2nd-36th - Standing or Special Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources No. 10

VOL. XLVI No. 10 - 9 a.m., SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 1996
Saturday, November 2, 1996

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC UTILITIES AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Saturday, November 2, 1996

TIME -- 9 a.m.

LOCATION -- Winnipeg, Manitoba

CHAIRPERSON -- Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson)

VICE-CHAIRPERSON -- Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert)

ATTENDANCE - 10 -- QUORUM - 6

Members of the Committee present:

Hon. Messrs. Cummings, Driedger, Findlay, McCrae, Praznik

Messrs. Ashton, Dewar, Kowalski, Laurendeau, Penner

Substitutions:

Mr. Martindale for Mr. Ashton

Mr. Doer for Mr. Dewar

APPEARING:

Ms. Becky Barrett, MLA for Wellington

Mr. Daryl Reid, MLA for Transcona

Mr. Conrad Santos, MLA for Broadway

WITNESSES:

Ms. Katherine Clune, Private Citizen

Mr. Arnie Arnason, Private Citizen

Ms. Teresa Coles, Private Citizen

Mr. Ben Sokoloff, Private Citizen

Ms. Elizabeth Carlyle, Private Citizen

Ms. Carol Stadfeld, Private Citizen

Ms. Winnie Grabowski, Private Citizen

Mr. Sean Espey, Private Citizen

Ms. Edith Byhre, Private Citizen

Mr. Brian Lucas, Private Citizen

Mr. Don Sullivan, Private Citizen

Mr. Steve Webb, Private Citizen

Mr. Thomas Steur, Private Citizen

Mr. Roy Roman, Private Citizen

Ms. Jesse Vorst, Private Citizen

Mr. Shane Nestruck, Private Citizen

Mr. Dave Plummer, Private Citizen

Ms. Louise Simbandumwe, Private Citizen

Ms. Marceline Ndayumvire, Private Citizen

Ms. Angeline Simbandumwe, Private Citizen

Ms. Kristine Barr, Private Citizen

Mr. Jerry Keenan, Private Citizen

Ms. Marian Yeo, Private Citizen

MATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION:

Bill 67--The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential

Amendments Act.

***

Clerk Assistant (Ms. Judy White): Good morning. Will The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources please come to order.

Before proceeding with the business before the committee, a chairperson must be elected. Are there any nominations?

Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr. Penner.

Clerk Assistant: Mr. Penner has been nominated. Any others? Seeing none, Mr. Penner has been elected as Chairperson. Mr. Penner, please take the chair.

Mr. Chairperson: Could the committee please come to order. The first order of business is to elect the Vice-Chairman.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I nominate Mr. Laurendeau.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Laurendeau has been nominated. Any other nominations? Seeing none, Mr. Laurendeau you will be the Vice-Chair. The business before the committee this morning is the consideration of Bill 67, The Manitoba Telephone System Reorganization and Consequential Amendments Act. At this time, I would like to inform the public of the meetings that remain, as had been announced by government House leader (Mr. Ernst) and deputy government House leader (Mr. Praznik)--I will just proceed here--in addition to today's meeting, if necessary, for Monday, November 4, at 9 a.m., in this same room, 254. The notice of the meetings is posted on the outside board. There are committee changes?

* (0910)

Committee Substitution

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I move, with leave of the committee, that the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) replace the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) as a member of The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources effective November 2, 1996, with the understanding that the same substitution will also be moved in the House to be properly recorded in the official records of the House.

Motion agreed to.

* * *

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Chairperson, I wonder if you could clarify for me and for members of the public the process in terms of people's names being called. I have had complaints from members of the public that people were phoned by the Clerk's Office on Thursday and told that they would be appearing on Saturday, but in fact their names were dropped from the list on Friday if they were read a second time, and also people that might have been here on Friday and were not, had their names called that were dropped from the list because of lack of people due to the mixup over whether people were supposed to be here on Friday or Saturday.

We object to anyone's name being dropped due to an error or a mixup or confusion or faulty communication, and I am in an awkward position here, because I do not want to blame staff and also I was not here yesterday, but I am just passing on concerns that I have heard from the public and I wonder if you could clarify what has happened and what is happening and what is going to happen. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Martindale, I appreciate the question, and I think there needs to be some clarification. We started out this committee with an agreement that when people would be called and not appear, they would be dropped to the bottom of the list. They would then appear the second time and they would be called again. If they were called after midnight, as agreed to in the first instance, they would remain on the list. If they were called before midnight, they would be dropped off the list after being called the second time. There was a process, a change in that direction, whereby people that would be called the second time anytime would be dropped off the list. However, we had a snowstorm on Thursday, I believe, and it was agreed that those from outside of Winnipeg being called a second time not able to appear due to the snowstorm would remain on the list and therefore could be called a third time.

There needs to be, I think, some clarification within the committee today, and I would certainly accept a motion as to how we proceed from here because I think the roads have cleared up and it would appear that we are now back to, if there is such a thing in committee as normal. I would certainly accept a recommendation or views from the committee at this time as to how we proceed from here. If there is or has been a misunderstanding created because of the changes that were made during committee due to weather or otherwise, I apologize to members public and also to the committee for that mixup.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Chairman, there was every effort made on the part of this committee yesterday, and I hope Mr. Martindale was not implying that there was somehow an effort being made to eliminate people from the opportunity to present because there was some question about the manner of the message that people were receiving.

We agreed that while we were dropping names off the list, if those who physically showed up and asked to be heard, would be heard. That is already an agreement of this committee and I do not think needs to be the subject of a motion or anything else at this time. We agreed yesterday and Mr. Sale and I, both on behalf of our respective parties, said we would stick to that agreement, and it was on the record yesterday.

Mr. Chairperson: So just for clarification then, Mr. Cummings, and for the rest of the committee and the general public, the agreement then is when people are read the second time and do not appear, they will be dropped off the list and those that had previously been read, if they appeared physically, would be able to appear. That was yesterday. From today on, the normal process occurs, that when people are read the second time, they do not appear, they drop off the list. That was the agreement in committee here yesterday by all parties.

Mr. Cummings: Just to clarify, there were apparently some number of people, not a large number, that we were able to ascertain--but there were a few people who felt that they had--been indicated that they would appear on Saturday and therefore did not appear. That particularly was the reason why we are following this procedure. I really do encourage the committee to stick by that understanding. It was reached in good faith and we emphasized that at the time, and I would like us to continue.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Martindale: Well, Mr. Chairperson, I had a motion to introduce since you asked for a motion, but since I have been informed that there was an agreement with our party, I will not introduce the motion, pending talking to Mr. Sale and confirming what he agreed to. However, if it is different than the understanding that was put forward this morning, I will introduce the motion at a later point. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Martindale.

I have some information for the committee regarding, too, the discussion that emanated yesterday. There are three people that have been identified that wanted to appear that are here today for presentation. If it is the wish of the committee, I will allow those three people to present. Their names had been dropped off the list, but I will allow those people to present. Then there is another person. His name is Mr. Ben Sokoloff who has indicated he wishes to present and he would like to do so today because of health reasons. What is the will of the committee on that case? [agreed]

There are three people from out of town. What I will propose to the committee is that we hear those that had indicated and were dropped off the list first, that we hear Mr. Sokoloff and that we then hear the out-of-towners. Are we agreed to that? [agreed]

Now, where is the list of the three presenters? I will ask one other thing of the committee, as well as those who are here to present. We, a number of years ago, when I used to present before committee very regularly, had a protocol within this room, and it was clearly enforced at that time. We have deviated somewhat from this, and I would like to really, as Chairman, ask that we maintain a semblance of decorum and order in committee. So I am going to ask the co-operation of committee members, that we try to demonstrate decorum at committee. I will ask those who sit in the audience and hear presenters, that we extend them the courtesy of listening quietly without applause or intervention, and I would ask that for the sake of an orderly presentation before this committee.

That used to be the case. It was enforced rather strictly. I have seen people removed from this committee room under previous government, so I would like to reinstate that sort of order in these committee hearings because it provides presenters the courtesy of hearing them and allowing them to make their presentation in an orderly fashion. So if that is agreed to, then I would ask that we proceed, and I would remind all presenters that we have a 10-minute time limit and that we have a five-minute limitation on questions and that we abide by that.

I will call then first Katherine Clune. Katherine Clune, have you a written presentation?

* (0920)

Ms. Katherine Clune (Private Citizen): Yes, I do.

Mr. Chairperson: For distribution?

Ms. Clune: No.

Mr. Chairperson: Would you proceed then, please.

Ms. Clune: Certainly. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to voice my opposition to Bill 67, the privatization of the Manitoba Telephone System. I am adamantly opposed to the sale of MTS for two reasons; firstly, as a Manitoban--it does not appear that I have the full attention of the committee.

An Honourable Member: I am listening to you, madam. You do not have to worry about that.

Ms. Clune: Firstly, as a Manitoban who will be drastically affected by the increase in the telephone rates and the reduction in services which will necessarily flow from privatization; secondly, as an MTS employee with money invested in the MTS pension fund.

It is my position that this government does not have a mandate to sell MTS. It must be obvious to the members of this government through the number of individuals appearing before this committee that there is considerable opposition to privatization. I doubt that there is a single Manitoban who would believe that the Tories leading up to and during the last election campaign were not considering and plotting the sale of MTS. This is a major transaction. It did not happen overnight. It has been in the works for a considerable length of time. You lied to me and to every other Manitoban. I submit that the Tories intentionally misled the people of Manitoba during the last election by neglecting to bring this issue to the forefront and having the people of Manitoba determine through the democratic process whether or not you had our consent to do this.

This is not your asset to dispose of as you see fit. MTS belongs to me and every other individual in this province, and your government has not asked me in a meaningful way, i.e., during an election campaign, whether it is acceptable to me that you sell MTS.

The sale of MTS will have a dramatic, negative impact on the majority of Manitobans. MTS has provided quality, affordable service to Manitobans. The quality of service will decrease, that is a given, and no one here can provide any information or guarantee that this will not occur. The affordability of phone service to all Manitobans will be gone. In particular, our most vulnerable citizens, the disabled, seniors, and other individuals with low incomes will not be able to afford phone service, a service which I would characterize as a basic necessity.

As all of you are aware, historically the more profitable arms of MTS have subsidized the telephone rates in areas where the cost of basic service is considerable higher than it is in highly populated areas. This subsidization will be gone under privatization. Individuals in rural and northern Manitoba will not be able to afford the actual cost of provision of service to them. When I say that these individuals will not be able to afford phone service, that is not completely correct. They will be able to afford it if they do without food, clothing, health or other basic necessities. We do not want this in Manitoba. The government knows that we do not want this, and that is why this issue is being dealt with in the manner that it is.

Why are there no public hearings being held in rural and northern Manitoba? All of these individuals are going to be more affected by the decrease in the level of service and the increase in the cost of service than individuals living in urban centres.

I read in the paper the other day Premier Filmon's statement in response to the question of public hearings, that his government is following procedure. There is no requirement for you to hold public hearings in the rural and northern areas, and so you are not. I submit that this is no answer. This is an arrogant, unconcerned response. This is avoidance of the real issue, the real issue being accountability to the people who elected you.

The advertising that I have seen on the privatization of MTS touts privatization as a benefit to MTS with the implicit suggestion through the identification which all Manitobans have with MTS as belonging to us that privatization is a benefit to Manitobans. Privatization may benefit MTS, the corporate entity, however, when MTS ceases to belong to me as a Manitoban, whether the corporate entity benefits is of no value to me; one, because it will benefit at a detriment to me; and two, because any benefit will be a benefit to the private companies who purchase MTS.

Turning to the issue of pensions, I commenced employment with MTS as a part-time telephone operator in 1983. I have contributed to the MTS pension fund which is administered by the Superannuation Board. To this point, myself and MTS have contributed equally to my pension fund. Any annual surplus in the fund has been reinvested in the fund. What this means to me and every other MTS employee is that I have had a level of comfort and confidence that my pension will be there when I retire.

Bill 67 Section 15(8) states that MTS employees are deemed to have given consent (a) to the termination of their participation in the superannuation fund; and (b), to the assignment of assets, liabilities, and agreements from the fund to the new plan.

I do not consent. This is my money. Under this new scheme, any annual surplus will not be reinvested in my fund, but rather it will go to the private company to offset their contributions. This is not acceptable to me. I believe that there is approximately $350 million of MTS employee contributions currently in the superannuation fund. I do not give you permission to loot my pension fund.

I started working when I was 15. I am now a lawyer in private practice. Contrary to popular belief, I do not make wads of money. I have not to this point made sufficient income to start putting away for my retirement. I am 34 years old, and even assuming that I stay healthy and productive until I am 65, I do not have much time left to start saving for my retirement. This causes me great concern. Up until a few years ago, I knew that as a worst-case scenario I would not starve. I would have CPP which I have paid into all my working life. I now have no reason to believe that CPP will exist by the time I reach 65, and I lay the blame for this directly at the feet of the federal Tories for their years of mismanagement of this country. As my really worst- case scenario, I had my MTS pension with some indexing for inflation. Now you dare to take from me that last vestige of security. This is not acceptable to me.

There is not one member of this government who can stand up or will stand up and give me a personal guarantee that I will be able to afford basic phone service under privatization. There is not one member of this government who will stand up and give me a personal guarantee, that when I go to access my pension in 30 years time, that there will be anything of value left for me. Before any of you start to rise to give me that personal guarantee, please do not add insult to injury by showing me that you are even more of a fool than even I take you all to be. There is no benefit to individual Manitobans under privatization, and each and every member of this government knows this, and yet you continue to lie to us and attempt to deceive us.

If there are two among you who have the moral courage to oppose the sale of MTS, this bill will be defeated. On behalf of myself and all Manitobans, I ask that you stand up and be counted. That will be a good thing for Manitobans, and that will be a good thing for the democratic process. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Clune. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr. Dewar: I thank the presenter. I clearly agree with you on all your points. You mentioned the cross subsidization. I live out in Selkirk and several of my colleagues represent communities outside of the city of Winnipeg in rural and northern Manitoba. We know that their rates are subsidized by long distance revenues to keep the subscriber rates the second lowest in the country.

You mentioned that you are currently an MTS employee?

Ms. Clune: Yes.

Mr. Dewar: Has anyone consulted you as an employee regarding the sale?

Ms. Clune: No.

Mr. Dewar: Has anyone consulted you since it was announced?

Ms. Clune: No.

Mr. Dewar: Has anyone from the government consulted you regarding the--and this was something that was raised in the media--opportunity for employees to purchase shares in the telephone company, in the privately owned company?

Ms. Clune: I am sorry, I missed the first part of that.

Mr. Dewar: As an employee, has anyone contacted you to purchase shares in the new telephone company, as an employee?

Ms. Clune: No.

Mr. Reid: Thank you for your presentation.

Ms. Clune: Actually it is Clune.

Mr. Reid: Clune?

Ms. Clune: Yes.

Mr. Reid: Thank you for your presentation. Sorry for my mispronunciation. While I am not allowed to say it as a member of this committee or a member of the Legislature, you mentioned in your presentation that this government lied to Manitobans. I take it that you made that comment as a result of during the 1995 election campaign. Is that accurate?

Ms. Clune: It was a lie of omission, yes, by not bringing it up as an issue.

* (0930)

Mr. Reid: So then you say in your comments then that because the government lied by omission during the 1995 election campaign, and I believe you referenced in your comments here today that you believe that this government should take these committee hearings throughout the province to allow Manitobans the opportunity to have a say in this process. Would you also be in favour of a referendum or some other process that will allow Manitobans to have this say in what the future of our Manitoba Telephone System should be?

Ms. Clune: Most definitely.

Mr. Reid: Are you aware, Ms. Clune, that yesterday there was a poll that came out that said that at least two-thirds of Manitobans do not support this government's action to sell our Manitoba Telephone System?

Ms. Clune: Yes, I am aware of that. I thought it was higher than two-thirds, though.

Mr. Reid: Well, you could be correct. I do not have the numbers here in front of me, but I thank you for that correction. I think it gives a clear indication that this government is on the wrong track and that they are not listening to Manitobans, and that is why they want to keep the committee hearings confined to this building and not take it out to all rural Manitobans, northern Manitobans.

You referenced the fact that this government has essentially tied your hands with respect to your pension funds and the pension funds of current employees and retired employees. What would be your advice to this government with respect to this bill overall? What do you think they should be saying to Manitobans to explain why it is that they are dealing in such a harsh way with the employees of MTS?

Ms. Clune: I do not think there is anything that they can say to justify that. I think that this bill should not be passed, and that it should be put to the people of Manitoba during an election as an issue as to whether or not we want this to go through and whether we want MTS to be sold. There is nothing they can say to justify how they are approaching this now.

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any other comments? Mr. Martindale. Mr. Martindale, before you continue, Mr. Reid made a comment as a member of the committee. I want to remind Mr. Reid that he is not officially a member of the committee. I would accept an amendment to the list, if it is the opposition's wishes to appoint Mr. Reid as a member of the committee. Just for clarification, should there be a vote, I want it clearly understood who the members of the committee are.

Point of Order

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairperson, on a point of order, I believe that my Whip, on Thursday, in the House, stood up on committee changes and entered my name into the records for the committee. That was my understanding at that time. I was in the House at the time.

Mr. Chairperson: For clarification, I will read, as published, all the committee members, and they are: Mr. Ashton--

An Honourable Member: Martindale, now.

Mr. Chairperson: --and we made the change this morning, which will be ratified in the House on Monday, and that has been changed to Martindale, but as published it was: Mr. Ashton; the Honourable Mr. Cummings; Mr. Dewar; the Honourable Mr. Driedger; the Honourable Mr. Findlay; Messrs. Kowalski, Laurendeau; the Honourable Mr. McCrae; Mr. Penner; the Honourable Mr. Praznik; and Mr. Sale. That is the published list as of this morning.

I accepted an amendment to that for change of Ashton to Martindale, and if it is the will of the committee, I will accept further changes at this time. Just for clarification, I just want it clearly understood who is identified as the committee members.

* * *

Mr. Chairperson: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Martindale: Yes, I would like to ask the presenter if she is aware that under the balanced budget legislation of this government that it allows for referendums on tax issues? Were you aware of that?

Ms. Clune: Yes, I was.

Mr. Martindale: Do you think that another way that this government could have consulted Manitobans about the privatization of MTS was to have a plebiscite?

Ms. Clune: Most definitely.

Mr. Martindale: So you would encourage or urge this government to do that as another way of consulting people?

Ms. Clune: Yes, I would.

Mr. Chairperson: The reason I ask presenters to wait for the Chairman to identify them is not for courtesy to us, but it is for the courtesy of the recorders back here that they ensure that we get the right people answering the right questions and that the right comments are recorded correctly for Hansard's sake, that people in the future can see who said what--just to clarify that.

Are there any further questions? If not, thank you for your presentation, Ms. Clune.

The next presenter will be Mr. Arni Arnason. Mr. Arni Arnason. Mr. Arnason, have you a written presentation for the committee?

Mr. Arnie Arnason (Private Citizen): I have got a few notes that I might refer to.

Mr. Chairperson: For distribution?

Mr. Arnason: No.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, you may proceed.

Mr. Arnason: I appreciate the committee giving me permission to stand before them. Since I have difficulty standing for any length of time, I wonder if it would be possible for me to sit?

Mr. Chairperson: By all means. You may take a chair there. We will move a mike over and you may sit for your presentation. Mr. Arnason, you may proceed.

Mr. Arnason: Thank you. When I started wondering what I should do about a presentation, it was starting to snow outside, and I know people are starting to do their Christmas shopping. I was wondering, how can I put together the few ideas and the few bits of information I have regarding this situation? Into my mind popped the notion of the Christmas Carol, of the ghost of Christmas past, Christmas present and Christmas future. So I took the limited information I have and my sometimes overactive imagination and put it into a little scenario sort of based on that.

The first part is the origins of MTS. I understand that the MTS was formed originally in 1908, and it was done so with the understanding of the population of Manitoba whose duly elected representatives following the precepts of parliamentary democracy had more or less mandated them to it, so they set up this corporation, public corporation, to serve the best interests of Manitobans in terms of their needs for communication. That is the past, the ghost of Christmas past.

Eighty-eight years later, according to whatever information I have, MTS has an enviable record, expanding and improving services, particularly in rural and northern areas, where sometimes cost considerations are a problem. They have provided this service, and continue to provide this service, at affordable rates. MTS employs about 4,000 employees. These people have been working for them for years, and the money for their salaries goes back into our economy and enriches our economy. As far as I know, the profits from MTS generally remain in the province and can be used to increase MTS's viability through research and other means, et cetera. These figures, I am not sure of, and lacking certain information, I will not, sort of, argue these. I understand the profits of MTS since 1990 were in the neighbourhood of $100 million. I understand that the profits of MTS from January to June of this year are in the neighbourhood of $15 million.

* (0940)

Now, the ghost of Christmas future, this is pure conjecture, and I certainly do not insist that any of these things are going to happen. I do not know that anybody can insist that they are not going to happen. So I just offer them for your consideration. I have got sort of a side label for these. I call them zingers. As I understand it, without a mandate, the elected representatives are going to sell off MTS at, I assume, what would be bargain-basement prices, much less than the dollar or resource value.

This, as I understand, is referred to as privatizing. The buyers, whoever they may be, will likely sell to a conglomerate at a large windfall profit. This is called conglomeratizing. I made that word up myself. I have not sort of got my tongue around it yet. The multinationals, I guess, Sprint or AT&T, will probably merge MTS into an increasingly larger global giant. This is known as globalizing. The new private owner will likely sell off or cut out nonprofitable services, particularly in the rural or northern areas. This is known as rationalizing. There will be, in all likelihood, in order to increase the bottom line, considerable layoffs of employees who have been faithful employees for a number of years. This is known as downsizing. The money realized from the sale will probably show up as a plus in the next showcase budget, but the much larger losses, monetary and human, will not. This is known as prioritizing.

I had some understanding, when they mentioned questions, that I would get to ask questions, not that you would ask me, but--how is my time?

Mr. Chairperson: You have four and a half minutes left.

Mr. Arnason: Okay. Well, I will just ask these questions, just to sort of focus on some of my concerns and consider it part of my presentation.

The first one is, what is the current worth of MTS? I do not know that. What will the sell-off price be? I would like to be able to compare them. Who are the prospective buyers? I would not think that we would enter into such a serious enterprise without having some notion as to who would be buying it, and in talking about special interests, in this situation will the special interest be regarded as the citizens of Manitoba or out-of-province or country buyers?.

What percentage of the monies generated by MTS will remain in and sustain the Manitoba economy? What percentage of the profits from a privatized MTS will remain in the economy? What will be the name of MTS when it is privatized? I do not know, Sprint Manitoba or AT&T Manitoba? These are some possible names. One came to my mind and it is STOP, which stands for Sell To Outside Privateers. Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Arnason, for your presentation.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Thank you, Mr. Arnason, for your presentation and for coming out this morning.

I want to ask you, sir, if you are aware--because the government has said that they are going to sell the shares of a company that we already own as Manitobans and that they are going to limit the number of shares that any one individual can own, I think it is to 15 percent, and that they are going to keep the headquarters in Manitoba even though it may be just a shell of a building, four walls, a desk, a chair, and a telephone with call-forwarding to some other location--that the federal government, when they sold CN Rail last year, made the same commitments to the people of Canada much similar to what this government of Manitoba is doing here with MTS and that CN Rail is now considering moving its headquarters out of the city of Montreal where it was mandated to be through legislation and that they are just going to leave potentially a shell there and that at the same time, while the shares were supposed to have been limited to the same percentage that this government is talking about, the shares of CN Rail are now owned 65 percent by citizens of the United States of America?

Do you see that there can be similar circumstances or comparisons made between what happened with CN and the future of MTS?

Mr. Arnason: That is totally consistent with my prediction as to what the Christmas future for Manitoba is going to look like.

Mr. Reid: You asked several questions with respect to current worth, the selling price of the shares, who the prospective buyers will be, special interests of Manitobans or foreigners owning the shares, about whether or not the profits would stay in Manitoba, and the name of the company, and you referenced STOP as a likely name for the new company.

This week, we asked questions of this government with respect to whether or not they had done due diligence to determine whether or not they had taken into consideration the tax implications and had received a ruling from the federal revenue department from the federal government, and, of course, they were unable to answer that question or unwilling to answer that question which leaves us to wonder very much about the worth of the company.

So in answer to your question, even while we were attempting to ask and have answers to those questions, the government either did not want to answer or did not know the answer and had not done the due diligence portion of that research so that Manitobans would have a clear understanding, which would also lead us to conclude that there is no information with respect to what the selling price is going to be, although we suspect that what they are going to do is undervalue the share price at the beginning, knowing full well that those shares will be flipped in some time, probably a short time, for those that are in it just to make a pure profit and not for the investment to stay in Manitoba and that quite likely it will end up in New Jersey at AT&T headquarters or some Bell enterprise somewhere else or some other major telco that is privately owned, and that is where we suspect that future ownership of MTS will occur.

What advice would you give to this government as far as the future of Manitoba Telephone System's employees, because they have not given the opportunity for MTS employees past and current to have any say in the future of their own pension funds. How does that make you feel as a Manitoban that our current government here refuses to allow its employees of a Crown corporation to have that type of say when they attempt to sell off our own Manitoba Telephone System?

Mr. Arnason: I think I dealt with that quickly in passing when I raised the question about who are the special interests from the point of view of this government, and it seems like the employees of MTS and Manitoba citizens generally are the special interest whose interests can be ignored, whereas the interests of the, I use the term--see, we are talking about privatizing I like to use the word "privateers" because I think that sort of relates to the same sort of concept. Although that is a word that has been out of use for some time, I think it applies very much to what we are talking about here.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Arnason. That brings to a conclusion the questions on Mr. Arnason. Thank you very much for your presentation.

Mr. Martindale: The presenter asked some very good questions which I think are policy issues, and I wonder if Mr. Findlay, the Minister responsible for MTS, would like to respond. If he does, we would give leave to answer the questions.

Point of Order

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On a point of order, I just wanted to inform the committee, I have not been taking part in the hearings, though I am a member of this committee, have not been taking part in the presentations or this committee as I have a conflict of interest in this matter in that my wife is an employee of MTS. I wanted to put that on the record, and I want it put on the record that I have not been present for the presentations, taken part in any votes or proceedings on this matter. I just wanted to put that on the record.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Kowalski. That will be taken as information.

* * *

* (0950)

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Very quickly, when we came into government in 1988, MTS had a debt-to-equity ratio of 91 percent. That means 91 percent debt, 9 percent equity, a significant debt burden on the corporation. The pension fund was $134 million underfunded and in '86 and '87 they just lost $48 million. That is money lost to Manitoba, lost to the MTS. Since that time the corporation has made $160 million which has gone back into the corporation. The pension fund is now fully funded to the tune of some $350 million, so the security is there for the retirees, and the debt-to-equity ratio is 78 percent, so it has significantly improved.

But in this competitive industry today the majority of telecom companies across Canada are in the range of around 45 percent debt, and in the process of this privatization the debt comes down to around the 45 percent, makes them on a level playing field and the ability to compete. We are going to be offering the shares after the prospectus is filed and accepted by a securities commission to Manitobans first and foremost in a window of a few weeks to give them preferential opportunity to purchase, plus employees will have an opportunity to purchase them through some kind of employee deduction plan that I am sure will be attractive to employees, and that the bill currently authorizes that no one person or group of people can own more than 15 percent and no amount exceeding 25 percent can be foreign owned.

So that gives a complete window for Manitobans to own it and continue to own it in the future. The idea of foreign ownership or the head office leaving Manitoba or the board of directors being anything other than the majority of Manitobans, all of that is covered in the bill, the security of Manitobans. It will leave MTS more able to compete, freer to compete, and take the debt, currently around $840 million, off the books of the government guarantee.

Along the way also I think there is some really good news of what MTS has done. When we came into government the debt was I believe I remember right around $780 million--[interjection]

Mr. Chairperson: Can I interject for just--I asked at the outset of the committee for committee members to demonstrate decorum, and if we are going to expect decorum from those that are presenting, then I would ask committee members to extend the courtesy to the people speaking to allow members in the audience to hear what is being said at the table. So I would ask that respect of the committee members.

Mr. Findlay: When we came into government in 1988 the debt was around $780 million and since then the ILS program to put private lines in all rural homes and digitalize all the switches cost some $620 million. As I said earlier, the profit of $160 million recorded by the company, and the pension fund funding has gone from $60 million to $350 million, and the debt only went up $60 million. So it has funded itself very well over the course of time, but along the way the competition has come in and the new technology and the need for further investments are very high.

We are in a wireless society today and everybody knows about cellular phones, but CRTC has just licensed what is called PCS technology and then LMCS technology. These are new, innovative, fast, efficient, high-quality communications systems that if we are going to have the best telecom company in the future as we have today the company has got to be able to invest. It has got to be able to source the funds, and I think it is quite possible that outside of government is the best way.

I am sure you all also know there are nine telephone companies in Canada. Currently seven of them are privately owned, like BCTel, Bell Canada, privately owned by shareholders, and all the Maritime tels, and everybody is regulated by CRTC. They approve the rates regardless of who the ownership is, for any request of a telephone company.

So I think the best way to describe my understanding of what happened to MTS through what we are doing is it is business as usual at the end of the day, and the customer will have the same high-quality service, affordable rates, and an opportunity for all the new technologies of the future to be at their doorstep.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much. I call the next person, Teresa Coles. Is Teresa Coles here? Would you come forward, please? Welcome to the committee this morning. Have you a written presentation for distribution?

Ms. Teresa Coles (Private Citizen): Yes, I do, in fact, and it has been updated as I have been here several days.

Mr. Chairperson: Would you proceed, please, Ms. Coles?

Ms. Coles: Thank you very much. I appreciate the Chairman's comments this morning, although it does strike at the zeal at which I had intended on presenting. Yesterday was quite exciting at certain- -for the lack of decorum.

I am an independent consultant, and I deal in film, video, television and some areas of telecommunications on an international level. I have clients in Australia, Nepal, Iceland, Finland, Argentina, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and I am negotiating for Norway. So I do need my telephone every single day.

I object to Bill 67 for three grounds: First, the stated aims are not achieved. If the principal aim is to finance the technologies based on the experiences of telcos in the U.S. and elsewhere, the taxpayer still pays the fundamental load for research, development, and implementation, and that is the taxpayer, not merely, as the minister has just stated, the consumer paying the freight. So that is my first objection.

If the province is seriously interested in moving forward with the extremely expensive technological investments, I suggest that we get an 800 line in here, and this would solve a lot of your problems. Everyone in the province, and you are the largest consumer of MTS services, could be able to just dial in with their responses, could fax in. I find it quite appalling that this committee is meeting without using telecommunication services of the corporation it plans on selling to its fullest.

If the province wants to improve telecommunications, it is within the minister's mandate to enforce or recommend strategic partnerships, which will bring in the private sector in areas where they will provide excellent efficiencies to the organization without getting rid of the essential infrastructure services that telecommunications provides.

I also object, and you have heard this again, so I will not belabour the point, that the public good is not an outmoded concept. The issues of governments have been brought up very eloquently by previous speakers today, yesterday and, I am sure, on Thursday and on Wednesday, and the issue of infrastructure is one, I feel, because I have so many clients who have no access to telecommunication services in other countries, that perhaps, as Manitobans, we are a bit complacent about the level of services that we get. We have one for all the problems--and there is probably not someone who has not wanted to rip their hair out in dealing with MTS. It is a fabulous service and fundamental to people who work at the level I do. I spend hours a day using the Internet services that are possible because we are one of the highest wired countries in the world. I believe we are more wired than the U.S., and I think slightly less wired than Australia.

That is basically all I have to say. I will just keep it short. When the province wishes to shift the ball to Manitobans who will still be shareholders, I respectfully bring up the issues brought that the lessons that have been learned by pension funds in other organizations, particularly in the U.S., who sold off their infrastructures and took a shareholder position, they were not able to sustain the issues of public good. They were not able to maintain jobs. In some cases, the pension funds find themselves sitting on boards agreeing to cut loose economic sectors. This has happened particularly in the transportation industry in the U.S., where the pension fund members are losing their job because the pension fund, while sitting at the board room, made a good economic decision for the corporation. Thank you, very much.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Coles, for your presentation.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Ms. Coles. You mention in the United States the taxpayer pays. Could you explain that, or give us examples of that, please?

* (1000)

Ms. Coles: I surfed the net the other day to look for that information, and it came from state participation in the baby Bells in the U.S, in Florida and Washington state, where the corporations went to the state legislatures to get additional tax breaks, deferrals and used university resources that were state funded in order to make the technological developments that they needed.

In some places, there are a few states in the U.S. where that is the reverse, the baby Bells, have been able to provide infrastructure service for the provision of satellites for broadcasting, which small states had not been able to access. I would suggest that, given our declining population, this committee look at the developments in similar states in the U.S. South and such as South Dakota, which radically changed their position, and saw a decline in the skill level of the people in the state.

Mr. Dewar: Do you have, can you inform us as to the rates that subscribers pay--you mention that you deal with customers in Europe and the United States--and how those rates compare to the current rate structure here in Manitoba?

Ms. Coles: I will give you--my client in Norway finds it almost cost prohibitive to deal with me by telephone because it can cost her up to four Canadian dollars a minute to talk to me. So we use the Internet and e-mail services to do our primary. For my part, because I am dealing in time shift, I am able to talk to her for $1.58 a minute, which is really nice.

Mr. Dewar: Do you have any examples, American examples?

Ms. Coles: The American rates overall are somewhat lower than ours. Clients of mine in Minnesota talk to me for 16 cents a minute U.S. I talk to them for 26 cents a minute U.S.

Mr. Dewar: That would be long distance. What about the base subscriber rates?

Ms. Coles: I am sorry. I do not have that information.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Northern Affairs): Yes, Ms. Coles, just a couple of questions. Are you aware who owns the telephone system in Norway? Is it publicly or privately held?

Ms. Coles: To the best of my knowledge, it is publicly held, though there are some--every country everywhere is going through this same issue.

Mr. Praznik: Ms. Coles, the only reason I make the point is, you have pointed to some examples of high rates which are publicly owned systems. You have pointed to some examples of low rates which are privately owned companies. The fact of the matter is, it is how the system is regulated that makes the difference. I just want to ask you, you are aware that the telephones in Canada are regulated by the CRTC?

Ms. Coles: I make petitions regularly, and I think to a certain extent, yes, we are dealing with, but underneath the telephone system, whoever regulates it, who is making the investment in that next step? The publicly held telephone systems are going back to the same person, the consumer and the taxpayer, that the privately held systems are going to to raise the money for that telecommunications.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Chair, because my point obviously is, the cost is reflective of the regulatory regime, but you left the impression in your remarks that only in Manitoba are you able to operate your business to the world, and I just wondered, if you lived in Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic provinces, Alberta or British Columbia, would you not be able to operate your system? I mean, is the fact that MTS is publicly held as opposed to privately held, living under the same regulatory scheme as other telcos in Canada, has that really, honestly, has that made a big advantage in the cost of running your business?

Ms. Coles: It is not an issue about the cost of running my business. It is an issue about the lifestyle of the Manitobans who are here. Where my colleagues are using privately held systems they do not have the access to the kinds of development structures that I have been able to access here.

Mr. Chairperson: I am going to allow two more questions, one of Mr. Praznik and one of Mr. Reid.

Mr. Praznik: Ms. Coles, are you telling this committee that if you lived and operated your business in Toronto or Montreal or Vancouver, you would have any significant difference in the services that are available to you in Manitoba?

Ms. Coles: Okay, and I will give an example, because it is an example that I am working on in a project with Japan, with some film makers in Japan, to deliver some art using the telephone in what is referred to in the industry as third-wave teleconferencing. That service is not offered to me through Bell Canada in Toronto, because I wanted originally to do the project there. They are not interested. It is not offered to a similar group in Vancouver through BCTel, because they too wanted to do the same kind of project. It is only--if this project happens, because it is at the edge of the technology, it is going to happen here.

Mr. Reid: It is very interesting that you raised the point that our Manitoba Telephone System is able to provide that service to you and to your customers and that the other, private Bell systems in Canada are not. But I want to reference the fact that the minister asked if you were aware of the regulatory body, which is the CRTC. You said that you were. I take it then that you are aware that the CRTC, as one of the criteria that they use for determining rate of return, will be the ability of the shareholders, the private shareholders, under a private company to generate a reasonable level of return on investment. Are you aware that that is one of the criteria and that profit will be part of the motive in setting rates for Manitoba telephone users?

Ms. Coles: I am more familiar with how the CRTC regulates the broadcasters than I am with the specifics of how they regulate the telecommunications side. My interest in the CRTC is how they have been enabling telcos to deliver Filmon video services to clients. That means largely watching what is going on with BCTel.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Cole, for your presentation. I will now revert to the list of presenters from out of town, and I call Ian Robson. Is Ian Robson here? I want to remind everybody at the table that these people are now going to drop off the list if they are not here. Ian Robson. I call the spokesperson named for the Keystone Ag Producers. Keystone Ag Producers. They will be dropped off the list. Those are the outside-of-town presenters that I have before me. There is Drew Caldwell. Is Drew Caldwell here? Drew Caldwell will be dropped off the list. There is Al Neath. Is Al Neath here? [interjection]

I am sorry. I made a mistake here. The clerk informs me that, for Ian Robson, Drew Caldwell and Al Neath, it was the first time that they had been identified as presenters, as out-of-town presenters, so I apologize for that. They will be dropped to the bottom of the list and be called again when we revert back to the list.

The next person that I am going to call is Ben Sokoloff, who, as earlier indicated, is here and requests that he be heard today because of health reasons. Mr. Ben Sokoloff. Would you come forward, please? Am I pronouncing your name correctly, sir?

* (1010)

Mr. Ben Sokoloff (Private Citizen): No, you are not. For the record, my name is Sokoloff. The last two letters are pronounced as in Frank, and since my remarks are very brief, I would like to take the time to digress for a minute and make a comment about my name.

Naturally, I get quite a few really exotic mispronunciations. This one was good, but when you pronounced my name, by a random association I have thought of the most dramatic event in my life which--this is a digression--was being arrested by the KGB in the Leningrad Airport in 1979 in the spring, and I was interrogated for six hours. I was not told that this was the KGB, but I understood it was. I was not told I was arrested, but, at one point in the interrogation, my interrogator, whose name was Eugene, said: You know, Sokoloff is a very good Russian name. I said, yes, I know. I did not tell him I was born in the U.S.A., not very far from Bruce Springstein, his name place.

I want to mention also that his command of English was excellent. It was fluent; it was better than 99 percent of the students I taught in university as an English teacher. So the KGB had an excellent, probably still does, language school. He also spoke French very well. He made one mistake which the committee probably would be interested in. The only mistake he made, he assured me that the Gulag was an adventure of the western mind. So I had to correct him, being a teacher, I said, oh, I think you mean fantasy. So he said, right, that is right, you are right. He also assured me that the reason the Russian hockey team beat the Canadians sometime around that year was because they had the collective spirit and we had the superstar or star system. So I shall be very brief.

I think the primary purpose of any state is to guarantee the safety and welfare of its citizens. I sincerely believe that Bill 67 will most definitely work against the welfare of the majority of the citizens of Manitoba in that an unreasonable increase in phone rates is inevitable in short order, if it is passed. Is the MTS broke? I think not. Just the opposite is true. The MTS is a Manitoba treasure, just as Pharmacare was. In one quick knife thrust, Pharmacare was murdered. Will the same death overcome the MTS? The MTS has consistently been profitable in spite of sterling, reasonable rates. Above all, it belongs to the people of Manitoba. Will it be stolen from them? Thank you.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Mr. Sokoloff.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, sir, for coming out this morning to make a presentation. It is interesting your thoughts and your experiences dealing with the KGB as you referenced. I take it that you were here this morning when the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay) answered the questions that had been posed by a previous presenter--

Mr. Sokoloff: Yes.

Mr. Reid: --and that the minister referenced that we as Manitobans, through our own Manitoba Telephone System, have been able to eliminate the unfunded portion of the pension fund for the employees who are there, to eliminate that, and that we have, I think the minister referenced, $160 million in profit generated by the Manitoba Telephone System, and I think it has been since 1988, he said. So you can see that there has been a significant level of return to the people of Manitoba and to our telephone system.

The minister also referenced that we have as a people through our Manitoba Telephone System significantly lowered our debt-to-equity ratio and that there has obviously been significant improvements in our Manitoba Telephone System over a number of years. With all of these good features that we have been able to build on through public ownership of the Manitoba Telephone System, as a Manitoban, do you see any reason why, since we seem to be moving in such a strong direction with our Manitoba Telephone System, there is a need to sell it considering all of the things that the minister has referenced here which I have also raised again for you?

Mr. Sokoloff: I certainly do not see any reason why the MTS should be sold to anybody, to any corporation.

Mr. Reid: Perhaps you can share with us, with this committee, your thoughts on what you see for the future employment prospects for Manitobans, should this government continue with this Bill 67 and sell Manitoba Telephone System to private shareholders. What do you see as the future employment prospects?

Mr. Sokoloff: Do you mean in general or for MTS employees?

Mr. Reid: For MTS employees, Mr. Chairperson.

Mr. Sokoloff: I would imagine that probably some downsizing would take place and that X number of employees might lose their jobs, but that is speculation.

Mr. Reid: In your impression of the way things could possibly go and your thoughts about the future prospects for MTS, what do you see will happen or what do you think will happen with the shares, the control, and the ownership of Manitoba Telephone System once this government sells shares? Do you think that they will continue to have control, as the minister likes to pretend here, once those shares are in private hands, or do you see that those shares can be flipped to other shareholders and that profits will be taken in the future and that quite likely that those shares could even move outside of Canada?

Mr. Sokoloff: Well, I think that an educated guess or speculation on my part would be that the shares would go on the market and that there would be flipping or reselling, and it would be a matter of normal market procedure that the largest amount of profit would be attempted to be realized by the people who would buy these shares.

Mr. Reid: Then do you see that in the future for decision making that is now being done by Manitobans through our own Manitoba Telephone System where we have some control as a people through our government--

Mr. Chairperson: Mr. Sokoloff. I am sorry. Were you finished with your question?

Mr. Reid: No.

Mr. Chairperson: I am sorry for interjecting.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I accept your apology.

Do you see that the MTS decision making, as it is currently in place, now will remain that way, or do you see MTS in the future as the shares are flipped, as you have indicated, will be anything more than just a shell, four walls, a desk, a chair, and a phone with call forwarding? Do you see that MTS's future of decision making will be anything more than what I have just referenced, or do you see that the decision making will remain here?

Mr. Sokoloff: Well, I think probably it would go to foreign places and sources like the United States. While you were speaking, I thought of a joke, and that is that I could foresee a Candice Bergen determining what is happening with MTS.

Mr. Martindale: Mr. Chairperson, when you made your presentation, you talked about an interesting experience you had, probably a frightening experience you had in the former Soviet Union. During presentations on bills during this session, some presenters have said that the power given to ministers and to this government is communistic by which I think they mean totalitarian. Do you think there is anything in this Bill 67 to privatize MTS that is totalitarian; for example, there was no consultation with the public?

Mr. Sokoloff: I am glad you asked that question because I thought about that before I came here today, and so another idea I had was that there was some indirect connection between Bill 67 and my experience in 1979.

There is also another joke that I thought of which is not original, but I thought that Mr. Filmon's ideology was to the right of Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun, so that is history. But yes, I think very definitely that this decision on the part of government smacks of totalitarian decisions in a generic way. Yes. I am sorry.

* (1020)

Mr. Chairperson: I want to thank Mr. Sokoloff for his presentation. Your time has expired. As a matter of fact I have been rather lenient with questions and I appreciate your presentation and coming today.

I have now reached the end of the list that we discussed at the beginning of the presentations this morning. We have dealt with the four additional and we have dealt with the out of town. Now, I have since then received requests from the back of the room for four more people that had been dropped off the list--three more that had been dropped off the list and one person that has come to present this morning and she says she has to leave by 10:30. She has to go to work. I ask for the indulgence of the committee and the direction from the committee. What are your wishes in regard to these four people that I have indicated? Leave? [agreed]

Mr. Findlay: Let the lady who has to go to work present first.

Mr. Chairperson: I will then call Elizabeth Carlyle. She is No. 64 on the list, for your information. Ms. Carlyle, have you a written presentation for the committee?

Ms. Elizabeth Carlyle (Private Citizen): No, I do not.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you. Would you proceed, please.

Ms. Carlyle: Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to speak to Bill 67. I do thank you for letting me speak before going to work. As the Chair said, my name is Elizabeth Carlyle and I am a student at the University of Winnipeg. I come with some particular concerns about that.

A lot of students, as you may know, live on very fixed incomes with student loans and limited opportunities for income. I think that Bill 67 has a lot of prospects that are concerning for students. I think that from my own experience as a student I know that the rates that we have now in Manitoba are fairly reasonable. I mean, they are sometimes still expensive for students. People who are living on $500 a month or less cannot even afford the $2 increases that have been happening.

I think that when we look to Alberta and the $6 increases that they have had it is certainly a cause for concern. I think that what has come up here at this committee in a number of different ways is this question of, will MTS being public or private make a difference? I think that it will make a difference and I think that it will make a negative difference for all the reasons that people before me have stated but especially in talking about the rates.

We have no reason to believe that rates will be maintained at their current reasonable levels, and we certainly have no reason to believe that they will not go up drastically. I am just thinking of my own experience. I am a citizen of Manitoba. My mom is an English national and I would say she is actually quite a moderate person. She would not come to present to this committee. I think she would feel out of place here but she certainly has concerns about the sale of MTS.

She knows from her experience with some of the things that Thatcher has done in England that there are certain public services and goods that do not lend themselves well to a market kind of model. What happens in England, for example, this is a different kind of service, but I think the example is still a good one, that with the bus system in England, they privatized the bus system. Now what they have is a wonderful array of so-called choices for the consumer of bus services but what actually happens is that rates are very confusing. You might have four bus stops in a row all to take you to the same place, and I do not think that is the kind of confusion and the kind of model that we need for public services.

There are certain kinds of services that simply need to have public control so that people can have these kinds of opportunities that do not exist with private systems to speak to issues, to allow certain kinds of what the market considers to be unfairness but which are actually for the consumers a fair amount of fairness. Things like reduced rates or subsidized rates for northern and rural areas are really crucial because, if we do not have that, then we have a situation where people in areas that are less populated do not have access to the same kinds of basic services.

I would submit that phone services are indeed basic services in terms of safety, in terms of communication. I think that no one in this room would want to see rural and northern Manitoba further cut off from what is going on and have further difficulties in communicating.

I think that I will leave it at that, and, hopefully, there will be some questions.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Carlyle. The first indicating to question is Ms. Barrett.

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Your point about there being public services that do not lend themselves to privatization or that should remain in the public and your mother's experience in Britain, I think, are very well taken. It occurred to me that the sale of MTS is not the only example of where the government is not following that dictum, and that is in their wish which was not completely followed through on to privatize the home care services.

Do you see a connection there? Do you see a trend developing perhaps?

Ms. Carlyle: I definitely do. I think that the current government does not have a mandate, first of all, to take these public services and flip them over into the private sector. I think that this government has, notwithstanding that it does not have that mandate, gone ahead and done this in a number of areas. The health care area is one major area that has happened, and I think that is of real concern. I think that something like the McKenzie Seeds company is another example.

The question I have is, these companies are doing well, so why do we want to sell off companies that are doing reasonably well or well enough that we can maintain them and with substantial benefit to Manitobans? So I think that is a question that really has not been answered. The other concern is that, without the mandate to do the things that it is doing, I think that this government has a real responsibility to get out to rural and northern Manitoba to consult with people, to have meaningful consultations that are much more accessible than the ones that have been held recently that are going till late at night and starting early in the morning and these kinds of things.

So I think that, if this has been in the works for a number of months, even years, then I think that a corresponding amount of effort should be put into finding out what Manitobans think about the sale of MTS. I do not think that has happened yet. We have not had anything resembling a full-scale public discussion on this. I think that needs to happen still.

Mr. Martindale: I would like to ask the presenter, since you said that you are a student and you work and my son is a student and works and gets called for extra shifts occasionally, how many students do you think at your university, which, I think, is the University of Winnipeg, what percentage of students do you think have part-time jobs while going to university, and how many of them would be living on their own as opposed to living with their parents?

Ms. Carlyle: I used to work at the students association. In fact, I was an elected representative there last year. We did a number of different surveys to try to better find out who our student population is, and what we discovered that, at the University of Winnipeg, through a couple of different surveys, the average income of students at the University of Winnipeg was well below $13,000. It was in the range of $9,000 to $10,000 a year. We also found that approximately 70 percent of students at the University of Winnipeg had some kind of part-time job. Often people have, like myself, had two part-time jobs or even three as well as taking full-course loads. I think that a little over about 60 percent of our students were living away from home, so that is 60 percent of students who are, in most cases, not in all cases but in most cases, paying for their own rent, their own food, their own necessities--all those things including phone.

* (1030)

Mr. Chairperson: We have one more minute left in your question time. You have one more minute before the time expires. You indicated you wanted to leave here. According to my watch you have four minutes.

Mr. Martindale, for one last question. Mr. Dewar, instead of Mr. Martindale.

Mr. Dewar: Thank you, Mr. Martindale and Mr. Chairperson. You mentioned in your presentation holding hearings outside of this building in rural and northern Manitoba. Are you aware that when the hearings started, I think it was Wednesday night, that a motion was put forward by the opposition members and was defeated by the government, a motion that would have called for hearings outside of this building into rural and northern Manitoba?

Ms. Carlyle: No, I was not aware of that.

Mr. Chairperson: Thank you very much, Ms. Carlyle, for your presentation. I will next call Carol Stadfeld. Have you a written presentation for distribution?

Ms. Carol Stadfeld (Private Citizen): Yes, I do, Sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I am here today speaking against Bill 67, the bill that will allow the sale of MTS.