[□ | □]
[□=□ | □]
[□ | □ | □]
It is as simple as that . Mr. Reid : Mr. Chairperson , I think it is important here that because the government clearly through their legislation wants the union organizations of this province to communicate with all of the employees in the bargaining unit with respect to use of dues for political purposes , if that is their will and their wish , and a right that has been afforded them under ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Levine case , I believe that the government should accept this amendment which would allow for those dues to remain internal to the union organization for those employees so wishing not to have their dues used for political purpose . Recognizing that expedited arbitration does do some very , very important things such as dealing with time-sensitive issues , and as now the exceptional circumstances as have been recommended to me and as I have moved , one of the concerns about expedited arbitration is that it takes the arbitration process out of the hands of an arbitrator that the parties have agreed to in the collective agreement and puts it essentially in the hands of a stranger . They could shift them either among themselves or to others , with permission . Needless to say , the actual positions of most Catholics do not correspond precisely to either of these two types . I would raise those questions because we have seen ministers , for example , who have , with in-scope amendments , raised at the beginning of committee hearings that this is being contemplated , that is being contemplated . If the names and addresses of the employees are not available , are not provided by the employer , as I have indicated earlier , where some members of that particular bargaining unit may be employed in their own homes , for example , or outside of the particular isolated work area where they can be easily identified , then it seems reasonable to request this amendment that would allow for that list of names to be provided to the union by the employer to allow for the most accurate communication possible to determine the wishes and the will of those employees . Now , Mr. Chairperson , the opposition has been pilloried for going around and doing what the government was apparently unwilling or afraid to do , which is to say , come and meet with us , not as the Premier said this morning , on radio , at a by-invitation-only coffee and chat , where those who are invited are very clearly members of the Conservative Party , and where the meetings are not publicized as open and public , at least not the ones in Winnipeg , certainly not the one that was held in my constituency at Crescentwood Community Club . But as for establishing a better state in place of the one they have ruined , many of those who have attempted it have achieved nothing for their pains . But he expressed exasperation with the recently adopted mandatory sentencing guidelines ( which , though overruled on appeal , he had found unconstitutional in an earlier case ) . I will reiterate once again , as I did in the House , that I believe that this bill is essentially designed as a punitive measure to get back at those labour organizations in our province that dared to stand up to this government and in fact raised issues during the 1995 provincial general election campaign and to raise public awareness of these issues , and that this government is now bringing forward Bill 26 as a punitive measure to in many ways tie the hands of those organizations from ever being able to take effective action , and at the same time recognizing that this government , while they have tied the hands of labour organizations in this province who dared to speak out , they have not taken similar actions to those that are familiar and friendly with this particular government , namely those in certain sectors of the business community and that it is undemocratic , the sections that the government is - - and the actions the government is proposing through this bill . It definitely has some grounds I believe that should be included under this legislation . That is the context of the comments that you made by saying that you could have gone a lot further , and you had the power to do it , but you showed generosity to the working people of the province of Manitoba . So the first requirement would be to make it plain to all Manitobans why this new circumstance had arisen , what the urgency was , and to plainly share with Manitobans data as objective as can be obtained by government in a form and in locations accessible to Manitobans , particularly those Manitobans who live in parts of our province where telephones are even more vital and where their affordability and accessibility , functionality are even more an issue than they are for us who live in urban settings . I am asking through this amendment to allow those organizations to be able to make those comments to the employees who would be participating in a lockout or strike picket line and that this would then provide some measure of assurance that the government would not move against those labour organizations in a punitive fashion for those who have made every reasonable effort to try and stop strike-related misconduct . In the short time that I have been an MLA , the pension for MLAs is to change . So we ask that this matter would be dealt with through an unfair labour practice versus the removal of the Rand Formula . My deputy minister sat during those meetings . Mr. Reid : I believe , Mr. Chairperson , this will allow for some fairness to prevail under the application process so that there would not be undue influence exerted by either party with respect to the certification process and to allow the employees themselves to hear both sides in the certification application , and that is why we have raised this amendment . Relations Act of Manitoba for unfair labour practice , that we would propose that these matters where there is and if there is a failure to file a detailed financial statement as is requested , that those particular parties would commit to an unfair labour practice and that they would be subject to the full sanctions as allowed under the law . It does not deal with control of assets other than control of securities , and in the context of Bill 67 , the relevance would be that the securities referred to would be shares either of MTS or of an affiliate . The most publicly known example of that is the Winnipeg Jets , in which the general partner maintained corporate residence in Manitoba .