Manitoba Hansard — 7 May 1982 (Sitting 50, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-50

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday, 7 May, 1982 Time -10 :00 a.m. OPENIN G PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): Presenting Petitions .. . READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS MR. CLERK , Jack Reeves: The Petition of the Men nonite Brethren Chu rch of Manitoba pr aying for the passing of

an Act to amend

an Act to incorporate the Mennonite Bretheren Chu rch in Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Ellic e. MR. BRI AN CORRIN (Ellice): Mr. Spea ker, I have a petition to present to with respect to

an Act to incor porate the Menno Simons Colle giate. MR. CLERK: The petition of Dr. David Friesen et al praying for the pas sing of

an Act to incorporate the Menno Simons Collegia te. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEA KER: The Honou rable Member for Flin Flon. MR. JERRY T. STO RIE (Flin Flon): Mr. Spea ker, the Comm ittee of Su pply has adop ted certain resol u tions, directs me to rep ort the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for River East, that the rep ort of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. AL MACKLING (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to the trees which have been pla ced on the desk of each member. -(I nterjection)- MR. SPEA KER: Order pl ease. MR. MACKLIN G: This is Man itoba Forest Week, a week during which the residents of this provi nce are asked to consider the value of Man itoba's forests and their many us es. This year the theme of the week centres on the use of the forest as firewood . During the past few years with the increasing costs of nonre newable fuel sour ces, more and more people have been turning to a more traditional source of heat for their homes and cottages.

In deed, many new homes buil t in our provi nce now feature some type of fire pl ace and cou ntless hu ndreds of other Man itobans have turned to using wood stoves as auxilia ry heating systems. The tree which has been placed on your desks, as you will have noted, is a new variety of popla r. It is calle d a Tower Poplar. The tree has many of the shape characteristics of the Lombardy Popla r, a tree that is well known in Europe and is used extensively in hed gerows and between field because of its up righ t sh ape.

This new variety of po pla r is hardy in our Western Canadian climate, unl ike the Lom bardy, and is expected to beco me a popula r tree in driveways, along fence li nes and in areas where space is at a premium. I might say in addition, Mr. Speaker, that these trees which you have on your desk have come out of a shel tered environment and it would n't be appropriate to immediately plant on a day like this, this tree in your back yard, because it does deserve a little love and attention for a short time before you return it to the elements. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Leader of the Opp osition. HON.

STERLING LYON (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, I am sure all of us in the Hous e would want to acknowledge Man itoba Forest Week and to acknowl edge the example of popla r that has been kindly given to each of the members for planting and for exhibition on his or her pro perty. I noticed there was some preoccu pation of the Minis ter with talk about hedger ows and tal k about the shel tered environ ment in which the trees have been kept for a while. It reminded me somewhat, Sir, of the govern ment and its polic ies, very shel tered until it faces the realities of life and then all trouble hits it. MR. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, this is National Forest Week and it is appropriate therefore for me to prov ide the fol lowing information to the House. Increased forest renewal activities are being planned in the vicinity of ManFor's harvesting operation in Northern Manitoba. Noting that this is National Forest Week, I want to indicate that it is timely to announce the beginning of an expanded forest renewal program in Manitoba. This program will ensure fut ure suppli es of timber to the forest indus try while continuing the economic and social benefits to Man itobans.

The first step in the development of a northern nursery is the location of a su itable site for the green hous e and container seedling portion of the program. The funding for this program will be found within the department's 1982 and 1983 Bud get. The develop ment of the nursery site is expected to prov ide some employment oppo rtun ities at the local level. The nursery site will be established in the vicinity of The Pas. 2316 In addition to the nursery project, additional fu nd ing will be given to the already established Provi ncial Nu rsery at Hadash vil le, Manitoba.

This will ensure that the demand for seedling requirements for the Forest Renewal Program in the southern portion of the provi nce will be met.

Friday, 7 May, 1982 I wou ld lik e to see an impr oved northern forest renewal pr ogram and my department expects to establ ish a greenhouse facility and nu rsery site, so that seedlin gs from the northern greenhouse opera tion will be available for the 1983-84 pl anting season. Mr. Speaker, there is a backlog of area in Manitoba that requir es reforestation because of neglect in past years. MR. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, I am sur e that all members of the Ho use would welcome the annou ncement by the Minister dur ing National Forest Week of the extension of the facilities to Northern Manitoba, of the nu rsery facil ities that is, to Northern Manitoba and of his assurance that this will not in any way detract from, but rather will help to enhance the existing facil ities at Had ashville which have served the pr ovince so well.

We will, of cou rse, wa tch with keen interest the develop ment of this facility and hope that it will, as the Minister says, benefit the whole forestry industry and the whole forest covered area of this pr ovince in years to come. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. VIC SCHROEDER (Rossmere): Th ank you, Mr. Speaker. I jus t have an announc ement to make with respect to the date of the Budg et It will be pr esented on Tuesday, May 11th at 8:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. WILSON PARASIUK (Transc ona): Yes, Mr.

Sp eaker, I rise today to state the government's po lic y on hydro-electric rates and in partic ular , the Hydro rate freeze wh ich went into effect on Febru ary 1st, 1979. When the Hydro rate freeze was introduced in 1979, the government of the day bel ieved that the removal of foreign exchange risk from Man itoba Hydro would pr ovide the utility with sufficient elbow room to fix rates and rebuild reserves during the five-year per iod. The removal of the foreign exchange risk has cost the Man itoba taxpayers some $76.5 mill ion to date.

How ever, the last two years of su bstantially lower water levels have reduced Man itoba Hydro's capacity to generate revenue through export sales. In addition, interest rates have risen from app roximately 9 percent in 1979 to al most 18 percent in 1981-82, and the end to the high interest rates is not yet in sight. Inflation has al so increased significantly in the last three years since the Hydro rate freeze began from a forecast of 6 to 8 per cent a year to some 12 percent last year. The result is a deficit for the last two fiscal years wh ich will exceed $40 mill ion.

Gi ven these changed circu mstances, it was my du ty to ask Man itoba Hydro for a techn ical report on its pr esent and futur e financial position . I have received that repor t and it is app ended to this statement. The most significant findings of that report are that if we continue the rate freeze and have average water lev els, pr edicted hi gh interest rates and inflation, Hydro will still have a deficit of $22.7 mill ion in 1982-83 and $5 9.6 mill ion in 1983-84, when a major refinancing of Hydro debt will have to take pla ce.

Th is would reduce reserves to such an extent that revenue would have to increase by some 31 per cent in 1984-85 to avoid exhausti ng the reserves. These pr ojections have lead the management of Man itoba Hydro to recommend an 11 per cent rate increase in 1982 and further rate increases in futur e years wh ich wou ld have the effect of maintaining existing reserve levels. Notwithstanding this recom mendation, it is the po li cy of the Gov ernment of Mani toba to continue the Hydro rate freeze for a fou rth consecutive year.

Th is year's pr ojected deficit of $22. 7 mill ion with average water flows can be absorbed by the existing reserves of app roximately $100 mill ion while still lea ding sufficient time and financial room to make adjustments if required next year. We believe that reserves should be used for these contingencies. It is the hope of the Manitoba Gov ernment that during the course of this year, water le vel conditions imp rove, interest rates go down, inflation goes down and export sales go up .

Any and all of these factors will have a su bstantial impact on this year's actual op erations and the projections for next year. They can improve Hydro's financial posi tion or they could make it worse. Therefore, we will be monitoring water le vels, interest rates, inflation and export sales on an ongoing basis throughout the year. We will, of cou rse, review this issue again next year and make our po sition known at that time in the light of this year's actual exper ience and the refined pr o jections available then for 1983-84. Mr.

Speaker, I ask that the app ended financial fore cast for Manitoba Hydro be referred to the Pub lic Utilities Committee for consideration when the Annua l Report of the Manitoba Hy dro Electric Board is dealt with by that Legislative Committee. 2317 MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Minister for his statement and I would say, par ticul arly, to commend him for making the statment today in advance of the Pub lic Utilities Comm ittee meetings wh ich start next Tue sday.

I think it is useful and help ful to all members of the House to have this informa tion at hand before we go into those committee hearings. Secondly, of cou rse, we are happy to see that the government has made a determination to carry on the Hydro rate freeze for a fou rth year. This is the one area where the pe ople of Man itoba have gu aranteed to them an inflation-free pr oduct wh ich is somethin g that is fund amentally important to all people and to all indus try in Man itoba.

It wou ld have been wr ong not only in principle; it wou ld have been wr ong in pr actice for this government to remove the freeze which was placed on with an un dertaking by the pr evious admin istration that it would stay there for five years. It is not my poin t at this stage to engage in any debate or argument with the Min ister with respect to arguments that may have been raised in the past about val idity of the freeze and so on.

I merely note, however, that the leg islation that was put into place some two to three years ago contemplated that the Gov ernment of Manitoba, that is, the taxpayers of Manitoba woul d ass ume the responsibi lity for the foreign borrowing attributed to Manitoba Hydro on the assum ption of borrowing wh ich was pr esu med to have been made by Hydro at the Canadian rate of that time. It poi nts up

Friday, 7 May, 1982 again, Sir, the extreme dangers of any government bo rrowing in foreign money markets and one of the reasons that the leg islation had to be brought into place was to free up the Manitoba rate payers, those who use Manitoba Hydro, from borrowing s that were made in the 70s which were not app rop riate at the time and wh ich were called as being not app ropr iate at the time.

I mention as well , Sir, that the 76 mill ion that has been used to equali ze this borrowing rate to the Can adian level, when compar ed to the reserves of 100 mill ion, indicate also the futility of the argument that was used at that time that the Hydro rate freeze was not needed. The Hydro rate freeze was needed when it was impos ed. It has been needed every year since it has been in effect. It is needed now and the pe ople of Man itoba will be happy to know that it is being kept in place for at least a fou rth year.

We will hope that next year we will have the same kind of an annou ncement from the Minister that the five-year freeze will be kept in place. In the meantime, we are thankful for his announc ement this morning. MR. SPEAK ER: Notices of Motion .. . Introduction of Bills INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Qu estion, can I direct the attention of honour able members to the Gallery where we have 30 students of Grade 5 stand ing from the Winnipeg Hebr ew School. These stu dents are under the direction of Mrs.

Brenner and the school is in the constituency of the Honour able Minis ter of Cons u mer and Corporate Affairs. We also have 43 students of Grades 9 to 12 standing from the Sydney Academy School. These students are un der the direction of Mr . McKenzie, Mr. Bryson, Miss Ingli s, Miss Ma rtell and the sch ool is lo cated in Sydney, Nova Scotia. On behalf of all the honour able members, I wel come you here this morning. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposi tion. MR. l YON: Mr. Speaker, a que stion to the Mi nister of Finance.

Wh ile thanking him for confirmation on this date, Friday, the 7th of May, that the Bud get will be brought down on Tuesday, the 11th of May, I wou ld ask him if he could advise the Ho use if he will steer clear of ill-advised recommendations that are made from time to time for the incl usion in the bu dgetary pr ocess in Manitoba of the broadening of the sales tax to incl ud e service industries such as the dental pr o fession, the legal pr ofession and other pr ofessional services that are offered to the people of Man itoba?

If he will comment upon whether he is going to be able to avoid that kind of tax that has never been found necessary in the his tory of the pr ovi nce and one would hope, one that we would not hear from him on Tuesday next. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. MR. SCHROED ER: Th ank you , Mr. Speak er. I am sur e that the Leader of the Opposition will be del igh ted to hear that on Tuesday even ing, he will get an answer to his que stion. MR. l YON: Well , Mr.

Speaker, while in some ways anticipati ng the respo nse of the Min ister of Finance, would the Minister of Finance care to comment upon pr evious action that was taken by an NOP administra tion in the 70s wh en they broadened the tax base to includ e a sales tax on pr oduc tion machi nery in Mani toba, wh ich has pr oved to be a regressive tax even though it is a lu crative tax and one that acts as a de-stimulant to industry in Manitoba. Will he keep that in mind as he is formula ting policy for his Bu dget next Tuesday night? 2318 MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr.

Sp eaker, we are keeping all areas in mind as we are coming cl oser to Tuesday evening and the Leader of the Oppos ition had four years in wh ich to change that parti cular tax, in fact, to take it off if he felt that was going to impr ove the economy. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G.W.J. (Gerry) MERCIER (St. Norbert): Mr. Speak er, my que stion is to the Mi nister of Labour .

In view of the increase in actual unempl oyment in Mani toba in Ap ril of this year to 8.1 per cent compared to 6.6 per cent in Ap ril of 1981, and in view of the season ally adjusted increase from Ap ril of '81, 5.9, to April of '82 this year of 7.2 percent, and the fact that there has been an increase of 8,000 people to 40,000 people now un employed in Man itoba in Ap ril of '82, would the Minister of Labour admit the absol ute failure of his government to fulfill his pa rty's pr omise that they could turn arou nd the ha rsh economic circu mstances of the past four years? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Finance. MR. SCHROEDER: I take it the Memb er for St. Nor bert can't read very well . The unemployment rate in Man itoba is actually lower than last month unad ju sted; it is higher than it was last year, but compared to what? Compar ed to the rest of Can ada, we are the third lo west, and Al berta and Saskatchewan are mov ing closer to where we are than they were last year when those people were in office. There are more people working now than there were last month in Manitoba.

In fact, while in Canada, there are fewer people in total wor king than there were this month last year; in Manitoba, we have at least the same numb er wo rking this month as we had wor king at the same time last year. That is su rely an indication that in Manitoba, und er this government, we have done a lot better than governments In the rest of the cou ntry, all of wh ich now are Conservative or somewhat similar in lean ing and they haven't been able to do better than we have been able to do. MR. ME RCIER : Mr.

Speaker, the facts are that the actual unemploy ment figures h ave gone up from 6.6 percent in Ap ril of last year compared to 8.1 percent in

Friday, 7 May, 1982 Ap ril of this year and it was their par ty who said that they could turn around the all egedly ha rsh economic circu mstances of the past four years. Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that there are 12,300 young people between the age of 15 and 24 years unemployed in Manitoba compared to 11.400 last year in April of '81, and in view of the fact that we introdu ced a Yo uth Employ ment Program that pr o vided jobs for 5,000 young people and the Minis ter has introduced a pr ogram that only pr ovides jobs for 1,500 young pe ople, considering there are 900 more young people out of work in April of 1982 compared to last year with the Mi nister now; in view of the fact that it is now May 7th and you ng people out of un iversity are lo oking for work , wou ld the Minister immediately review his job pr ogram in order that he can pr ovide some 5,000 jobs that our government was able to pr ovide last year for you ng people?

MR. SCHROEDER: Yes, maybe we could get some young people to work on tuto ring the Opp osition on reading statistics to see that Manitoba in terms of Canada and the rest of the western world is doing extremely well. The youth unemploy ment rate for Ma nitoba is down from 14 percent last month to 12.3 percent this month in Manitoba, and that is based on what is hap pening out there in the total world, doing extremely well. I would al so point out to the Member for St. Norbert that the unemploy ment rate while in all of Canada, it is the hi ghest since the depression; in Manitoba, we are tied with September of 1978.

We are at the same le vel we were at in September of 1978. I should al so point out to the member that while in Canada, the par ticipation rate in the labour force is down by more than one po int; in Manitoba, the par tic ipation rate is staying app roximately le vel. That cer tainly has an impact in terms of hid den unemplo yment. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Memb er for La Verendrye. MR. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendrye): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my que stion to the Minister of Economic Develop ment.

I would ask her if she could assur e this House and the people of ru ral Mani toba that her depar tment will not use Enterpr ise Mani toba Inc entives Program or any other incentive pr o grams or grant pr ograms to determine where an indus try locates in ru ral Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Eco nomic Develop ment. HON. MURIEL SMITH (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, this is a que stion that has come up many times in the pr ocess of the Estimate discussion, where we indi cated that our approach to sp ending pub lic money to pr omote indus trial develop ment involves us in havi ng some infl uence on whether industries lo cate where the need is greatest. Wh en we say influ ence, Mr. Speaker. we did not say control. It wou ld be one qu estion that we wou ld bring to the negotiating and in bala nce, of cou rse, we want indus tries that are going to be economically viable.

So we would never be pu sh ing for a decision to locate in some setting where it coul d not be economically viable. But, Mr . Speaker, wh en sp ending pub lic money we do not bel ieve that the government sh ould pla y a neutral role. MR. BANMAN: Coul d the Mi nister confirm that the govern ment ha s instruc ted civil servants in her depar tment to try and lo cate indus tries in certain areas of the pr ovince and try to move them away from other areas in the pr ovince? In other words , to try and get indus try to lo cate in sp ecific areas that she has designated. MRS. SMITH: Mr.

Speak er, that sounds to me lik e the same question asked ju st another way. We have asked our civil servants to take location as a factor and if other things being equal try to move indus try where the unemplo yment is greatest. The reason for doing this, Mr. Speaker, is that we would lik e to see more balanced developm ent in the pr ovince. We would not however pu sh a location in an area where an industry would not be viable. So it's an attempt to bring it as an active factor into the negotiating, not to direct or con trol the decision. MR.

BANMAN: In order to accompl ish this pr ogram of discriminating against certain areas in the Province of Manitoba, is the Minister saying that the incentive pr ograms such as the infrastructure pr ogram and other pr ograms that the government is comtemplat ing and has currently on the books , that those pr o grams will be used as a way and a means of encou rag ing indus try to locate either in one part of the pr ovince rather than in another par t. MRS. SMITH: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it jus t sou nded to me lik e we are getting not ju st a second version of the same que stion but a third version of the same que s tion. We have said, if the members opposite can und erstand, there are many factors taken into accou nt when negotiating these types of grants. We've said that one of the key factors is location and other things being equal, if economic viability is there, that we wou ld li ke to see indus tries locate where the hi ghest unemploy ment is. Now, to me that seems to be a very defensible and responsib le position , Mr. Speaker. 2319 MR. BANMAN: Th ank you.

A final question, I wonder then if the Minister could confirm that the Govern ment of Manitoba will now, through different mecha nisms, determine where indus try lo cates within the Province of Manitoba; in other wor ds, new industry, and that certain areas where they feel that they don't want the indus try to loca te, they will then go ahead and tell those compan ies that they wou ld rather see them locate in another par t of the pr ovince than in an area that they're loo king at? MRS . SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker. We have version numb er four of the same que stion.

I think what the members opposite forget is that qu estions are not considered as bl ack and wh ite. There's all sorts of decision po ints from one poin t to another. What we have asked is that the location, that the government pla y a more active role in influencing it. It's not a qu estion of saying that they will dictate or that they will insist on 100 per cent satisfaction in terms of what our pr iorities might be. It's a negotiating

Friday, 7 May, 1982 stance, Mr. Speaker. I think it's a responsib le stance, and in no way will the government be saying nothin g will go to an area where there is not a high un employ ment, but we're saying other things being equal, wh en pub li c money is sp ent - mind you that's the differ ence - we have some responsi bility to try to get the investment in areas where the need is greatest. It is a major consideration, not the only consideration. MR. SPE AKER: Th e Honou rable Memb er for Pembina. MR. DONALD ORCHARD (Pembi na): Th ank you, Mr. Sp eaker. A question to the Minister of Economic Development.

Who in her department, or will she be making the decision -when an indus try is pr epared to invest thousands of doll ars in Man itoba, will she be making the decision as to which area the indus try will be viable in, rather than the indus try who is making the invesment? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honou rable Minister of Eco nomic Developm ent. MRS. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, wh en pr ivate indus try comes into the pr ovince and makes its decisions, it makes them on its own. Wh en pr ivate industry is look ing for some pub lic money to contribute to the pack age, then, Mr.

Speaker, it's only sensible for the peo ple representing the pub lic to have some infl uence. It's fool ish to enter into a negotiating stance from an empty or nil position. Wh en pub lic money is being sp ent we bel ieve that the pub li c authority has the right to have some pr eferences. Now I think the member opp osite, Mr.

Sp eaker, knows full well that decision making, the final authority and responsi bil ity rests with the Minister and with the Cabi net, but that any any Minister wo rth their salt will sp end a great deal of time und erstanding and consideri ng the careful anal ysis given to them by the members of their department. MR. ORCHARD: Th ank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we've established that the Minister will be deciding wh ich areas a given indus try will be viable in, can we have the assur ance from the Minister that her deci sions on the viabil ity of indus try and their lo cation will not follow the pr evious record of the last ND Govern ment in Manitoba of locat ing such indus tries as Sau nders, wh ich lost $40 mill ion for the pr ovince? Is that the kind of viable decisions that the new Minister is intending to make on behalf of indus try in Manitoba? MRS. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, I'm amazed that a per son who has sp ent four years as a Mi nister in this pr ovince does not un derstand that Ministers mus t make deci sions and that the wis est way to make decisions is to consider all the evidence they can possib ly get their hands on. This side of the Hous e is interested in sane and strong responsib le economic decisions. It would be foolis h of us not to lo ok at all the factors. Of cou rse, we'll be taking them into consideration and making a balanc ed ju dgement, Mr. Speaker. MR. SP EAKER: Th e Honour ab le Member for Emerson. MR. ALBERT DRIEDGER (Emerson): Th ank you, Mr.

Sp eaker. To the Minister of Natu ral Resou rces. Can the Minister indicate whether there has been a change in po lic y regarding the conservation officers la ying charges of violations under The Wild Life Act? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Natu ral Resour ces. MR. MACKLING: Yes I can, Mr. Speaker, there has been no change. MR. DRIE DGER: Can the Minister then maybe make hims elf aware of a letter that wa s sent out to the various resource branches indicating that the conser vation officers would not be involved in la ying charges under The Wild Life Act in the futur e? MR.

MACKL ING: If the honour able member has a copy of a letter or some docume ntthat I haven't seen, I'll be happy to lo ok at it. MR. DR I EDGER: Mr . Speaker, to the same Min ister. I wish the Minis ter would finally accept some of the responsi bility when some of these decisions happen, because he always seems to say get me the informa tion. I think that responsi bil ity should be his and he sh ould know what's hap pening. I will try and get a copy of the letter to the Minister and would ask if that is the case whether he wou ld then retract that kind of posi tion? MR. MACKLI NG: Mr.

Speak er, I don't know what the honour able member is complainin g about, but cer tainly any pr oblem that he ha s, if he wants to bring it to my attention we will look at it, but if he wa nts to tal k in vague general ities that's his pr erogative, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER: Th e Honou rable Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. DAVID R. (Dave) BLAKE (Minn edosa): Th ank you , Mr. Sp eaker. My que stion is to the Mi nister responsib le for Tourism.

In view of the importance of the tou rist indus try to the Brandon area and the fact that their Centennial is pr esently being celebrated, I wonder if she could inform the House what expe rience she has had in her enqu iries to obtain the permission of the railways to allow the Prairie Dog Central attraction to visit that area this sum mer? 2320 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Tourism. MRS. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I app reciate the great advantage to the Brandon Centennial Celebration the arrival of the Prairie Dog Central there would really represent.

Follo wing up from the que stion asked by the member opposite a few weeks ago, I did ask my department pe ople to investigate and see if there were good offices that our department could perform to ensure that such an agreement might be arrived at or at least to understand if there was good reason why not. I ass ure the member opposite, Mr. Speaker, that we are using our good offices to see if we can come to a satisfactory decision and I will undertake to commun-

Friday, 7 May, 1982 icate to the member opp osite when a final decision is arrived at. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Morr is. MR. CLAYTON MAN NESS (Morris): Th ank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I would lik e to ask the Minister of Natu ral Resou rces a qu estion. Earlier this morning, he made an announc ement entitled the Forest Renewal Expansion Activities Project and I am wondering if he could indicate two things. First of all, where from within his budg et will funding be found for this pr o gram and ho w much funding is going to be sp ent on it? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Natu ral Resou rces.

MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, the funds are within the budge t. The details of that, I will be happy to pr ovide if the honour able me.mber wants to file an Order for Return. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Member for Niakwa. MR. ABE KO VNATS (Nia kwa ): Th ank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I al so have a question for the Honour able Min ister of Natu ral Reso urces concerning the pr o posed new nu rsery at The Pas. I was out at Hadash ville the other day and I noticed that they pr obably go through about 5 mill ion seedl ings a year and after cull ing, they pr obably distribute somewhere arou nd 3.5 mill ion.

Would the new pr op osed nur sery at The Pas be a dupl ication of services that come out of Hadashville? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Min ister of Natu ral Resources. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Chairman, we have completed a 20-year forestry study and that study indicates a very serious backlog in this pr ovince of reforestation. Hig h pri ority is given to the establi sh ment of addi tional nu rsery capacit y, both at Hada sh ville and at The Pas. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Morris. MR.

MANNESS: A further question to the Minister of Natu ral Resou rces, can he tell me if the amount required to fund this pr ogram, will it be fou nd excl u sively within in the Forestry

section of his bud get? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honou rable Minister of Natu ral Resou rces. MR. MACKLING: Mr. Sp eaker, I have indicated that the honour able member can file an Order for Return. These are capi tal pr ojects and the money is within the Cap ital Bud get. MR. SPEAK ER: Th e Honour able Leader of the Opp osition. POINT OF ORDER MR. LYON: Mr. Sp eaker, ju st to seek your advice, Sir, 2321 on a Point of Order. I have never known it to be customary to have to file an Order for Return to find out where an expenditur e item is inclu ded under capi tal or curr ent sp ending items.

All the Min ister has to do is advise the member of the vote nu mber under wh ich it is found and the amount. That doesn't require an Order for Retu rn, unless we are becoming a bur eau cratic, centralized, socialis t, nonsensi cal government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Natu ral Resources to the same Point of Order. MR. MACKLING: Is it a Point of Order? Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that it is inappropriate to file an Order for Return, I think is itself uncalled for. Certainly, if it is a detailed que stion as this is, an Order for Return is in order.

I certainly don't lik e the tone of the Honour able Leader of the Opp osition's remarks, considering the kind of neglect that he indicated for this pr ovince for four years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition to the same poin t of order. MR. LYON: No, Mr. Sp eaker. MR. SPEAKER: I beli eve the information sought by the Honour able Member for Mo rris has been given by the Honour able Minister. The Honour able Member for Fort Garry. MR. L.R. (Bud) SHER MAN (Fort Garry): Mr. Sp eaker, my que stion is to the Honour able Min ister of Com munity Services.

I wonder if the Minister can advise the Hous e, Mr. Speaker, of the criteria appl ied in the decision by his department to order the Ch ildren's Aid Society of Win nipeg to release confidential informa tion to a former ward of the Society who had appl ied for such. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Com munity Services. HON. LEONARD S. EVANS (Br andon East): Mr. Sp eaker, the member asked for the criteria. I think all al ong one recognizes the very great impor tance of confidentiali ty and perhaps this is what the member is all udin g to.

Th is particular case is a sp ecial case of an adult requ esting background on his earlier childhood when he was a ward and there is a feeling by our staff that, pr oviding there are sufficient amendments or dele tions rather to names of individua ls involved over many years back, that it would not contradict the general approach of confidentiali ty. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that the individual involved has been able to look at his file on nu merous occa sions, I believe. He certainly has had that opp ortun ity and has indeed been given that chance by the Child ren's Aid Society. MR.

SHERM AN: I am aware of the la tter, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Minister for that information, but I am aware of the latter, wh ich is really what li es behind my question. That being the case, what criteria has the

Minister appl ied in issu ing this instruction to the Chil dren's Aid Society and is this an isolated case? Does he foresee any wi despread ramifications for the whole concept of confidentiality of information in these situa tions? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult qu estion. As per usua l, there is no bl ack and white answer, but after due consid eration it was felt that this was a sp ecial case and that this was a reasonable app roach.

Th ere is a great deal of pr essure by people who, at one point or other, have been adopted and are now adults and are desirous of ha ving information with regard to rela tives, with regard to individ uals that may have had something to do with their past and I beli eve the hon our able member is app reciative of that.

It's a dilemma to know to what extent you sh ould accommodate the needs of these people who are now adults, as opp osed to pr oviding total confidentiality so you do not jeo pardize the po sitions taken by individuals, doctors, social worker s and others in years gone by who may have been involved in that particular case. MR. SHER MAN: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Minister in the circu mstances, in the context of what he is doing and what is hap penin g in this par ticular case, whether he can and will reassert to the House his commitment to the pri nciple of

Section 40 of The Child Welfare Act, the princi pl e of respect for confi dentiality of this kind of information in order to dis cour age or head off what could potentially be a fairly sub stantial range of appl ications from persons seek ing that very kind of information who perhaps inter pr et the po sition being taken by the government in this case as a change in policy? MR. EVANS: As I indicated, Mr .

Speaker, we deem it to be a very sp ecial case or rather an unu s ual situa tion, but the whole principle of the degree of confi dentiality is somethin g, I think, that is being add ressed al most constantly by the Children's Aid Society and by the approp riate people in the department. I think at some some poin t, it would be a wo rthwhile exercise to have a po lic y review of this legislation includin g that par ticular section.

As the member kno ws, there is increasing pr essure for more information to be made available, freedom of information, and I don't know what implications there are from other legal moves that have been made, what impl ications there are with the Charter of Rights or the new Constitution. I wou ld want to assur e the memberthat no decision in this matter has been taken lig htly . It has been a matter of many, many weeks of discus sion by staff with Children's Aid Society and I can assure the member that the depar tment will continue exercising its responsi bil ity in a very careful manner. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, last Friday I asked the government, and the Minister of Ur ban Affairs took the que stion as notice, whether the Hig hways Department would defer their construc tion pr oject on the Perimeter Hig hway between Roblin Bou levard and Portage Av enue, in view of the reduction in traffic 1982 to one lane in each direction and in view of the fact that the city, when they undertook their work on the St. James Bridge and Route 90, advised motorists to use al ternative routes such as Maryl and or the Perimeter Hi ghw ay.

Th is pr oject has increased the traffic congestion considerably , I am advised and the City has requ ested the Hig hways Depar tment to defer that pr oject, Mr. Sp eaker. Could the Minister of Hig h ways now confirm that pr oject will be deferred to reduce traffic congestion in that area? MR. SPEAK ER: Th e Hono ur ab le Min is ter of Hig hways. HON. SAMUEL USKIW {Lac du Bonnet): Mr. Speaker, yesterday it was drawn to my attention that there was a pr oblem in this area. Sub sequen tly, I asked the department to pr ovide for me a report and I have not yet received that report, Mr. Speaker. MR. ME RCIER : Mr.

Speaker, the que stion was asked one week ago and I hoped the Mini ster wou ld treat it with some ur gency and arrive at an early decision on that matter. Mr. Speaker, in view of the announc ement of the Bud get, a suppl ementary que stion to the Mi nister of Hig hways. In view of his announ cement with respect to per sonali zed li cence plates, could the Minister advise whether the letters NOP TAX will be available? MR. US KIW: Mr. Sp eaker, I' m sur e the former Attorney-General is aware as to the restrictions that have been indicated as to the lettering that might be acceptable.

I beli eve that the only kind of lettering that is not acceptable is somethin g that might be pr ofane or suggestive. 2322 MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a supp lem entary que s tion to the Acting Minister responsib le for the Workers Compe nsation Board. On Ma rch 25th , the Mi nister indicated that he wou ld be tablin g in this Hous e his his amended version of the report on the inquiry into the Workers Compensation Board. It is now May 7th, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Acting Min ister can indi cate when that abridged report or amended sum mary will be tabled in the Legislature? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs. MR. KOSTYRA: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will take that que stion as notice on behalf of the Mi nister. MR. SPE AKER: Th e Honour able Leader of the Opp osition. MR. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a que stion to the Minister of Mi nes and Energy.

In view of the fact that the new Government of Saska tchewan is going to be sworn into office tomorrow, could the Minister give the Ho use some und ertaking as he appeared to do some week or two ago, that he will lo se no time in getting in touch with the new Mi nister who is responsib le for the ongoing negotiations with respect to the Western Hydro Power Grid or In ter-Tie in order that very val u able Inter-Tie and very val uable regional pr oject,

Friday, 7 May, 1982 which can mean many hun dreds if not thousand s of jobs for Manitobans, may not be further delayed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Energy and Mines. MR. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting indeed for the Cabinet to be sworn in so that I would find out who , indeed, was the Minister respo nsible for th is and I certainly intend to get in touch with that Min ister as soo n as po ssible because we do have a meeting sche duled for May 12th. I am ho pin g that we can still pr oceed with that meeting.

I might point out that my Premier has been in touch with the Premier-elect and among other matters discu ssed, raised this whole poi nt, so I think that we are pur suing an expeditious developm ent of an interim agreement on the Western In ter-Tie. MR. SP EAKER: Th e Honour able Mem ber for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Th ank you , Mr. Speaker. My que s tion is for the Minister responsib le for Man itoba Tele ph one System.

In September, 1981, at a Federal Provincial Commun ications Ministers' Conference, there was an un dertaking given by the Federal Minis ter to pr oceed with a meeting on ju risdictional responsi bilities between the Federal Gov ernment and the Provincial Governments with the clear intention to resolve some of the ju risdictional dispu tes between the two levels of government. Has that meeting pr o ceeded and is there any resolu tion of those jur isdic tional disputes? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Com munity Services. MR. EVANS : Mr. Speaker, I thank the honour able member for that question.

Muc h to the frustration of many pr ovinces, a meeting has not yet taken place. There is great demand on the par t of most pr ovinces to resolve this matter and I think Manitoba is no differ ent. Ho wever, I am pleased to report that a meeting is scheduled later this month, I believe in Calgar y, and many of these matters will be discussed. Whether there will be satisfactory resolu tion, of cou rse, remains to be seen but there will be a Federal-Provincial Con ference of Ministers of Communication in Calgar y later this month. MR. ORCHARD : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A supple mentary que stion to the same Min ister. Does the Min ister now have an und erstanding with the Federal Gov ernment vis-a-vis the interim del ivery of Un ited States televi sion signals by satell ite to many commun ities in Man itoba outside of the City of Winnipeg and the continuation of the delivery of those U.S. satellite television signals ? MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, we have no formal agree ment and I suppose we don't even have a formal un derstanding that anyone will recognize in Ottawa being the fact that this is a national po li cy that the government feels that it's necessary to upho ld.

I would trust that pe ople in the Federal Government are reasonable people and are ready to agree with the Province of Manitoba and I think all parties in this Legislature that the people of Northern Manitoba are deserving of a variety of tele vision service that is available to those of us living in the southern half of Manitoba.

I can al so advise the member and other members of the Hous e that it seems that the Cancom, wh ich is the Canadian satell ite op eration, is seeking a li cence soo ner rather than later, I gather, from CRTC to be able to broadcast the three American major channels pl us PBS over the Canadian satell ite. At that time, I would assum e that our cable operators in Manitoba would wish to pick up the signal from that particular satellite and therefore the qu estion should be resolved. Havi ng said that, I would repeat what I indicated before that the matter of jur isdiction in this case is one of dispu te.

It could be argued that under the terms of The Broadcast ing Act in Canada that receipt of a signal from a satellite is not broadcasting. MR. SP EAK ER: Th e Hono u rable Memb er for Pembina. MR. ORCHARD: Th ank you, Mr. Speaker, a final supp lementary to the same Minister. I am not only concerned about the deli very of U.S. satell ite televi sion to northe rn communities but communities in the western portion of the pr ovince, the deli verer of cable television out there has an appl ication wh ich I beli eve is deferred by the CRTC and his appl ication involved the interim delivery of satellite signals.

My que stion to the Minister is, is the pr ovincial Depar tment of Com munications pr epared to more sol idly support West man media's appl ication before the CRTC to assur e that uni nterrupted delivery of television pr ogramming to many commun ities in Western Manitoba continu es uni nterrupted? MR. EVANS: Th ank you, Mr . Speaker. I share the member's concern that service not be interrupted and I think we should do whatever we can, if it comes to that, but I would trust that the CRT C will be reason able and not cause such service to be terminated.

I think that wou ld be totally ridiculous and irrespon si bl e on the par t of bur eaucrats in the CRTC . 2323 INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS (Cont'

d) MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Orders of the Day, may I direct the attention of honour able members to the gall ery where we ha ve 80 students of Grades 4 to 6 standing of the F.W. Gil bert Elementary School . These students are under the direction of Mrs. Ida Hancock and the sch ool is in the constituency of the Honour able Minister of Gov ernment Services. Th ere are al so 25 students of Grade 5 standing of the Maple Leaf Schoo l un der the direction of Mrs. Strachan and the school is in the constituency of the Honour able Member for River East.

We have a group of 8 students of Grades 10 to 12 standing from Bism arck Hig h School un der the direc tion of Mrs. Jackman. The school is from Bisma rck, North Dak ota. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this morning.

Friday, 7 May, 1982 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Gov ernment House Leader. HON. ROLAND PENNER (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, would you please call the adjourne d debate on second reading on the pr oposed motion of the Mi nis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, No. 19. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS BILL NO. 2 - THE RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 19, the pr oposed motion of the Honour able Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. GARY FILMON (Tuxedo ): Th ank you , Mr . Sp eaker.

In addressing the bill wh ich is before us, Mr. Sp eaker, Bill No. 2, The Residential Rent Regulation Act, let me be gin by saying that the issue of rent controls has been debated many times in this House and indeed outside the Hous e in the past and, in fact, has been debated in jur isdictions right across this country and throughout North America. I am sur e that regardless of the outcome of this par ticular deli bera tion and debate, it will continu e to be a topic of inter est and concern to people in Man itoba and through out the cou ntry in futu re.

In particu lar , of cou rse, it was aired thorou ghly during the election campa ign last fall . The po sitions of members on both sides, I think, are qui te well known. Mr. Speaker, members of the Opposition are not opposed to ha ving a mechanism of control on the residential rental market per se. A leg islated authority to gu ard against the excesses which can occur in the residential rental market in Man itoba is in pla ce, put in place as a result of leg islation broug ht forward by our government in 1980.

In deed, un der our administra tion, we had a very good control mechanism on the pote ntial for excess in the residential rent market in Man itoba. It was effective; it was powerful; it was tested in cou rt and it worke d to the benefit of all tenants because it pr ovided a safety net that gave them po wers, po wers to opp ose and have ju dged the advisability or indeed the fairness of any residential rent increase with wh ich they might be faced now or in futu re.

It had a very thorough mechani sm that involved mediation, arbitration, a minimum of bu reaucratic entanglement and a maximum of opp ortun ity to ensur e that the interests of the tenants were pr o tected.

As well, it had an opp ortun ity for ministerially ordered compulsor y arbitration so that if tenants themselves might have been reluctant or not been aware of the market forces at play and the opp ortun ity or the necessity to pr otest was not taken up, the Minis ter hims elf or herself could take the authority to ensure that a fair and thorough review of any increases, either in general, across the board, for particular la nd lords or in particular for individuals could be ordered and carried out on ministerial autho rity, an arbitration pr ocess could be triggered and could work effectively on behalf of the tenants.

So, I say, Mr. Speak er, that the leg islat ion in place currently pr ovides general pr otection for all tenants and has pr ovided, during the past year and-a-half, sp ecific pr otection for thousands of tenants who have benefitted from individual roll backs and coll ective roll backs during our year and-a-half of experience with it. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the legislation in place has worked well and in a variety of different ways. There is evidence to support that position.

Firstly, more than half of those who were faced with increases during the past or at least during the first year of the Act that exists today, dur ing the first year more than half the tenants in Manitoba, accord ing to the statistics developed and accumu lated by the Depar tment of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs, experienced increases of under 8 percent. The aver age througho ut the pr ovince, Mr. Speaker, in that first year was 9.5 percent. Mr. Speak er, we are not opp osed to this legislation because it repr esents rent control per se.

What we are concerned about is that it is bad leg islation that con trols the market in inappropriate ways and will be damaging to the interests of tenants and all Manito bans in the long run, at least, but pr obably in the sh ort term as well. Now, it would be lu dicrous for us to say that we are opp osed to rent controls per se, because we had con trols on the rental residential market in this provi nce. In fact, I recall last fall, September or Aug ust, there was a lengthy review in either the Globe and Mail or the Financial Post of the experience of rental increases throughout the cou ntry.

They li sted those pr ovinces un der controls and those pr ovinces outside of con trols, and they indicated what the experience has been vis-a-vis the residential rental market in those pr ovinces. They very significantly li sted Manitoba as being one of the pr ovinces under control s, because they perceived, as was absol utely the case, that there was an effective mechanism in place that would, indeed, control the market to pr event accesses.

In fact, members in the House will recall a numb er of instances of rat her large complexes in wh ich, through ministerially authorized arbitration or merely through pr otest, the rents were roll ed back rather su bstantially in a variety of different complexe s. There was a well pub li cized issue in Br andon; the Cou rts of St. Ja mes, I understand, have been pr o ceeding since the turnover of the government, have been pr oceeding for the benefit of the tenants to ensure that they are not faced with unreasonable increases. 2324 Mr.

Sp eaker, the Min ister has said on a numb er of occas ions, both in the introduction of the bill and in news releases and in news conferences that he's held , that in pr esenting this legislation his government is fulfill ing an election pr omise. That is, by electing this government the pub lic has demanded rent controls, or stronger rent controls, or different rent controls. I do not believe that the pu bl ic in the past, either in the election campaign or otherwi se, demanded rent con trols or different rent controls.

I think rather, what they respond ed to throughout the cou rse of the various pr omises and campaigns stimulated initiatives that the New Democratic Gov-

Friday, 7 May, 1982 ernment pu t forward was the implied pr omise of cheap rent, which is wha t I believe they thought they would get by electing this govern ment. I don' t bel ieve that this government through this leg islation or any other leg islation can assure tenants in this pro vince of cheap rents. No more so, than our Prime Min ister, the Right Honou rable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, could assure the people of Canada that he could pr ovide them wi th cheap gas in the future wh en he was runn ing on a campaign opp osed to an 18 percent a gall on increase in gasolin e at that time in 1980.

I believe that most renters want an assurance that their rents will be fair and equitable, their rent increase increases will be fair and equitable, and I bel ieve that the best way to provide this is through a competitive market which provides ample choice for the style, the type and the loca tion of rental accommodation avail able throughout the pro vince and enough competi tion to ensure that rents are always kept reasonable. I believe that many of the aspects of this legislation that's before us will have the opp osite effect, Mr. Speaker.

I belie ve that in many ways this leg isla tion will sentence the tenants of this provi nce to a fate which involves no choice, no oppo rtun ity to move, frozen in deteriorating premises under a tight-market situation and with a govern ment controlled market system that allows pass through of costs that will probab ly exceed their expectations in any case. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this legislation is not good leg islation pr incipa lly because it will not help the pe ople it was intended to.

I believe it will harm tenants because some will, as a result of this leg isla tion, experience higher increases than would have been the case und er the system that was in place.

I belie ve that the evidence is available and the Minister will certainly be able to review it and see that half of the rental market population in this provi nce who experienced increases of less than 8 percent during the first year of our legislation were pr imarily in the areas of lo w income tenants, in the areas of lowe r priced accommodation and those pe ople benefitted significantly by having some of the market forces at pla y that allowed a li ttle freedom and adjustment.

I believe that tenants will be harmed as well because of the lim ited choice that inevitably will occur because of the very strong bureaucratic control and total market deterioration that will occur as a result of this leg isla tion. I bel ieve that tenants will be harmed because they will liv e in deteriorating circu mstances. Their accommodation will not be repaired, main tained and upgraded to the extent that it ough t to be in order to give them better oppo rtun ities to enjoy the quality of li fe in Manitoba. I belie ve the taxpayers will be harmed in a variety of ways.

They will bear the burden of the shifting costs that will occur because the rental market is in some way controlled. In order to staff and maintain this kind of system, costs will be sh ifted off the rental market and onto the other general taxpayers in the pro vince. As well, there will be the bureauc ratic costs of an ever increasing num ber of people who are going to be requi red to take care of so many of the asp ects of this legislation that I find troublesome.

I beli eve in the long run , Man itoba will be harmed because of the li mits to investment that will occur, the Hm its to construction, tradespeople are going to lo se jobs and oppo rtun ities for employ ment here, the lim ited develop ment that will occur because of this leg islat ion. The Minister has used statistics selectively, and I gu ess we are all gu ilty of that from time to time in su ggesting that the past five-year statistics show that more constru ction occurred under rent controls in this pro vince than wh at he says was out of rent controls. Of cour se, as I have indicated earlier, Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe and the experts in the field don't believe that Manitoba was out of rent controls during the past year-and-a-half. Bu t I beli eve that in his statement of even comparing the two systems, he is either deli ber ately or naively ignoring too many factors when he takes the simplistic statistics of how many ap artment units were constructed during certain years and how many were not during the last year-and-a-half because under the former New Democratic system of rent con trols, we had a variety.

The first couple of years, in his discussions with the media and in his news releases, he cited the fact that there were more ap artments constructed during, I believe it was '77 and '78, but he has to recognize that in those years, the pr ovince also had a rather large vacancy rate. It had a considerable number of federal programs at its dispo sal which encouraged and initiated significant nu mbers of the units that were construc ted in that period of time. I am talking about the ARP, the lim ited dividend GPM and those sorts of things and as well, we had interest rates, Mr.

Speaker, in the 10 to 12 percent range. He then compares it to the last year-and-a-half in the area that he calls out of controls or outside of controls where we had 16 to 20 percent interest rates, 5 to 6 percent vacancy rates and we had an absence of federal programs, many of whi ch had been withdrawn by that point, if not all .

So there was an entirely differ ent set of circu mstances in those two periods and to say merely that those years in whi ch there were the NO P controls , produced more units and those years in which the Conservative Government put in its sys tem of controls, there were fewer units constructed is lik e saying that if you walk ed outside on January 16th, 1980 and it was pl us 40 degrees Fahrenheit or pl us 4 Celsius , that ergo wi nter in Win nipeg is relatively mild and really it doesn't freeze or any of those things.

It is taking something entirely out of context and that is preci sely the kind of analysis that I think has led to bad legisla tion. 2325 I believe, Mr. Speaker, that indeed this is leg islation that was put forward in fulfill ment of an election prom ise of a st rong campaign that was run by the New Democratic Party last fall that really convinced peo ple through their advertising, through their door-to door, throu gh their campa igning, that rents were run ning wild wh en the evidence didn't support that kind of posi tion.

Yes, one could point to exceptions and to unu s ual circu mstances that resu lted in la rger increases than, on the face of it, might have seemed to be reasonable. But I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that even under this system, if the pass through as the Minister says will be fair and will take into account all of the things that are happening to the cost in sp ecific un its, that those situa tions are lik ely to continue to happ en and are going to continue to happen with government bl essing of this program . I know that the campaign was run very strongly door-to-door .

As the Min ister who was responsib le

Friday, 7 May, 1982 for the administration of the leg islation that was in place by our government, I made it my point during the campai gn to go into many of the areas in whic h there were significant nu mbers of tenants.

In the cou rse of the campaigns, I was tol d by people that the candidates themselves, many of whom are sitting opp osite and even on the front bench, were tell ing tenants - do you realize that as a result of the negli gence or the lack of care and concern of the govern ment of the day, that you will be facing 20 and 30 percent increases in your rents in the next while and that you will have no recour se wh atsoever to appeal ing those increases.

There was a desperate anxiety on their par t to be elected and they were wil lin g to go to any extent to blow the thing out of pr op ortion and very few of them, if any, can deny that they were a par ty to those kinds of threats and scare tactics. I sugg est, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will not deli ver the kind of pr otection that they say it will and, of cou rse, this is alway the qu estion, if it also pr esu mes to be fair to the owners, the investors or the land lo rds. The Min ister has said that but obvio usly, we have some concerns, because he couldn' t have it both ways. I do not bel ieve, Mr.

Sp eaker, that it's going to pr otect the lo w income people of Logan and Ellice, that half of the rental un iverse who already expe rienced during the first year of our pr ogram, less than an 8 per cent increase. I don' t bel ieve that it will be in their interest because they are going to now get a government authorized 9 percent increase this year and of cou rse, it may be more next year, we don' t know. The members opp osite, the Min ister will say well, of cou rse, it can be appea led even if it is un der 9 per cent but then that is wha t they criticized about our plan.

They said, you know, wh y should people have to appeal it? They said that it ought to be reviewed, but they have set a ceiling whi ch becomes a floor which is going to be not in the interests of many people in the lo w income and the lower le vel rental accommodation in this pr ovince al ready, and they are saying, well, they can always appeal it, that's par t of the legis lation. Well , again, I think they try and have it both ways. They try to sp eak out of both sides of their mou th. They oppose the principle that pe ople should have to apply for their rig his; in effect, is wh at they are saying.

But at the same time, they have ju st announc ed a change to the pensioner s' sch ool pr op erty tax plan whic h reduces the le vel at whi ch the $17 5 sp ecial grant to seniors for sch ool pr op erty tax abeyance triggers in; it is now down to 162.50. I would say that pr obably something in excess of 95 per cent of pen sioner homeowners will be pa ying pr ope rty tax for school pur po ses in excess of that lev el.

Therefore, something in excess of 95 percent of them, if not all of them, will qua li fy for that sp ecial $17 5, but they have to app ly , they have to go and make sp ecial appl ication for it; so they haven't chan ged that aspect of it. They recognize that it's not unreasonable to have some onus on people to go and apply for these kinds of government pr ograms, but here they have said that it was unr easonable for people who were opp osed to a pr ospective increase in their rents to have to appeal it.

They are still keepin g that asp ect in vis-a-vis the peo ple wh o are in the lo w income, lo w level rental accommodation in this pr ovince because if it is under 9 percent, they are going to have to appeal and make a case for their appeal. So it app ears to me, Mr . Sp eaker, that the legislation has as many difficulties as they say our s had and I think it has many more in fact in the long run. Mr. Speaker, there are a nu mber of sections that I think are going to attract a great deal of attention. The Mi nister has said that this is the best act in Canada. It's fair to everybody, but I think, Mr .

Speak er, it isn't fair to everybody, it can't be fair to everybody. In some way, ulti mately , in being unreasonable to everybody's concerns, it is going to be rejected and opposed by everybody on both sides of any issue, whether they be the investors or the owners or the land lor ds or wh ether they be the tenants who all of us want to ass ure have their rig hts and are pr otected from the excesses of the marketpl ace as it exists. It takes away, in fact, virtually the rights of some people and I have concerns about that.

As a democratic government, as an op en government, as a govern ment interested in civil lib erties, I find that there are some aspects of this that are hard to accept because they simply remove people's individual rights and freedoms. I find that it has a vengeful aspect to it in one way. I have never seen legislation which in effect gives cer tain people an opp ortun ity to get even wi th other pe ople.

I am sp eaking in par ticular about a pr ovision in the Act which allows either the Rent Regulation Review Officer or ul timately the Arbitration Panel or Appeal Panel, tribunal that is app ointed if a decision of the officer is app ealed by other side, allows them to go back two years to investigate wh at has happ ened wi th respect to that pr ope rty for two years in order to make their decision on this year's appeal of a rent increase. 2326 I can un derstand, al though I think in general most of us in talkin g about people's rights and li berties don' t lik e to see retroactive leg isla tion, but I can und erstand wh y it can be argued on pr inciple that to have gone back to Janu ary 1 st of this year is fair.

The reason is that the government openly declared pr ior to Januar y 1 st that leg islation was coming in place for rent controls in this pr ovince.

Therefore, you might say that there was a caveat emptor situa tion placed upon the pr ope rty managers or the land lords or the owners or so on and I will accept that, but wh en you say to them that in reviewing this year's appeal for an increase and again, I' ll go back to the point that the Minis ter makes that anything is appea lable even a 1 per cent increase to take the extreme in this year's rental situa tion, anything is app ealable and either the officer or the tribunal has the right to go back two years to decide wh ether or not this year's increase is reasonable.

I say that you are pla ying a very danger ous game in dealin g with that situa tion on behalf of an investor. For instance, if you go back two years to determine whether or not this year's'increase is reasonable and based on the review, you determine that the land lor d po ssibly in some way got more than he shou ld have last year or the year before and you use that as the basis upon wh ich to roll him back this year, and you can roll him back below 9 percent to o at its most extreme case, then I think that you are dealing wi th all kinds of rights because that person has paid tax, he

Friday, 7 May, 1982 has pos sibly planne d his investments over a period of time so that he has had certain income last year and the year before and paid taxes on it al ready and now his income is going to be restricted this year and it may totally alter his tax po sition. It may totally alter his own financial stabil ity as a result of taking two years back review on the situation. That, I don't think, is in any way a reasonable pro vision. I think, moreover, in the appointment of arbitrators and I know that the Minister has app ointed arbitra tors.

I am not sur e if it is his intent that these same arbitrators will carry on as the people from whom the tribu nals will be selected in futur e, but I know that although the Minister says he wants to be fair, some of the people who were appoi nted appe ared before our Legisla tive Committee in 1980 when they were op pos ing the Act which cu rrently exists.

One in particula r, who is on the list, made state ments to the effect that the tenant should have total control over the land lord, should be able to say through any mechanism that, no, we don't want to have to move out: no, we don't want to have to change; no, we don't want to have any freedom of cho ice; we want to stick it to the landlord, in effect.

I know that the former Member for ln kster argued that point out with that perso n, could not even accept that anybody could have such an irrational view of fair and decent dealing s between any grou p of people in society and that person has now been appoi nted to the Arbitration Panel and I presum e is going to carry on as part of the tribunal and will be sitting in judg ment to decide whether or not any potential appl ications for increase are reasonable.

I think and I bel ieve that the Min ister, as somebody who has been involved in the Lab our Mo vement, think s as well that the best pos sible position is when people on both sides have rights, people on both sides are in an equal position to deal with each other and argue their case and be treated in a fair and open and equ itable manner. But, if throu gh regul ation, if through legislation, all of the power is transferred into the hands of one group, whichever group it is, it is not in the interests of anyone in socie ty, neither our society nor our economy nor anyone else's.

It seems to me that the First Minister argued when there was a position put forward, I believe, either ju st during the election campaign or shortly aft"lr that some of the prov inces were considering controls on the increases al lo wable to public sector emplo yees in their pr ovince. The Min ister said there is no way that one group should be singled out and have their poten tial income control led by legisla tive authority. Yet, this Act does precisely that.

This Act attempts to sin gle out one group of people and say that their rights will be drastically lim ited in futur e and that their income, in fact, will be totally controlled and that at the whim and the desires of the government of the day. Mr. Speaker, I bel ieve that this legislation will prove to be a deterrent to renovation, to upgr ading despite the particular prov ision of the four year exemption which can occur as a resul t of renovation and improvement to a dwelling unit I don' t bel ieve that that is going to be util ized too often.

I don't bel ieve it will be a sufficient encouragement to very many land lor ds and I know that time will tell. It won't be a suf fi- cient encouragement to too many of them to go for ward with renovation in their bu ildings. I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that this in any way can encour age new construction in the residential rental market in this province. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Minister has not been fair in dealing with all of the people who have a stake in this particular issue.

I believe that he has said that he has consu lted with all of these different groups, but I also happen to have some of the presentations that were made to him by particu lar interest groups within the whole sphere of the residential rental accommo dation market of this pro vince, and I know that although he's consu lted he certainly hasn't listened. He says, Mr. Speaker, that there is a fou r year exemption for new construction, but in effect the exemption for that construction that has occu rred up until this point only goes back to Jan uary 1st, 1979.

That's about three years and fou r months, or five months, not the four years that he said.

I also know and sufficient evidence has been pro vided by many, many sources that many blocks, many types of accommodation, and in fact Federal pro grams, that provided incentives for the construction rental accommodation in this province, were perpe trated and were set up on the basis of a five-year rent-up situation, whereby people made the invest ment and accommodation did not even break even for the first five years: yet he has said only four years, and in fact less than fou r years for anything that has been constru cted up until this point.

So I think that's going to be a serious problem, and one that I don't know how he's going to deal with. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Central Registry com ponent of the Act, the fact that every time somebody moves out and somebody moves in there's going to have to be name, address, phone numb er, all sorts of details kept in a Central Registry, violates individual tenant rig hts and freedoms. This gives another dimension and abil ity for the government to keep track of everybody in the prov ince.

Althou gh the Min ister will argue that it's in the tenant's interest because they're keeping track of the unit cost of the un its, the fact of the matter is that he's infringing upon the individual rig hts of the tenants as well by doing this kind of thing and it smacks a little bit of a polic e state.

I think if anybody else but the government did this, they'd be in some difficulty. 2327 I think that the aspect of the bill that allo ws, shall we say, in effect, search and siezur e of records and information, is again put ting in the government's hands the power virtually to break, enter, and take materials and information which they deem that they need to make their analysis and to make their ju dg ments. I think it goes beyond what most Manitobans would accept as being reaso nable un der the circu mstances. Mr.

Speaker, I don't bel ieve that this bill can in any way improve standard, qual ity, the availabil ity of the residential rental housi ng sector in this prov ince. I think that, as such, we have very grave and very seri:::ius concerns about the manner in which it's being brought forth, the manner in which it's being put into pla ce, and ulti mately the manner in which it's going to be administered in the pro vince. I think as well it treads on areas that will cause other problems for the

Friday, 7 May, 1982 government. I think that the fact that it doesn't grant exemption to certain of the projects that were buil t dur ing the past numb er of years and whose rental rates are al ready controlle d; I'm tal king about limited dividend project; I'm tal king about ARP projects; and that there were plan ned increases in steps that were schedul ed as part of the agreement for people to buil d this accommodation and may be imposs ible to fulfil!.

Some of these agreements may be imposs ible to fulfil! because of this legisla tion, and they're going to run into a ju risdictional problem with the federal agencies who have put forth the money for these projects. I think that the serious deterioration that will resul t in the qual ity of rental accommodation in the province will not be in anybody's interest, as I say.

I think that ulti mately the fact that people in this pro vince, in order to promote and su pport this particul ar program, will see the assessment on rental accommodations go down, which will result in a sub tle transfer of the proportion of taxes that are raised on property taxes in this provi nce transferred off of rental accommoda tion onto the owned accommodation in this pro vince.

That transfer will, of cou rse, be a detriment to many taxpayers in this pro vince and to Man itoba in general, because the side effects of it of cou rse will continue to be the reduction in terms of overall assess ment, the redu ction in terms of construction in Man itoba, and all of the oppor tunities that we would lik e to see here.

So, aside from the fact that the damages to the market will incl ude the destruction and freedom of choice, the oppor tunity to move, the fact that both parties are not going to be on an equal footing, and that a tight market in Man itoba helps no one, I think that there are many aspects of it that are re ally seriously open to question. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have to say as I said in the beginning, we're not arguing or I am not arguing against controls in the market. If I were, then obviously there is no way that we would have put forth the kind of control mechanism that we did.

We did indeed control the market in the former legislation that we had but this goes a step further. It puts into place a very rigid, massive, bu reaucratic structure that is going to harm all of the natural market forces, not enable Man itobans to enjoy the kind of growth and development that ought to occur, and at the same time cost more to the taxpayer. The Min ister has said that there was no incentive for constru ction of residential rental accommodation because the Federal Gov ernment has removed all the incentives.

I agree with that, but the problem is, and the point is, if he's bringing in this, which will undoub tedly cause futur e disincentive, regardless of the fact that all of us hop e that interest rates will decrease, that would have ordi narily caused some incentive for construction . This will not, this will work against that, and so I have to say then, what does the Minister intend to do to provide incentive through the pro vincial vehicle for such accommodation increase, because it will be necessary?

Otherwise, it will go down to zero vacancy rate, it will harm the tenants' interest, and therefore it's not going to be in anyb ody's interest to do so. So, Mr. Speaker, while I cannot oppose in principle the idea of control lin g the market, because as I said we had effective control mechanis ms, I believe that this contains many excessive and un reasonable pow ers and restrictions which will need to be changed.

I hope that the Min ister is going to be flexible, and I hop e that he's going to be open, and prepared to lis ten to the many Man itobans, and the many groups that are involved in this whole industry and involved in this whole que stion to ensure that some of the bur eaucratic and administrative excesses, indeed many of them, ough t to be changed to make some thing that's workable, to make something that's rea sonable and to make something that would be better for the interests of all Man itobans. 2328 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Ellic e. MR. CORRI N: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Flin Flon, that debate be now adjo urned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Gov ernment Hous e Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, before I call for third readings, I would lik e to make a correction on the record. When I asked you to call the debate on the bill, which has ju st been spoken to by the Honour able Memb er for Tuxedo, I inadvertently called it as 19. It was clear that it was No. 2, and it was No. 2 that the hono urable member was speaking to. We had our signals right but I had the nu mbers wrong.

That's the way they play football in this city, I un derstand. MR. SPEAKER: The bill was presented to the Hous e as Bill 19. If there was a genuine mistake, perhaps by leave of the House, we could change that to Bill No. 2 and not prevent the hono urable member from speak ing on 19 in future. Do we have leave - the Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMO N: Mr. Speaker, I did indeed in my intro du ction say that I was speak ing to Bill No. 2, The Residential Rent Regu lation Act, and so there is no question in my mind and I accept the Attorney General's correction. MR.

SPEAK ER: Then Bill 2 will stand adjou rned in the name of the Honour able Member for Ellic e. The Hono urable Government Hous e Leader. MR. PENNER: I alw ays go slig htly mad when I enter the forest. Would you please call the third reading on the bills in the order in whic h they ap pear in the order paper? THIRD READING - AMENDED BILLS Bills No. 4, 6 and 16 were each read a third time and passed. THIRD READING Bill NO. 9 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE ACT MR. PENNER presented Bill No. 9,

an Act to amend

Friday, 7 May, 1982 The In su rance Act for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Dur ing second reading, I raised certain concerns about some of the aspects of Bill No. 9 and, unfortunately, I was not at committee when the bill was considered and at that time, the Min ister of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs did not have an oppor tun ity to have seen my remarks in Hansard, I gather. So, therefore, the matters that I raised were not even discussed and there was no oppor tunity to give them an airing at committee stage.

The Minister has been kind enough to respond in writing to the concerns that I raised and based on his response, I still have a number of concerns or at least one in particu lar. He has satisfied me with respect to all of the concerns with one exception. Mr. Speaker, the exception is that aspect of the bill which changes what had been a positive statement in the existing

Section 371 (1) of the Act which said that the sup erintendent shall, if satisfied that an appl icant is a su itable person and intends to pub licly, and I think that's the operative word , carry on busi ness in good faith as an insur ance agent, shall issue the li cence to that sort of individual or comp any.

Now, that has been changed from a positive state ment which would have al lowed the discretion of the su perintendent of insur ance to a negative statement in which under the present pr oposed amendment, the su perintendent, rather than merely having the right to refuse a li cence to somebody who was not going to be pu blicly c3rrying out the busine ss of an insurance agency or brokerage, now the sup erintendent must refuse the licence.

That will result in the fact that somebody who did want to set up a brokerage or an agency solely for the pu rpose of acting on behalf of an individual, a group, par tnership, a corporation, as estate or any entity, who could have been able to do that formerly as long as it was in the public interest and there was a discretion of the sup erintendent to decide that, now the su perintendent cannot do that.

I did point out dur ing second reading debate that there were instances in the past in which that sort of agency or brokerage was set up in Man itoba and did carry on as agent or broker on behalf of one organiza tion and ul timately, what happened with those that did occur in that way was that they ultima tely became pub lic and did become an agency or brokerage, as we know it, that trades and deals with the entire pu blic. So I don't see that as having been a problem in the past and I am not sur e of the specific public interest that would prevent that from continuing to be the case in the futur e.

I mentioned to the Minister in second reading that one of the ju stifications he was giving was that it was in the interests of the industry to ensure that there was some commonal ity of legisla tion across the cou ntry and he said that many jur isdictions had already adopted certain changes that were proposed in this bill and others were going to. So I made it my busi ness to try and find out what other ju risdictions were doi ng and there does not appear to be.this kind of provision in many provincial acts across the cou ntry.

Now, as well, I will in fairness read what the Min ister has said to me in response to his ju stification for having this aspect in the bill. He said, and I' m qu oting and he can correct me, I believe he'll have an oppor tunity should I misquo te him, "With the respect to the pr ohibition of li censing of an insur ance agency, which is set up wholly or princip ally for the pu rpose of serving the busine ss of one po licyholder , it is clear that the commissions paid to the agency for insu rance protection sold to the agency's single client would flow back to that client who is the polic yholder.

This is a form of rebating which is proh ibited under the Act. If this rebating were permitted, it would encou rage the development of effective price cutting of premiums. The end result may very well be that interagency competition wou ld emphasize primarily price rather than the actual insur ance needs of clients. This pr ohibition also exists under Su bsection 353(2) of The In sur ance Act of Ontario." Wel l, I don't know in whose interest or why it's in the publi c interest to prevent interagency competition.

It seems to me that's in everybody's interest and for the insur ed, the people who want to be insur ed out there in this pro vince. I don' t see why it's in anybody's concern if somebody's premium goes back to them. It in effect means that they are self-insuring and gives them that option.

It seems to me that in changing it, we're having the effect of limiting competition which I don't bel ieve is in the pub lic interest and, frankly, I think if there was any concern that the government or at least that an agent would not be properly qual ified because he was only having a limited practice ju st carrying insur ance on behalf of one particula r group or entity, if there was any concern about that, there shouldn' t be.

Because after all, the government li censes those people, tests those people and ensures that they are up to a certain qual ity standard of knowledge on the su bject for which they are responsib le; otherwise, they ough t not to be licensed. If there is any concern that those people might be less qua lified because they're only acting for one limited group, then I don't think that's a valid concern and as I say, it could have the effect of limiting compe tition now and in futu re.

I think it could also have the effect of, if the market became more restricted, if .coll usive practice could pos sib ly exist. in other words, prices and rates on insu rance in a very narrow market, if there were only several large comp anies ultima tely dealing in Manitoba, the only option that people could avoid in dealing with thof.e major compan ies would be perhaps to in effect become self-insurers. That wou ld be a very val id and a reasonable response to a tight colle ctive coll usive market situation would be for them to act as their own brokers or agents and, in effect, self-insur er.

I think that option ough t to be left open in the interests of the people who utili ze insu rance and who carry insur ance in this provi nce who mus t be insured. 2329 So, I don't bel ieve that this is a matter of govern ment princ iple. I don't believe that it's a party principle on either that side or this side. I bel ieve that there may be some administrative convenience to specifying this kind of thing in black and white to avoid a pos sible cour t challenge to the Sup erintendent of In sur ance decision on whether or not somebody ought to be

Friday, 7 May, 1982 licensed because it makes it more restrictive and therefore it's easier to interpret in the cour ts, but I don't think that there is any degree of public interest there. Th erefore, I don't think that this is something that is necessarily, as I say, a party position or indeed a government position that should have that strong a context pl aced on it. Therefore, having said those remarks, Mr . Sp eaker, I would move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Stur geon Creek, that the proposed Su bsection 371 (2 .1) of The In sur ance Act as set out in

Section 10 of Bill 9,

an Act to amend The In sur ance Act be struck out and the foll owing sub

section su bstituted therefor:- Restriction on issue of licences ... MR. DEPU TY SPEAKER, Jerry T. Storie (Flin Flon): The Honour able Member for Spri ngfield on a point of order. POINT OF ORDER MR. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, an amendment of the na ture being pr oposed by the Member for Tuxedo at this stage is inappr opria te on third reading and I would sug gest that such an amendment would have been appropria te un der reports as a report stage amendment had it been tabled in the House prior to the calling of third reading, but cert ainl y on third reading it's an unap propria te amendment. MR.

DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert on a point of order. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order that's raised, I want to remind the Govern ment Hous e Leader that I think during the past fou r years we attempted to accommodate members who wished to raise amendments of reports at report stage and if there has been a slight misund erstanding, Mr. Speaker, I wou ld ask the Gov ernment House Leader to revert to report stage to allow the member to introduce his amendment and vote on it. MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Tux edo on a point of order. MR. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, ju st on that same point of order. My as sump tion was that this was the report stage and so therefore if it is not then obviously that is why this situation has occu rred. MR. DEPU TY SPEAKER: The Hon our able House Leader. MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, because there has been a misun derstanding and wish ing to accommodate the honour able member, I'm satisfied in terms of the con vention that has been mentioned that there is such a convention and to agree to allo w the amendment to be made. To clarify that, we revert back to report stage, to be considered as if it were report stage. MR.

DE PUTY SPEA KER: With the und erstanding of the House that we consider this amendment under the repor t stage, the Ho use will give leave to accept the motion. (Agreed) The Honour able Member for Spri ngfield on a point of order. MR. ANSTET T: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would sug gest that what we should do is discharge the motion for third reading so that we revert to a bill on the Order Paper for third reading and then circu late the report stage amendment.

Because at the present time, if we do not show in our Votes and Proceedings the fact that the motion for third reading has been withdrawn, then we will have a procedur al problem and a precedent sho wing a substantive amendment on third reading and I think we don't want to set that precedent. So, Mr. Speaker, if that's an agreeable proced ure, I'll leave it to the House Leader to move that motion. I'm not sure of the proper word ing, the Clerk can advise to discharge the motion for third reading and revert to report stage. MR. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, I accept that and I would happily move that with respect to this bill that the motion for third reading be discharged and that we revert to report stage and that motion is seconded by the Honour able Minister of Health. 2330 MO TION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. D. James Walding (St. Vital): The Honour able Gov ernment House Leader. MR. PENNER: Yes, we can call the remaining1hird readings, please. MR. SPEAK ER: Does the Government House Leader intend to move the third readings? THIRD READING Bills No. 10, 12 and 17 were each read a third time and passed. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Gov ernment House. MR. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement that there will not be a Private Members' Hour today and by leave I ask that we call it 12:30 and accept a motion for adjou rnment. In that spi rit, I would move, seconded by the Minister of Heal th, who has always wanted to second such a motion, that this Hous e do now stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. Mo nday. MOTION presented and carried and the House accordingly adjourned and stands adjourne d until 2:00 p.m. on Mo nday afternoon

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-50
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 50.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	042f72727606c8721c7f4ab87fca05c5be05e87d

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).