Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, could you call report stage on Bill 67.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I wish to move further amendments in report stage.
I move, seconded by the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer),
THAT Bill 67 be amended by adding the following after Section 5:
Shares issued to eligible voters
5(1) One voting nonparticipating preference share of the capital stock of the corporation as deemed to have been validly issued to each adult resident of Manitoba eligible to vote in a provincial election on January 1, 1996, for which shares of designation rights, privileges, restrictions and conditions shall be as follows:
(a) the shares shall be designated as Class C preference shares;
(b) the stated capital of each share is deemed to be zero dollars per share;
(c) each share shall have one vote in respect of all matters to be decided by the shareholders' corporation;
(d) the share shall carry no right to dividends, participation and profits or participation in a distribution of assets to the corporation; and
(e) the shares shall be nontransferable.
[French version]
Il est proposé d'amender le projet de loi 67 par admonction, après l'article 5, de ce qui suit:
Émission d'actions aux électeurs admissibles
5.1 Une action privilégiée non participante avec droit de vote du capital-actions de la Société est réputée avoir été dûment émise à chaque résident adulte du Manitoba qui, en date du 1er janvier 1996, avait le droit de voter aux élections provinciales. La désignation, les droits, les privilèges, les restrictions et les conditions se rattachant à cette action sont comme suit:
a) l'action est désignée action privilégiée de catégorie C;
b) le capital déclaré de l'action est de 0 $;
c) l'action donne un droit de vote à l'égard de toutes les questions devant être tranchées par les actionnaires de la Société;
d) l'action ne donne pas à son titulaire le droit de participer aux dividendes, ni aux profits, ni à la répartition de l'actif de la Société;
e) l'action est incessible.
* (1540)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment proposed by the honourable member for Thompson is out of order. According to Beauchesne--
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. According to Beauchesne 698(5) it contravenes the principle of the bill.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if I could ask for a clarification of your ruling, in what way does this contravene the spirit of the bill? This bill establishes classes of shares. This is a class of share. It is not in any way, shape or form a negation of the principle of the bill which in and of itself establishes shares for the Manitoba Telephone System. On what basis, Madam Speaker, does this contravene the principle of the bill?
Madam Speaker: I have been advised that the reason the amendment has been in violation of the principal bill is, the second clause of Bill 67 states that: "WHEREAS it is in the public interest of the province that shares of The Manitoba Telephone System be offered for sale to members of the public;"--5(1) " . . . be validly issued to each adult resident of Manitoba eligible to vote in a provincial election on January 1, 1996."
My understanding and the advice I received is the difference between "selling" and "issuing."
Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, let me attempt to clarify the intent of this amendment and ask you to hold your ruling in abeyance.
There is nothing in this amendment to this section which takes away in any way from the shares that are being offered under another section of the bill. This is an intent which was accepted by Legislative Counsel in drafting this amendment. What we are issuing here is an additional class of shares. We are not preventing the issuance of shares on the market under other sections of the act; they are still there to be issued in exactly the manner that the act pretends to issue them.
Madam Speaker, this would simply create three classes of shares instead of two. There is a special share being created for the government which we accept and which some of our amendments speak to, but which we accept. There are shares being sold to the public to sell the corporation to effect the sale, which we accept. We are simply proposing to issue another class of shares with no par value and no market value to all those who are legally resident in Manitoba and entitled to vote in an election. We are not, and I underline this, we are not suggesting that shares ought not to be sold under Section 12 of the act or ought not to be defined as shares for sale at a market price under other sections of the act. This is not replacing; this is adding a class of shares.
I would ask you to reconsider your ruling on that basis, please.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The best advice I have received is that the amendment is out of order.
If the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) does not concur with the ruling of the Chair, then the honourable member for Crescentwood can challenge the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I challenge your ruling.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged.
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House is the sustaining of the ruling of the Chair.
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 29, Nays 22.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) so that he may be in attendance at a funeral.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, since you have had limited time today to debate these issues, government resolutions up under Private Members' Business, we would be prepared to waive private members' hour today. In addition to that, we are prepared to sit from seven until eleven o'clock this evening in order to continue debate on report stage amendments.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to waive private members' hour? [agreed]
Is there leave to sit this evening from 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.? [agreed]
* (1640)
Madam Speaker: To continue Orders of the Day, Report Stage, Bill 67.
Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers),
THAT Bill 67 be amended by adding the following after subsection 2(2):
Certain agreements terminated
2(3) All agreements between The Manitoba Telephone System and The Manitoba Trading Corporation
(a) relating to the Master Agreement effective August 24, 1994, between The Manitoba Telephone System and Faneuil I.S.G. Inc.; or
(b) otherwise relating to the business and affairs of Faneuil I.S.G. Inc., or any subsidiary or related company;
are terminated.
Certain agreements amended
2(4) All agreements between Faneuil I.S.G. Inc. and The Manitoba Trading Corporation are deemed to be amended so that
(a) every reference to "The Manitoba Trading Corporation" shall be read as a reference to "Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.";
(b) Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., shall be deemed to have been the party to the agreements at all times; and
(c) all necessary modifications as circumstances require are deemed to have been made.
Master agreement amended
2(5) The Master Agreement effective August 24, 1994, between the Manitoba Telephone System and Faneuil I.S.G. Inc. is hereby deemed to be amended as required to conform with subsections (3) and (4).
Transfer of assets and liabilities
2(6) All assets acquired by The Manitoba Trading Corporation under and all liabilities of The Manitoba Trading Corporation provided for in the agreements described in subsection (4) are transferred to the corporation.
Rights and obligations terminated
2(7) All obligations, duties, rights and privileges of
(a) the Crown in respect of the Master Agreement effective August 24, 1994, between The Manitoba Telephone System and Faneuil I.S.G. Inc.; and
(b) The Manitoba Trading Corporation in respect of any agreement described in subsection (4);
are hereby extinguished.
[French version]
Il est proposé d'amender le projet de loi 67 par adjonction, après le paragraphe 2(2), de ce qui suit:
Résiliation de certaines ententes
2(3) Sont résiliées les ententes intervenues entre la Société de téléphone du Manitoba et la Société commerciale du Manitoba:
a) à légard du contrat-cadre entré envigueur le 24 août 1994 entre la Société de téléphone du Manitoba et Faneuil I.S.G. Inc.;
b) qui ont autrement trait aux affaires de Faneuil I.S.G. Inc., de ses filiales ou de ses sociétés liées.
Modification de certaines ententes
2(4) Sont réputées modifiées les ententes intervenues entre Faneuil I.S.G. Inc. et la Société commerciale du Manitoba de façon à ce que:
a) tout renvoi à la Société commerciale du Manitoba soit interprété comme un renvoi à la Manitoba Telecom Services Inc.
b) la Manitoba Telecom Services Inc., soit réputée avoir été partie à toutes les ententes;
c) les adaptations nécessaires soient réputés avoir été faites.
Modification du contrat-cadre
2(5) Le contrat-cadre entré en vigueur le 24 août 1994 entre la Société de téléphone du Manitoba et Faneuil I.S.G. Inc. est réputé avoir été modifié de façon à être conforme aux paragraphes (3) et (4).
Transfert de l'actif et des obligations
2(6) Sont transférés à la Société commerciale du Manitoba a acquis en vertu des ententes visées au paragraphe (4) et les obligations que cette dernière a contractées en vertu ces ententes.
Extinction des droits et obligations
2(7) Sont éteints les obligations, les droits et les privilèges:
a) de la Courconne à l'égard du contrat-cadre entré en vigueur le 24 août 1994 entre la Société de téléphone du Manitoba et Faneuil I.S.G. Inc.;
b) de la Société commerciale du Manitoba à légard des autres ententes visées au paragraphe (4).
Madam Speaker: Order, please. The amendment as proposed by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) is out of order according to Beauchesne's 698(1). It is beyond the scope of the bill.
Mr. Sale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, it is inconceivable to me how we could have rulings on complex amendments of which Legislative Counsel provided drafting advice and answered questions about scope in detail on every last one of these amendments. The section of the bill being amended is, Rights and obligations continued. One of the very major rights and obligations in regard to this whole privatization issue is their relationship with third parties. What this amendment did before you ruled it out of order was to provide an orderly mechanism for the rights and privileges in regard to the Faneuil deal to be continued in the new company.
We went into great detail with Legislative Counsel on the appropriateness of this amendment and its legality under the rules of the House. This is corporate legislation. This is precisely why these amendments from government and this bill should not be jammed through with no appropriate consultation, because this is a very complex matter involving a deal worth over $100 million and obligations that are currently now on the backs of the people of Manitoba in excess of $20 million.
The government argued long and loud that Manitoba Telephone System should be privatized in order to reduce the risks to the public. The whole purpose of this amendment was to reduce the risk to the public of Manitoba by transferring the obligations from the Manitoba Trading Corporation, a private body, to the Manitoba Telecom system, the corporate body. This amendment is not only in scope, it has been tested by Leg. Counsel and it furthers the intent of the legislation and does not in any way detract from it.
I put it to you that your ruling is simply wrong on the technical merits of the issue and wrong in principle. You are now preventing debate of important issues. You are standing in the way of this side of the House making important contributions to this bill. You are no longer impartial. You have no place in that Chair.
Mr. Ashton: Just in regard to the ruling, I wonder if I could have some clarification, Madam Speaker. You are saying that this is beyond the scope of the bill. This bill sells the Manitoba Telephone System, in Clause 2 continues the corporation, and in 2(2) the rights and obligations. This amendment deals with rights and obligations, in this case specifically outlining the rights and obligations related to Faneuil.
I am wondering, Madam Speaker, on a bill which sells the entire company of MTS, including the rights and obligations, how it is not in order to add an amendment--which I believe is in keeping with Beauchesne 567--which is adding an item which increases its acceptability, and I would point out that it does not violate 570, 571, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578 or 579. It is not a matter that deals with a foreign proposition. This is inherent in the bill and I cannot understand, and I ask for clarification, how an amendment as specific and as related that has been cleared through Leg. Counsel to specific provisions that continue the rights and obligations of MTS, how can this be out of scope?
I would ask for that clarification, Madam Speaker, because if you are not prepared to at least take this under advisement, we will indeed be challenging your ruling. But I want to make sure I understand that your ruling is that it is not in order to define the rights and obligations which are going to be extended under this act. Surely, that is within the scope of the bill to sell off MTS.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, if I, too, just may add just a few words to the point of order that is being raised, my interpretation in the past has been that Legislative Counsel has been there to assist in the drafting of amendments, drafting of legislation and so forth.
I myself haved used the Clerk's Office in terms of providing or requesting recommendations on things that we might want to do. I am wondering if the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) could comment whether or not he has sought the advice of the Clerk's Office in terms of the scope, because it seems to me that if we are going to be standing up challenging the Speaker's ruling on everything that she does, I would assume that she is at least taking into account the concerns expressed from the Clerk's Office. I would be interested in knowing if he has done likewise, or is he basing his arguments strictly on Legislative Counsel? From my interpretation, it was there to help us or to assist us in the drafting, not necessarily telling us whether or not it was in order inside the Chamber.
Madam Speaker: Order, please. On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the honourable member does not have a point of order. The honourable member referenced Citations 567, 568, 569 on page 175 of Beauchesne. Those citations refer explicitly to amendments on motions, not relative to amendments on bills.
The best advice I have received is that this amendment is out of order based on Beauchesne 698 because it is beyond the scope of the bill.
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that this is your ruling, not a ruling based on advice. I therefore challenge your ruling.
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Ashton: Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Cummings, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Dyck, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gaudry, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Ashton, Barrett, Cerilli, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Hickes, Jennissen, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGifford, Mihychuk, Reid, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Mr. Clerk: Yeas 31, Nays 21.
Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk),
THAT Bill 67 be amended by striking out subsection 4(1) and substituting the following:
Services of corporation
4(1) The corporation or an affiliate of the corporation shall continue to provide affordable, accessible and high quality telephone service to all residents of the province regardless of their geographic location, and at equitable rates throughout the province, on such terms and conditions as may be approved from time to time by a regulator of competent jurisdiction.
[French version]
Il est proposé d'amender le projet de loi 67 par substitution, au paragraphe 4(1), de ce qui suit:
Mission de la Société
4(1) La Société est tenue, elle-même ou par l'entremise d'une personne morale de son groupe, de continuer à offrir des services téléphoniques à prix abordable, accessibles et de grande qualité à tous les résidents de la province, indépendamment de l'endroit où ils se trouvent, et à des taux équitables partout dans la province, selon les modalités qui sont approuvées par un organisme de réglementation compétent.
Motion presented.
Madam Speaker: The amendment is in order.
* (1720)
Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if at first you do not succeed, try, try again. I want to indicate that not only is this in order, but surely this is one that can be added to the growing list of amendments we have passed to Bill 67, because I want people to compare the amendment with the current 4(1). If anybody has any concerns about the impact on rural and northern service and affordability of service for people throughout this province, not only based on geography but based on income, they should be very concerned about the current 4(1) because does it make any reference whatsoever to affordability, accessibility, high quality service and service being made throughout the province? I want to read you the current section because I think this will explain to members opposite why we have to have this provision in the bill.
Services of corporation, the current section states that the corporation or an affiliate shall continue to provide access to telephone service to residents of the province on such terms and conditions as may be approved from time to time by a regulator of competent jurisdiction.
I ask the question, to members of the House, what comfort can they take in a provision of this act that says, the corporation shall continue to provide access to telephone service? I mean, you do not have to live in Tadoule Lake, Shamattawa or York Landing to be concerned about this. All this says, basically, this gives up any policy mandate for the new corporation, any public-service mandate and throws it right onto the regulator.
I want this to be clear on the record too, because there is a difference with public ownership, and I will tell you what I use as a basis for that, Madam Speaker. It is the submission that was made to the CRTC by the Manitoba Telephone System November 13. I am not talking about the submission made by one Mr. Nugent, the honest Mr. Nugent, somebody who put his personal and professional reputation on the line by refusing to say anything other than what I believe is the truth, what was in the document filed by MTS.
What is interesting, though, about the document is, the document says--this is MTS going into privatization. It says that the Manitoba Telephone System has extended rural and northern service far more than any other company in Canada. In other words, the publicly owned Manitoba Telephone System, as a matter of public policy, has extended rural and northern service, more quickly, more extensively. That, by the way, is something we are proud of in this Manitoba Legislature, one of the reasons we want MTS kept publicly owned.
You know, Madam Speaker, one of these telephone systems is not like the other. I mean, you know, there is a song of that nature, is there not? Yes. You know I think even kids who would know the song from Sesame Street would understand that the real problem across the way is, the government is the last one in Manitoba to understand there is a difference. They do not believe the opposition when we say it. They do not believe the many groups out there like the UMM and MAUM and MSOS. They do not believe the Manitoba Pool. They do not even believe the counsel for MTS, Mr. Nugent, and after the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) comments last week, I just say, I am sure glad I am not one of the Premier's friends because, if that is the way he treats his friends--well, pardon me, we know how he treats people who are not his friends politically, but that is another issue.
But the bottom line is, what did they say to the CRTC? They said, we have a more extensive role in northern service as a matter of public policy. We are the only ones in Canada to have extended as a matter of public policy in that way, shape and form. That is how we got rid of the party lines in Manitoba, Service for the Future, a $620-million investment in rural and northern Manitoba. That is how we got service in communities such as Tadoule Lake and Shamattawa.
They asked for some of those costs to be able to be passed on by the private company. In fact, they were dealing directly with the schedule of rates and the rate-capping regime to make sure that those costs are passed on by the private company. But what is interesting, what kind of guarantee is there in this bill? What is there in the way of protection for rural and northern service?
You know, Madam Speaker, I want to refer--actually, I forgot to mention one authority here for the need for rural and northern service to be included and the possibility it could be included. You know who I am going to refer to? The three investment brokers. Because on April 30, when they filed their document with the Treasury Board, with Mr. Benson and Messrs. Stefanson and Stefanson and Mr. Filmon and all the other large group of four or five that made this decision, what is interesting is, they said that protection could be put in for accessibility of service for rural service, and I can provide the document to members opposite who may still not have seen it. Because it is interesting, the stockbrokers said, you know, you can build in some protection of service. So what did the drafters of this bill do? They brought in this completely ridiculous 4(1) which says, the corporation should continue to provide access to telephone service.
What do they expect? I mean, why is this even in there? What are they going to do, not provide telephone service? I mean, what are they going to do, shut down all the lines? Madam Speaker, even the most vociferous critics of MTS, of which there are many in this province, would not suggest that they would rip out the phone lines, you know, that the new shareholders of the company would direct the company not to provide telephone service, but that is what is in here. I mean, that is the only protection for Manitobans. You sell the company to this new private operation, there will still be telephone service. It does not say anything about the cost. It does not say anything about accessibility. It does not say one thing about making sure that people in Morris, Manitoba, or Thompson, Manitoba, or Dauphin or Swan River or Morden or Roblin, any of those communities will have any guarantees of the kind of commitment to service we have had on our public phone system that gives people in rural and northern Manitoba the same kind of phone service, the same access, the same affordability that applies to all Manitobans, Madam Speaker. That is not in this bill.
So I look forward to the government members, and, in fact we will be debating this later on tonight. I look forward to their contribution because I note that the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) said about a week ago that they were going to debate us one-for-one on MTS. I have seen members like the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) who seems to have substituted now two-minute member statements for debate. I want to hear where the member for Turtle Mountain is going to stand on this bill. I want to see if he is going to vote for accessibility no matter where you live in the province, to make sure his constituents--I want to see what he is going to say to people in Killarney, Boissevain. I want to see what other people in southwest Manitoba are going to say, in Arthur, Virden. I want to see what they are going to say to the people in their own constituency who are saying one of the reasons they do not want MTS sold off is because they know a publicly owned company is committed to rural and northern service. That is what this amendment is about.
I want to stress the operative words again: "affordable," "accessible," "high quality," regardless of where you live. I want to know on the government side, what are they opposed to, affordable? Do they want to go the same way as Tellus in Alberta, which is looking at doubling the rates, more than doubling for rural Albertans? I commend the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for tracking down the prospectus. If you want to know what a private phone company looks like, look at the Tellus prospectus. Look at it, and if you think that is a model for Manitoba, take that prospectus around and take the $190 million rate increases that Tellus has brought in, take their rate schedules and show them what your model, your ideological model, is bringing to this province, because this is exactly what you modelled this share offering, this Bill 67 on, Alberta. [interjection] Four thousand.
You know, you look at it, it is interesting, Madam Speaker, because they have an opportunity here to look at that, affordable, accessible, high quality throughout the province. I want to tell you what has been happening in Alberta, because they have laid off 4,000--in fact, closer to 5,000--of their employees. What was the first thing they did? They shut down phone centres in rural Alberta. They shut them down. That is what people have to be concerned about. Now, if that is their blueprint, let them be up front about it, let them put it on the record, but that is why I say you have a choice here, affordable, accessible, high quality throughout the province. I want to stress that the real issue is the future of phone service.
If we have a phone service in place in Manitoba that is privately owned, I will say on the record, you will never see the kind of investment we have made in rural and northern Manitoba since 1908, and you most definitely will not see the service for the future investment. Why? Because every other private company in the country had that chance and they said no. Go to northern Ontario or northern B.C. and find out what kind of rural and northern service they have in their communities, the party lines, the cost, the lack of accessibility. Madam Speaker, the bottom line is that under a private company you do not have the commitment to affordable, accessible phone rates throughout the province, and I will deal with this further when we come back at seven o'clock because I have a lot more to say about this very, very important amendment.
* (1730)
Madam Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will have 31 minutes remaining.
The hour being 5:30 p.m, as previously agreed, I am leaving the Chair with the understanding that the House will resume at 7 p.m.