Bill 67--The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I would like to move my first amendment on report stage. I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer),

THAT Bill 67 be amended in the first paragraph of the Preamble by adding "in order to meet the telecommunications needs of all Manitobans with the right solutions, outstanding service and superior products" after "residents of the province".

Motion presented.

Mr. Ashton: I am very pleased to be able to speak on this particular amendment, and I want to use as my justification for this amendment a rather unusual source, and that being the report of the three investment bankers, which was released in April of this year. This was the report from those three investment bankers. There are actually two now that are now going to be involved in selling the company--I guess, according to most recent information, to selling the company to such individuals as the Conservative MLAs, which is an interesting situation. But, in addition to getting paid $300,000 to recommend the sale and now running the sale, what is interesting is that they actually had a reference in there to the fact that even a privatized company could have some guarantees of service for rural and northern Manitobans.

So I waited anxiously when I saw the bill to see if it reflects that. It is interesting because the preamble, I think, probably gives a fairly good indication of the mindset of the government. We are going to amend some other aspects of the preamble, but what is particularly interesting is: whereas it is in the public interest of the province that the Manitoba Telephone System was to fully continue to provide access to telephone service to residents of the province. That is what is in the bill currently. You may be asking where we came up with this particular amendment. We came up with this amendment by looking at the mission statement for MTS.

According to the government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), nothing is going to change. Okay? Right? Remember nothing is going to change. Rates will not go up. Service will not be decreased. Do now worry. Trust us. Sure we misled you a little bit during the election about not selling off MTS, but do not worry, trust us. These new shareholders are only going to be concerned about Manitobans.

We will go through in our report stage the many holes in this bill. A lot of Manitobans are not aware that what few guarantees are in this bill will essentially last for four years. Four years is the minimum time payment the government has set up for the payment of the loan. I wonder if anybody has figured out what event might take place before that four-year period is up. Panic? How about an election? You think someone sat down and said, we do not want these new private owners to pay back the loans and tear up the guarantees in the agreement before the election. They probably sat down, figured it out. Rates will go up. We cannot argue that, but we will hang in there. Service in two, three, four years, a private company is not going to rip out the existing phone lines. It is really a question of future technology, but what about such provisions as head office? That is one of the first to go.

In fact, any of the protection in there for Manitobans is gone after four years if the company pays up at that point in time. By the way, the government has given the option to the company of a longer time period.

So what is involved with this bill? This is not only a bad bill in principle; it is a shell game; it is a sham. It provides only surface protection for Manitobans, and even then, it only applies for four years, but you know, even within that four-year period, what is interesting is that this WHEREAS commits the new owners to what? Provide access to telephone service to residents of the province. Well, I have news for the government, but 98 percent of Manitobans have phones, okay? Now, it is not that hard for a private company to do nothing more than just kind of like not rip out the phone lines from people's houses. Nothing in here about rural Manitobans or northern Manitobans. I mean, could you not put in something saying, as we have suggested here, quote the mission statement, commitment to service throughout rural and northern Manitoba?

I mean, I heard the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), I even heard Mr. Tom Stefanson, the CEO, or pardon me, the chairperson of the board of MTS saying, do not worry, do not worry, nothing is going to change, no job losses, things are not going to change.

Why is it not in the book? Why is it not in the bill? The Minister responsible for MTS, if you are really serious about this, if you do not think there is any difference the way a private company operates--that is essentially your argument--then why do you not put it in the bill?

* (1530)

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, why they do not want to put it in the bill. It is because everybody knows that a private company has to be concerned about one thing, the bottom line, paying its shareholders. There was an article just recently about Bell Canada. What did it reference? It talked about rate increases taking place the last couple of years, talking about its commitment to its shareholders. Bell Canada is talking about this. In fact, they were pleased they have only dropped to 71 percent long distance market, Manitoba Telephone System in excess of 80 percent. But Bell Canada did not say that we are in business for the betterment of people in Ontario. They are in business for what? For their shareholders. Quite frankly, I do not blame the shareholders; if you own shares, you want to make money. That is why you invest.

That is why the Conservative caucus are lining up at the trough here. They cannot get their snouts in on this one too quickly. It does not matter if they are trustees of the public assets of the province. Has it not dawned on anyone across the way that they set the price for this? They set the price, and there are some more questions about if that is a fair price. What if they were to underprice it? What if they were to then buy shares? What if those shares were to go up? Oh, would that not be something. Would it not be something if a lot of those Conservative MLAs who have known about what has been going on with MTS, probably longer than anyone in this province--I suspect some of them knew about this before the provincial election. In fact, I know they did. [interjection]

No, exactly, and we have all the secret reports, as the member for Crescentwood points out, which only they know about. No one else can see. What if that were to happen? Is it not an interesting view of ethics here. I heard the government say, there is no conflict [interjection] I hear the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) speaking from his seat, and he is probably going to call me a socialist again, me and 78 percent of rural Manitobans, those socialists who do not want the MTS sold off, I mean, give me a break. I say to the Deputy Premier, he should go back to his constituents and just explain to them that he thinks they are all socialists if they support MTS. Like the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities.

But let us put this into perspective here. They do not see any problem with buying shares that they are setting the price for. You know, you do not have to be a lawyer. What if you are a trustee? If a lawyer was trustee of assets and the lawyer went and sold those assets and the lawyer set the price and the lawyer then purchased the assets, Madam Speaker, do you know what happens?

An Honourable Member: They would be disbarred.

Mr. Ashton: You get disbarred. The Conservative caucus--you make a profit. They do not see the connection. I realize that ethics and Progressive Conservative do not exactly go in the same sentence--we have certainly seen that on other dealings with the bill--but does it not strike anyone that even somebody on the street who is not any great expert on ethics can see through the situation?

But this is the point with MTS. The bill is a sham. It does not have any protection in it that would stop MLAs from buying shares. We are going to introduce that later, by the way. We want that in the bill to protect Manitobans. There is no provision in here for guaranteed service. Even the provision in there for the head office does not apply.

So the bottom line here is even if this bill was not a problem in principle--which it is--this is a bad bill. It is a bad piece of legislation. If the government wonders why we are sitting here today, why we did not complete last Thursday, they only have to look in the mirror to see why.

It is interesting--to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) because his incompetent government were the ones. They scheduled committee hearings but they gave themselves Friday night off after three; Saturday night off after three. They did not sit Monday. They brought in the amendments half an hour before the committee started, and they wanted to ram it through in that night. Do you know what? This incompetent government would not even meet with the employees. They brought in amendments on Friday, the day after the bill was supposed to be in there.

To the Deputy Premier, he says I say about breaking his word. I am sure he is talking about the fraudulent election campaign that the Conservatives ran because people know about broken words from that Deputy Premier over there. That is right.

An Honourable Member: Save the Coyotes.

Mr. Ashton: That is right. You know they are going to run in the next election on, trust us; where they can run on, save the Phoenix Coyotes. They are going to run on, trust us on health care and education. We will not sell off Hydro and Autopac. [interjection] Yeah, right. If anybody is going to believe that one, it will be something else.

So if they are serious about this sale, why did they not put in any protections for rural Manitobans in this bill?

An Honourable Member: More people believe Elvis is alive than believe you guys.

Mr. Ashton: Well, that is true, I have said that too. You have got to know you are in difficulty when the number of people supporting what you are doing is around the same level of people that think that Elvis is still alive. Actually I think they have dropped a bit below that the last week. I realize in that caucus it may come to a surprise because after their protestations that MTS is not an issue, I swear that virtually all of them probably think that Elvis is alive.

I hate to break it to you. Two things: Elvis is not alive and, No. 2, you do not have public support on MTS. You know the lack of reality over there is amazing. [interjection] The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is probably one of the few that would do that.

You know, when you start getting the Brandon Sun saying, the Tories drop ball on MTS sales pitch, I will quote one little section here because they have been one of the few people that have actually tended to agree at times with the government on this issue. But do you know what they say? True, the Democrats spearheaded this push which is opposed against the sale of MTS, but a lot of people who were against MTS privatization were rural folks who are not traditional Democrat supporters. I have been trying to tell the government that since February.

I remember being in Dauphin, I remember being in Swan River, I remember being in Brandon, and we have had people get up at our meetings--I will tell you who the most angry people are. Well, I was going to say Tories, but in some cases I do not think they are Tories anymore, after how they feel betrayed on this.

I remember in Swan River, somebody got up and said, they have no right to do this. They have no right to do this. You know what is interesting? He was a Conservative supporter, an active Conservative.

Our meetings have been a cross-section of rural Manitoba. You do not get 50 resolutions opposing the sale from rural municipalities, Madam Speaker, if you do not have a broad cross-section of support.

What I love the most about what the government has done is, whenever we get up and warn people about the consequences--we did a study on rates. We commissioned a study--a 9.75 percent increase because of taxes, the cost of borrowing. What did the government say? Well, that is not true. We have got our own studies, but we are not going to show you. This is the same government that did not do a single study on privatization through MTS. That is confirmed, on the record. I do not believe they have any studies. They do not want to know. They do not want to be confused by the facts.

The clear example of this was the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). In one sentence, he says, oh, we are going to sell off MTS. Then he says, we are proud of the fact we put all this investment in rural Manitoba. Hello, there, why do we have all this investment in rural Manitoba, to the Deputy Premier through you, Madam Speaker? Because of MTS. I mean, read the UMM brief. Check what happens in B.C. and Ontario. Check their rural service against ours. You will find they have party lines. They have got far inferior service to what we have. We have the best service. Why? Because it is a publicly owned phone company, and we have a commitment to serving rural and northern Manitobans.

I mean, what does it take? You run through that and they do not want to acknowledge it. They want to believe--and the most bizarre example of that is Tom Stefanson sort of saying, well, we are not going to lose any rural jobs. Now, just because in Ontario Bell Canada is contracting operator services with Phoenix, Arizona--Phoenix, Arizona. It is interesting, though, because now I sort of see. Maybe they did not really lie to the people in the election. Maybe what they did is, they said that there are going to be people with MTS jobs, and they are going to be watching the Phoenix Coyotes. The only problem they did not tell us is, the Jets would be in Phoenix and so would the jobs, the MTS jobs.

* (1540)

Who believes, other than Tom Stefanson, that the private shareholders are going to care about whether there are jobs in Morden or if there are jobs in Minnedosa or Dauphin or Brandon or Thompson, and when the bottom line calls, you can save a fraction of a cent, bang, those jobs are gone. Do not doubt me. Look at what AT&T did. When they came to Canada, they pulled the telemarketing jobs, 150 right out of Winnipeg, just like that. You can transfer jobs back and forth like you would a chess piece on a board.

Do not kid yourself. You are not going to have the same commitment to rural and northern employment. I am amazed, actually, that the government does not even think of this. Their arguments are so ridiculous. This is the government that was proud of what a few years ago, something we supported, decentralization. [interjection] We did support it, for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). The Liberals at that time were critical. I supported it 1,000 percent as did each and every member of our caucus.

Now, in some cases, to the member for Ste. Rose, it was a little bit hard to swallow. I saw the sheet on Thompson. You know, there were 42 new Hydro jobs in Thompson. Well, that is what the sheet said. You know what they did? They took Kelsey, which is based out of the Winnipeg office on paper, and you know what they did? They scratched that out and they wrote in Thompson. You know how many new jobs there were in Thompson? Zero.

To the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), what is relevant is, they went around saying decentralization, and Hydro and MTS were two of them. Hydro and MTS, they added those numbers in. They had a push to get jobs moved to rural Manitoba.

Now, if the government on the one hand in 1990 was pushing decentralization and acknowledged that you could, because you owned the company, have jobs in rural Manitoba instead of the city, now they are trying to say that under a private company it is not going to change? I mean, if you look to what happened in Alberta, 5,000 jobs cut since AGT was privatized. Guess what? Rural phone centres closed. Check what has happened in Alberta. Do not take my word for it. Just check into it.

But you know what I find interesting is any time any of us gets up and states anything, it is interesting because the Deputy Premier is the classic example in this Chamber. Do not confuse me with the facts--this is his approach on everything. As it was pointed out on the weekend, he can take a single thought and stretch it into 30 minutes. Sometimes he takes not even a thought and stretches into 30 minutes. I mean, he is the master of hyperbole: Let me make this perfectly clear. Then you sit there, and you say, what was that again? But you know what? You look at it, he has not bothered to do one minute of homework. What happens is now 78 percent of rural Manitobans are against the sale, 67 percent of Manitobans generally. What do they do? They blame the NDP. Boy, we are responsible for all that. I mean, I have been fighting this issue since February, and I wish I could take some responsibility for all 78 percent of rural Manitoba being against this sale.

I worked hard. All our caucus has worked hard. We have had meetings in Swan River, in Dauphin and Morden and Neepawa and Minnedosa and Roblin and Virden--oh yes, I must not leave out Virden--Thompson, Gillam, Flin Flon, The Pas. But what is interesting is we have gone out, and do you know what everybody says at these meetings? They ask me the question: Why is the government doing this? Now, I want to admit that I am probably not the most objective source in giving a response to that question. They may have me there. They may have a point. I have tried my best to be really objective and try and think of why the government would do this, but, Madam Speaker, it comes to a point where you have got to look at it--why are they not there themselves? I mean, you can criticize me, criticize the NDP caucus. Who could forget the immortal words of the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay) who said only the member for Thompson was talking about privatization on September 26, 1995--only the NDP. You might have a better argument on debate if you were part of the debate. It takes two to debate. It is kind of hard to criticize the only party, the only people that are going around the province talking to anyone, sitting on public meetings on this issue.

What I find amazing is the only meetings they have had have been set up by MTS people. June Kirby was saying that they targeted the municipalities that had motions opposed to the sale of MTS. You notice, UMM against the sale. [interjection] Well, we will get into the Dauphin Chamber of Commerce, too. That was interesting because the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce was not aware of that. I guess they did not want to know about that. But, you know, I could run through a list of communities here that is a cross section of Manitoba. Brandon has passed a resolution. Thompson has passed a resolution, Selkirk, Dauphin. You can run through the large urban centres.

An Honourable Member: Killarney.

Mr. Ashton: Killarney, you know, Morden. I mean, what does it take? When are the Tories going to wake up to the fact that when you have got 78 percent of people in rural Manitoba saying something, that they are not all New Democrats? Not yet. Not yet, but if you want to keep on believing that they are all New Democrats, after a while they probably will be. When we had our meeting in Morden, the first thing they said was, yellow dog. You know, the yellow-dog syndrome. Somebody said, well, this is the kind of area where you can run a yellow dog, and this is no offence to the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), and they will get elected. Now, they used to say that about the Conservatives federally. What happened? Government to two seats. I still think that is two seats too many, but think about it. [interjection] Gender parity, that is right, not a single M.P. in the West. Think about it. The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) is one of the masterminds of their strategy. Remember he was running around saying, all right, this Kim Campbell is the next best thing since sliced bread. Now, the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) had a slightly different view, and it is interesting because--

An Honourable Member: By the way, do you have a leader now?

Mr. Ashton: Well, the Deputy Premier is now talking about something. I wonder if he is asking whether he still has a party federally. I can understand that when you are down to two seats. The Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) did have a different view. But, to quote one of their own M.P.s, they took the Kool-Aid, and the rest is history. Madam Speaker, right now I think Kool-Aid is definitely the drink of choice of the Conservative caucus. They are doing it again.

An Honourable Member: Just do not make it purple.

Mr. Ashton: Just do not make it purple, indeed. It is probably blue. Whatever it is, it is probably blue, Tory blue.

Think about it, Madam Speaker, this government now is sitting there--the first strategy was deny there is anything going on out there.

An Honourable Member: Deny, deny, deny.

Mr. Ashton: Deny, deny, deny. That might have worked if it was not for 50 resolutions, the UMM, MSOS, MAUM, the 185 presenters. Okay, that did not work. The second thing was, shoot the messenger. Yes. Those socialists, they are arguing to save MTS here, but how do you explain that to the UMM and the MSOS and MAUM and the Pool and the 78 percent of rural Manitobans out there? I mean, are they all socialists? This is interesting because I have heard the Deputy Premier, who, up until now, was most famous for saying northerners did not know how to vote right. Well, he is going to have to adjust that after the next election because if rural Manitobans do not know how to vote right according to his view, believe you me, if he keeps calling rural Manitobans socialists and attacking them on MTS, I do not think they will be back with too many rural seats next time. Remember Brian Mulroney.

An Honourable Member: A fine man.

Mr. Ashton: A fine man, well, indeed, yes. Keep on thinking that, think GST. That was a good one. Actually, the rhetoric on MTS reminds me of the GST. It is like we are here for the good of the country--bang. I remember the Deputy Premier used to bang his hand on the table all the time. They must have felt really good when they passed the GST through Parliament. [interjection] Yes, and where are they now? How is Brian doing? Well, Brian is doing okay. He has a few corporate appointments. Oops, it is a good thing I am in the Legislature. I could get sued for $50 million for even mentioning his name.

Is this what the Conservatives are going to hope that they are going to be able, after their defeat in the next election, to have lawsuits to keep them going like their former Prime Minister, you know, a nice $50 million? If his reputation, if he thinks it is worth $50 million, good luck to him. What is their reputation going to be? I say this on this case to you, why would you buy shares knowing that you are violating a trusteeship? I want to know how many on that side are going to buy shares. How are you going to be able to look at people in the eye? Do you not understand it is an ethical conflict? Think about it. If lawyers can get disbarred for this, it is unethical. Do not do it. Anyway, that is a bit of advice.

* (1550)

So I ask the question, then, Madam Speaker, and that is why I start on this amendment because this amendment is--I will tell you that there are some very substantive amendments, and that there are some very substantive amendments that have the function of doing one thing and that is smoking the Tories out. I have said they can run if they want, but they cannot hide. They have been trying to run from this for quite some time. The most entertaining description of this was the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) talking about running around in the hockey games saying, what do you think about MTS, what do you think about MTS? I have a suggestion for the member for Ste. Rose. He should do what we did. We set up a public meeting in Neepawa. Set up a meeting, ask people, run a survey. I mean this was pathetic, you know, this is like the hockey game pool--you know, this is a poll here.

Now I have news for the member because there is an interesting poll that the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) can reference, because the member for Point Douglas attends a lot of hockey games. I think it has got something to do with the fact his son is an excellent player, and he travels around the province. He even came to Thompson--and I will not mention which team he cheered for, but anyway it was his son's team, Winnipeg Warriors. Now, the member for Point Douglas went into Pembina constituency, it was at Morden. Right? Morden, Manitoba.

Now, you ought to listen to this because the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) and I went to a rally in Morden, Manitoba, that hotbed of socialism, to use the words of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey). You know what? It was one of our best rallies in rural Manitoba. Do you know what they said? It is interesting because you know the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) and others who keep going on about this not being an issue--Morden, Manitoba, it was a rally. Now, a gentleman came up to the member for Point Douglas at a hockey game and said, are you an NDP MLA?

Now, there was a time in Morden, even if you were an NDP MLA, I will tell you, if you were at a hockey game, you probably would not want to admit to it. There was a time. But, you know, the member for Point Douglas is a courageous soul, and you know what he said? He says, yes, I am an NDP MLA. And you know what the person said? The person said to him, you know, the biggest problem around here is the last election, like we did every election, we voted Conservative, we should have voted NDP. Morden, Manitoba, yes, Morden, Manitoba. Now, I know the right road to Morden and Winkler because I got to go into Winkler too, because I am advised that I should definitely get in there, there are a lot of people concerned about the MTS.

Why would Morden be concerned about it? Has anybody seen how many MTS employees there are in Morden? You know it is a big issue out there. Do not kid yourself, there is a lot of concern in Morden, Manitoba. You know I know this because I held a meeting. I have been there twice. That is two more public meetings than the Conservatives have held in their own constituency on MTS. [interjection] Oh, on any number of issues. You know, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) says, on any number of issues. It is interesting because every single one of their agendas excludes one issue. Now, you know they like to say, no one raises the MTS issue with them. Well, okay, you know what, let us deal with this because it is interesting.

The Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) came to Thompson on Tuesday. He had one of his pre-budget consultations that has been going in Manitoba for awhile, it is a good idea. Now I know for a fact the--[interjection] Vic Schroeder started it, yes--and I know for a fact that this issue was raised with him. You know why I know? Because there is the person who works at the airport who said to the Minister of Finance, this one is going to come back to haunt you, a person I respect a lot. Now was this person an active New Democrat? [interjection] Well, I do not know if I will go that far. I am advised soon. Do you know what? He managed their campaign a number of years ago, managed the Conservative candidate's campaign.

He told me several months ago, he said, you know, I am a Conservative, I do not think we have agreed on anything, Steve, and I said, that is probably true, but he said, I am opposed to them selling off MTS. He told the Minister of Finance at the airport, he said, this one is going to come back to haunt you. Now what does it take here? You know, like, the member for Point Douglas in Morden, the person who works at the airport in Thompson, I mean, if you are honest about it enough that you go out and get the feedback, 78 percent does not surprise anyone.

I mean you just walk in any rural coffee shop, and I have been in rural coffee shops throughout Manitoba. We got public meetings, you know what, you talk to people. It is not hard to see which way things are going when 78 percent of people are opposed to that. It is particularly strong amongst seniors. Seniors are very much opposed to this. It is very much of an issue amongst women, by the way, too. I think it was interesting with the CBC poll, because it reflects that. Women are often the ones who rely on phones for their lifeline in more ways than one, and we heard that at committee but, you know, you start looking at it, you can run, but you cannot hide. In the end, two-thirds of Manitobans do not agree with what you are doing; 78 percent of rural Manitobans do not agree.

Has it not dawned on anyone over there? I mean, I talked about the Kool-Aid syndrome. I know you can sit around, and they must have Gestalt sessions, like therapy sessions in the caucus, because the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), he is obviously into this. They have just said, you have got to get out there now, you just have to go out and you have got to give those rotten NDPers, you have got to go give them heck here, pound them in the House, and they all come in here, and it is like, he leads off, and it reminds me of the charge of the light brigade, which was one of the most incompetent displays of military leadership in history and yet goes down in history books and has been recorded in literary terms as such a--cannons to the left of them, cannons to the right, you know, the UMM to the left of them, the MSOS to the right of them, onward they rode into the valley of political death.

I say to the member for Turtle Mountain, I would suggest, this is one you do not want to be up front on. I mean, get to the back of the parade on this one. Let the people who made the real decisions, like the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and Tom Stefanson and Jules Benson, the gang of four on MTS.

By the way, you notice I do not include the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay), because I want to say on the record that I do not think the Minister responsible for MTS was included on the loop. I thought he had been and I thought I was being, to be kind, misled, but I am convinced now that the Minister responsible for MTS was not brought in until far later in the picture. When he said to me on September 26 that there was no talk of privatization, I thought at one time that he had not told me the truth at that point in time, but I am beginning to wonder if perhaps he honestly believed that but there were things going on behind his back including, in September, the interviewing of the seven investment brokers that led to the three to being considered afterwards. I mean, the group of four, well, Mike Bessey is sort of the book and scholarship king of North America, and what was his thesis proposed on? The costs and benefits of privatizing the Manitoba Telephone System. Mike Bessey, who cut his teeth on telephone issues; Mike Bessey, who was involved with the Faneuil deal and just coincidentally got this book and scholarship deal from who? One of the principals of Faneuil. I mean, 400,000 bucks, not a bad scholarship if you can get it, I must admit. But is it not interesting, whether it is four or five people, what a small group it comes down to?

That is why I say to the member for Turtle Mountain, you know, when you come out of one of these therapy sessions in the caucus, and they must have changed tack a little bit because, going into the final week, they were desperate, like, they were real desperate. Like, they adjourned at three o'clock on Friday afternoon, they adjourned at three o'clock on Saturday afternoon, and I am not suggesting they should have sat on Sunday, because that was the right thing.

They did not meet on Monday, and I guess when they kind of got their pajamas off and put their suits on, they said, we have got a problem here, we have got to push this thing through. They came up with the great idea on a $1-billion-plus deal of bringing in the amendments, giving me a copy as the critic half an hour before the committee started, running the committee until 3:22, and I must admit they looked pretty happy. They thought they had it. They knew they were going to ram it though--3:22 in the morning.

Well, I thought actually they would just cut off the public. I kind of expected that. They were not happy with that. They want to ram it through. Interesting, because people have asked me since how I kept going from 3:22 to nine o'clock, and I say to the--and the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) was there, because he was part of that group that wanted to ram it through at 3:22 in the morning. You know what? I have never had so much feedback in all the years I have been in politics about doing one thing, and that was standing up for what was right and in that case making sure the government did not ram through the MTS at 3:22 in the morning.

* (1600)

But let us get into this theatre of the absurd, Madam Speaker, the theatre of the absurd. Thursday I walk into the committee, and we are dealing with clause by clause. Finally I thought there was still some hope in terms of, you know, some co-operative operation of the House. You know what? I talked to representatives from one of the unions. They had not even been involved in the discussions on pensions. Do you know what the minister said? He was not going to deal with this, the same minister who brought in a bill that said the pensioners were deemed to have consented to the transfer of their pension from the civil service into a private plan. It was not until that afternoon, and I want to credit, by the way, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) for starting those negotiations at our request, but I want to give them credit, and I do not mean to be critical about the Minister responsible for MTS (Mr. Findlay). I am critical up to that point about the process that went from Thursday to Friday. I think he deserves some credit as well.

But let us look at the situation. Thursday they had not met with key components of the employees. The discussion went till about 10:30, and that was I think about the time which the memorandum of understanding was put in place. I remember talking to the Premier (Mr. Filmon), and I pointed out the good spirit on the memorandum of understanding, but not resolved yet, still needs some consideration of amendments, and the Premier insisted, no, we got amendments. Who cares? I mean, it is done, whatever. What was interesting is, Thursday we called the committee for Friday. We go in on Friday, there were amendments, not drafted Thursday, but amendments that were drafted on Friday. What amazed me is, I do not know what happened that weekend, because the Chair of that committee went on at some great length. I must admit, I was not hurt too much when he did not pay any attention to the discussions that went on before the pension amendments.

I know there are some sore points over there about some of us that debated the issue extensively, but it is interesting, he went out of his way, the Chair of the committee, to congratulate the minister, the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) and the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy and Mines for having worked on these pension amendments.

So, Madam Speaker, I do not know what went on with this government. Thursday they thought magically, despite their incompetence, that MTS was just going to disappear, poof, up in smoke. I do not know what they thought. Maybe it was supposed to be passed through on Thursday night and then the pension issues were supposed to be dealt with at committee, but that committee was actually supposed to really be magically termed as having taken place before. You know, I do not know what it takes over there to figure out that you go through the committee stage first and you deal with the report and the third stage afterwards.

Like, if Royal Assent had been given to that bill, nothing that happened on Friday would have been queried, but I do not understand what happened to this group on the weekend. They must have had a bad weekend. You know what I think it probably was? It was probably all the people and the Legions across the province asking why they rammed through Bill 50, which is commercializing Remembrance Day. I realize it probably was not that hard when they had to go to Remembrance Day services and explain why.

I tell you, it really hurt me a lot when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) said, that rotten NDP stopped The Remembrance Day Act from being proclaimed. I had a hard time in my Legion at Remembrance Day services in Thompson having to explain why I was responsible for one more year of not having stores open at one o'clock to have a Remembrance Day sale.

I say to the government on the record too that I find it absolutely despicable that some of the major companies like Superstore, once again that great corporate citizen, went and chose to open anyway, despite the fact they had full notice. I say to the government, you better prosecute them if there is to be any sense of respect for the law in this province. I say to the Minister of Labour, because he likes to in his new Labour Relations bill talk about the conduct of employees on picket lines, how about the conduct of a major corporation on Remembrance Day, a day that was put aside to protect the memory of our veterans, the people who served, a bill that was not proclaimed in this House? So I must say they had a bad weekend, I understand it. Anyway, they came in last week, Tuesday, the ultimate, Madam Speaker, they were going to punish us. They were going to show us who was boss. So what did they do? They adjourned the House.

When I heard them say on the record over the weekend that the deal and the rules are off, I must admit part of me said, well, if we are going to be debating MTS, let us think of some things, tactics, you know, what is appropriate. And you know what? I must admit adjourning the House did cross my mind. I rejected it; I said no. We are here to debate within our Opposition Day motion. They came in. You know it is funny, because the Premier (Mr. Filmon) called me a comedian a few weeks ago for doing what?--trying to adjourn the House. It is funny, but, no, they were going to adjourn the House Tuesday, Wednesday. Boy, they were going to show us who is boss. Well, now, Madam Speaker, we are back to square one. I guess, the damage control team over there has come out with a new strategy, and that is get the Speaker to enforce closure.

I mean this is a brilliant one here. After a day saying the rules are off, they want it now to take the rules and add a new two or three interpretations and then the debate would just magically poof, disappear again. I do not know what it is over there, but there is no Cinderella here. There is no midnight. You do not suddenly turn--your carriage does not turn back into a pumpkin. The reality is, you cannot run from this issue. Bill 67 is going to be there. I will tell you one thing, we are going to be there. Our caucus is going to be in each and every one of your constituencies. You cannot hide from it. My suggestion is that if you are too--no, I do not think this is appropriate here; well, "pigheaded" is not unparliamentary--but if you are going to be that way, I am not putting it to a vote, I am not passing this, you have to understand one thing. Now that you have said on the record that the rules as they existed before are off, your choice, I think that you ought to expect on the biggest deal in Manitoba history that we are going to stand up as we are on this amendment and all other 40--pardon me--39 other amendments, that we are going to debate it, Madam Speaker. You do not want to give it due diligence on behalf of the two-thirds of Manitobans who do not want the sale, many others, we are going to give it due diligence and we will take the time if necessary to do it. Thank you.

Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, it is very helpful that in the report stage that we deal with all of the issues in sequence. Normally, in committee we would have put off the debate of the preamble till the end, but I think it is very appropriate that we start a bill like the Bill 67 report stage with an amendment. It deals with a very important issue in the preamble.

Madam Speaker, let me speak directly to this preamble. It comes as the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), my colleague with whom I had the privilege of sitting, helped the government to understand that antidemocratic processes will not be tolerated by our side of the House. He points out in his remarks that this is straight out of the mission statement of MTS, if indeed as the current chairperson of MTS, the other Mr. Stefanson, has said that the mission and mandate will not change. He said that in committee when we were discussing the annual report in a great bluster and bravado. The mission and mandate of the company will not change.

Well, indeed, if that is the case, then I would expect all honourable members opposite to be supporting this amendment wholeheartedly, because this is the mission and mandate of the Manitoba Telephone System to meet the telecommunication needs of all Manitobans with the right solutions, not necessarily the cheapest solutions, outstanding service, not average service or ordinary service or service we can get by with on a dark Friday night when nothing else is happening and superior products, not just the products that will meet the needs of people at an ordinary kind of level, but superior products, like the product, Madam Speaker, that MTS announced it is going to be testing in the next few months that will use the newest of digital compression technology to make old copper wire perform things that even co-ax cable could not do a year or so ago.

So I would, first of all and with great seriousness, say particularly to those backbenchers opposite, you ought to be supporting this amendment. This is what your people said would be the case. The mission statement would stay. The mandate would stay. Nothing will change. Well, then, here is the amendment to give that some force.

But, Madam Speaker, it is important to start this debate on this issue, on this particular issue, for another reason, and that is that this is the ethical principle on which the whole debate hangs. If we are in a publicly owned Crown corporation, then it indeed has a mission to provide the right solution, outstanding service and superior products. It does not have, as a private corporation would have, a mandate of meeting the interests of the shareholders in producing a bottom line return on investment. That is the duty of a private corporation and properly so. When private individuals risk their capital, they have a right to expect what the law calls a fiduciary duty. That is the financial duty that the managers of that company have to those who have risked their equity in it.

* (1610)

So we can expect that in a private telco, the mission and mandate of that telco, though it may have some PR value for the public, will really be return on equity, return at the end of the day, return in the form of dividends, return in the form of the appreciation of shares, return in the form of benefits to the shareholders, Madam Speaker.

So it is very, very appropriate that we start our debate by being very clear that this is the dividing point in this particular debate. This preamble is the dividing point for those of us who believe that telecommunications are such a central and vital lever of our future economic and human and social policy in this province, a vital lever for education, Madam Speaker, for the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), who has pointed out a number of times that they have a centre in the regional high school in Swan River, which some of us were privileged to visit last year on a trip to that part of the province, that had cut the costs of having meetings for those government departments and private companies that have employees in Swan River because they could use the two-way telecommunications video studio in the high school. They did not have to travel to Winnipeg, taking a day's time for it to go and to return. They did not have to spend money on hotels. They could go to Swan River's high school and have an effective, efficient meeting, seeing those in the meeting on their screens in front of them, getting their business done in the hour or so it might take and then going about their full day's work.

So let it not be said that telecommunications is simply an issue of profit. It is also an issue of efficiency for government itself. It is an issue of access for students in the North and students in rural Manitoba.

Madam Speaker, in my former life as a consultant, I was privileged to work with the Northwest Territories government on education, and let me tell you that I was delighted and surprised to find a small community in Baffin Island that was using Manitoba's Calculus 300 program and was on line through our telecommunications system through their satellite system. There were Inuit students in northern Baffin Island on line with Manitoba Telephone System resources to study Calculus 300. They simply could not have provided Calculus in the northern reaches of Baffin, but you could not get into some of the universities those kids wanted to go to without it. This was a lifeline for them, for their future.

Another reason why it is important that we start this debate on the issue of the preamble is that if the members opposite in fact defeat this amendment, which, I hope, they will not do, but if they do, Madam Speaker, it will be yet more evidence of another broken Tory promise, a promise not to sell the Telephone System, broken; not to sell the Telephone System without public hearings, broken; a promise that the mission and the mandate would remain the same, if they do not pass this amendment, another broken Tory promise.

Madam Speaker, when you start debate of a bill on something so central as the question of what the purpose of communication is, then I think you are on the right track, and so we are on the right track here today.

Madam Speaker, let me talk a bit about this bogus point of order that was put to you earlier by the government House leader. I had the privilege of sitting through the committee hearings, some 80 hours of which I sat on about 70-plus, perhaps my amount exceeded only by my honourable friend from Thompson who, I think, sat through almost all of the hearings, and we watched the government so careless of process, so careless of democracy--

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Crescentwood that debate should be relevant to the amendment, and the honourable member is speaking to a point of order which has been taken under advisement.

Mr. Sale: The government was so careless of the process and of the democratic process in its committee stage that it was prepared to ride roughshod over the public, ride roughshod over due process of the committee, and move all of its amendments, some 24 or 25 of them, Madam Speaker, in the dark of night, amendments that had not been seen except by one person on the opposition benches, amendments that were very complex and which clearly made the case for splitting the session into spring and fall sittings because, suddenly, at the very last minute, it appeared that this bill was so seriously flawed that there were 24 or 25 substantive amendments that had to be moved. So, all of a sudden, at the end of the process, these amendments arrive in the middle of the night, and the government expects us to pass it through.

Now, Madam Speaker, we made it very clear that we would debate this bill and, ultimately, if the government wishes to use its bully pulpit, its majority, to ram it through using closure, that will be its burden to carry both at present and into the future, but we made it plain that we would debate the merits of this bill. We would put forward substantive amendments of which this is the first one. We would hold them to their word that, in fact, this company would be privatized in the care and trusteeship of Manitobans, that it would not be owned by AT&T , that it would not have a board of directors not representing our province.

These are all promises that have been made in this legislation and to which our amendments will speak directly to protect and provide those kinds of assurances to this bill, which, no matter how it is amended, we will vote against, Madam Speaker. Nevertheless, we have a duty, as the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has said, to try and improve this very bad legislation.

Now, Madam Speaker, we have heard today how in a company that is going to have the same mission and mandate of superior services, having outstanding service, superior products and the right solutions, that there will nevertheless be somehow the opportunity to make large profits. It seems to me that this is the whole point of publicly owned corporations. They do not just have the duty of making large profits. They have the duty of providing service to those whom they serve in their area as a Crown corporation.

So starting in this place with this particular amendment brings to mind the other broken promises and the shams that are in this bill. How can we provide superior service, superior products, outstanding service and the right solutions if we are not to be able to invest in this telecommunications company using the money that it generates and its internal sources of investment? If we privatize this company, there is absolutely no guarantee, as the Speaker knows, that the private owners will not be tempted to scale back the superior products, the outstanding services, the right solutions that include some of the newest in the digital compression technology. They will be very tempted to advance the interest of shareholders against the interests of those who are served by the company.

Now, how is this company able to provide the right solutions, outstanding service and superior products, Madam Speaker? Well, it is able to do it because it internally is generating an average of $170 million a year from its rates provided by those who use its services in the business and in the residential services sector. This little company has generated $804-million worth of investments in these very things that are in this amendment, outstanding service, rights, solutions, superior products, over the last five years. What has Manitoba got for that? They have single-line service, an all-digital switching system and fibre optics at a level that are higher than most other telcos. They have new digital switching, asynchronous compression technology. We are now going to move into compression technology along twisted pairs, along the old copper wiring, which will make our current high-speed modems look like turtles from Turtle Mountain.

Madam Speaker, when a little company can generate, on average, $170 million a year for investment in the superior products and outstanding services, clearly, it is a very attractive target for privatization, because all you have to do to make a profit is not depreciate your equipment quite so fast and cut back on the amount of reinvestment, cut back on those superior products and outstanding services to which the publicly owned company is committed. All of a sudden, what happens? Read a balance sheet, and you know what happens. The money flows to the bottom line, and the profits of the company miraculously increase from the level this year of about $30 million, very easily, to $70 million or even $100 million a year, a very nice return on investment that will be enjoyed, not by the people of Manitoba, but by the new shareholders.

That sounds like it is going to include the cabinet and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himself, who is going to take a nice large position, maybe on margin, probably put up $10,000, buy $100,000 worth of stocks on margin, get his 12 percent dividend and flip the stocks and make a nice little profit, but that is not a conflict of interest for this Premier. This is a Premier who stood out in the hall the other day, Madam Speaker, and said, oh, yes, we have studies, we have secret reports, but they were for cabinet, they were not for anybody else. Now, presumably, the Premier read those reports. I assume, as the Premier, that he read through them. How can he then say that he has no inside information? He does not have any inside information? Well, he must not have read any of those reports then. He could not possibly have absorbed anything that was in those secret documents that are so secret that even after the decision to privatize has been made, they could not be made public. Well, maybe it is because they have information that gives the cabinet and the insiders some very significant benefits and advantages which the rest of Manitobans are not going to have.

* (1620)

I do not know how it is possible to be a seller in the morning and a buyer in the afternoon, having read all those secret reports that cannot be shared with anyone else, and not be in a serious ethical conflict of interest, Madam Speaker, I think, arguably, in more than an ethical conflict, but a very real legal conflict of interest. How you can possibly have that secret, private, confidential information and then tell Manitobans, trust us, there is nothing in there that gives us an advantage, is beyond my comprehension.

Madam Speaker, I want to move on in my support for this amendment by asking some questions about a rather curious fact. It is interesting to us how the Conservatives have managed to keep support for selling MTS so high, I mean, at 22 percent, that is still fairly high support. Only 78 percent of rural Manitobans are opposed. So how have we managed to keep it up at 22 percent? Well, one of the ways they have done that is by misleading Manitobans quite deliberately into believing that somehow the company can be maintained in Manitoba with a Manitoba board of directors, Manitoba ownership, no foreign ownership of any significant level, no one owner of more than 10 percent of the shares. They managed to mislead Manitobans quite deliberately into believing there are real protections in this act. Well, corporate counsel for MTS and for the government made it very plain that these are shams, that they have mislead Manitobans, and they know they have done that.

The minister himself is now on the record agreeing that there are no protections in terms of ownership, in terms of the board of directors, in terms of the head office, in terms of the functions of marketing, of telemarketing. There are no protections in this act for Manitobans. So that is one way they have kept support as high as it is at a paltry 22 percent, because those 22 percent, at least some of them, believe the government has been telling the truth, that there is some way of keeping this company in Manitoba, keeping its workforce all here, keeping its board of directors made up of Manitobans. Now, Madam Speaker, they are going to learn the truth over the next few weeks as we debate this bill. They will understand that those are sham protections, that they have no force or effect whatsoever the very day, four years from now, miraculously just after the next provincial election, just after the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has presided over the Pan Am Games, the protections of which he speaks and which he advertised in his ads all go poof, and there are no protections anymore, anybody can own this company, can move its services anywhere they want, can move its headquarters, if they want, to some ridge in New Jersey. What is the name of that ridge?

An Honourable Member: Basking Ridge.

Mr. Sale: Basking Ridge, New Jersey, where the headquarters of AT&T are, and the executives fly in daily on their executive helicopters from their nice homes. Madam Speaker, there is nothing in this legislation that can protect this company once it is sold. The Conservatives know that, and they have deliberately mislead Manitobans into believing otherwise. I at least am glad that the Minister responsible for the Telephone System had the courage to stand on his feet on Thursday and confirm that these are sham protections. They have no force and effect in law. The minister has at least now told Manitobans.

It is the duty of the government, I believe, to put out some of those wonderful ads that they have concocted over the last little while that tell Manitobans that--whoops, whoops--there is no protection--whoops--the head office can be somewhere else--whoops--the back office functions can be contracted out to Arizona so that they can play with the dessert weasels. Madam Speaker, it is the government's duty to let Manitobans know that the shams in this act are deliberate. They were deliberately misleading, and they have to be told before that 22 percent are sucked into buying an investment that they believe will be owned and run by Manitobans down the line. They have a duty to tell Manitobans that four years from now, just after the next election, all those protections go poof, and this little teleco is just like any other private company that Manitobans have no control, no protection, that this company will not be a Manitoba company four years from now.

It will be like any other of the baby Bells owned by multinationals, controlled from, what is it? Basking Ridge. What a lovely name--controlled from Basking Ridge or Ottawa or some other corporate headquarters, where the marching orders will come down, the services will be contracted out to the cheapest buyer, and, just like with Bell in Ontario, the installers will be laid off and told to form their own company and bid for their old jobs at half their wages. That is the future of this company when it is privatized. To pretend otherwise is to perpetrate a sham on Manitobans. They ought to be putting ads out that tell the truth. There is no protection for this company. It is like being pregnant, either you are or you are not. Either you are a private sector company or you are not. The day this company is privatized is the end of any protection. It is only a question of whether that protection lasts four years, or four years and one day, or some deal is cooked so that it is even shorter, the act is amended and the debts are paid off and finally then we know the truth, this is a private company like every other. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

We support this amendment. We call on the government to do likewise and live up to their word that the mission and mandate will not change.

Mr. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I am real pleased that we now got to report stage and we can get on with dealing with the bill.

Madam Speaker, the members opposite proposed the first amendment to add in after--in the first clause of the preamble "after residents of the province to meet the telecommunications needs of all Manitobans with the right solutions, outstanding service and superior products". That is the mission statement MTS has in their annual report. Therefore, that particular amendment is acceptable.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): This is a good beginning that the government is showing here by agreeing to pass--perhaps this is a new face on this government. Perhaps they are going to listen to what should be the mission statement for the Manitoba Telephone System.

Madam Speaker, it is obviously quite a bit of difference that this Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System is showing when you juxtapose that position with his Premier. I mean this minister here showed that there was a conflict of interest, and he said he was not going to be buying shares in the Manitoba Telephone System or at least that is what we understand him to be saying, and we hope that he will hold true to the word that he has shown here. That is obviously different than what his Premier has shown here, where the Premier is giving free rein to any member of his caucus to go out and buy any shares. I find it is interesting to note that these are the same people that are going to set the share value for the Manitoba Telephone System.

I do not understand how you, even through your board at the Manitoba Telephone System, because you provide the directive as the government to that board, and you have the interaction that takes place, the consultation that takes place back and forth, you set the share value for the shares that are going to be offered and that you say through your government, excluding the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System, at least to this point, saying that everybody on your government who is setting those share values has the right to go out and purchase those shares, so how can you say that that is not a conflict of interest?

I have listened to the comments here over a number of months now when we have been talking about the Manitoba Telephone System, and the Premier said, quite clearly, before, during and after the 1995 general election, that his government was not going to sell the Manitoba Telephone System. Read my lips, he says, at the Glenwood Community Club, we are not going to sell the Manitoba Telephone System.

We have members of the public that are coming here and telling us that they were at those meetings. They listened to the Premier of this province say that he was not going to--

* (1630)

Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Transcona will have 17 minutes remaining.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, given that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) is speaking on this matter, it is an important matter before the House, I would wonder if the opposition would be prepared to give leave to waive private members' hour to continue.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour?

Some Honourable Members: No.

Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied.

The hour being 4:30, and time for Private Members' Business.