not reflect frustrate the process in order not to allow the government exactly what we had requested the rules to do. I cite, for to accomplish its agenda. example, within the rules it says, whether it is the throne speech, the Budget Debate, the Estimates, it has a mechanism from within the provisional rules that allows Madam Speaker, I believe that the government did not for if the time comes to an end, the agreed-upon time such use all the tools that it had at its means, in particular the as the Estimates, that all questions would then be put. motion of closure. to rush throughBill 6 7. Had they used those rules, had they exhausted the current provisional Madam Speaker, that sort of a rule was not put in place rules and then you would have come down with the for the bills. Now, was that something that was motion-or not necessarily a motion-or put the question­ overlooked? I think that many in the Chamber would and I am not too sure exactly how that would work-then argue that, yes, that in all likelihood was overlooked. I believe that you would have been right on in your Having said that, I think that it is important. You ruling. But, because you did take it upon yourself to go know, I listened to the member for St. Johns (Mr. beyond the standing orders, I think that there is some Mackintosh) articulateabout Speaker Walding. The first merit to reflecting on the ruling. thingthat came to my mind about Speaker Walding was that was under the old rules, that we are under the The fear that I have is that, even though it might sound provisional rules. as if I am being supportive to a certain degree of what the I listened andread your ruling, Madam Speaker, about New Democratic caucus is proposing, I would not go as Speaker Fraser, a very unique situation. What I take out far to say that the Speaker should be censured for this of Speaker Fraser's ruling-and that particular Speaker particular action, primarily because there is no doubt in was not censured for the decision that he made-was the mymind that, as provisional rules and the making up of . fact that at times there is a need for the Speaker to go those rules, this is a bit of a learning curve for everyone beyond the standing order. I would hazard a guess that inside this Chamber. The unfortunate thing is that we if you look at all the different Commonwealth countries, might not see these provisional rules in the future as a it would indeed be extremely rare. This is the first time direct result. I believe that Manitobans are far better where I have seen it in the in over served with these provisional rules than we were served eight years. under the old rules.

MadamSpeaker, when I look at the rules, even though So, to a certain degree, I can sympathize, but I do not the agreement was that all legislation would pass by the necessarilywith agree ruling the of the other day. Yet, on third Thursday or the last Thursday in November-and the other hand, I do not believe, Madam Speaker, that November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5213

you should be censuredfor the actions that you had taken. have was to be part of the rules, we would not have had Thank you. any otherreference to moving the previous question. We would not have reference to closure still within the rules, Mr. (Opposition House Leader): but those provisions are in the rules. So what we have Madam Speaker, I first wish to deal with the technical here is not a situation where the House made rules and question as to whetherindeed this is a matter of privilege they are being enforced; what we have now is a situation and like to echo the comments made by the member for where the Speaker has made rules at the request of the St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), which, I think, indicate very government, in this case the government House leader. clearly this is a prima facie case of privilege, in particular, the rights of all members of this Legislature. Well, Madam Speaker, what I find most unfortunate I thinkit is appropriate and important that this matter of about this circumstance is the degree to which the privilege was raised by the member for St. Johns in his government seems to be willing to go to vent its capacity as an individual member of the Legislature and frustration aboutwhat hashappened in this House related while as opposition House leader I know I speak on to the Manitoba Telephone System. The government behalf of all our caucus, what we are in today is a House leader now wants to get into private discussions situation in which members not only of the opposition that took place in terms of the ordering of business and I collectively but members of this House individually have could refer the government House leader to Beauchesne had their privileges violated by an unprecedented action Citation 200 which I think very clearly indicates the that was taken on last Thursday. government House leader is responsible for the ordering of business. I would point out to the government House I cannot stress how important that is because I believe leader that even though we request items be considered, that you need only look further to Beauchesne 33 which that is not always taken into account. In fact, most outlines "The most fundamental privilege of the House as recently these last two weeks, we have attempted to have a whole is to establish rules of procedure for itself and to our Opposition Day motion debatedin this House and the enforce them." No one looking at this matter objectively government House leader has refused. I will not can do anything other than be of the view that in the comment on which bills we called or did not call. provisional rules circumstances were anticipated which

would not be normal and that mechanisms were put in * (1410) place or left in place from the original rules which would allow for anyone in that circumstance to deal with that I would note that this was a rather unusual session in situation. Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the sense that the government early on in the session, on a more limited debate such as throne and budget until it was put on the front page of a local newspaper, speech, we do have set time for votes. Why was there no said they were not going to be speaking to bills. We time set aside for votes on third readings? Because our debated significant bills. I am wondering if the rules, specifically Rule 2.(4), made specific provisions government House leader would really have suggested for circumstances which were not normal, in fact, had a that we call the MTS bill earlier and not debate other specific provision in place for having the ability to extend bills. I am wondering how he can explain what a sitting. difference it would have made when the amendments, the government amendments for a $1.5-billion sale of a I note that the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) public asset for which theyhave no mandate, were moved has brought forth such a resolution, but one should note on the Tuesday evening, 48 hours before they expected that it basically is the option of the government because the session to end. the only option that we in the opposition have to move such a motion is in private members' hour and being No. Madam Speaker, if that is not an abnormal circum­ 75 on the list of private members' resolutions, I think we stance, I do not know what is. I would point at other would be here probably in June before it came up in the ministers who incidentally gave notice of the intent of normal rotation. So the primary responsibility for that moving amendments. I sat in on the Minister of rests with the government House leader. Other Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) on at least one bill, where the provisions were kept in place. If this ruling that we now Minister of Education gave notice of that. I sat in a 5214 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 19 96

situation where the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) circumstance. Instead, theycame in Tuesday and they did actually debated whether he should or should not move in something I did not expect to see. What did they do? a certain amendment, but not even that courtesy was They adjourned the House. Why? Because they could extended to us. I received, from the government House not get the leave provisions accelerated for consideration leader,half an hour before the infamous all-night sitting, of Bill67. a copy of the amendments to the bill. I want to note that because I want you to follow I just want to focus in on how important the bill was, through what has happened the last couple of weeks, because this is critical in dealing with how normal the becauseit relates directly to the ruling you brought in on circumstance was. We are dealing with a $1.5-million Thursday and why we are into this mess. What did we asset. We are also dealing with pensions, employee do? Did we, and I think the term is oft used, obstruct the pensions, the value of which is about $700 million. I House? Did we come in and move adjournment? The mean, it depends on the calculation, about $700 million. governmentmoved the adjournment motion. They could Amendments were brought in 48 hours before the have brought in the Opposition Day, something which is original time, whichthe government expectedthis matter our right It is interesting, our right under the provisional to be over, on a $700 million pension plan which affects rules, but they would not even do that. probably close to 6,000 Manitobans, current retirees and MTS employees. Madam Speaker, it did not stop there. The next thing I know, the government, aided by some of its allies in the Ifyou think that is abnormal, there was a memorandum media, were talking about wasting $10,000 a day of the of understanding that was discussed throughout that last public money. We were not ringing the bells. There was Thursday, which all the other bills were dealt with. no legislative paralysis. All we were doing was asking Every single other bill was dealt with and, at the same for the normal provisions of the Legislature for notice to time, a memorandum of understanding was negotiated. apply to Bill 67. Nothing more than that. I commend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) for their Madam Speaker, I have before me the Order Paper, roles, but I want you to recognize this occurred and was because I found this perhaps indicative of the kind of not completed until I 0:30 in the evening. In fact, I want mood that has set into the government. It was somehow to note for the record that at least one employee group a waste of government money. What day are we sitting was not involved in those negotiations until that very day. in today? Day 86 of the session. That is not even above the average number of days, and for the government to Was that a normal situation? I think not, Madam suggest that we are wasting the people's money-by doing Speaker. But what is most unusual about this was after what? Debating and trying to persuade the government the Thursday sitting in which we did have some dispute to either amend the bill or drop the bill when 68 percent over thetime to be set aside for the fiuther meeting of the of Manitobans oppose it. I say that is good use of the committee, we came back in on the Friday, the Premier taxpayers' money. (Mr. Filmon) had already decided to rip up the rules agreement. He was accusing the opposition of breaking its word. He was the one who said, everything is off. But I wantto go onestep further because I think people remember what happened. We had a week of normal Madam Speaker, what happened on that Friday? The business of the House--normal business, nothing bill was amended. Significant amendments were passed, abnormal. We brought in39 amendments once the notice amendments that had not even been on the table on provisionswere up on the Monday, and ifyou look at the Thursday, and fiuther protection was put in place for amendments, they are substantive amendments. They employee pensions and retiree pensions. Now what is deal with issues such as pensions still, because that interesting is when you move into what has happened in matter has not been resolved. They were substantive the next few weeks, I would have thought that the amendments. The government even passed one of the government would have recognized what we had said amendments we brought in. Supposedly when the bill right from the beginning, that this was not a normal was all set to go on November 7, they passed an November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5215

amendment lastMonday, one of the amendments thatwe could have talked to the opposition. Theydid not. They had moved. couldhave usedthe mechanisms available to them under the rules. Theydid not. Theycould have even listened to Well, I want to deal with what happened that week. some words which wereactually read some time ago, and Did the government House leader say there was some I remember an opposition leader talking about trampling kind of legislative paralysis? No. When he moved the on democratic rights and freedoms and trying to work by matter of order, he could not, and the reference in this a manipulation of the rules rather than let debate take case to Speaker Fraser I findto be the most bizarre thing place. He, of all people-! wonder if it is probably­ I have ever seen, because if you are going to use a driving, I think you know what I am referencing here, precedent,make sure it applies. Beauchesne 328, which said that-he accused the government of the time of not outlines the ruling of the Speaker, dealt with a situation allowing the public to be heard. He said the government in which there was legislative paralysis, not a case here was ramming through an initiative that 80 percent of the in Manitoba where we had normal functioning of the public opposed. Does that sound familiar, Madam House. We were debating the report stage of Bill 67. Speaker? Those are the words of the then-Leaderof the We were following the rules. There was no legislative Opposition and now Premier (Mr. Filmon), the one that paralysis and yet the government House leader said, well, has led the way in bringing us to this impasse while you we need this new mechanism; we have to rely on had to enforce closure. Beauchesne 328. Madam Speaker, you accepted that argument. That was a wrong precedent. Not only was it I want to deal with how odious the situation we are in a wrong precedent in terms of this House, it was wrong today is. What I wanted to do after an obviously very in terms of the rules. difficultThursday is reflect on the ruling that was brought down. I want to note that it is very clear we will not be The government has had opportunities, and I note for able to even have the majority of our amendments the record, since the government House leader wishes to introducedon reportstage because your ruling states that put on the record private conversations we have had, and on Wednesday, that is it. If it has not been moved, it is I am not saying breaking any confidentialities, but, you dead-cannot move it. know, I have not been contacted by the government House leader, who is responsible for dealing with You know what is interesting, Madam Speaker, it was government House business, since November 7. Does it phrased in terms of allowing the House to decide the not occur to anyone across the other side that there was a matter. I mean, according to the government House problem? This is a major bill. You have 68 percent of leader,and I hope that when he was referencing that, that Manitobans do not want MTS sold off. What did they he is not suggesting the ruling is necessarily something expect would happen, that we would sit back and not thatfollows what he wanted. I hope that the government debate this bill, not bring in the amendments that are House leader or others on the government side have not needed? No way would we do that. But ifl can appeal written the script for this, because what we end up with to them in terms of the rules, because they are clearly on Wednesday, after concurrence motion at four o'clock, wrong on the rules, Madam Speaker, you have through according to this supposed rule, when is the vote your ruling last Thursday, invented rules. There is supposed to take place on third reading? And let us nothing in this set of rules, provisional rules or the old recognize that 24 hours notice is required for third rules for any time for a recorded vote on any set item. reading, and I can put on the record that under any There are provisions in here, and the member for St. circumstance we would require that notice. We are going Johns outlined those provisions. to follow the rules, the real rules of the Manitoba Legislature. But what doesit taketo get the government to see what it is doing. It seems to be willing to do almost anything, I want to deal with what we were faced with and the to blame someone else other than itself for the exact interpretation of when those votes will take place. predicament it is in. They had choices. They could have I want it on the record because I want the government sat down as governments normally do in these matters, House leader, after he reflects on what has happened in assess the situation, recognize this is not normal. They thisHouse, I want to see ifhe will stand up in the House 5216 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

again and say, it was a courtesy to give members of the You do not, you should not and I say to the govern­ opposition time to debate the matter. Concurrence takes ment, you will not be able to sell offa telephone system place at 4 p.m. There is a recorded vote. Normally that that is a public asset, one of the largest fmancial public will be at the end of the day. We might get halfan hour assets we have. You have no right to do it in this of debate on third reading. When is the vote scheduled undemocratic way. I want it on the record, because you accordingto this so-called set of rules? Madam Speaker, have no democratic legitimacy and no support from the 2:45 p.m., Thursday, November 28. people of Manitoba for what you are doing.

By my calculations, and ifyou look at normal Question Mr. Gary Kowalski (TheMaples): I would like to put Periods, normal proceedings, I think we will have 15 to a few words in regard to this very important matter. I 20 minutes to debate the third reading of a major bill, have had to think long and hard on this one. I have had probably the biggest bill in Manitoba, certainly in terms to wrestle \\ith both my values and my conscience as to of financialimplications, in decades. We will have 15 to how to vote on this, and I have voted with my 20 minutes to debate that bill on third reading. That is convictions. I may not be right. I am not arrogant; I am not acceptable. That is not democratic. humble enough to believethat I canbe \\Tong, but I voted with my convictions. * (1420) I am not a lawyer, as is the member for St. Johns (Mr. Madam Speaker, if I cannot appeal to the government Mackintosh) I am a police officer who for 25 years has using therules, which clearly do not include any of these maintained rules, who has interpreted the rules in the provisions, they are not going to listen to Beauchesne or form of the laws of Canada. Sometimes when I have any other precedents we have in terms of that, if they are taken my interpretation to court I have been wrong. not even going to listen to their own words, I would ask Sometimes I have been right. So I have learned to be that they do one thing and that is talk to the average humble and not self-righteous and not arrogant in my Manitoban. Ask them ifthey think that MTS is worth interpretation of the rules to know that sometimes people debating and worth fighting for, because I "ill tell you wiser than myself-or maybe I have not taken all things one thing and this may come as a surprise to members intoconsidera tion, but in this matter, I have read the rules opposite because they have not gone out of their way, and I read your ruling they have not had a single public meeting on MTS, they have never ever, ever raisedit in an election, and I realize I have a strong con\iction that what has happened here that they do not want necessarily to hear what the people is thatthe prO\,isional rules fell short. We know what the of Manitoba are saying. intent was and, unfortunately, when we drafted the rules it did not give a mechanism in which the matter could I will tell you what they told me this weekend, and they come to a vote. WhatI see your ruling as doing is giving told every single one of our caucus, they said, keep up the a way for this matter to come to a vote. The member for fight. The vast majority of Manitobans do not want the Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said possibly you did that Manitoba Telephone System sold off. Keep up the fight. prematurely. I would argue that why do we have to wait Thatis why I urge you to accept this matter of privilege. till theeleventh hour? Why can we not conduct business It is the one recourse we have left. Ifwe do not have the in a planned, civilized manner? So I do not see this as rules we can rely on, ifwe do not have your office, ifwe doing it prematurely, I see it as looking at what was can leastat get it intosome committee of this Legislature, coming. It was inevitable what was going to happen. some bodythat can consider this matter, we can ensure a democraticprocess. I want to put on the record again, on The member for St. Johns talked about that letter of behalf of everyone of our MLAs, something that I stated understanding, that wasagreement no longer valid. Well, last Thursday, and I want to say it in a fashion that is as I remember when I was on the Police calm and collected as possible. I want to say to the Association and we were in contract negotiations. government that what it has done calls into question the During those negotiations we had a stenographer present legitimacy not only of our functioning in this House but during all the discussions. Out of those discussions, of the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. quite often there would be a letter of understanding November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5217

drafted to state what the agreement was in those committee at the earliest stages in the session ifit was negot1at1ons. From that letter of understanding, a that important? contract was written, signed and agreed to. Later in the year, after the contract had been signed, things occurred Then when the government offered to sit the following which we hadnot considered or that the contract was not day on November 8 to continue the debate, ifthey really too clear of. What is the first thing we went to? We wantedto debate it, why did they not give leave to allow went to see what was the intent in the letter of that? We have had since November 8 to debate. Why understanding, and ifthe letter of understanding was not have we not? We have been offered to sit on Fridays. clear we even went back to the stenographer's notes on The government has asked leave to waive private what the conversation was and what we agreedto. members' hour. So the assertion that we are limiting debate, well, you have limited debate on that bill by not Now there is no doubt in my mind-it is common sense, taking advantages. You have limited the bill. You have and as I say, I am not a lawyer, I am just using common limited the bill on a number of occasions by using the sense and my understanding-that everybody in this House tactics, and they are tactics. They are rules thatwe use, knew what we were agreeing to in December when we whether you use grievances each day. We have so many signed that agreement that at a certain point all the hours each day to sit. Do you want to use those hours to legislation would come to a vote. Unfommately, when debate Bill 67? Well, then why are you bringing up we drafted the rules we did not do it as well as we could grievances, matters of privilege, if you really want to have. But do you know, that is interesting because­ debate Bill 67, ifthat is your real purpose? although I will not comment on Bill 67 but-how many bills have passed through this Chamber that have been So as I said, I vote with my convictions. I believe as a perfect? Is there a single bill that could not have been point of honour thatwe decided that all legislation would improved ifwe would have spent more time on it, and is come to a vote by the third Thursday in the month, and I there a single bill that there was not another word to say will stick to that intent. No matter what the lawyers and about it? others interpret, I know what was meant.

But we decide in a civilized manner through Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I agreements between House leaders how much time to would like to speak briefly about the matter of privilege spend on each bill, and eventually it comes to thepoint that was raised by the member for St. Johns (Mr. where we makeit into law. But do you know what? We Mackintosh) and of course indicate my support for could amend those laws. In a civilized democratic everything that he said in his very articulate speech. process, there comes a time for the debate to end, and there comes a time to put thematter before the Chamber I would like to begin by briefly rebutting something for a vote. that the member for The Maples said. There has been discussion by the government and the member for The Ifthe official opposition were looking for opportlmities Maples about the way in which bills are debated, and to bring all their amendments forward, let us look at who implying that it is entirelyup to theopposition as to what controlled when that bill went to committee. Who bills they call and how long they speak and how many controlled that? Who had the opportlmity to put up all speakers they put up on a bill and implying that the their members as speakers, to allow their speakers to governmenthas no role in this whatsoever. Well, I have speak for five minutes or maybe they could have put a been here for six years and I remember a very good speaker on every other bill just as long? government House leader, theformer member for Morris, Mr. Clayton Manness. He was a good House leader. He So it was a strategic maneuver to say when that bill was very fair, but he could also be tough when the went to committee, and they decided at what point that occasion demanded it. I can remember him giving the bill would go to committee and how much time it would opposition warningthat ifthey did not put up speakers he have. They decided. So ifthey want to be pointing a was going to denyleave, and he was fair because he gave fingerat why we do not have enough time, why did they us a week's notice. He said, ifyou do not start putting up not speak to that bill first and put it through the speakers, we will deny leave. 5218 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

*(1430) and that they take precedence over any memorandum or understanding that was previously in place. Ifthe government wasanxious about getting Bill 67 to committee, that was something that they could have used. This government had a number of other levers at its Surely the government House leader knew that. The disposal in addition to the one that I mentioned about government House leader, currently, was here when the denying leave. They certainly could have had agreement former government House leader was here, probably by the House leaders. They certainly could have used heard him say that. They could have said, ifyou are not closure, and they chose not to. That was their choice. going to put up speakers on Bill 67, we will deny leave. They could have used closure. We would have debated Basically, that fo rces the opposition to put up speaker one bill until two o'clock in the morning and it would after speaker in order to continue debate on that one bill have been all over. ln fa ct, we anticipated we-our or theylose the bill, and the government chose not to do supporters wanted us to keep this going fo r six months that. So they should not blame the opposition for the and we said, we \\;ll keep it going as long as possible, timeliness in which they put up or do not put up speakers but the government has a majority and the government on Bill 67. will decide when this is over. ln fa ct, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said, let it go till Christmas, and we anticipated that at a certain time we would no longer be able to put I was part of the ad hoc committee that drew up the up more speakers because the government would use the new rules. As the government well knows, it was a rules to bring in closure. lengthy process. It took about five years, and it was an on-and off-again process. We met for a number of years The government could have brought in speed-up. and the government said they were not going to proceed, Speed-up was referred to by the member fo r St. Johns andthen the government called us back again and we did (Mr. Mackintosh). I would point out that means that the proceed. We came to a memorandum of agreement, and Housecould sit in the morning, the House could sit in the a very interesting thing happened. As the government afternoon and the House could sit in the evening. I members well know, whenever the ad hoc committee had believe the rules say at what hour the evening sitting a proposal they took it to caucus, and we took proposals begins. It does not say what hour the evening sitting to our caucus and it went back and fo rth. We thought ends. The government could have kept us here till that we had agreement on everything in our caucus, and midnight, till 6 am., debating one bill, and certainly they I am sure the government thought they had agreement on would have exhausted all the amendments very quickly everything in their caucus. But what happened when we hadthey done that, but they chose not to have speed-up, got to the fo rmal rules committee was that there were Rule 75(4), extended sitting hours. changes, fo r example, on committees, on private members' hour and how private members' bills and And fm ally, the government could have used Rule resolutions would be selected. We thought we were (4)(b), themotion to extend the session. The government going to proceed the way we had agreed to, but all of a chose not to extend the session. They could have used sudden we discovered there were people that had their majority. ln fa ct, we are into a very unusual legitimate concerns about it. We got bogged down in the situation here because the government has a majority. fo rmal rules committee of the House and we dropped the The govermnent can use therules to do what they want to whole procedure, a whole new procedure on choosing do simply by having a vote and extending the session. private members' bills and resolutions fo r debate and The government can use their majority to do almost votes at the very last minute. anything within the rules, and they will call for Yeas and Nays or we will call fo r Yeas and Nays and we will I think if we were to compare the memorandum of certainly lose the vote because the government has the understanding with the rules that were put into place by numbers. this Legislature, you would see that there is a difference there. So I would suggest that, as the member fo r St. They chose not to do that and thatis why we are calling Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) said, theonly thing that governs this "cowardly closure," because the government did not our deliberations now are the rules that we have agreed to use all of the means at its disposal and there were many. November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5219

We have listed at least fo ur things that the government have people there who are fa miliar with the rules. could have done which they chose not to, and the fifth Perhaps a compromise can be worked out. Perhaps we one being todeny leave to let a bill stand. So there were can make suggestions fo r revising the provisional rules at least five things that this government could have done, for the next time and I think that ifthis happens, cooler and they chose not to exercise any of them, much to our heads will prevail and we can come to an amicable surpnse. resolution. Infa ct, that is probably the most appropriate place where a compromise agreement on how to end this We have beentelling our supporters fo r weeks that we session might take place. did not think it was going to go on very long. We knew about the deadline. We knew that it was going to As the House leader on our side suggests, maybe that be-[intetjection] We could not trust this government. is the place to get an agreement on how to extend the session andwhen to extend the session so the government An Honourable Member: We were right about that has some idea of when their bill is going to be passed. one. Surely the investment dealers, the brokers and their Mr. Martindale: And we were right about that. So stockbroker friends want to know when this bill is going what happened while we were still here debating to be passed and, at this point, I do not think the amendments and even approving an amendment-in fa ct, government can give them very serious suggestions as to I happened to be in the Chamber when the Minister when it willpass. I think it would be in everybody's best responsible fo r the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. interest ifwe could come to a compromise, ifwe could Findlay) stood up and agreed to our amendment. We agree on how the bill is going to pass and when it is were very surprised that they should do that, although I going to pass in a way that respects the rules of the guess we should not have been because the amendment House and does not attempt to get around the rules of the came from the mission statement of the Manitoba House andfind some extraneous way for the government Telephone System. It was a good amendment and we to get out of their predicament. Thank you. supported it, and I think neither the government nor the Speaker can say that we have been obstructionist. We Madam Speaker: I will take the point of privilege have been willing to continue in an orderly way to debate raised. It is a serious matter and I will consult with the the amendments. We are prepared to debate third authorities, take the matter under advisement and report reading. back to the House.

We have called for Opposition Day. The government ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS is the one that has denied us the opportunity to speak on Opposition Day. The government is the one that PRESENTING PETITIONS adjourned the House after Question Period, an extremely unusual thing to do, not to let debate continue on a bill Manitoba Telephone System after Question Period. The government could have chosen to do many, many things at its disposal, but it did Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I beg to present the not. In fa ct, it went the opposite way and brought in petition of Donna Ansell, Diane Webster, Mike Sotas some bizarre things like adjourning the House. and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) * (1440) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System. I would invite any of the members opposite to join us on the matter of privilege and put their remarks on the READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS record.

In conclusion, I would like to support what our Manitoba Telephone System member fo r St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) has said, and our House leader, and refer this to the rules committee. I Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the think this can be solved by the referral because we will honourable member fo r Burrows (Mr. Martindale) and it 5220 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the the will of the House to have the petition read? Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and An Honourable Member: Dispense. THAT MTS, \\ith nearly 4,000 employees, including Madam Speaker: Dispense. more than 1,000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba THA T the Manitoba Telephone System has servedthis and is committed to Manitoba; and province well fo r over 80 years providing province­ wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North THAT the provincial government has no mandate to America, thousands of jobs and keeping profits in sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election Manitoba; and that MTS was not fo r sale.

THA T MTS contributes $450 million annually to the WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the communityevents throughout the province; and Premier (Mr. Filmon) \\ithdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. THA T MTS, with nearly 4,000 employees, including more than 1,000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one * (1 450) of Manitoba's largest firms, headquarteredin Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and ORAL QUESTION PERIOD 1HAT the provincial governmenthas no mandate to sell Manitoba Telephone System MTS andsaid before and during the 1995 election that Prh·atization-Wood Gundy Role J.\1TS was not fo r sale.

Mr. (Leader of the Opposition): My WHEREFORE your petiTioners humbf.v pray ThaT The question is to the First Minister. Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request That the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the The legitimacy of this government to proceedwith the Manitoba Telephone Sy stem to private interests. sale of Manitoba Telephone System is in great debate. This government did not promise to sell the telephone Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the system during the election campaign, in fa ct, made the honourable member for Swan River (Mrs . Wowchuk) and opposite promises in to\\n hall debates, in all-party it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is debates in many communities across Manitoba. Further it the will of the House to have the petition read? to that, the government has hired brokers to do the independent evaluation and now we are in possession of An Honourable Member: Yes. letters fromthe samebr okerage firm-Wood Gundy being one in particular-that did the independent evaluation that Madam Speaker: Yes? The Clerk will read. is now out soliciting Manitoba investors to buy the shares in the Manitoba Telephone System.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly I would like to ask the Premier, does he fee l it is sheweth: appropriate that Wood Gundy would be the lead brokerage firm fo r the sale of the Manitoba Telephone THAT theManitoba Telephone System has served this System shares and also was in a capacity of providing a province well fo r over 80 years providing province-wide S

shares and being the lead brokerage firm in terms ofthe to be in that role. This is not something that has been integrity of this decision? picked out of the blue or a special commitment to this government or a special commitment to Wood Gundy. Bon. (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am They have been the lead brokers fo r three decades, and in possession of a copy of a letter from the member fo r that is why the member opposite, choosing to make Thompson (Mr. Ashton) to the Manitoba Securities politics over this or trying to create a phoney issue, Commission referring the letters thathave been referred makes absolutely no sense. to by the Leader of the Opposition to that commission. Obviously, this is a quasi-judicial body and they are the Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, indeed, I think the Premier ones who ought to review the conduct of the brokerage did pick this company out of the blue because it was one firms and those involved in the letters of solicitation or of the companies chosen by the Premier-and disclosed by the letters of promotion that were involved, and these are the opposition last December 16-to effectively break the matters that should be in their jurisdiction and should not election promise of the Premier and the members require or mandate interference from the government on opposite, to provide fo r an evaluation of the sale of the those issues. Manitoba Telephone System which is, of course, very unlike any other decision that the Premier had cited Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, Wood Gundy, a company because this is a broken election promise. well known to this government, a maj or contributor to the party opposite, is a company that this government hired I would like to ask the Premier: How much money will to do the so-called independent evaluation. The Premier Wood Gundy make from the evaluation of the sale of the has the authority to prohibit a company that did the so­ Manitoba Telephone System, and what is the projection called evaluation from being a company that is the lead of how much Wood Gundy will make from the sale of brokerage firm in terms of selling shares to the investors shares to the investors? Does he not see the conflict in Manitoba. He has the authority to do so because, between Wood Gundy's role to evaluate and Wood according to the Financial Post, this company will be the Gundy's role in terms of getting commissions from the major link between the seller, the government, and the people of Manitoba and the investors ofthis province? investors . So it did the evaluation and now it is the lead brokerage firm that stands to make millions of dollars Mr. Filmon: The matter of what fe es they get is fromits decision to recommend to the government that it dependent on the proportion of shares that they sell. sell the Manitoba Telephone System. Commissions are paid based on the selling of shares, so I cannot predict that atthis time. In order that this decision can be made in the most ethical way possible, will the Premier do the ethical thing Manitoba Telephone System and prohibit this company from both being the evaluator Privatization-Wood Gundy Role and the seller of shares, an authority that he has the power to proceed with? Mr. Steve Ashton (fhompson): I asked the Premier on Thursday in regard to the obvious difficulty where you Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, Wood Gundy have been have Wood Gundy on the one hand being the broker that lead brokers for the province since the 1960s. They were recommended the sale now being the lead broker on the leadbrokers for the province in the Schreyer years . They sale itself, and prior to the issuance of the prospectus, were lead brokers for the province in the Pawley years. putting out letters encouraging people to invest in that They were lead brokers in terms of the funding for based on information that they probably are one of the Limestone, establishing the funding for Limestone, and few, supposedly, that would have access to it. they made significant contributions to the in those years. Wood Gundy's record I want to ask thePremier, firstof all, whether there has in leadership as the lead underwriter fo r the province is been any investigation of the clear potential conflict here one thathas resulted in it continuing to be in that role fo r whenyou have this web of different roles. Now I am not many, manydecades over many different administrations talking about the Securities Commission. I have filed in the province. It is for that continuity that they continue that letter. I am asking, has the Premier ensured that 5222 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

Wood Gundy is dealing up front with this, Madam Gundy, and in fa ct with the two brokers who will be the Speaker, with what is obviously a multimillion-dollar two lead brokers on this? What is the commission rate? share issue in terms of their dividends alone? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): indicated on Thursday that it was appropriate fo r that Madam Speaker, as I referred earlier and to earlier matter to be referred to the Securities Commission, so we questions from the member opposite, we have indicated take it out of the realm of being a political football or a thatsome $300,000 was paid fo r the services so fa r, but political issue and put it where it belongs as an appeal to the actual end result of what the commissions will be, the quasi-judicial body, the Manitoba Securities there are industry norms and those fe es are being Commission. negotiated at this moment, but there are industry norms that are in place. But, you know, this matter keeps getting raised over and over again as members opposite one by one lose the Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I want to ask a final legitimacy of their arguments that they put fo rward in supplementary. Is the minister then saying that they have opposing the sale of the Manitoba Telephone System. appointed these two brokers as the lead brokers, but they One hasto wonder why now they attack Wood Gundy, a are still negotiating the commission rate that they are brokerage firm that has had a relationship, as I said going to receive? earlier, that dates back to the 1960s and a firm that was so trusted by the New Democrats when the Pawley Madam Speaker, can we please finally get some real administration approached Wood Gundy in those days to information on how much these brokers are going to be undertake an assessment of project financing fo r paid, the commission rate, the exact commission rate? Limestone. They provided thatasses sment and were paid to do that and then afterwards were asked to be the lead Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, there are industry norms. broker at a heavy commission to raise the money. They Theidea is to negotiate them down at this point. saw no difficulty with that. They fe lt that the relationship * (1500) was a good relationship, and they had trust and confidence in Wood Gundy. Manitoba Telephone System Prh·atization-Commission Rate Now a similar process is gone through and all of a sudden it is illegitimate, Madam Speaker. It does not Mr. (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, just make sense, but then again neither do most of the so that we can finally get this information, would the arguments that are put fo rward by the member fo r Minister responsible fo r the Telephones please tell us Thompson. what those industry norms are? What is the bracket, 3 percent to 5 percent, 2 percent to 3 percent? What is the Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, the NDP government of bracket? What are the negotiations? Finally give us the day did not ask WoodGundy to recommend- some truthful answers.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I have a schedule of what those range of rates Privatization-Commission Rate are based on other offerings and dispositions that have taken place within Canada. I do not have that here with Madam Speaker: The honourable member fo r me. I will undertake to provide that information to be Thompson, on a supplementary question. absolutely certain that we give the members of the opposition and the public the exact information on what Mr. Ashton: MadamSpeaker, I want to ask the Premier those ranges are. as a supplementary, what commission agreement has been reached-and if the Premier cannot answer that, Madam Speaker: The honourable member for perhaps the Minister responsible for MTS-with Wood Crescentwood, with a supplementary question. November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5223

Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, the question of the identity assigned to do the due diligence on the process of of the lead brokers and the commission rates is surely a analyzing the Faneuil deal. The board and the executive question that has already been decided. If a draft decided on that committee of six. These two members prospectus was ready to be put before the commission that the member opposite mentions were on that more than a week-more than two weeks ago, surely the particular committee, and it was felt that they should be Minister of Finance knows the answer to the question. therebecause of their business experience in the process Will he get up and answer the question in the House? of doing the due diligence . This process actually took 15 What is the commission rate for the lead brokers and who months, a long periodof time, much longer than anybody are they now that two of them have amalgamated? Is it anticipated at the beginning, but they did an extensive, the same group? How much are they going to make? very good due diligence. I would recommend to the members opposite that had they done that on MTX, they Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I indicated in response would not have got into the mess they got into. to the first question that we do have that information. I do not have it here at my fingertips here in Question Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, could the Minister Period, and I will undertake to provide that information responsible for Telephones tell us why the draft to members of the opposition. It is that simple. The prospectus does not reveal that the Faneuil deal is not a information on therange of commission rates is available seven-year deal but a nine-year deal, not a $47-million and I will provide that to the members of the opposition. telemarketing deal but a $67-million deal?-because the cancellation provisions of the deal require essentially five Privatization-Faneuil ISG Inc. Agreement years notice to cancel-nine years not seven, $67 million not $47 million. Will the draft prospectus be corrected Madam Speaker: The honourable member for to reveal the true information about the cost to us as Crescentwood, with a final supplementary question. ratepayers and to the Manitoba Telephone System of this Faneuil deal? Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): On a new question, I want to ask the minister responsible for the prospectus, Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, Faneuil is certainly one which appears to be, although we are not quite certain of the key individuals involved in the telemarketing about this, the Finance minister, why in the draft industry in Manitoba which has brought over 80 prospectus that was leaked to the media were two current companies to Manitoba which involved over 5,000 jobs members of the telephone board apparently going to be in the province of Manitoba, many millions of dollars of appointed to the new board as well, Mr. Thiessen and activity on the telephone network in and out of the Mr. Spletzer, identified as having received $146,000, province of Manitoba. It is a growth industry in equivalent to the salaries of assistant deputy ministers Manitoba. Faneuil brings a certain level of expertise to working for a full year, to look at from a position of no the province of Manitoba. The MTS agreement is one particular expertise the Faneuil deal which was not even major part of their business, but at this stage it is only a deal the telephone system wanted but was being forced about 25 percent of their business activity and 75 percent on them by Mr. Bessey, Mr. Benson and the Premier (Mr. of its business activity with other companies, most Filmon)? notably companies outside of Canada, outside of Manitoba, which bring foreign business to Manitoba to Why do they have to pay these two people $146,000 of be done in Manitoba and significant stimulation to the ratepayers' money to do something they are not Manitoba Telephone System long distance network. particularly qualified to do? Vehicle Licensing Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the Bilingual Plates administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, when the issue of the Faneuil Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Ma question est pour opportunity came to Manitoba Telephone System, the le ministre de la Voirie et du Transport. Ayant appris executive at the time requested that a committee of six bier que la nouvelle plaque d'immatriculation des people, three board people, three executive people, be automobiles ne sera pas sous forme bilingue, le ministre 5224 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996 peut-il confirmer aujourd'hui cette decision et en donner Mr. Gaudry: Ma questionest pour le Premier ministre les raisons? (M. Filrnon). J'ai l'honneur de deposer ici dans cette chambre un grand nombre de petitions, au-dela de 1700 [Translation] signaturesen faveur d'une version bilingue de la nouvelle plaque d'imrnatriculation manitobaine. Le Premier My question is for the Minister of Highways and mmtstre accepte-t-il de reetudier ce dossier Transportation. Having learned yesterday that the new personnellement en considerant ces petitions afm d'etre automobile licence plate will not be in bilingual fo rm, fidelea Ia reconnaissance du fait franrrais au Manitoba a can the minister today confirm this decision and provide laquelle le Premier ministre s'est identifiedepuis 1988? the reasons fo r it? [Translation] Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, we introduced the My question is fo r the First Minister. I have the licence plates about two months ago. Certainly there honour of tabling here in this House a large number of were requests on the part of SFM to consider adding petitions, over 1,700 signatures, supporting a bilingual another word to the licence plate, Bienvenue. We have version of thenew Manitoba licence plate. Will the First certainly considered that. Over the course of time we Minister agree to re-examine this matter personally, have met twice with SFM, once on November 12 and taking these petitions into consideration so as to be once thismorn ing. We have received a lot of input from fa ithful tothe recognition of the French fa ct in Manitoba Manitobans and made the decision that the plate should with which the Premier has identified himself since stay as initially announced because we are not a bilingual 1988? province. We are a province that has a French language services policy and the legal interpretation is that the Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, plate, as initially released, was legally correct and served indeed, the member is right. I did function as the the needs of Manitobans. All MLAs on this side haYe Minister responsible fo r French Language Services received a lot of input on the plate and it is not an easy during the early part of our mandate in government and decision; it is a tough decision, and we think it respects indeed I haYe beenYery proud to work with the SFM and the will of the majority of Manitobans. our Francophone community to bring in a series of changes that I think have been very positive fo r Mr. Gaudry: Ma deuxieme question est pour le Manitobans and particularly with respect to the French ministre responsable des Services en langue franrraise. Je language services that we enj oy in Manitoba. demande au ministre d'expliquer a cette chambre, de quelle maniere Ia decision du ministre de la Voirie et du As the member knows, all laws and regulations are Transport est-elle conforme avec les politiques des now enacted in both French and English. French and services en langue franrraise actuellement en vigueur? English, as a result of the Supreme Court ruling that we had in the '80s, have equal access in the Legislature and [Translation] before the courts, and capacity exists to ensure that this is the case. As well, virtually all government My second question is fo r the Minister responsible for publicationsare available in French and English, often in French Language Services (Mr. Praznik). I request that bilingual single publication. All forms required by theminister explain to this House how the decisionof the legislation regulationsare avai lable in a bilingual fo rmat. Minister of Highways and Transportation is in The province enactedlegislation thatcreated the Division accordance with the French language services policies Scolaire Franco-Manitobaine to enable Francophone currently in place. school governance consistant with Section 23 of the Charter. Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the French language services policy relates to activities in the Legislature, In co-operation with our Francophone community, activities in the courts, and this is not deemed to be a health care institutions including hospitals and nursing legislative action. homes have been identified as candidates for the November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5225

provision ofFrench language service, particularly within Mr. Filmon: Inconclusion, Madam Speaker, it is very the designated French language service area. clear that this government has acted on a wide range of Approximately 20 such institutions provide French policy decisions with respect to French language services. language service fo r patients. The government has not As has been said by the Minister responsible fo r only improved the provision of French language services Transportation (Mr. Findlay), Manitoba is not an but has implemented an active-offer policy whereby officially bilingual province. The only officially bilingual designated offices in the designated areas actively offer province is New Brunswick. Ourrequirements are the service in French. Francophone civil servants and mere opposite of those of the government of Quebec and French-speaking civil servants have been able to avail on their licence plate it says Quebec, Je me souviens. It themselves of special improvement courses to ensure the is in French only and reflective of the fact that they have improvement of the French language capability among exactly the same constitutional requirements as we do. French-speaking civil servants, and the government has actively supported the establishment of the Association Home Care Program of Bilingual Municipalities. As well, the government has Privatization-Nursing Services actively co-operated with the Francophone Chambers of Commerce in Manitoba. We have done- Mr. (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, one of the other areas fo r which the government does not have legitimacy on its agenda is the moving towards Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable privatization ofhome care. One of the areas of home care member fo r Thompson, on a point of order. privatization that the minister has refused to answer in this House is whether or not the nursing portion of Home Point of Order Care, that is, the portion provided by the nurses from Continuing Care-R.N.s and LPNs but specifically Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): On a point of order, R.N.s-to Home Care are going to be privatized. Madam Speaker. Can the minister confirm that the 71 remaining R.N.s The Premier is very clearly just reading from his at Home Care, Continuing Care, have been told that their briefing book, and ifhe would have cared to perhaps jobs will no longer be with the government after April 1 listen to the question from the member fo r St. Boniface, of next year and that the jobs will be privatized and the question was very specific, seriesthe of questions was apportioned out to the private sector? very specific, related to the licence plate. Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, withthe agreement of the Manitoba Government I do not know, perhaps the Premier misunderstood, but Employees' Union as a result of last spring's labour I would ask that you call the Premier to order and ask him dispute, we have agreedthat 20 percent only of home care to answer the very serious question put fo rward by the services in the city of Winnipeg would be subject to member fo r St. Boniface. competition. Thereare activities underway now to ensure that requests fo r proposals and tender calls are being Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the done in an appropriate and proper fa shion. honourable member fo r Thompson, I will take the matter under advisement so I can review Hansard and report Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, is the minister today back to the Chamber. saying that only 20 percent of the nursing component of

* * * Home Care providedby Continuing Care-approximately 71 nurses, R.N.s, and about 70 to 80 LPNs-only 20

* percent of that is going to be privatized and not 1 00 (1510) percent?

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, you will recall that last complete his response. spring we were responding to complaints over many 5226 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

years going all the way back to the report commissioned the regional health association which will govern health by the New Democratic Party, the Price Waterhouse care services inthe city of Winnipeg. It is in response to report, with respect to standards, with respect to reports going all the way back to the New Democratic­ consistency of service, with respect to quality of service, commissioned report from Price Waterhouse which, with respect to efficiency andit is toward that end that we while it called fo r user fee s and cuts in services, we have are embarkingon the changes that we are embarking on. not responded to that part.

We have, unlike the New Democrats, always put the Manitoba Telephone System needs and concerns of the clients of the program first. Printization The honourable members opposite get all hung up over their philosophical New Democratic 50-year-old issues. Mr. Leonard EYans (Brandon East): Madam The world is changing. It would be good if New Speaker, in the last annual report of the Manitoba Democrats would too. Telephone System, a statement is made by the CEO which reads : In 1995, MTS successfully met the Chief Executive Officer Advertisement challenges of the evolving telecommunications marketplace. The corporation maintained its customer Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, will base in an increasingly competitive marketplace, the ministerwho refusedto answer the first two questions expanded and upgraded its networks, and added new I asked, perhaps attempt to answer a third question and services while continuing with its efforts to cut costs. be straight with the people of Manitoba? streamline operations and position itself fo r the future

Will the minister explain who the chief executive He said further, briefly: In regard to 1996, we are officer for Winnipeg Home Care was advertised fo r in optimisticthat we willdeliver a year of solid performance Saturday's Free Press, but if they are not going to a while contending \\ith evolving developments m nongovernment organization, a government private competition, regulation, markets and technology. agency that is going to be looking after all home care since this CEO that has been advertised fo r is going to My question to the Minister of MTS: How can he in look after $60 million of home care and 16,000 clients, all conscience maintain that a publicly O\\ned MTS who and what that position is? cannot meet the challenges in the future in the telecommunications industry? Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I am glad the honourable member called Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible fo r the attention to the rather large number of clients we serve in administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): the city of Winnipeg, the rather large amount of money Madam Speaker, there is no question that the Manitoba that is being expended on the Home Care program, Telephone System has done an excellent job of meeting because it serves to demonstrate once again that the needs of Manitobans since 1988. They have made, as expenditures in Home Care have been rising very, very the members opposite recognize, $160 million, an significantly and we expect will continue to do so average of $20 million a year, as opposed to '86 and because Home Care is the cornerstone of that shift that '87-and the member fo r Concordia (Mr. Doer) we keep talking about away from total reliance on acute smiles-when they lost $48 million. That is quite a care services and in favour of services in the community. turnaroundthat and turnaround-

So the honourable member raises the question Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. respecting an advertisement fo r an executive director of Home Care services. He knows that in future the Madam Speaker: Order, please. regional health authority fo r Winnipeg will be responsiblefo r HomeCare and other health services, and Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member fo r this executive director of Home Care will in the interim Thompson (Mr. Ashton) from his seat clearly identifies report to the government and in the future will report to again-he refuses, as the member for Brandon East, to November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5227

identify the issues that have changed regarding the which those telephone companies serve. As I said the telecommunications industry in Canada, the degree of other day, CRTC has just reconfirmed their intent to be competition that is out there- sure that rates are kept affordable and that service is extended to all Canadians. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson, on a point of order. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization Point of Order Mr. Leonard Evans (BrandonEast) : So is a regulated Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, from industry, Madam Speaker. Will the minister my seatI said, MTS is doing a good job. Let us keep it. acknowledgethat regardless of whether MTS is privately owned and fm anced by share capital or whether it is Madam Speaker: The honourable member for publicly owned and fm anced by bond capital, that the Thompson does not have a point of order. cost of finance will be borne by the customers or the consumers of MTS services and not thetaxpayers as has * * * beenimplied previously by members of thisgovernment?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, again, he does not Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the identify that things have changed, the degree of administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): As competition that isout there. The degreeof debt that they a Crown, the government guarantees the debt of MTS, carryis stillvery high according to industry norms. The and in thefuture governmentwill not have that guarantee corporation needs to adapt to the changing needs, needs to deal with. As the member opposite may wish to to be more aggressive, more quickly responding to the identify, the actual borrowing rate of MTS in the future niche market opportunities that are out there, and the will be lower than it is today, contrary to what all those degree of competition gives a better service to all members opposite have been saying. All across Manitobans. Manitoba, thecost of borrowing to MTS will be lower in the future. Telecommunications Industry CRTC Regulations * (1520)

Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Brandon Manitoba Telephone System East, with a supplementary question. Privatization-Impact on Rates

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I Speaker, will the minister not recognize that the have obtained the prospectus from Tellus, the Alberta telecommunications industry is still not a perfectly company, formerly the Alberta Government Telephone competitive industry, far from it, and in fact it has many system- elements of monopoly? This is why the CRTC, the Canadian regulatory agency, is still there regulating that Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Are you going to buy industry, so it is a monopolistic type of industry still. shares?

Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the Mr. Martindale: No, Mr. Premier, I am not buying administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): shares. Madam Speaker, theCRTC is the regulator, has been the regulator as a Crown corporation, will continue to be the It is very interestingbut disturbing reading to see the regulator of MTS inthe future, as it is with the telephone kinds of revenue that they get, 11.25 to 12.25 percent companies across Canada and all the other companies returnon investment, andthe kinds of increases that have that are in the private sector. They have a mandate of been authorized, for example, $32 million in 1993, $65 affordable service to all constituents within the areas in million in '94; $2 rate increases for January '96 and '97, 5228 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

unspecified increase fo r the next year; and $4 to $4.48 services that is provided free now, call tracing, will not per month on residential rates approved in 1996 and $2 have anincr ease, such as happened in Alberta where the to $9 per monthon business rates. residential rate is$3 a monthfor call trace or 3 5 cents per use, a very valuable service especially used by women I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the who fee l that their lives are in danger. Can the minister Manitoba Telephone System ifthese are the kinds of rate assure Manitobans that this charge will not come into increases that Manitobans can expect after MTS is effectwhen the company is privatized? Ifhe cannot give privatized. us that assurance, why are they privatizing the Manitoba Telephone System? Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the Madam Speaker, the answer is no. The CEO of the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Manitoba Telephone System has very clearly put on the Madam Speaker, tariffs on all services that MTS, in the record that the applications for rate changes are already past and inthe future,the what set rates are, is something in place, the $2 rebalancing of January 1, '96, '97 and that is negotiated between them and the CRTC. The about $2 in '98. Those are already on record as part of CRTC ultimately makes those decisions. CRTC's decision in rate rebalancing fo r all telcos under their jurisdiction. The answer is no. Manitoba Telephone System CanTalk Agreement Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the minister then what the difference is between a privatized Manitoba Ms. Diane McGiffo rd (Osborne): Madam Speaker, Telephone and a privatized Alberta Government CanTalk, a Winnipeg-based, Canadian-owned company, Telephone system especially in relation to the return on offers a broad range of language services using fa x, investment, and why we cannot expect similar increases. telephone, E-mail and the Internet. Furthermore, it is In fa ct, some of the services that MTS provides now are allied with not-for-profit translation and interpretation free. Can we expect that there is going to be a charge of services like the International Centre and with Manitoba $3.65 or $4 a month for services now provided free businesses. because it is going to be privatized? I want to ask the Minister responsible for MTS to Mr. Findlay: The member refers to Alberta. Clearly, explain whether MTS is working, has worked or plans to the issue is they made a mistake in the original work with CanTalk. determination of- Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the . Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I do not have that information. I will Madam Speaker: Order, please. inquire and get back to the member.

Mr. Findlay: They clearly made a mistake on issues Manitoba Telephone System relating to what future tax deductions would be. When CRTC Application an auditorcame in and did the assessment, the change in Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, just rates happened. We did not make that mistake a fe w minutes ago the Minister responsible fo r MTS, in whatsoever. We already have the tax ruling, and it is response toaquestion fromthe member fo r Burrows (Mr. favourable to the assumptions established by MTS and Martindale), stated thatit wouldbe no increase as a result the Province of Manitoba. of the privatization.

Privatization-Call Trace Service I would like to ask if that means that MTS has Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask withdrawn its application to CRTC for this exogenous the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone fa ctor which has been subject, of course, to much System if he can assure Manitobans that one of the discussionabout Mr. Nugent and others . Have they now November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5229

done that, given the fa ct that last Friday, it is our conjunctionwith theMinister of Highways (Mr. Findlay), understanding, is the date on which they had to make withrespect to a situationthat I have been notified of this revisions or either withdraw that application? morningand thisafternoon, that there has been heavy not only flooding but heavy freeze-up on the Dauphin River. Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): I amjust wonderingwhether eitherminister's office has Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that they have responded to this very serious situation and how. sent further information to CRTC to correct the record in terms of the misinterpretations, to identifY that the cost of Bon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural interest will be lower and that a tax ruling had been Resources): Madam Speaker, in fa ct, after I entered the obtained. House, I got a fax and information that we had an ice blockage on the Dauphin River, and there is the Madam Speaker: The honourable member fo r community of Dauphin River Indian Reserve that has Thompson, with a supplementary question. been isolated. Staff are on the site and on the job and looking to see whether blasting would resolve the issue. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I did not ask whether any It is veryunusual tohave an ice jam this timeof year, but political damage control was done. I asked the minister, with theheavy water situation thatis out there, we are on was the CRTC application put in by MTS dating back to top of it,and we will try and keep updated with whatever June and resubmitted in November, is that application activities take place. still before the CRTC which would allow rate increases because of the exogenous variables? Madam Speaker: Time fo r OralQuestions has expired.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the application was with MEMBERS' STATEMENTS regard to rate capping. That is in a policy of CRTC starting January 1, 1998. MTS continues to supply Manitoba Telephone System information as it is available to them, and the exogenous fa ctor may be up or down depending on fa ctors that may Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): While they unfold, and with a lower interest rate, I call that down. continue to avoid debate on Bill 67, members opposite have been saying a great deal about the role of Crown Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, the final supplementary corporations within the province of Manitoba, but what on this question. Can the minister then make it very clear they have fa iled to note, Madam Speaker, are comments that he has not withdrawn the CRTC application, the made by the New Democratic Party that support our exogenous factor is still there and that in fa ct he cannot, govermnent's decision. as he did in Question Period earlier on today, say that there will not be rate increases when the CRTC For example, the NDP have in the past compared application is still there from MTS which allows fo r Crown corporations to a car. They stated: As many of those kinds of rate increases? us, ifeven we have a car, in many cases we like to hang on to it. We have some kind of fe eling that it was a Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, I have already indicated special one, that it was made just fo r us even ifit gets to to the member, CRTC has a rate cap hearing underway. be 10 or 20 years old in some cases, and we drive it and MTS continues to file information as it becomes drive it because we think there is no better car. Well, available to them to allow CRTC to make decisions on human nature being what it is, sometimes people do not the basis of the most current possible information that make the decisions as quickly as they should to get out of they can supply to them. a messy situation. Dauphin River As well, the NDP have noted that there are many ·Ice Blockage aspects of the mandates of the Crown corporations that Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I would have to be reviewed from time to time. They cannot just like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources, in be left there to stalemate and perhaps become outdated, 5230 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

not relevant to thecurrent situations, and so they have to financed. As a matter of fa ct, the debt burden has come be reviewed from time to time. These comments voiced down, but, regardless, that cost is in the rates, and by members of the New Democratic Party describe Manitoba's mtes are very, very low. It is very easy to get exactly the current debate occurring in this House. out of debt or to sustain more debt through higher rates. The fa ct is, it is the consumers that ultimately pay. MTS has fulfilled its mandate of universal service. However, as MTS requires a tremendous infusion of As I pointed out earlier, this is a very limited capital tomodernize its services and remain competitive, competitive situation. It is still a monopoly, mono­ we cannot allow it to become outdated. polistic, and it is still regulated by the CRTC, so the area of competition is extremely limited. The current situation MTS finds itself in is very different from that of 80 years ago. Madam Speaker, I appeal to this government to stop going against the majority wishes and to withdraw Bill As much as theNDP would like to remain mired in the 67. past, our government has reviewed the situation and has made a decision in the long-term best interests of all Sharp-Tailed Grouse Conservation Manitobans. Mr. Edward Hehnr (Gimli): Madam Speaker, until I would encourage, Madam Speaker, even appeal to the recently Manitoba hashad a reputation for enjoying one members opposite to think about these comments put of the healthiest populations of sharp-tailed grouse or forward by theircolleagues and to vote fo r the future and prairie chickens, as they are more commonly knov.n, in not the past. Thankyou. North America Dueto the changes in the habitat, sharp­ tailed numbers have declined significantly recently, and Manitoba Telephone System they will continue to do so until habitat restoration measures are taken to halt this unfortunate occurrence. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): It is indeed regrettable that thisgovernment is defying public opinion On Monday, November 18, I had the pleasure of and insists upon pushing through legislation to privatize presenting a cheque to the Sharp-tailed Plus Foundation the MTS. Inc. President, Mr. Ernest Schnell, under the Special Conservation Fund of the Department of Natural I would remind the members opposite that a recent Resources. The provincial grant will assist with the survey indicated that 67.3 percent of Manitobans were sharp-tailed grouse habitat improvement proj ect in the opposed to this and 78.1 percent of rural Manitobans Sandridge Wildlife Management Area. were against the sale ofMTS. The town of Killarney is against the sale of MTS or is concerned about it. The Madam Speaker, on July 8, 1994, in Vita, Manitoba, City ofBmndon wanted public hearings before a decision an agreement was signed establishing the nonprofit was made, and the Manitoba Wheat Pool, the Union of volunteer group dedicated to restoring sharp-tailed Manitoba Municipalities, seniors groups, many, many grouse. This agreement is quite significant since it is the groups in Manitoba are opposed to this sale. The first of its kind to be aimed at the restoration of this government has no mandate. It did not make it an issue species. Sharp-tailed grouse enj oy the open grass and in the last election. It did not hold public hearings. It brushland typical of Manitoba's aspen parkland but, due has no basis, no public support fo r this. to fire suppression, this type of habitat has been lost.

Frankly, Madam Speaker, the government's economic Currently there are three projects taking place across mtionale is faulty. The member from Killarney or Turtle the province, in the towns of Vita, Lundar and Plumas. Mountain talkedabout the need for capital infusion. The Sustainablefarming initiatives that are occurring in these fact is that MTS, as a publicly owned operation, is able areas such as rotational grazing, brush control, haying to acquirenew capital. Its being financedby bonds is not techniques and edge management will not show final unusual. This is the way publicly owned utilities are results fo r another two years. However, these initiatives November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5231

are showing positive results in terms of profitability. case fo r private companies offeringbetter results and These initiatives will change land management, involve being more competitive. The list of failures and/or farm productivity and maintain open grass and brushland troubles of companies is just staggering, and also one habitat and create a suitable environment for the species cannot see how a new owner can operate without and improve our land fo r agriculture at the same time. generatingprofit margins to satisfy the shareholders.

Madam Speaker, I would like to applaud the Sharp­ Madam Speaker, there are constituents right across tailed Plus Foundation for their efforts in sustaining an southern Manitoba, the UMM, Pool delegates, seniors, appropriate environment fo r the species and fo r all are opposing this government. This government dedication to this very extensive project. Thank you. should wake up and smell the coffee. Rural Manitoba does not support you on this one. Manitoba Telephone System ORDERS OF THE DAY Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, having sat through the hearings on Bill 67, the Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Manitoba Telephone privatization bill, it is obvious that Madam Speaker, could you call report stage on Bill 67. Manitobans do not support this government. The recent CBC-commissioned poll confirms that the majority of Manitobans, particularly those in rural Manitoba, do not REPORT STAGE want to seethat utilityprivatized . I have to wonder, then, where the memberfo r Morris (Mr. Pitura) has been when Bill 67-The Manitoba Telephone System he says, and I quote, that after the hearings-I think after Reorganization and Consequential going through the hearings and hearing what people are Amendments Act saying, I am probably as convinced as I ever was that the direction we are going in is the right direction fo r all Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I Manitobans if we want the mandate of health care and wish to move further amendments in report stage. education and fa mily services. I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Wherehas this member been? He says he sat through Doer), hearings and he is convinced. Madam Speaker, 185 people presented; only three supported the government. THAT Bill 67 be amended by adding the fo llowing after This member has not been listening to the people of Section 5: Manitoba, nor has he been listening to his constituents who say, and I quote, I do not think there is justification Shares issued to eligible voters fo r privatization, says resident Bill Toews. I think it is 5(1) Onevoting nonparti cipating preference share of the ideological, and I think perhaps the government did not capital stock of the corporation as deemed to have been read the public's view on this one. I sort of take validly issuedto each adult resident of Manitoba eligible exception to a rural MLA stating the maj ority of his to vote in a provincial election on January 1, 1996, for constituents support what they are saying, he added, which shares of designationrigh ts, privileges, restrictions noting that rural Manitobans have a very real sense of and conditions shall be as follows: control over rural utilities. (a) the shares shall be designated as Class C MadamSpeaker, he goeson to sayhe is very concerned preference shares; about what this government intends to do with Hydro. But it is not only the member's residents of Morris who (b) the stated capital of each share is deemed to be are concerned with what this government is doing. The zero dollars per share; member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) should take note to what hisconstituents are saying, and I quote from (c) each share shall have one vote in respect of all a letter from a Turtle Mountain constituent, there is no matters to be decided by the shareholders' corporation; 5232 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

(d) the share shall carry no right to dividends, contravene the spirit of the bill? This bill establishes participation and profits or participation in a classes of shares. This is a class of share. It is not in any distribution of assets to the corporation; and way, shape or form a negation of the principle of the bill which in andof itselfestablishes shares fo r the Manitoba (e) the shares shall be nontransferable. Telephone System. On what basis, Madam Speaker, does this contravene the principle of the bill? [French version]

II est propose d'amender le projet de loi 67 par Madam Speaker: I have been advised that the reason admonction, apres /'article 5, de ce qui suit: the amendmenthas been in violation of the principal bill is, the secondclause of Bill 67 states that: "WHEREAS Emission d'actions aux e/ecteurs admissibles it is in the public interest of the province that shares of 5.1 Une action privi/egiee non participante avec droit The Manitoba Telephone System be offered for sale to de vote du capital-actions de Ia Societe est reputee members of the public;"-5(1) " ...be validly issued to avoir ete dument emise a chaque resident adulte du each adult resident of Manitoba eligible to vote in a Manitoba qui, en date du 1 er janvier 1996, avait le provincial election on January I, 1996." droit de voter aux elections provinciales. La designation, les droits, les privileges, les restrictions et My understanding and the advice I received is the les conditions se rattachant a cette action sont comme difference between "selling" and "issuing." suit:

a) /'action est designee action privilegiee de Mr. TimSale (Crescentwood): MadamSpeaker, let me categorie C; attempt to clarify the intent of this amendment and ask you to hold your ruling in abeyance. b) le capital declare de /'action est de 0 $;

There is nothing in this amendment to this section c) /'action donne un droit de vote a l'egard de toutes which takes away in any way from the shares that are les questions devant etre tranchees par les being offeredunder another section of the bill. This is an actionnaires de Ia Societe; intent which was accepted by Legislative Counsel in draftingthis amendment. What we are issuing here is an d) /'action ne donne pas a son titulaire le droit de additional class of shares. We are not preventing the participer aux dividendes, ni aux profi ts, ni a Ia issuance of shares on the market under other sections of repartition de l'actif de Ia Societe; the act; they are still there to be issued in exactly the manner that the act pretends to issue them. e) /'action est incessible.

* (1540) MadamSpeaker, thiswould simply create three classes of shares instead of two. There is a special share being Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment created for the government which we accept and which proposed bythe honourable member for Thompson is out someof our amendments speak to, but which we accept. of order. According to Beauchesne- There are shares being sold to the public to sell the corporation to effect the sale, which we accept. We are Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. simplyproposing toissue another class of shares with no par value and no market value to all those who are legally Madam Speaker: Order, please. According to resident in Manitoba and entitled to vote in an election. Beauchesne 698(5) it contravenes the principle of the We are not, and I underline this, we are not suggesting bill. that shares ought not to be sold under Section 12 of the act or ought not to be defined as shares fo r sale at a Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if I could ask fo r a market price under other sections of the act. This is not clarification of your ruling, in what way does this replacing; this is adding a class of shares. November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5233

I would askyou to reconsider your ruling on that basis, Laurendeau, McA lpine, Mc Crae, Mcin tosh, Mitchelson, please. Newman, Pallister, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffo, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Madam Speaker: Order, please. The best advice I Vo drey. have received is that the amendment is out of order. Nays Ifthe honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) does not concur with the ruling of the Chair, then the Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans honourable member fo r Crescentwood can challenge the (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, ruling of the Chair. Jennissen, Lath/in, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, Mc Gifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling. Wowchuk.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 22. challenged. Madam Speaker: Theruling ofthe Chair is accordingly Voice Vote sustained.

Madam Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I ruling of the Chair, please say yea. was paired thewith member fo r Emerson (Mr. Penner) so that he may be in attendance at a funeral. Some Honourable Members: Yea.

Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Point of Order

Some Honourable Members: Nay. Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, since you have had Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. limited time today to debate these issues, government resolutions up under Private Members' Business, we Formal Vote would be prepared to waive private members' hour today. Inaddition to that,we areprepared to sit from seven until Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas eleveno'clock this evening in order to continue debate on and Nays, Madam Speaker. report stage amendments.

Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Madam Speaker: Is there leave to waive private Call in the members. members' hour? [agreed]

Order, please. The question before the House is the Is there leave to sit this evening from 7 p.m. to 11 sustaining of the ruling of the Chair. p.m.? [agreed]

Division * * *

A RECORDED VO TE was taken, the result being as * (1640) fo llows: Madam Speaker: To continue Orders of the Day, Yeas Report Stage, Bill 67.

Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Ernst, Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), 5234 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

THAT Bill 67 be amended by adding thefo llowing after (a) the Cro"Ml in respect of the Master Agreement subsection 2(2): effective August 24, 1994, between The Manitoba Telephone System and Faneuil I.S.G. Inc.; and Certain agreements terminated (b) The Manitoba Trading Corporation in respect of 2(3) All agreements between The Manitoba Telephone any agreement described in subsection (4); System and The Manitoba Trading Corporation

are hereby extinguished. (a) relating to the Master Agreement effective August 24, 1994, between The Manitoba Telephone System and Faneuil I.S.G. Inc.; or [French version]

(b) otherwise relating to the business and aff airs of II est propose d'amender le projet de loi 67 par Faneuil I.S.G. Inc., or any subsidiary or related adjonction, apres le paragraphe 2(2) , de ce qui suit: company; Resiliation de certaines ententes are terminated. 2(3) Sont resiliees les ententes intervenues entre Ia Societe de telephone du Ma nitoba et Ia Societe Certain agreements amended commerciale du Ma nitoba: 2(4) Allagreements between Faneuil I.S.G. Inc. and The Manitoba Trading Corporation are deemed to be a) a legard du contrat-cadre entre envigueur le 24 amended so that aout 1994 entre Ia Societe de telephone du Manitoba et Faneuil ISG Inc , (a) every reference to "The Manitoba Trading Corporation" shall be read as a reference to "Manitoba b) qui ont autrement trait aux affaires de Faneuil Telecom Services Inc."; I.S. G. Inc., de sesjiliales ou de ses societes liees.

(b) Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., shall be deemed Modification de certaines ententes to have been the party to the agreements at all times; 2(4) Sont reputt�es modijiees les ententes intervenues and entre Faneuil I.S. G. Inc. et Ia Societe commerciale du Manitoba de fa ron ace que: (c) allnecessary modifications as circumstances require are deemed to have been made. a) tout renvoi a Ia So ciete commerciale du Manitoba soil interprete comme un renvoi a Ia Manitoba Te lecom Services Inc. Master agreement amended 2(5) The Master Agreement effective August 24, 1994, b) Ia Manitoba Telecom Services Inc. , soil reputee between the Manitoba Telephone System and Faneuil avoir ete partie a toutes les ententes; I. S. G. Inc. ishereby deemedto be amended as required to conform with subsections (3) and (4). c) les adaptations necessaires soient reputes avoir ete fa ites. Transfer of assets and liabilities 2(6) All assets acquired by The Manitoba Trading Corporation under and all liabilities of The Manitoba Modification du contrat-cadre Trading Corporation provided fo r in the agreements 2(5) Le contrat-cadre entre en vigueur le 24 aout described in subsection (4) are transferred to the 1994 entre Ia Societe de telephone du Manitoba et corporation. Faneuil I.S.G Inc. est repute avoir ete modifiede fa ron a etre conforme QUX paragraphes (3) et (4) . Rights and obligations terminated 2(7) All obligations, duties, rights and privileges of Transfert de l'actif et des obligations November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5235

2(6) Sont transfores a Ia Societe commerciale du amendment was to reduce the risk to the public of Manitoba a acquis en vertu des ententes visees au Manitoba by transferring the obligations from the paragraphe (4) et /es obligations que cette derniere a Manitoba Trading Corporation, a private body, to the contractees en vertu ces ententes. Manitoba Telecom system, the corporate body. This amendment is not only in scope, it has been tested by Extinction des droits et obligations Leg. Counsel and it furthers the intent of the legislation 2(7) Sont eteints les obligations, les droits et les and does not in any way detract from it. privileges: I put it to you that your ruling is simply wrong on the a) de Ia Courconne a /'egard du contrat-cadre entre technical merits of the issue and wrong in principle. You en vigueur le 24 aout 1994 entre Ia So ciete de are now preventing debate of important issues. You are telephone du Manitoba et Faneuil I. S.G. Inc. ; standing in the way of this side of the House making important contrib utions to this bill. You are no longer b) de Ia Societe commerciale du Manitoba a Iegard impartial. You have no place in that Chair. des autres ententes visees au paragraphe (4) . Mr. Ashton: Just in regard to the ruling, I wonder ifI Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment as could have some clarification, Madam Speaker. You are proposed by the honourable member fo r Crescentwood saying that thisis beyond the scope of the bill. This bill (Mr. Sale) is out of order according to Beauchesne's sells the Manitoba Telephone System, in Clause 2 698(1). It is beyond the scope ofthe bill. continues the corporation, and in 2(2) the rights and obligations. This amendment deals with rights and Point of Order obligations, in this case specifically outlining the rights and obligations related to Faneuil. Mr. Sale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, it is inconceivable to me how we could have rulings on I am wondering, Madam Speaker, on a bill which sells complex amendments of which Legislative Counsel the entire company of MTS, including the rights and provided drafting advice and answered questions about obligations, how it is not in order to add an scope in detail on every last one of these amendments. amendment-which I believe is in keeping with The section of the bill being amended is, Rights and Beauchesne 567-which is adding an item which increases obligations continued. One of the very maj or rights and its acceptability, and I would point out that it does not obligations in regard to this whole privatization issue is violate 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578 or their relationship with third parties. What this 5 79. It is not a matter that deals with a fo reign amendment did before you ruled it out of order was to proposition. This is inherent in the bill and I cannot provide an orderly mechanism fo r the rights and understand, and I ask for clarification, how an privileges inregard to the Faneuil deal to be continued in amendment as specific and as related that has been the new company. cleared through Leg. Counsel to specific provisions that We went into great detail with Legislative Counsel on continue the rights and obligations ofMTS, how can this the appropriateness of this amendment and its legality be out of scope? under the rules of the House. This is corporate legislation. This is precisely why these amendments from I would ask fo r that clarification, Madam Speaker, government and this bill should not be jammed through because ifyou arenot prepared to at least take this under with no appropriate consultation, because this is a very advisement, we will indeed be challenging your ruling. complex matterinvolving a deal worth over $1 00 million But I want to make sure I understand that your ruling is and obligations thatare curr ently now on the backs of the that it is not in order to define the rights and obligations people of Manitoba in excess of $20 million. which are going to be extended under this act. Surely, that is within the scope of the bill to sell offMTS. The government argued long and loud that Manitoba Telephone System should beprivat ized in order to reduce Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, ifI, too, justmay the risks to the public. The whole purpose of this add just a few words to the point of order that is being 5236 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

raised, my interpretation in the past has been that Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Legislative Counsel has been there to assist in the drafting of amendments, drafting of legislation and so Some Honourable Members: Nay. forth. Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. I myself haved used the Clerk's Office in terms of providing or requesting recommendations on things that Formal Vote we might want to do. I am wondering ifthe member fo r Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) could comment whether or not Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker. he has sought the advice of the Clerk's Office in terms of the scope, because it seems to me that ifwe are going to Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. be standing up challenging the Speaker's ruling on Call in the members everything that she does, I would assume that she is at least taking into account the concerns expressed from the The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Clerk's Office. I would be interested in knowing ifhe has Chair be sustained. done likewise, or is he basing his arguments strictly on Legislative Counsel? From my interpretation, it was there to help us or to assist us in the drafting, not Division necessarily telling uswhether or not it was in order inside the Chamber. A RECORDED VO TE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member fo r Thompson (Mr. Yeas Ashton), thehono urable member does not have a point of order. The honourable member referenced Citations 567, Cummings. Derkach, Downey, Driedger. Dyck, Ernst. 568, 569 on page 175 of Beauchesne. Those citations Fi lmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Hefv.·er. refer explicitly toamendments on motions, not relative to Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McA lp ine, Mc Crae, amendments on bills. Mcintosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister. Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render. Rocan. The bestadvice I have received is that this amendment Stejanson. Sveinson, To ews, Tweed, Vo drey. is out of order based on Beauchesne 698 because it is beyond the scope of the bill. Nays

* * * Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake). Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Lath/in, Mackintosh. Maloway, Ma rtindale, McGifford. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that Mihychuk, Reid, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wo wchuk. this is your ruling, not a ruling based on advice. I therefore challenge your ruling. Mr. Clerk: Yeas 31, Nays 21.

Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly challenged. sustained.

Voice Vote Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member fo r Swan River (Ms. Madam Speaker: All those in fa vour of sustaining the Wowchuk), ruling of the Chair, please say yea. THAT Bill 6 7 be amended by striking out subsection Some Honourable Members: Yea. 4(1) and substituting the fo llowing: November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5237

Servicesof corporation suchterms andcon ditions as may be approved fromtime 4(1) The corporation or an affiliate of the corporation to time by a regulator of competent jurisdiction. shall continue to provide affordable, accessible and high quality telephone service to all residents of the province I ask the question, to members of the House, what regardless of their geographic location, and at equitable comfort can they take in a provision of this act that says, rates throughout the province, on such terms and the corporation shall continue to provide access to conditions as may be approved from time to time by a telephone service? I mean, you do not have to live in regulator of competent jurisdiction. Tadoule Lake, Sharnattawa or York Landing to be concerned about this. All this says, basically, this gives [French version] up any policy mandate fo r the new corporation, any public-service mandate and throws it right onto the II est propose d'amender /e projet de /oi 67 par regulator. substitution, au paragraphe 4(1), de ce qui suit: I want this to be clear on the record too, because there Mission de Ia Societe is a difference with public ownership, and I will tell you 4(1) La Societe est tenue, e//e-meme ou par l'entremise what I use as a basis fo r that, Madam Speaker. It is the d'une personne morale de son groupe, de continuer a submission that was made to the CRTC by the Manitoba ojfrir des services te/ephoniques a prix abordab/e, Telephone SystemNovember 13. I am not talking about accessibles et de grande qua/ite a tous /es residents de the submission made by one Mr. Nugent, the honest Mr. Ia province, independamment de l'endroit oit i/s se Nugent, somebody who put his personal and professional trouvent, et a des taux equitab/es partout dans Ia reputation on the line by refusing to say anything other province, selon /es moda/ites qui sont app rouvees par thanwhat I believe is the truth, what was inthe document un organisme de reglementation competent. filed by MTS.

Motion presented. Whatis interesting, though, about the document is, the document says-this is MTS going into privatization. It Madam Speaker: The amendment is in order. says that the Manitoba Telephone System has extended rural and northern service fa r more than any other * (1720) company in Canada. In other words, the publicly owned Manitoba Telephone System, as a matter of public policy, Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if at first you do not has extended rural and northern service, more quickly, succeed, try, try again. I want to indicate that not only is more extensively. That, by the way, is something we are this in order, but surely this is one that can be added to proud of in this Manitoba Legislature, one of the reasons the growing list of amendments we have passed to Bill we want MTS kept publicly owned. 67, because I want people to compare the amendment with the current 4(1). Ifan ybody has any concerns about You know, Madam Speaker, one of these telephone the impact on ruraland northern service and affordability systems is not like the other. I mean, you know, there is of service fo r people throughout this province, not only a song of that nature, is there not? Yes. You know I based on geography but based on income, they should be think even kids who would knowthe song from Sesame very concerned about the current 4(1) because does it Streetwould understand that the real problem across the make any reference whatsoever to affordability, way is, the government is the last one in Manitoba to accessibility, high quality service and service being made understand there is a difference. They do not believe the throughout the province? I want to read you the current opposition when we sayit. They do not believe the many section because I think this will explain to members groups out there like the UMM and MAUM and MSOS. opposite why we have to have this provision in the bill. They do not believe the Manitoba Pool. They do not even believe the counsel fo r MTS, Mr. Nugent, and after Services of corporation, the current section states that the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) comments last week, I just the corporation or an affiliate shall continue to provide say, I am sure glad I am not one of the Premier's friends access totelephone service to residents of the province on because, if that is the way he treats his friends-w ell, 5238 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 25, 1996

pardon me, we know how he treats people who are not is the only protection fo r Manitobans. You sell the his friends politically, but that is another issue. company to this new private operation, there will still be telephone service . It does not say anything about the But thebottom lineis, what didthey say to the CRTC? cost. It does notany say thing about accessibility. It does They said, we have a more extensive role in northern not say one thing about making sure that people in service as a matter of public policy. We are the only ones Morris, Manitoba, or Thompson, Manitoba, or Dauphin in Canada to have extended as a matter of public policy or Swan River or Morden or Roblin, any of those in that way, shape and form. That is how we got rid of communities will have any guarantees of the kind of the party lines in Manitoba, Service fo r the Future, a commitment to service we have had on our public phone $620-million investment in rural and northern Manitoba. system that gives people in rural and northern Manitoba That is how we got service in communities such as the sameof kind phone service, the same access, the same Tadoule Lake and Shamattawa. affordability that applies to all Manitobans, Madam Speaker. That is not in this bill. They asked fo r some of those costs to be able to be passed on by the private company. In fa ct, they were SoI lookfo rward to the government members, and, in dealing directly with the schedule of rates and the rate­ fa ct we "ill be debating this later on tonight. I look capping regime to make sure that those costs are passed fo rward to their contribution because I note that the on by theprivate company. But what is interesting, what government House leader (Mr. Ernst) said about a week kind of guarantee is there in this bill? What is there in ago that they were going to debate us one-for-one on the way of protection fo r rural and northern senice? MTS. I have seen members like the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) who seems to have substituted You know, Madam Speaker, I want to refer-actually, now two-minute member statements fo r debate. I want to I fo rgot to mention one authority here for the need for hear where the member fo r Turtle Mountain is going to rural and northern service to be included and the stand on this bilL I want to see ifhe is going to vote fo r possibility it could be included. You know who I am accessibility no matter where you live in the province, to going to refer to? The three investment brokers. Because make sure his constituents-I want to see what he is going on April 30, when they filed their document with the to say to people in Killarney, Boissevain. I want to see Treasury Board, with Mr. Benson and Messrs. Stefanson what other people in southwest Manitoba are going to and Stefanson and Mr. Filmon and all the other large say, in Arthur, Virden. I want to see what they are going group of fo ur or five that made this decision, what is to say to the people in their own constituency who are interesting is,they said that protection could be put in for saying one of the reasons they do not want MTS sold off accessibility of service fo r rural service, and I can provide is because they know a publicly owned company is the document to members opposite who may still not committed to rural and northern service. That is what have seen it. Because it is intere sting, the stockbrokers this amendment is about. said, you know, you can build in some protection of I want to stress the operative words again: service. So what did the drafters of this bill do? They "affordable," "accessible," "high quality," regardless of broughtin this completely ridiculous 4( 1) which says, the where you live. I want to know on the government side, corporation should continue to provide access to whatare theyopposed to, affordable? Do they want to go telephone service. the same way as Tellus in Alberta, which is looking at doubling the rates, more than doubling for rural What do they expect? I mean, why is this even in Albertans? I commend the member fo r Burrows (Mr. there? What are they going to do, not provide telephone Martindale) for tracking down the prospectus. If you service? I mean,are what they going to do, shut down all want to know what a private phone company looks like, the lines? Madam Speaker, even the most vociferous look at theTellus prospectus . Look at it, and if you think critics ofMTS, of which there are many in this province, thatis a model for Manitoba, take that prospectus around would not suggest that they would rip out the phone and take the $190 million rate increases that Tellus has lines, you know, that the new shareholders of the brought in,take theirrate schedules and show themwhat company would direct the company not to provide your model, your ideological model, is bringing to this telephone service, butthat is what is in here. I mean, that province, becausethis is exactly what you modelled this November 25, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5239

share offering, this Bill 67 on, Alberta. [interjection] Because every other private company in the country had Four thousand. that chance and they said no. Go to northern Ontario or northern B.C. and fm d out what kind of rural and You know, you look at it, it is interesting, Madam northern service theyhave in their communities, the party Speaker, becausethey have an opportunity here to look at lines, the cost, the lack of accessibility. Madam Speaker, that, affordable, accessible, high quality throughout the the bottom line is that under a private company you do province. I want to tell you what has been happening in not have the commitment to affordable, accessible phone Alberta, because they have laid off4, 000 -in fact, closer rates throughout the province, and I will deal with this to 5,000--oftheir employees. What was the flrst thing further when we come back at seven o'clock because I they did? They shut down phone centres in rural Alberta. have a lot more to say about this very, very important They shut them down. That is what people have to be amendment. concerned about. Now, if that is their blueprint, let them be up front about it, let them put it on the record, but that "'(1730) is why I say you have a choice here, affordable, accessible; high quality throughout the province. I want Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is to stress that the real issue is the future of phone service. again before the House, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will have 31 minutes remaining.

Ifwe have a phone service in place in Manitoba that is The hour being 5:30 p.m, as previously agreed, I am privately owned, I will say on the record, you will never leaving the Chair with the understanding that the House see the kind of investment we have made in rural and will resume at 7 p.m. northern Manitoba since 1908, and you most definitely will not see the service fo r the future investment. Why? LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, November 25, 1996

CONTENTS

Matter of Privilege Vehicle Licensing Mackintosh 5207 Gaudry; Findlay 5223 Ernst 5210 Gaudry; Filmon 5224 Lamoureux 5211 Ashton 5213 Home Care Program Kowalski 5216 Chorniak; McCrae 5225 Martindale 5217 Telecommunications Industry ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS L. Evans ; Findlay 5227

Presenting Petitions Dauphin River C. Evans; Driedger 5229 Manitoba Telephone System Martindale 5219 Memben' Statements Reading and Receiving Petitions Manitoba Telephone System Tweed 5229 Manitoba Telephone System L. Evans 5230 Martindale 5219 Wowchuk 523 1 Wowchuk 5220

Sharp-Tailed Grouse Conservation Oral Questions Helwer 5230

Manitoba Telephone System Doer; Filmon 5220 ORDERS OF THE DAY Ashton; Filmon 5221 Ashton; Findlay 5222 Report Stage Sale; Stefanson 5222 Sale; Findlay 5223 Bill 67, Manitoba Telephone System L. Evans; Findlay 5226 Reorganization and Consequential 5227 Amendments Act Martindale; Findlay 5227 Ashton 523 1 McGifford; Findlay 5228 5237 Ashton; Findlay 5228 Sale 5232