Manitoba Hansard — 28 May 1985 (Sitting 57A, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-57a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 28 May, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m . OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Welding: Prese nting Petitions . Reading and Rec eiving Pet itions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker , the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain re solution, directs me to report the same, and begs leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for Burrows, that the report of the committee be receiv ed. MOTION pr esented and carried. MR.

SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills .. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 28 students of Grades 2 and 6 standing from the Lord Nelson School under the direction of Ms. L. Peet and Ms. L. Bingham. The school is In the constituency of the Honourable Memb er for lnkster. There are 24 students of Grade 11 standing from the Ashern Central School under the direction of Mr. B. Moroz.

The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. There are 28 students of Grade 8 standing from the Pierre Radisson Collegiate under the direction of Mr. Kennedy. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister for the Environment. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Retiring teachers - protection re Bill 26 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I address my que stion to the Minister of Education. Mr.

Speaker, there still seems to be an awful lot of uncertainty with respect to the provisions that would allow a teacher to give notice on May 31s t of their intent ion to retire and take advantage of Bill 26, should it pass in this Legislature. My question to the Minister is: what protection Is offered those individuals who give notice of their intent to retire, given that Bill 26 would not pass in the Legislature? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Since the subject matter of the honourable member's question does appear on the Order Paper, it should not be asked in Oral Ques tion period. Oral Quest ions.

MR. H. ENNS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: My colleague is attempting to establish clarification for a matter that has some urgency to it, namely, the dead line, May 31s t, which is upon us, Mr. Speak er. We've had no indication from the Minister just how the proposed legislation will cover that situation but, Mr. Speake r, indiv idual teachers are making retirement decisions. I think In lieu of the lack of clarity on this subject matter, the question being asked by the Member for Morris Is in order. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. A. ANSTETT: To the same point, I appreciate the interest of members opposite in the subje ct matte r. Under Citation 357(v), the question Is out of order because it anticipates an Order of the Day or other matters. To allay the worries of the Opposition House Leader and the Honourable Member for Morris, Sir, and to ensure that we do follow in accordance with your ruling, I can assure members that we will be calling Bill No. 26 for second reading today.

The Minister will be speaking to second reading and, I trust, addre ssing most of the concerns of the Honourable Member for Morris. If there are remaining concerns, they can be asked directly of her as questions flowing from the spee ch moving second readi ng. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Spe Sker, I don't take issue with the rule which applies to a normal government handling its busi ness in a normal, pres cribed manner.

This Minister sent out to all teachers, prior to this Hous e having the courtesy of looking at the bill, or even having the courtesy to consider the bill, notice encouraging them and telling them what they can and cannot do. One of the things they told them was that they could apply for early retirement by May 31s t, Mr. Speaker. That is not covered by Beauchesne; that is not under the Rules, so I submit, Mr. Speaker , we have a special situation. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

If all members will refer to the guidelines which I sent to them they will note that, under 2.(m), "A que stion should not anticipate a matter listed on the Order Paper for consideration by the Legi slature." I'm sure the honourable member can find some other way of obtaining the information which he requires. Oral Questions. 2379

Tuesd •y, 28 May, 1985 Dangerous goods - regulations re handling of MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Minnedo sa . MR. D. SLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My quest ion Is di rected to the Minist er re sp ons ible for the En vironment and the trans portation of dangerou s goods . I wonder if he could Inform the House if provincial regulations are in place for the handling of dangerou s good s , or are they going to accept the federal act that will become effe ctive on July 1st of this year. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Minist er of the En vironment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I believe I already ans wered that quest ion but, to reiterate, the Provincial Govern ment of the Province of Manitoba has already adopted one reg ulation un der The Trans portation of Dangerous Goods Act, and will be adopting other regulations having to do with the manife st sy st em, the placarding syst em, etc., the licens ing of trans porter s as the federal regulations are adopted. These regulations would be parallel type of regulations adopted in Manitoba, very much, if not to the word, cons istent with the federal regulations . MR. D.

SLAKE: I wonder if the Minist er might tell us when these regulation s are going to be brought in. Will the rules and regulations that he refer s to be parallel with the other province s in Wes tern Canada, or the other province s in Canada? Will they parallel those reg ulations als o so there is so me uniformity? HON. G. LECUYER: To the last part. I believe that the other province s , or the majority of province s , are al s o adopting regulation s that are parallel, most of the province s have agreed that they will be adopting.

We want cons istency and uniformity and, in order to achieve that, it is at leas t our hope that they will be very much the sa me regulations . We do know, on the other hand, that there was not an agreed upon criteria and there may be minor difference s between one province and another. lt may be nece ss ary, once all of this is adopted, and I know that it Is my intention to rai s e this quest ion at the next meeting of the Environmental Minist er s, that we agree on adopting uniform regulations .

I intend to propos e that we make that pos ition known to the Minist er who is re sp ons ible for Trans portation so that where there is departure from one province to another in cer t ain aspects of these regulations th at these be reviewed in order to make them uniform. MR. D. SLAKE: I thank the Minist er for that ans wer, although he didn't tell me when these reg ulations might be in place. There is no quest ion with the federal reg ulations now, with the involvement of the railways and other intercon tinent al tran s fer s , that so me st and ard regulations are going to be extremely important.

We can' t be having different regulations for different province s or there will be utter chaos in the trans portation sy st em and it would be unenforcable, so the adoption of the federal regulations across the country would appear to be the logical way to go. HON. G. LECUYER: I apologize for that.

I did want to get back to that first part of the member 's quest ion. it Is st ill my un der st anding that the Federal Government intends to proceed with the implementation of the regulations as of the first of July, and it does remain a fact that most of the province s will not have adopted all of their regulations by that time, and the training will not have occurred by that time.

I expect that the reg ulation will be very much on a pi lot experimental bas is at the begin ning, whereby the full reg ulations will not be enforced , so there will be a period during which the indust ry will have time to do the training nece ss ary to put In place all of the mechani sms, and the various provincial government s will have yet to pass regulations who are in the proce ss , in many ins tances, of writing these regulations . These regulations I expect will all be in force and probably that is when enforcement will take place - we expect by the first of Febru ary, 1986. MR. D.

SLAKE: I'd like to ask the Minis ter a further su pplementar y, Mr . Speaker. Is there co-operation with the Highways Minist er and his people in the drafting of the se regulations ? HON. G. LECUYER: Yes , there are st aff from the Hi ghways Department dir ect ly involved and are particip ating in this drafting. Two-party system in Ca nada - meetings planne d MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to dir ect a quest ion to the Deputy Premier concerning the long held NDP dream about dest roying the Liberal Party and dev eloping a two-party sy st em in Canada and in Manitoba. Could the Deputy Premier indicate whether sh e is in favour of su ch an alliance? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please , order please . Order please . The honourable member is se eking an opinion. The su bject matter of his quest ion sh ould be on a matter within the adminis trative competence of the government. The Ho nourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr .

Speaker, I would then like to ask the Deputy Premier whether any meetings have been held between member s of her ad minist ration and repre s entati ves of the Liberal Party. Mr. Speaker, perhap s the Deputy Premier is not informed of this particular si tuation. I would ask her whether sh e is aware or has knowledge of any meet i ngs that are being planned between her adminis tration and repre se ntatives of the Liberal Party? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The awarene ss is not a su itable topic for Oral Quest ions. 2380

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 Professional engineers - bargaining stage MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission. lt is my underst and ing that the organization of professional engineers employed by the Province of Manitoba has been without a collective agreement since 1982. This is a small bargaining unit, as I under stand it, with the Provincial Government. I wonder if the Minister could indicate at what stage their bargaining stands with the Provincial Govern ment. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: The Organization of Operating Engineer s has been in negotiations and I believe is continuing negotiations with government. I don't think I would want to comment any further, except that there has been an extensive numb er of mee tings, I und erstand, take place. There are still differences of viewpoint. Bargaining is still in process. MR. G.

FILMON: In view of the fact that this is a small unit - as I unde rstand there are not too many involved in the bargaining unit - is it not a high priority with the government to have settled with them? lt appears as though it's been almost three years that they have not had an agreement and I'm wondering if it's not a high priority with government to settle with this unit. HON. A. MA CKLING: Bargaining in good faith and in a responsible way is always a high priority with this government, and we will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could indicate how recently they have been made an offer by the government. When was the last time they were made an offer by the government in this process? HON. A. MACKLING: I will have to take the specifics of that question as notice and respond back to the mem ber. I know there have been recent discussions; I couldn't give an exact date or time to those. I will take that as notice. Dangerous goods - regulations re handling of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD : Thank you, Mr. Speaker . My question is for the Minister of Environment.

In view of the fact .that the federal reg ulati ons for the transportation of dangerous goods have been in the drafting process for some three to four years and have been available to this government since February of this year; and in view of the fact that the Minister of Environment has indicated that our regulations will follow almost verbatim the federal regulation, can the Minister explain why the dela y in having regulations, as applicable to the Province of Manitoba, why they are being delayed until February of 19 86 on an issue of dangerous goods transportation? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister for the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I, myself, have misled the member awhile ago. I have certainly not ind icated that we would dela y implementation of regulations until February of 1986. We have already adopted one regulation. We will continue to adopt the regulations as they are ready. We are nearing completion on a numb er of these regulations and will be adopted as soon as they are ready. What I said, Mr.

Speaker, is because a numb er of the provinces - and I don't know how many - are not ready to proceed and in orde r to have the Tran sportation of Dangerous Go ods Act that is consistent and applicable across the country, I expect that because not all of the provinces will be in a position to implement and enforce the act and regulations, that the full enforcement of the provisions of the regulations will not occur before February, 1986. We will in Manitoba have, I expect, all of these regulations in place before that is the case.

But I also have to remind the member that there are some parts of, and including some old regulations, that still have to be adopted under the federal act. So these are occurring, they're being phased in as ready and certainly we will not be adopting those regulations that are not ready federally, we will not be adopting them provincially because we would then be developing a regulation that might be totally inconsistent with the federal regulation. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, there is a large body of federal regulation that is already in place as of February, 1985.

The Minister has indicated that our regulations will follow almost verbatim the federal regulations in place. My question to the Min ister is: why is he delaying? Even though enforcement may not take place till February of 1986, would he not consider it valuable to the industry to have Manitoba regulations in place so they become aware of their content and their implications on their indus try, and why is he not passing them if they're verbatim to existing federal regulations? HON. G. LECUYER: I don't know what the member's problem is because I said we will be doing just that; and I've also indicated ... MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. HON. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, it's not my intention to play any games. I have also indicated to the member that we will be adopting regulations and we are in the process of readying these regulations. I have also indicated we've adopted one of these regulations in Manitoba; and I have also indicated that the member has seen the package - maybe he has not - of the federal regulations. If he has, he should know that the federal regulations, 2381

rue.c�a,, 28 MaJ, 1885 in spite of the thic kness of that booklet, ar e not all in plac e. They ar e in the pr ocess of re ad ying their reg ulat ions as well. So, even though some pa rts of the over a ll reg ulat ions ar e re a dy, other pa rts ar e not. For us to have them all in plac e would, therefore, req uire that we pu t them in plac e when we haven't even seen the fi nis hed pr oduct of the feder a l • regu lations . When we do, Mr .

Spea ker, then we have to develop our own, which is very much consistent, the wording cannot be exa ctly the same, of course, it doe sn't app ly to the feder a l jurisdicti on. They have to be reviewed , revised an d rewr itten to app ly to our pr ovincia l jurisdiction. So it may see m to the member that it's simp ly a question of re pr inting our own; it's not just that . So, Mr . Spea ker, as soon as they ar e re a dy, they will be pu t in plac e an d I re p ea t that the federa l regula tion is still, as far as we know, not definite , but is intended to become in plac e by July 1st an d we ar e not there yet.

MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Spea ker, do I as sume, from what the Minister's last an swer was, that by July 1st of this yea r, members in the industrial sector involved in the tr a nsp ortat ion of dangerous goods will have at their dispo sal pa rallel regul ations to those alre ad y pa ssed by the Feder a l Government an d in existence now? HON. G. LECUYER: I exp ect, Mr . Spea ker, that we will have by then ad opted further regul ations, an d I cannot say definitely in terms of the an swer to tha t. lt will depe nd on how soon we get the fina l feder a l reg ulat ions In our hands.

We haven't got all pa rts of that feder a l reg ulat ion comp lete at this po int In time. If we get it the day before July 1st, obviously, we will not have ours all read y by July 1st. MR. D. ORCHARD: Can the Mi nister of En vironment indicat e whether Inspec tion sta ff ar e being currently hir ed an d trai ned for the enforcement of these reg ulat ions? HON. G. LECUYER: Mr. Spea ker, the sta ff we have, we've had all along.

The trai ning, as indicat ed during the Es tima tes pr ocess, or in an swer to a pr evious question to that effect, there is a trai ning of the tr ai ners school that is to be pu t on in Otta wa, an d we ar e waiting for that to take plac e. We were told it would occur before the end of May; we ar e very close to the end of May, Mr. Spea ker, an d as far as I know, the definite date has not been set. Spee d limit, Swan Ri ve r to PTH 83 - increase MR. SPEAKER: The Honour a ble Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Tha nk you, Mr . Spea ker. I have a question to the Minister of Hig hway s an d Tra nsp orta tion.

I would as k the Mi nister if he can Indicat e if the speed limit will soon be incre as ed from Swan River south on PTH No. 83 ? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour a ble Minis ter of Highway s. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr . Spea ker, we ar e considering at the pr esent time all of the speed limits on our major pr ovincia l trunk highway s throughout Manitoba. There may be a speed incre as e from 90 kilometres to 100 kilometres on many of the major routes, as currently exist on sever a l of them, but that decision has not been fin aliz ed at the pr esent time.

From the exp erience that we have in the pr ovin ce, an d from the inform at ion coming from the pu blic in gener a l, Mr. Spea ker, it is a feel ing tha t going to the 100 kilom etres an hour, which is gener a lly the speed that most of the motorists ar e trav elling at an y ra te on the pr ovincia l highway s, would not af fect nega tively, app reci a bly, safety on our highway s, nor cause an y other pa rticular pr oblems. But we ar e looking at that at the pr esent time an d there may be an an nou ncement in the nea r future with rega rd to making the speed limits more consistent throughout the pr ovince, Mr.

Spea ker. RCMP turnover and re cruitme nt MR. SPEAKER: The Honour a ble Member for Turtle Mounta in. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr . Spea ker, I have a question for the Attorney-Gener a l. Two or three weeks ago I as ked the Attorney-Gener al if recruitment to the RCMP from young pe ople In Manitoba was pr oportion a l to the re p resent a tion of the force here in Manitoba. Can the Attorney-Gener a l give us an an swer to that question now? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour a ble Attorney-Gener a l. HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, Mr. Spea ker, I took tha t question as notice an d I'll have the an swer In the House tomo rrow.

Liquor Control Co mmission - markup on spirits HON. R. PENNER: While I'm on my feet , notice was taken on my beh a lf yesterd a y with res p ect to liquor pr ice cha nges in Manitoba following the incre as e in the fed er a l excise tax. The incre as es an nounced here in terms of pe rcent a ge, ar e minimal. We've tried to soften the blow as much as po ssible.

The incre as e in the pr ice of spirits am ounts to 1.4 pe rcent, ab out 20 cents a bottle; with res p ect to beer ab out .5 pe rcent - that 's ab out 5 cents a doze n for beer -an d with res p ect to wine, app roxima tely 1 pe rcent - that 's ab out 5 cents on the av er a ge bottle of wine. MR. SPEA KER : The Honour a ble Member for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Spea ker, the question was fairly specific. Has the pr ovince, through the Liquor Control Comm ission, app lied its marku p for exa mple of 138 pe rcent of the feder a l 2 pe rcent incre as e in pr ices?

Has the pr ovince taken 138 pe rcent of the incre a se in the pr ice of spirits, which would make the tota l incre as e ab out 5. 75 pe rcent ? HON. R. PENNER: Well, clear ly from those figures, Mr. Spea ker, we haven't. 2382

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, is the province def erring applying its markup or are there plans to apply that markup at some point in the future on the federal tax increase? HON. R. PENNER: No, we're not anticipating any future markups as a result of the federal tax increase.

What we attempt to do, and have been doing fairly successfu lly in the last year or so, is that where we have an opportunity to take advantage of some easing of price in terms of imported spirits and wines, we make those adjustments in favour of the consumer and we are able to balance the net eff ect, the adverse eff ect, of a federal tax increase such as the one we 're discussi ng, by some adjustments of our own or to the benefit of the consumer. Violent crime in Manitoba - meeting with enforcement agencies MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Spea ker, I have another question for the Attorney-General.

During the last few weeks there appears to have been an outbreak of violent acts of crime, whether they be in parks, or by members of motorcycle clubs or reports of high incidence of violent crime among young offenders or other reports indicating a very high rate of violent crimes in Manitoba. Could the Attorney-General advise the House whether he has met or has planned on meet ing with the heads of law enforcement agencies in the Province of Manitoba, namely, the RCMP and the City of Winnipeg Police, in order to discuss what appears to be a very high outbreak of incidents of violent crime in Manitoba? HON. R.

PENNER: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think I should state that like any other citizen of this province, indeed of the country, violent crime is an alarming phenomenon that is a cause of concern and must be treated very seriously . Having said that, I should note that it is often the case that the way in which the media portrays violent crime, tends to create an exaggerated impression of the actual incident and whether or not it's increasing.

In fact, the recent publication on Justice Transit Canada, indicates that the average person, and I would say that the average memb er of th is Hous e, overest imates the incidence of violent crime by an order of 500 percent . The actual percentage of violent crime, those are hom icides - - (Interjection) - well, the question was asked, if you want the answer just wait for it- homicides, robberies, sexual assaults, and all of those represent approximately 5.6 percent of all reported crime, and that figure has remai ned constant for the last couple of years.

Whereas property crimes have incre ased to some extent, notably break, enter and theft, that is ir. the years'84 over'83, but not that much in recent terms. So while there has been an outbreak as the member reports it in the sense of reported incidents, for example, the violence in the vicinity of Lac du Bonnet which is deplorable to put it mildly, overall there is not a trend as suggested, of some rapid upturn in violent crime. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, the reports over the past two weeks, including the May long weeke nd, what appeared to me and I am sure to the average citizen of Manitoba a very large number of break and enter incidents in the City of Winnipeg.

Combined with all of these other matters, I wonder if the Attorney-General could answer the question whether he has met or is planning on meeting with officials of the RCMP and the City of Winnipeg Police Department in order to review what might be done, in order to result in a decrease in crimes in these various areas, because I think perhaps just because the statistics are stable, it doesn 't mean the citizens of Manitoba are prepared to accept the amount of time it is taking place. HON. R. PENNER: That's right, Mr. Speaker.

The member started this series of questions by making a statement about an alarming increase in the rate of violent crime. I simply wanted to point out because it's helpful to start from available facts in looking at solutions, rather than from a misstatement of facts, that there has been no significant increase in the rate of violent crime.

There has been some Increase over the last 20 years, some considera ble increase in non-violent crime, break, enter and theft, thefts, crimes at that point, commercial frauds - there's been a rema rkable increase in commercial frauds - that Is one area of real concern and we are working very closely with our Commercial Fraud Unit and with the RCMP on that aspect of it. Indeed there has been some incidents of that alleged in the common district that the mem ber should be concerned about and, .Mr. Speaker, I meet with the RCMP every month - that is personally - together with my officials.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: That's an hilarious bunch, Mr. Speaker, I rarely get as much laughs unless I go to the zoo on a Sun day, really that kind of language . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: We're dealing with a serious topic. I'm attempting to deal with it seriously. The citizens of Manitoba to whom I'm spea king In this instance, would want us to deal with it seriously, and they're not particularly amused by that kind of playfulness about a serious topic.

My officials meet in between on a regular basis, we are concerned, but there's no simple answer to a very complex pheno menon, a complex phenomenon which owes as much to unemployment, which is the real crime of our times, as it does to anything else.

If one looks at the relationship between the incr ease and continuation of unemployment to the frustration of young people, to the hopelessness In the lives of young people, then one finds an area where the treatment must begin, If we are to deal with the phenomenom of increasing crime, because these property crimes which are increasing and for that reason; and the attitude of that bunch over there does nothing to deal with the real problem. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I was attem pting to elicit some information from the Attorney-General about 2383

which I first indicated, appeared to be an incr ease in violent crime and then accepted his statement that those statistics are not increasing, although they appear to be. The Attorney-General has indicated he meets monthly with officials of the RCMP. Could he inform the House what, if any, steps are being taken by the RCMP to reduce crime in Manitoba; and could he also indicate whether he meets on any regular basis with City of Winnipeg Police Department officials? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: With respect to the latter question , no, I don't meet on the same re gular basis with offic ials from the City of Winnipeg directly. The difference, of course, being that the RCMP are under contract to do provir'l cial policing, under contract with the Province of Ma nitoba,

whereas the police, as I' ve often mentioned, are an indep endent police force. Nevertheless, there are constant contacts between senior officials in my department and our Director of Law Enforcement and the City of Winnipeg Police. With respect to the first part of the question, yes. For example, the RCM P recently delivered to me - I thought I gave a copy to the member opposite but, if not, I'll send him one - their report on crime prev ention.

The RCM P programs in crime prevention, and that's really an important way to deal with this problem, shows an excellent re cord, I think the best in the count ry, of a police force that, throughout ru ral Ma nit oba particular ly, has involved the citizens - citizens of Portage la Prairie, the citizens of Dauphin, citizens of other communiti es - in crime prevention programs that have shown real results, significant results. They're to be commended for it. They have also tabled with me their policy projectives for the fiscal year, 1985 -86, that is their areas of prio rity.

They continue to prior ize crime prev ention, and I think they're to be commended for that. Man . Broiler Ha tching Eg g Co mmission MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Min ister of Agriculture . A regulation was passed on May 4, 1985, establishing the Manitoba Br oiler Hatching Egg Commission, in fact, about May 12th. Can the Mi nister indicate whether a vote was taken by the produc ers involved as to whether they wanted this marketing board established or not? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nis ter of MR. A.

DRIEDGER: To the same Minis ter then, if the majority of the prod ucers are not in favour of this board and don't want the commission, is the Minister prepared to intercede and rescind that regulation? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member didn't hear my answer. Every producer who raises broiler hatching eggs was canvassed by a letter, in effe ct, asking for their confirmation or their concerns about the plan. Mr . Speaker, it will be up to the producers to decide whether or not they wish the plan to continue. lt is always the case, Mr . Speaker, the majority ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, if the majorit y of prod ucers with any commodity that is in supply management or through a marketing board wish, in fact, to disband the marketing board, certainly there are provisions in which the producers can do that. MR. A. DRIEDGER: To the same Minister, Mr . Speaker, the Min ister ind icated that the produc ers were canvassed. Can the Minister indicate how many replied affirmative to the request or to the information that was sent out? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I will precisely take that question as notice so that I can provide all the details to the honourable member so that he can have the full information. To my knowledge, Sir , there were no replies negative to the proposal. Goss elin, Louis - meeting to disc uss En glish issu e MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too k as notice a question from the Member for Morris, asking if Mr. Louis Gosselin met with local Federation Parents' Commit tee on April 16, 1985 , to discuss the St. Pierre issue. There was a meet ing on April 4, 1985, Mr.

Speaker, convened by Mr. Dubois of the Provincial Federation of Parents' Commit tee to discuss funding from either the BE F. the Bu reau, or the SFM for French language education to students from remote areas who have to pay room and board in St. Bo niface. lt had nothing to do with the St. Pierre issue, nor was it discussed at that meet ing. Agriculture. Political contributions by HON. B. URUSKI: Mr .

Speaker, the process that was used by the Natural Products Marketing Council and the new board was to correspond with every producer who is in the production of broiler hatching eggs and to send a copy of the proposed plan to them, requesting their confirmation of the plan or any negative responses to that. To my knowledge, Mr. Speaker , no negative responses were received from producers, and it was on that basis that the plan was allowed to proceed. businesses - maximum amount MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speake r, I would like to direct a question to the Hous e Leader , if he heard me, concerning the maximum limit on political contributions by busine sses in Manitoba. Can the Minister indicate whether that runs as high as 2,300 or it's significantly less than that amount? 2384

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Since there Is some doubt as to whether the matter is within the admin istrative competence of the Government House Leader or a legislative matter which is dealt with by the Commi ssion. Item 2(

s) on the guidelines suggests that the question is out of order if it seeks information which sets out a documents accessible to the questioner, as no doubt the matter is. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, there are statements being made, funding appeals being made ... MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order? MR. R. DOERN: Well I'm getting to my point of order. The statement is being made to businessmen that they can, in fact, under Manitoba law, contribute $2,300 to a political party. MR. SPEAKER: What is the point of order? MR. R.

DOERN: I want to know whether somebody in this House can confirm whether that, in fact, is a valid statement, or do we have to go and look up the legislation? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That Is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Elmwood . MR. R. DOERN: I'm asking whether it is not the case, that somebody in this House can clarify what the maximum political contribution of a busine ss is in this province, given our Manitoba legislation. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

That may be the same question as the member first asked but, since the Estimates of Legislation are to come before this House, the honourable member might well be able to obtain the information that he requires at that time. Youth Business Start Program - approval of applications MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Employment Services. HON. L. EVANS: The other day, the Member for Turtle Mountain asked a question about the numb er of applications to the Youth Business Start Program that have received approval. The answer is 76. Highway road restrictions - removal of MR.

SPE AKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question Is directed to the Minister of Highways. In view of the low water table this year and the relatively dry conditions we've had this spring, I wonder If the Minister might consider removing the highway road restrictions. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I believe most of the restrictions have already been removed. There are still a few and they will be removed in the next week or so. lt won't be very long before all of the restrictions are off our highways, Mr. Speaker.

Native Organizations meeting re Indian Act MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. E. HARPER: Yes, my question is to the Attorney General. This is in respect to the decision by Judge Durault, May 13th, a judgment which declared a

section of The Ind ian Act invalid,

Section 97(a). Has he met with the Native organizations to discuss with them the importance or the cause of this decision, and also the implication? Has there been an increase of statistics relating to alcohol, like violence and also drinking on reserves? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the decision is a matter of very great concern to the Native people of Manitoba. I was at a meeting of the chiefs on Friday of the week in which the judgment was pronounced. Su bsequently, I flew up to Gods Lake Narrows and met with the Chief and band and council there.

Neighbouring reserves came in for the meeting from Oxford House, St. Theresa Point, Gods River, all of them dry reserves until this judgment, all of them very greatly concerned. In Gods Lake Narrows, the nurse from the hospital station reported that since the reserve was in effect, because of that judgment, no longer dry even though they had voted to be dry, the amount of alcohol-related injuries and violence coming into the hospital had increased enormously In a very short period of time.

Because of these matters and my concern for the right of the Indian people to be dry, if they want to be dry on their reserves and the importance of that to their own social and cultural values, I yesterday telexed the Federal Department of Justice and the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs asking that they consider appealing that judgment. At the same time, I asked the Federal Minister of Indian Affairs to consider an amendment to

Section 81 of The Indian Act which would in effect give the reserves the right under their by-law

section to regulate the trade, traffic and possession of liquor on their own reserves. I would think that would probably not be discrimi natory in effect if they did it for themselves. I will be meeting with the Federal Minister next week and hope to pursue this proposed course of action with him. Something I think really has to be done on this very very important Issue. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have changes on the Committee for Economic Development; Graham for McKenzie and Enns for Gourlay. 2385

RESOLUTION RE MANITOBA - A NUCLEAR WEAPONS FREE ZONE MR. SPEAKER: Order please . The Honourable First Minister in speaking yesterday to a res olution proposed a subamendment to the House. lt was a matter of some complexity and I took the matter under advisement. When it should next come before the Hous e I am prepared to make a ruling on the matter . Since other mem bers have had the opportunity to peruse the proposed subamendment, if there are any concerns as to its admissibility, those memb ers should now have the opportunity to speak on it. The Honourable Memb er for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker , there Is just the one particular concern I suppose that we would ask you to take under specific advisement and that is the que stion of reintroducing a su bject matter for the second time into the House even in the form of a "WH EREAS" or in the body of a su bamendment which I suggest to you, Mr. Speak er , Is indeed the case in this instance. The amendment to the main resolution before us which was accepted by you, Sir, deleted specific portions of the res olution and one can't but fail to recognize their reappearance In the subamendment, Mr.

Speaker , and I simply suggest to you that that in itself may question the admissi bilit y of the subamendment as moved by the First Minister the other day. Those are my only comments that I would have to make with respect to the subamendment before you, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker , and more specifically to the point raised by the Member for Lakeside, Sir.

I would refer you, Sir, to your ruling In the Chair in the 198 2-83-84 Session, Pages 101 and 102 of the Journals for that Session, Sir, in which you rule d as follows: "I recall that considerable attitude has been exercised in this House having to do with amendments to private members' resolutions in the past and since the amendment does not completely negative the re solution, I would believe that th e amendment is in order and has been put to the House." Mr.

Speaker, I believe that members on both sides wanted an opportunity to see the sentiments of both the First Mi nister and the Leader of the Official Opposition expressed in one statement. lt was with considerable effort and I think extensive res earch that I consulted with those officers who usually give members advice on these matters, to find a fashion in which that could be accomplished, Sir, within the confines of your ruling and the Rules of our Hous e, and I believe that's been accomplished, Sir.

The objection of the Honourable Opposition House Leader is predicated, Sir, on the assumption that the same question would be addressed twice In a vote.

I submit, Sir, that in each of the votes which would be put to the House, if you were to rule the subamendment in order, you would have, Sir, three distinct separate questions; that, Sir, the combination of statements both in a preambular context and resolved portions of the subamendment; and then subsequently the amendment whether the su bamendment was passed or defeated would be very much separate questions, as, Sir, would the question on the main motion, whether the amendment as amended or not amended were defe ated or passed . They are separate questions, Sir.

Very clearly the intent of the subamendment is to amend only the amendment and create only change s to it which are reflective, Sir, not of a negative but of a positive statement to reinforce that amendment; and, Sir, there is nothing in the subamendment which purports to bring back in a way which could be achieved by a negative on the amendment, material in the main motion. Those items in the main motion which were introduced in the subamendment are not Identical, Sir, and would be substantlvely different If added to the amendment in the way proposed.

So I submit, Sir, it Is not the same question and the argument advanced by the Opposition House Leader Is, that it must be the same question to be ruled out of order and therefore require a negative vote on the amendment. That is not the case, Sir. This is a new item which creates a new question and I submit, Sir, on that ground, it is In order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Lakeside to the same point. MR. H. ENNS: Just a further contribution to hopefully help you make your deci sion, Mr.

Speaker. lt's not really a que stion of whether or not the Government House Leader 's perception of what is trying to be accomplished here with respect to what the First Minister has proposed In his original res olution, the contribution on the part of my leader In his comments and his su bsequent amendment to that res olution, it's a question of what our Rules allow us to do. Mr.

Speaker, you demonstrated that just a little while earlier in the question period where I thought the Member for Morris had a particular reason to ask questions, but quite correctly , Sir, you ruled that our Rules did not permit him to ask those questions. I am suggesting to you, Mr. Speaker , that an important "thereof," which is really the principle of the original resolution as presented to this Chamber by the First Minister, was introduced In the first Instance by the First Minister, was removed by the acce ptance of our amendment, and is now being Introduced for the second time.

I simply suggest to you, I don't believe our Rules allow it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader to the same point. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very briefly , just to clarify my understanding of what is occurring in the context of the statement just made by the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Speaker, th e proposed amendment, as 1 understood it, proposed to remove and substitute. The su bamendment proposes to combine. lt ther efore creates a very different question. Instead of either/or , 2386

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 it creates the choice of both; that's what creates the new question. I subm it, therefore, it is a different question. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Govern m ent House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you please call Bill No. 26,

An Act to amend The Te achers' Pensions Act. SECOND READINGS BILL NO . 26 - THE TEACHERS' PENSIONS ACT HON. M. HEMPHILL presented, by leave, Bill No. 26,

An Act to amend The Te achers' Pensions Act, for second read ing. (Recomm ended by Her Honour the Lieutentant-Go vernor.) MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Mini ster. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce for a second read ing, Bill 26, a bill to amend The Te achers' Pensions Act.

I would like to say at the outset I think that this is an example of governm ent leading the way on pension refor m because a number of the changes that are being ma de are those changes which are re quir ed to deal with compliance of the pension legislation that was brought in last year ; legislation, I mi ght add, that we are all very proud of. But it's also an example, Mr. Speaker , of a governm ent looking for new ways, and creative ways, of opening up jobs for the une m ployed, creating, particu larly, jobs for our young people and, I might add, doing it with little or no cost to the taxpayers.

So that this is an exam ple of I think governm ent in a very important area showing leadership both through legislation and action, both of which I am very proud. I will just summa rize the am endm ents that are required, Mr. Speaker, to comply with The Pensions Benefit Act. I will give a very short sum mary of those.

Amendme nts that are ma de to ma ke The Te achers' Pensions Act comply include the definition of common law relat ionship, comm on- law spouse, legaliz ing for pension pu rposes com m on-law rela tionship s, a port ioning of benefits on ma rriage breakup, and the guarantee that the employer will pay 50 percent of the value of the benefits earned each year from January 1, 1984, and elimination of discrim ination based on sex. There is also a provision made for teachers to purchase future educational leaves as pensional service providing there is no cost to the fund or to the province.

There is a definition of temporary suspension of em ploym ent that is expanded to include any em ployer authorized leave of absence up to one year. Current ly, only leaves of one mo nth or less or certain specific leaves like sabbatical do not break service continui ty. Norm al retire me nt age is redefined to coincide with recent changes to The Civil Service Superannuation Act - 70 years, 11 mo nths.

We have allowed for a conversion option from the best seven to best five years for a small group - 15 teachers - previously not permitted this option, and the comp osition require me nts of the TRAF Board are changed to allow the society to nomina te non- teachers, as curr ently only teachers can be nominated. The investm ent guarantee is elim inated, and other sections I think are of a housekeeping nature. I am going to concentrate my com m ents on two sections. The firs t one is going to be the re m oval of the penalty for early retire me nt; and the second

section that I will ma ke a few co mments on is the part-ti m e teachers, covering of part-time teachers. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to successfully deal with the qu est ion of unemployme nt, especially unemployme nt during very very difficult economic times, a time when there is less mobility and mo veme nt of the working force in all levels and fields, fewer opportunit ies and fewer openings for people, and particularly young people, we are simp ly going to have to find other ways of opening up job opportunities for the people who presently don't have them.

By looking at creative ways of job sharing, of improving and supporting part-time workers, and of looking at early retirement is one of the best ways of opening up job opportunities for those who aren't presently em ployed, particularly young people. Now, in education we are being particularly hard hit, although a lot of the things we are facing and dealing with, eve rybody and every work force is facing, as other sectors, but that is limited budgets and limited resources so there aren 't a lot of advancem ents and new programs or new activit ies that are opening up job opportunities.

The lack of mobility is teachers cannot really move across very mu ch at the same level or up. There are very few openings. But we have a particular problem in the education system because we are blessed right now with the results I suppose of a baby boom at an earlier period, and we have an aging teaching population. We have a very significant number of teachers who are in the 50 to 65 year age grouping, many of whom still have 10 or 15 years left to wo.rk if they do not choose early retirement, and we have what I would call too high a proportion of teachers in this area.

We need experienced teachers, teachers with training and with lots of experience in the field, Mr. Speaker, but we also need our new young teachers who have received recent training, updated with the mo st recent skills and knowledge and in form ation, and also represent the new generation to take their place in very important jobs like teaching of our children. So we need a better balance quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, and the early re tir ement option, we expect , is going to open up opportunities for our young teachers .

We have over 600 active teachers from the ages of 55 to 59 who are eligible for early retire me nt, and we graduate 600 teachers a year from our teac her training Institutions. So that clearly, and I am not suggesting for a mi nute that 600 teachers are going to leave and that all 600 of our new teachers are going to be em ployed, but in previous years we have been able to accom modate a large nu mber of our young people who 2387

Tueeday, 28 May, 1985 have graduated fro m our educational institutions, our universities, and that is not the case any mo re. In the last year or so we have had som e difficulty in provi ding em ployme nt opportunities for them. We are estim ating 70 teachers ma y take advantage of it in this year. I have always felt that mi ght be an underesti m ate, but we prese ntly have an indication that 53 teachers have presently indicated that they are retiring . Since that's only com ing from three or four school divisions, I feel certain that we'll me et our projected target of about 70 and it ma y even be beyond that.

Whatever the num ber Is, Mr . Speaker, clearly, those are real opportunities for young teachers to be em ployed. I will touch for a mi nute, I think, before I go Into details of the early retire me nt benefit on part-tim e teachers. We 're changing the benefit for part-time teachers so that they are now included with the for m ula for receiving pension benefits . This is a very very im portant change, Mr . Speaker. it doe sn't cost us a lot of mo ney.

We 've got a $350 mi llion fund in the teachers' pension fund and this part-time teacher benefit is only going to cost about $200,000, but it's going to affect 1, 000 part-time teachers, and 70 percent of those are wom en. We know In ter m s of pension benefits, Mr. Speaker, that som e people work part-tim e. They work part-tim e for 20, 30 or 40 years and really that's a period of time when they are entitled to get som e of the benefits from that work. The other point I want to ma ke, Mr. Speaker, is that I want to encourage part-time teachers and part-time work.

The last thing we want Is people who only want to work part-ti m e, who only need to work part-tim e, and who are forced into full-time em ployme nt because they have to work som e ti me and they cannot get a part-time position or won't take it because the benefits are so deficient.

So we want to encou rage job-sharing, part-time em ployme nt and early retire m ent to open up opportunitie s and this is particularly going to benefit the wome n who we know, in ter m s of disadvantaged groups and there are ma ny in ter m s of rece iving pension benefits, that the wom en of our society have been at the botto m of that totem pole. Now in ter ms of re m oving the 1.5 percent penalty for early retire me nt, Mr.

Speaker, we did this after a lot of thought and I think a lot of bargaining and negotiating with the Te achers' Society because, while we always agreed with the principle because we saw the benefits for the educational system and for young teachers, we were concerned that it not be done at the expense of the public or the taxpayers of Manitoba. So we bargained hard and I have to say that I think we got a very good deal, a good deal for them , a good deal for the education system and for the taxpayers .

There was a suggestion ma de, was this a policy of the governm ent that they were going to cover sort of all public sector em ployees, because I think this is the second time we have negotiated successfully, improved pension plan benefits for em ployees. What I would like to say there is I think it's an Indication that this governm ent is showing leadership In a way that I hope ma ny other em ployers will.

And that is, when they can negotiate a deal dealing with the pension plan, and they're all very unique so they have to be done on an individual basis, In a way that opens up early retire me nt opportunities and does it with a lot of cost sharing or with the ma jor amount of the mo ney being picked up by the fund and not the taxpayer, then it is clearly to everybody's benefit. I suppose what this governm ent has dem onstra ted with their previous actions with the MGEA and now with the Te achers' Society Is, we're prepared to negotiate.

Any time we can get a good deal like that to improve the pension conditions and not have any cost to the taxpayer and to get benefits to the system , we're willing to do it. Now these are the trade-offs or this Is what we negotiated, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the teachers are paying all the costs of the early retire me nt benefit, I think it's a little over $3 mi llion, in the first five years. They're paying their share of the costs, and they'r e paying our share. After that it reverts to the norma l percentage at 70 percent paid by the teachers and 30 percent paid by the governm ent.

In ter ms of what we would call the period that the program Is In existence, that would be a $6.2 mi llion cost based on the present value over what will probably be a 30 or 40-year period, to ma ke sure that all of the people in it now are able to get those benefits. The savings that we have are in three areas. First of all, they're paying all the costs for three years, as I said previous ly, their share and our share . The second saving Is not to us dir ectly, Mr. Speaker, but it's to the local school divisions, the people who hire the teachers.

The mo ney doesn't com e to us but it will be the saving nevertheless. The teachers who retire, mo st of them if not all of them, are going to be at the ma xim um salary level which Is about $40,0 00.00; and beginning teachers ma ke about $25 ,000; so you've got a differential of $15 ,000 between letting go or early retire m ent of a teacher at the ma xim um level and a new teacher being hired at the very beginning level. So if you look at 70 potential teachers retiring this year at $15 ,000, there is a potential saving of $1 mi llion in one year with 70 teachers re tiring.

Now I'm not suggesting that every teacher that goes is going to be at the ma ximum, and every teacher that's hir ed is going to be at the absolute mi nimum. I am saying that mo st of them will be, and I believe that mo st of the hiring that will be done to replace these teachers that are going, is going to be done because this appeals to boards . They know they want to get new young teachers into their system . They know we need this new blood. They're going to be looking for it. Most of the replace m ents are going to be done by teachers at either the low or down towards the bottom end of the scale .

So whether it's $1 mi llion or not, school trus tees and school boards are going to be able to save significant amounts of mo ney that they can then use to either reduce the Special Levy and the taxes on the property taxpayer or to improve the quality of education in their division. In either case, they will be def ending and expl aining the decision that they ma de to their comm unity and their residents and I'm sure that we will benefit, regardless of whether it's reduction in taxes or improve me nt in the quality of education .

The other big clause that we negotiated and the big benefit rea lly to governm ent was the re m oval of a clause that called for a reven ue guarantee that was literally 2388

Thead ay, 28 May, 1985 I think, Mr. Speaker, what you could call a ticking time bomb for gover nment. What that guarantee said is, that if the actuaries predicted the revenues in a coming year and what they received in those revenues was less than what was predicted - say they predicted 10 percent, it's about 10.5 now; let's say they only earned 9.5 percent - we would be required to pay that 1 percen t, and we would be req uir ed to pay it imme diately even if the fund had a surplus, Mr. Speaker. The clause was written in such a way that you would have to pay, even if there was a surplus.

We have estimated that at 1 percent red uction in revenue predicted, that it would cost the government $12 million over a three-year period. Now we don't know whether that would be used this year or next year, but we do know that it would be applied, Mr . Speaker. lt's only a matter of when, not if. I have to say the teachers didn't want to give that up. They knew they were giving up a benefit that was going to be important to them in the very near future, and it was somet hing that was very important to us to not have that. Now previous ly, funds were making more money than was predicted. We had very good times.

Invest ments were good. They were making good money on their Investments, but that is changing. I think the last time that was invoked in the fund was 1970-74, when government had to pay out $3.7 million. But the investments now are not as good as they were, and it's not unusual for them to be predicting that they would be making less than the y thought they would. So we are expecting that within a year or two, that this clause would have been invoked at a very significant cost to government, whether it's 8 million or 12 million over a two or three-year period and that it is a real saving.

When you add those all up together, Mr. Speaker, and you look at the exact cost of $6.2 million, the first year that it is a cost to government, it costs us $200,000.00. So if you compare that to the offset and the trad e-off of giving up the investment guarantee and the savings that school boards will find at hiring teachers at a lower level, I think you'll see we made a good financial decision, not dealing with the question of pension reform or support or improvements or aid to the education system at all. Mr. Speaker, there was a question raised earlier and I'll deal with it now.

There was some concern about teachers being protected because they have to indicate their intention to res ign on May 31st to school divisions. We have in a clause in the act indicated that June 30th will be the last working day, and July 1st will be the first day of their retirement. If they are eligible this year, it is our intention that this act be applied this year, and we have built in, in a

section in the legislation, a protection if it isn't through by the end of May that it will be retroactive. In other words, we have built in retroactivity if it has not passed within the next short period of . time.

However, I would say to the members opposite that if they have real concern for all of the teachers who are there, the 53 that we know of and I think there are considerably more, who want to retire and don't want to have any uncertainty about it, although they will be protected by the retroactivity if necessa ry, if the bill hasn't gone through in time, I can only urge them to support the bill as quickly as possible, and pass it as quickly as possible to remove the uncertainty and the fear and the worry of teachers. So to sum marize, Mr. Speaker, I would just . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. M. HEMPHILL: . . . like to say that I think that this is a good piece of legislation. lt is good for the people who have a chance to retire. it's good for the education syste m, because it's good for the students. lt is going to im prove the quality of education. lt saves money, I believe, in both the short and the long run, and it's good for providing jobs for our young teachers. I commend it to this House, and I ask for the support of all members of this Chamber for this good legislation. MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, before the bill is adjourned, I have a few questions of clarification to the Minister. She indicated, after the teachers' money is put up, then the cost of paying the pensions to the people who take early retirement will be split, 70 percent teachers, 30 percent government. I believe she indicated that the teachers' money covered the funding for the first three or five years. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Five. MR. G. MERCIER: Five years? Could she Indicate the cost to the provincial taxpayer for funding the 30 percent for the next five years, year 6 to year 10? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, I don't have the figures with me right now that break it down into the five , and five to the ten years. I did indicate that for the period of the program it was a $6.2 million cost after the five years. We 're predicting it will be a 30- to 40-year life. Over that period of time, the cost to the government will be $6.2 million.

In the first year that it takes effect, which would be the sixth year, the cost to government is $233,000, and I think it goes up to about $600,000 the subsequent year. lt isn't done evenly over the life of the program, because there are heavier up-front numb ers, so it isn't a consistent figure in each year, $6.2 million over the 30- or 40-year period. I can get the details of the five to ten if he wishes. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would the Minis ter undertake to provide that information in written form within the next few days as to the cost to the government from year 6 to year 10?

Secondly, could she indicate whether the bill prevents a teacher who takes early retirement from taking another job on contract or otherwise with another school division after having been on early retirement? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, there would be some thing that would stop them from taking a job as a permanent teacher, not perhaps as a substitute. But 2389

Tuee dlly, 28 May, 1985 if they retire and they then want to be hir ed by another school division, they must sign a Form Two contract. When they sign a Form Two contract, one of the requir ements of the contract is that they become a mem ber of the pension plan. If that took place and they informed the TR AP Board that they were reactivated as em ployees and particip ating in the pension plan, they would immed iately stop the pension benefits that they would be getting. However, I don't believe it applies if they're substitute teachers.

I think that a school division could hire them as substitute teachers where they do not have to sign a Form Two contract. They could still receive their pension benefits. I suppose that I would have some sympathy for that, especially in rural areas where they have a great deal of difficulty getting substitute teachers.

Maybe one of their pools for substitute teachers in the future may be retired teachers. - (I nterjection) - Well, I'm answering the question that they can't get emplo yment as a full-time teacher and get their pension benefit, but they could receive their pension benefits if they're just hir ed as substitute teachers. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speake r, I would like to ask a couple of questions of clarification, too, if I could. One of them follows on the question just posed by the Member for St. Norbert.

Could the Minis ter indicate whether legislation that would prevent an individual from drawing a wage in a new school division after that person was drawing full pension, is it contained within this bill or is it within the existing act? MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: lt isn't with the bill and it isn't necessa ry, because the protection is in the signing of the Form Two cont ract for employment and the requirements for signing the Form Two contract. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minis ter whether an administrator signs that Form Two contract of which she speaks? HON. M. HEMPHILL: I would have to confirm that, Mr . Speaker. I think that the superintendent is probably the person that signs the Form Two contract, but I'll confirm. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Min ister, in the case of retroactivity , what is to happen in the case of individuals who may have retired over the last two or three years and suffered the 1.5 percent penalty? Are they covered by any portion of this particular act? HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr . Speaker.

All people who retired previ ous to the bill coming into force, which will be on July 1st, will not be covered by the removal of the penalty. MR. C. MANNESS: A final question, Mr. Speaker, to the Min ister, and again it's the one that I posed in the House today. What contingency is built in for individuals who declare before May 31st that they wish to retire, and this bill fails to receive support within this House? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr . Speaker, I think I indicated previously that it Is our intention, although we're not sure about the time, that the legislation apply to teachers who want to re tire this year.

We have built In, recognizing that we are not sure about the timing or the dates, we have built in the rider that it will be retroactive to provide that prote ction. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur , that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented end carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you please call the government resol ution, standing in the name of the Premier? SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I have examined very carefully the proposed subamendment and despite its comple xity I am satisfied that the subamendment does refer only to the proposed amendment and not to the main res olution. And, furthermore, that it simply changes the effect that the amendment would have, without putting back into the resolution any other subject, since it is not a topic on which the House has made a decision.

Therefore, it has been moved by the Honourable First Mi nister , seconded by the Honourable Min ister of Agriculture, THAT the proposed amendment be amended by striking out all the words after the word "words" in the THAT clause and before the third

WHEREAS clause, and substituting therefor the words "after the words 'third world; and'" in the fourth WHE REAS clause and before the sixth WHERE AS clause and adding thereto the following: "and THAT following the word "a nnihi lation" in the remaining

WHEREAS clause and before the RESOL VED clause in the amendment, the following clause be added: "AND THAT the Resolution be amended, following the word "peace" in the RESOL VED clause, by adding thereto the following: '; and"' and THAT the word "FUR THER" be added after the word "IT" and the words "the Government of Canada to request" be added after the word "request" in the RESOL VED clause. Are you ready for the question? The question then is on the proposed subamendment, the Honour able Member for Fort Garr y. MR. C. BIRT: Mr .

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Niakwa, that debate on this matter be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. 2390

Tuesday, 28 May. 1985 HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe there may be a pr edi sposition to waive Private Members' Hour . If that be the case, I would move us into Supply on that understanding. MA. SPEAKER: Is there leave to dispense with Private Mem bers' Hour this day? (Agreed) Leave having been granted, the Hono urable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Min ister of Education ... MA. A. DOEAN: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MA. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Member for Elmwood on a point of order. MA. A.

DOEAN: I, for one, registered opposition to waiving Private Members' Hour . I don't know whether you heard me or not. - (I nterje ction) - Mr . Speaker, I clearly said nay twice. MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government Ho use Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Ye s, thank you Mr. Speaker. I clearly heard the Nay. I thought, Sir, that leave had not been granted and I was moving Supply on the unde rstanding we would interrupt at 4:30 for Private Mem bers' Hour . MA. SPEAKER: The Chair did not hear the honourable member's remarks. I take it the leave has not been given to dispense with Private Members' Hour this day.

The Honourable Government Ho use Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Therefore, Mr. Speaker, subject to us Interrupting for Private Members' Hour, I beg to move, seconded by the Ho nourable Mini ster of Education, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Commit tee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the Hous e resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Sup ply to be granted to He r Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture, and the Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Government Services. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SU PPLY SUP PLY - GOVERNMENT SER VICES MA. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoa: Comm ittee please come to order. We were considering the rest of Vote No. 2, star ting with Item No. 3.(e){1), 3.(e)(2) and 3.(e){3) - the Honourable Min ister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, I don't know whether you 'r e assuming by dir ecting this to me imme diately that I want to make a statement. I was going to wait till the members perhaps had specific questions that they wanted to follow up on. Ho wever, Mr. Chairman, I will provide some information. Ye sterday I indicated to the committee that I would provide information concerning the vacant leased space at 32 1 Main Street in Steinbach.

This vacant space was intended for future occupants from the Manitoba Natural Resources Department and they are currently located in Building No. 3 at the Fort Osborne complex where they have been for a number of years. This move was planned. lt was planned to have them move into the Steinbach space. However, that decision was changed and not proceeded with, and if there are particular concerns with regard to why Na tural Resources has not made that move, I think it would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Natural Resources as to why his department has not proceeded with the move to Steinbach.

So that's the reason that there is a vacant space there. In terms of the lease arrangements, there was considerable discussion yesterday with regard to MPI and I have some additi onal informatio n that the mem bers may wish to have. In terms of the effect of the overall financial arrangement on the Department of Government Services just to put it in perspect ive, the Manitoba Department of Government Services was approached by MPI to purchase certain government asset s which would be leased back by the government through the Department of Government Services.

In response to this request, Government Services followed acceptable business practice s such as Identifying a list of owned buildings, some of which could be valued at preva iling market values from market rates, as I have identified In

Schedule A that was distributed to the mem bers, commercial properties generally that were categorized by that method, by market value, and some of which were special-use buildings valued at replacement costs. These are generally non-commercial, or as I said spec ial-use buildings that the government owned such as, for example, Red River Community College and that was provided in

Schedule B to the memb ers. Then using the values from this list, the lease rates were developed on a capitalization rate consistent with that for other commercial ·properties in the marketplace at the present time, and using a lower rate figure for non-commercial properties. No w the going rate for capitalization In the marketplace is somewhere in the range from 9 to 12 percent and the rate used for our commercial properties was at the lower end.

So actually we're getting, in comparison to leases that we would get in the marketplace, we're actually getting a very competitive rate for the values of those buildings. Insofar as the $36 million is concerned, it is comprised of the aggregate of the Individual lease costs for all of these commercial and non-commercial properties, and I would like to provide the membe rs with that information as to what the . . . costs. I've discussed this with the Department of Finance and there is no difficulty in providing that information to the members. So I will hand out, Mr .

Chairman, a copy of the value of each of those buildings and the leased cost for each of them which I'm sure the members will be interested in. 2391

TUesdar, 28 Mar, 1985 I think it's Important for me to mention that both the lease costs for each of these buildings and the appraised value, or the set value, of each of those buildings represents, both for the commercial and the non commercial properties, fair market value and that is the key - fair market value in the marketplace. That's an important point that I think members should keep in mind when looking at these lease rates and the values of each of the buildings.

Now in terms of lease arrangements, I had outlined that it was a 99-year lease and that, unless he pays all the additional costs, any charges of any kind, maintains the property and makes needed repairs, including structural repairs, as would any prudent owner, the total value is $35,267,092.00. There was some question yesterday about the renegotiation after five years. There is a provision in the lease, but that does not necessarily mean that the lease would in fact be renegotiated, but that provision is there.

That is consistent with leases that would be available to anyone under any arrangements of this kind through Canadian corporations involved in leasing of property, and this provision is included with standard leases. Items such as operating costs and taxes, which are standard items negotiated in a typical lease, are by this agreement with MPI the responsibilities of the Department of Government Services and are covered in our Estimates as I indicated yesterday.

So, we foresee, under this agreement, very little change in the lease cost occurring after that five-year period. it's premature to speculate on the potential increases or decreases in the lease costs, but we would expect that the only possible consideration would be a drastic increase or decrease in the value of the buildings In the fair market value of those buildings at that particular time, which then may cause a reappraisal of the value of those buildings and perhaps - perhaps, I say - a consequent change in the lease cost for those. That's the only thing that could change.

So I think that deals with the Member for Pem bina's concerns as to what would be considered in the renegotiations. That would, for all intents and purposes, be the only variable that could be foreseen. As I have indicated, there is no commitment or no requirement that the lease actually has to be renegotiated, but there is the provision in the lease for that to take place. So that is the Information I think, Mr. Chairman, that basically the members wanted.

I should mention as well that it was asked whether these properties could be bought back and, of course, if there was a decision at some point in the future to dissolve MPI, naturally the properties could be purc hased back by the government. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I think that clears up some of the confusion that existed last night. lt is then no longer true that the amount of rent charged is dependent on the numb er of shares that are sold by M PI. Is that correct? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I think there was some inference that the numb er of shares had to do with that, and I don't think I answered unequivocally no at the time. But the fact is that the value of the buildings involved has some bearing on the total bulk lease cost that's required to service the dividends that are paid out. But there Is no direct relationship with the number of shares such as the 200 million or the 400 million. MR. H. GRAHAM: So, Mr.

Chairman, would it be then fair to assume that should the share capital be oversubscribed, that rather than change the rental on these buildings that in fact there may be more government buildings added, say, In

Schedule C? Is that a possibility? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, it's possible. We haven't been approa ched by M PI with a request to pur chase additional buildings, but it's possible that there would be additional buildings added. There are obviously additional properties. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Minister indicates that at the end five years the lease could be renegotiatedf Can either party renegotiate the lease? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: it's my understanding that the normal provisions would apply and that if an agreement cannot be reached between the two parties that it would go to arbitration and it could be arbitrated. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Natural Resources is perusing this seam sheet with a great deal of interest, so I haven't got the exact figure. As a matter of fact, I think he's shocked. Mr. Chairman, the information the Minister has given us today indicates that - oh, just hold it now - okay, let's go right down to the bottom of the last page where there is $25,404,890.00. Is that the total lease? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, yes, this is the total lease costs for the special purpose or non-commercial build ings. Page 1 has the $9.862 million for the commercial buildings. MR. D. ORCHARD: Okay, so then if we go to the

summary, then the total rent is $35,267,092; your request is for some $36 million. Was that a rounding error In this government's Estimates preparation? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, it's an estimate given by Fi nanc e. it's fairly close when you'r e considering a new endeavour such as this and that fact that, if there are additional properties, that figure could change, but it's the best estimate. The figures, 35.2, are the actual for those properties listed at the present time. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now the Minister is indicating that these annual rents are based on the commercial value of the buildings. HON.

J. PLOHMAN: For the commercial buildings, for those that are classified by market value, the 2392 ,

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 commercial buildings and those that there is some comparison within primarily the city to determine a market value and they're not special use buildings, yes, they're based on the market value of those buildings. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now can the Minister indicate, basis the Finance Department's share issue, what their cost is of making in terest payments to the preferred shareholders of Manitoba Properties Incorporated? Is it the same $36 million approximately? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Just for clarification, is the member asking what their administrative costs of doing business, or the payout of the dividends? MR. D. ORCHARD: The latter. HON. J. PLOHMAN: The payout would be, I believe, 9.25 percent of $200 million, or whatever the figure is when the final shares have been sold. I believe the Minister of Finance said by July 15th. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well if it was $200 million, that would mean an $1 8.5 million interest payment. Yet, you're paying rent to the tune of almost 36 million. Therein lies the problem, Mr. Chairman, of how skillfully you negotiated the rental of these buildings.

Where does the profit go that the Ma ni toba Properties Incorporated is obviously going to make? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister of Finance dealt with this aspect of questioning. The one cost of MPI is the payment of the dividends and that comes, based on the $200 million, to some $18 million per year and the remainder - the other $18 million - is a payment back to the government on a note that was agreed to. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Well, then what we have is a property investment seam in which the preferred shareholder theoretically takes advantage of a tax loophole, some thing the New Democratic Party constantly decries, and then the Department of Finance through Manitoba Properties Incorporated, basically rips off the taxpayers of Manitoba for an additional $18 million on the same tax seam.

I mean, this thing gets more bizzare every time the Minister brings us more information, and it's just absolutely unbelievable that this government is so desperate to borrow money that they had to resort to a seam in which they set up a dummy company. They sell a bunch of buildings that the taxpayers of Manitoba have paid for through tax dollar contributions over the past numb er of years and they've even sold buildings that I'm sure we borrowed money to build, like the Law Courts Building, $1 6.3 million.

Then once they've got these buildings sold to a dummy company then they in turn put out a preferred shareholder to investors to take advantage of a tax loophole. Those investors have the option of exercising one warrant of equivalent value, which they can doub le up their preferred share investment.

But what has happened is that because of this government's fiscal mism anagement and incompetence, the people of Manitoba have lost control of some $530 million worth of assets because at the end of 10 years if those preferred shareholders say, "We want our money," and at the end of that 10-year period, and I think that's the earliest time they can do it, this government will be long gone and forgotten by then except as a bad memory and a nightmare, but some future government is going to have to go to the market and then borrow $533 million to pay off the preferred shareholders, or whatever money you've raised, to buy our own buildings back.

At that time, the way this government is administering our fiscal affairs, the interest rate could be two or three points higher than if they would have legitimately went to the market but of course we know now they couldn't, because without going to the market for money, such as they did in this tax seam, the credit rating of this province still went down.

What this group of financial wizards and tax dodge artists in this current New Democratic Government have done is mortgaged the future of Manitobans who own buildings and public assets, turned the control of them over to preferred share investors, those corporate elite who this government constantly berates and fights against, who are taking advantage of tax loopholes of this government, this political party constantly berates and argues against, and now we've lost control of our own taxpayer assets and we've turned it over to a group of investors.

And this government - not this government because they won't be around when this comes home to roost, some government in the future is going to have to come up with money that they may not be able to borrow very easily at that point in time. We have lost control of government assets through the incom petence of this New Democratic Party administration under the premiership of Premier Pawley. it's just an absolutely incredible scenario that we see happening here. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, we have never stated, and I think the Minister of Finance stated this in his Estimates, that we blame any corporations or individuals from taking advantage of existing tax, if we want to call them, loopholes or provisions that are in place at the present time. What we've said is that there should be a fair taxation. There should be a reform of taxation so those are closed, but the fact Is when they exist and they are current tax laws that people who take advantage of them are doing so legitimately. Of course, this is no different.

The fact is, there is no loss of control, no voting rights associated with the preferred shares. We own all of the common shares. There is no loss of control. I reiterate that. In terms of cashing them in, why would the investors who have chosen this as a very hot investment, have been very anxious to invest, want to cash those in en masse at some time in the future? We may want to or the Government of the Day may want to change the arrangements at some point, but there is no reason why there would be this massive run.

I think it's important to consider that what we've done here in the meantime is - if there is a desire at some point to dissolve M PI - we've saved the taxpayers of Manitoba on our borrowing costs a minimum of $8 million per year during that period of time. If the honourable mem bers disagree with that or they are 2393

concerned about saving $8 million, then they should take this to the public and tell them about it. They would soon find out that the taxpayers of Manitoba are quite pleased to see that the government has developed a method of saving a considerable amount of money for the taxpayers of this province. Of course, I reiterate, if the member wants to get into those financial aspects of this arrangement - and I said that many times yesterday - he should certainly raise those kinds of questions with the Minister of Finance in the House. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I'll answer the Minister's question as to why a preferred investor would want to get his money back, because 10 years from now when this government has virtually bankrupted the Province of Manitoba so they can't go to the market to get mone y, they're going to say, we want our money out. When this government and a future government can't borrow the $300 million, $400 million that's required to redeem those preferred shares, then those preferred investors are indeed going to have a sweetheart of an investment .

Because then they're going to say to this gover nment, well, we'll leave our money there, but we're going to need 15 percent interest to do it or 20 percent. And the government is going to be ransomed to do it. Mr. Chairman, the Minister talks about $8 million they saved . That was last year when the interest rates were higher than they are this year. The saving might be half that this year, and what we've done is given up our flexibili ty.

That $8 million you saved or alleged to have saved last year, you have just given it away by having the credit rating of this province drop, which is going to cost us $7 million this fiscal year. You have already given it away thr ough your fiscal mismanagement. This is the most incompetent government that this province has ever seen.

Not only are you mortgaging our fiscal future, but now you have reduced our fle xibility in terms of the buildings we need to carry out normal government functions because now you have turned the control of them over to preferred shareholders that in the future, nine years from now, can hold a future governmemt up for ransom, for higher rental rates, for a higher re turn on a preferred share investment because this government at that time won't be able to borrow the money to redeem those preferred shares.

You have mortgaged the future of this province in terms of fiscal capacity, and you have even thrown in a .5 billion worth of buildings that you have now mortgaged and given away the control of to some investors outside of this government. That's incredible. That's incredible. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Johns. MR. D. ORCHARD: You wait and see what happens. You guys won't be around, unfortunately. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: I have a question, talking about saving money like my honourable colleague is saying, from Pembina.

Who is a possibility maybe - I am talking about the building under the No. 109, Correctional Institution, Head ingley, which the total value is, I believe, $15 million. Will it be possible to sell it for a free market enterprise? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, the specialty buildings, there is a difficulty obviously, and that's why they were valued at replacement value as opposed to commercial value because in many cases they do not have a commercial value. Their only value is the use that they now have by the government for various programs.

So it would be difficult obviously to sell some of those non commercial buildings. the value is there, and the fact is that they serve a function for government. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: So is there any possibility to sell it for a free enterprise? HON. J. PLOH MAN: I coul dn't answer that, Mr. Chairman. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Oh. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Just in terms of the remarks made, again the Memb er for Pembina persists in saying that there is a loss of control. He said it about three or four times and that is incorrect information for him to leave on the record.

The common shares are all owned by the Government of Manitoba through its corporations and, therefore, there is no loss of control. The preferred shares have no voting control. I want to mention one other thing in terms of the scare tactics that the Memb er for Pem bina is attempting to raise for public consumption. The fact is that the B. C. Building Corporation also borrows on its buildings; Quebec also has a similar arrangement. This was done some years previous. We are not talking about the irresponsible fiscal restraint measures that are being und ertaken, Mr.

Chairman, by the current Bennett Government there, that's not what we are talking about. But there is an arrangement similar to this in those other two provinces. So we are not the first ones to do that, Mr. Chairman. Ob viously the Member for Pem bina is not too interested in listening to this anyway because that diffuses his whole thrust with regard to leaving the impression on the record that somehow Manitoba Is taking an irresponsible move with regard to this saving to the taxpayers. it's on the record right, he says, that he is against this saving to the taxpayers of Manitoba. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, can the Minister answer a question for me? At the end of 10 years, the preferred shareholders want their money back. Does the government have to pay them their money? HON. J. PLOHMAN: If the individual investors, preferred shareholders choose, on an individual basis, to make that decision that they would like to be paid off, obviously they can be. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, that .is exactly the point I was making and I am glad the Minister has finally realized how irresponsible this government's actions are. Indeed, it is not only irresponsible; it's even hypocritical. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: What is there to say, Mr. Chairman? I think that it is on the record clearly the benefits to 2394

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 the taxpayers of Manitoba. We have covered all the aspects of this matter. Let's move on to the next one. MA. CHAIRMAN: 3.(e)( 1) - the Member for Elmwood. MA. A. DOEAN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that in general I agree with the Mem ber for Pembina. I think he is bang on, and I think this is just another scheme dreamed up by the Finance Minister who seems to be specializing in tax avoidance schemes and government seams. I find it rather shocking that a Provincial Go ve rnment, and our Provincial Government, is engaged in this kind of activity.

This is similar to the payroll tax in the sense that there was some special trick to the trade involved, and I just regard this as a complete farce and a government seam. I think it's despicable that some of the members of the administration have agreed to it and that the Minister of Government Services is given the impossible task of trying to defend it. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the Member for Elmwood should also refl ect on the benefits to the taxpayers of Manitoba when he talks about the disgusting arrangement that this is. Mr.

Chairman, obviously, the effective interest rate that we are dealing with is the one in effect at the time that the issuance took place. lt was a 4 percent saving on borrowing at that time, and that saving will stand up until the total amount is paid off. lt's the same as any borrowing that goes on in any particular year. MA. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)(1) - the Member for Virden. MA. H. GAAHAM: Mr. Chairman, just a few questions to the Minister on the sheet that was Appendix A that was just given to us now. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Appendix C. MA. H. GAAHAM: lt says Appendix A.

The list of buildings there, are all those buildings involved with MP I? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Ye s, Mr. Chairman, they match to the lists A and B that we distributed yesterday. MA. H. GAAHAM: They match with the list that was given yesterday. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that every building listed on the handout today was listed in the two lists that were given to the members yesterday. MA. H. GAAHAM: We ll, Mr.

Chairman, that being the case, according to the sheet that is given to us, in Appendix A, we arrive at an annual rental figure of $25,404,890, but we have added to that a figure of $9,862,202.00. Can the Minister indicate what that additional $9 million is for? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well the Member for Pembina unde rstands the answer because he just asked this question earlier. MA. H. GRAHAM: I'm sorry if I was out of the House. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: The totals are for the two secti ons, one dealing with the commercial buildings valued at market val ue for those buil dings and the non commercial, or special-use buildings which were valued on the basis of replacement costs. And the two added together give you the total rental costs for both seg ments; the 25 is for the non-commercial, the 9.8 or so is for the commercial. MA. H. GAAHAM: But the rental value doesn 't really matter whether it is commercial or non-commercial. The annual rental value should be the same regardless; is that not correct? MA.

CHAIRMAN: Will the member please repeat the question. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'm sorry, someone talked to me at the time. MA. H. GRAHAM: Whether the market value or replacement was used, the annual rent should remain the same, should it not? HON. J. PLOHMAN: We ll, as developed, the same as what I guess is the question, Mr. Chairman. lt's as laid out and developed on the list. That value is as we have said will remain the same for five years and possibly longer than that. · MA. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. MA. H.

GAAHAM: So the Minister says that in order to effect a cost saving of $8 million, and those are his figures not mine, we are going to be spending an extra $9,862,000 in additional rent in order to effect a cost saving of $8 million. HON. J. PLOHMAN: There's no relationship with that. This is a financing arrangement which reduces the borrowing cost to the province at about 4 percent for the total amount of money that was raised. The difference in the borrowing costs was about 4 percent. So there's absolutely rio relationship between the figures.

If the member is choosing to pull out of the papers and compare $8 million with $9, he's comparing apples and oranges to say the least . The point is that the total costs of leasing to the Department of Government Services is $35.26 million and the overall saving, because of this arrangement in raising the money by the Department of Finance, the overall reduction in costs of borrowing is $8 million to $10 million per year. MA. H. GAAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I happen to agree with the Minister that it is absolutely bizarre and bears no relat ionship.

All I'm doing is using the figures that he himself provided me with which states that the annual rent should be $25,404,890.00. These are your figures, not mine. And now you have added an extra $9,862,202.00. Now I want to know why that was added? Obviously you have to have a reason for adding it. Is that just a 2395

Tuelday, 28 May, 1185 cushion that was added in, or is that really the difference that occurs in order to save $8 million, again using your figures, not mine. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the total costs of rental is $35.2 as I've indicated. lt is made up of two categories as I have explained previously; one is the non-com mercial buildings, the rental cost is $25 million and something, and the other is the commercial buildings which the rental cost Is some $9.8 million. So adding them together, you get the total rental costs for all of the buildings.

There's two categories that we've Identified and If the Member for Virden would look at Appendix A on the front page, he would see very clearly how that is arrived at.

For those buildings that were valued on a market comparable basis, the rental rate is established at $9,862,202 and for those other buildings, special purpose buildings, the rental value was $25,404,890, for a total of $35,267,092.00. 1 guess that's the danger of giving figures to members If they want to choose to pick any figure and compare one figure with some other figur e that has no relationship whatsoever, they can choose to do that, but there's absolutely no relationship between the two whatsoever. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, I'm using the mem ber's figures listed as Appendix A, the first page is $9,862,202.00. The next page is Appendix A and so on. So I assume the total that ends up at the bottom is $25,404,000.00. If the Minister is telling me different, 1 will accept his explanation. But obviously, page 2 should be marked Appendix B, ins tead of Appendix A, to differentiate. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, the lettering on there is maybe not that clear. The whole document is Appendix A and was a working document used within the department. MR. H. GRAHAM: I thank the Mini ster for his explanation. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 3.(eX 1) - the Member for River Heights. MR. W STEEN: I just wanted to make a few comments regarding the Manitoba Properties Incorporation and I am quite prepared to leave the thing. lt's very obvious, Mr. Chairman, that the government's living beyond its means and their credit rating has been reduced and that they, a few years ago, brought in the new tax, the payroll tax, because they didn't want to raise sales taxes or personal income taxes, but they needed the money to continue to live beyond their means.

Rather than having a bond issue a year ago and under the normal market, a fiscal market, and take a chance of another reduction In credit rating, what they did was set up a dummy company that sold the Manitoba properties and sold shares to persons who said that they would buy shares in this dummy company at a reduced interest rate, because they were becoming owners of physical assets, public buildings, in Manitoba.

So it was a once-in-a-lifetime scheme that saved the province as the Minister says, $8 million because they were able to market the shares in this dummy company for less than they could have gone to the normal bond market. But it goes right back to my original comment that they're living beyond their means and they haven't got other areas of taxation to go into and they have now sold off public buildings to have a savings.

Now these public buildings can't be sold a second time, so some future government is always going to have to continue to have this dummy company in operation or buy back the shares, and I doubt if they will ever buy them back because what government will ever have the money in which to buy them back. So it was a scheme that was dreamed up by the Fina nce Department and through the Minis ter of Finance and it was perhaps a once-in-a-lifetime scheme that maybe saved face for this government for the particular time.

But it's sort of wetting the bed, sooner or later you gotta get up and go to the washroom; wetting the bed gives you temporary relief, but sooner or later you gotta do something about it. So I think this government wet the bed last year and some government in the future is going to have to clean up the mess. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, it's encouraging to see that the Member for River Heights Is not making an election promise that he would work to see MPI dissolved if his party was elected into government.

If he was going to do that, obviously he would be stopping the saving of $8 to $10 million per year, not totally, but as was left on the record, the impression left that it was a total saving of $8 million. We're talking about an $8 million to $10 million cost per year over at least a 10-year period. So I'm encouraged that the member is not advocating that any government that he would be a part of would consider dissolving MPI and stopping the saving to the taxpayers of Manitoba. MR. W. STEEN: Mr.

Chairman, I would not go so far as to say that the Conservative Government would do away with the properties incorporation for the simple reason that I don't know if we would ever have the money in order to buy the taxpayers of Manitoba out of the condition that they would be accepting. I will tell him that the other comment I made where the government went after new-found money was the payroll tax. That is a promise. We will be doing away with that.

I will go so far as to put that on the record. lt has been put on the record by so many members of my side of the Chamber that that'll be the first piece of legislation introduced by our goverment. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I have no doubts that the companion bill with that will be a 2 percent increase at least and perhaps more in the sales tax so that the cost-cutt ing government - hypothetical government - that the member is talking about would cut their deficit because they have such an aversion to such things. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(e X1) - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, can the Minister indicate to us why the rental on bUildings that are valued at replacement value Is only about two-thirds of that on buildings which are valued at market value? 2396

Tu .. day, 21 May, 1985 HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, is the member talking about the total value? There are fewer buildings involved obviously so that the total amount of money is less. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I'll take the Archives Building for example - at total value of $1 0.8 million, the annual rent is $979,530.00. You go to the Central Powerhouse which is right next door to it - at a total value of 10-million- and-some is only 603,000, roughly two-thirds of the rental value. What is the reason? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, the difference there is the difference in the capitalization rate that was used and was acceptable to the Securities Commission, Revenue Canada, the consultants, Department of Finance and everyone else who was involved. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(e)( 1) to 2.(e)(3) were each read and passed. 2.(f)( 1) Security and Parking: Salaries - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Pardon me, Mr. Chairman. I misund erstood you. I thought you were on Employee Housing. We have some questions that we would like to ... HON. J. PLOHMAN: We can do that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Who has the question? The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G.

HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, if it's all right I'd like to be able to ask a couple of questions on the area that will be Supply and Services. I'm not going to be able to be here this evening and if I could ask a couple of questions about that. MR. CHAIRMAN: We haven't called it yet, unless we pass it all. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I know you haven't called it yet. That's why I'm asking if I could ask the questions now, if it would be all right. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I'd assume we have the appropriate staff here. We'll do our best to deal with that If the Chairman allows it. MR.

CHAIRMAN: I have to call this item before we ask questions on it. Can I call it now? MRS. G. HAMMOND: Well, I think they want to go back to these items. I just want to deal with a couple of issues here if, I may. MR. CHAIRMAN: If we pass the items quickly, we can go. But if you have some other questions, we'll just put a hold on it and I'll just call this so you can ask questions. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Okay, and then you'll go back to the others. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me call them so we can ask questions on them. Item No. 3(a)

(1) Sup ply and Services, Executive Admini stration: Salaries; 3.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures; 3.(b)

(1) Fleet Vehicles: Salaries; 3. (b)

(2) Other Expenditures; 3.(b)

(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations; 3.( c)

(1) Office Equipment Services: Salaries; 3.(c)

(2) Other Expenditures; 3.(c)

(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations; 3. (d)

(1) Purchasing: Salaries; 3.(d)

(2) Other Expenditur es; 3.( e)

(1) Material Supp ly: Sa laries; 3.(e)

(2) Other Expenditures; 3.(e)

(3) Acquisition - Materials Inventory; 3.(e)

(4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations; 3.(f)( 1) Telecommuni cations: Salaries; 3. (f)

(2) Other Expenditur es; 3.(f)

(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations; 3.( g)

(1) Postal Services: Salaries; 3.(g)

(2) Other Expenditures; 3.(g)

(3) Postage; 3.(g)

(4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations. The Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Chairman, office supply and services. A word processor was put in our office and the Member for River Heights has mentioned a couple of times, the small amount of space that we have in our offices. Along with the word processor goes a printer and for two months, there has been a cover on order and the noise from that printer is just terrible. I would think that probably we could go to the Workplace Safety on this item alone.

In fact, I would invite the Minister to just go in the office and listen to the sound of it. Not only are our secretaries working under very poor conditions as far as office space goes, but this printer just makes a terrible, terrible noise. They are under this pressure all day, 22 members coming and going, plus other people coming into the caucus room and they've got this thing going constantly. I don't see any reason that the cover couldn't be there Immed iately.

I would consider this almost an emergency situation and I would ask the Minister if he would intervene and get the cover there Immed iately. lt really is very poor working conditions for anyone to have to suffer under. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the Deputy Minister advises me that he has been talking with the caucus chairman about the concerns that he might have and the caucus might have with regard to space and the word processing equipment and copiers and so on, any problems that they might raise. He did not raise this particular matter, so that's unfortunate.

We didn't realize that there was a specific problem. Apparently he did not raise that matter with the Deputy Minister. I believe it's on order; there is a backlog, I understand, of those particular Items, backlog on orders, so that's the reason it isn't here. We'll attempt to investigate this and see if we can expedite it so that you do have it. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Well, while I appreciate that the caucus chairman didn't bring it up, it has been on order. The woman who is in charge of our secretarial staff In the office has called about it a few times. it's an emergency situation.

This isn't something that we talk about and discuss with the caucus chairman and it's something that I would think that when the . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: Point of order being raised by the Member for St. Johns. 2397

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 MR. D. MALINOWSKI: Mr. Chairman, I believe that matter was discussed yesterday by the Honourable Member for River Heights, so why do we have to again and again? MRS. G. HAMMOND: On the same point of order, we're talking about an altogether different machine. I would suggest that if the Member for St. Johns was listening, he would be aware of that. MR. D. MALINOWSKI: We're talking about space, so we were discussing it yesterday. MRS. G. HAMMOND: We're talking about the noise. MR. D. MALINOWKSI: Noise. MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order. it's a matter of ... HON. J.

PLOHMAN: We al lowed some leeway yesterday. MRS. G. HAMMOND: I am aware that the Minister isn't about to know about everything like that, but I would think that in future that if they are putting a printer in an office where there is a small space and the whole staff is working in there and they've tried to hide it behind a - what do you call it? - screen or a divider, but that still has not du lled the noise. I would suggest that, when they put these things on order, that when a printer goes into an office, automatically the cover goes with it, because it's too hard to work under those conditions.

When we start coming into the weather where you've got both heat, so you're trying to open windows, and you've got outside noise, you've got inside noise, and as the Member for River Heights was mentioning before, the lack of space is very tight in our office, but it's the printer that Is the cause of the trouble. I would suggest that somebody really get on their horse immediately and have that within the week Into the office, because they've gone under this strain quite long enough, I think. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we'll do our best. I appreciate the concern, and it's the first I have heard about it. MRS.

G. HAMMOND: Now, I'll just go back to somet hing that the Memb er for St. Johns was complaining about, and wonder if the Deputy Minister would approach our Caucus Chairman on the matter of space, rather than leaving it up to the Caucus Chairman to approach now that he's aware of the inconvenience that we're going through in our office, because it really is pretty horrendous. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, the Deputy Minister did approach the Caucus Chairman previously, and he will again. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(e)(1 )-pass. 2.(e)(2) - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, are you now reverting back to 2.(e)? MR.

CHAIRMAN: I assumed that's all that the Member for Kirkfield Park wants, so back to Item No. 2. The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions on emp loyee housing. I would like to ask the Minister if his department is providing the housing that has been announc ed was going to be used in Thompson for the training of employees for the Limestone Project. Is Government Services providing the housing in that particular area? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we are not. MR. H. GRAHAM: Would that then fall under Manitoba Hydro, or where would it come? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I would assume that's where it would be. The department has not been involved In that particular project in terms of the space arrangements there and the housing requirements. I believe the housing requirements were certainly not part of the Government Services responsibilities up to this point, and I don't foresee that they will be. In terms of the space for the training centre, Mr. Chairman, that has not been dealt with through the Department of Government Services. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Minister indicate, probably by department, where employee housing does become a responsibility of his? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: There are a total of 11 8 units. The Department of Education has two; the Department of Government Services has nine; Community Services has three; Health has 15 ; Highways and Transportation, 14; Natural Resources, 74; and there Is one unit for a Crown corporation. I'm not sure which one that is, but that's the total num ber. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour being 4:30 p.m., we are interrupting the proceedings of the committee for the Private Members' Hour. Com mittee mem bers shall return to the committee room at or about 8:00 p.m. SUPPLY - AGRIC ULTURE MR. CHAIRMAN, R Eyler: Comm ittee come to order.

We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture, Item 5., Farm and Ru ral Development Division, (

a) Administration:

(1) Salaries - the Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't help but today start my comments, and it Is dealing with Farm and Rural Development. That is to say that, with no thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, I'm sure there are many small cream shippers in this province and many creameries who are pleased that the decision of the Milk Marketing Board and the pressure that came from the opposit ion in the Legislature to let the feelings be known of elected people who spoke out, who were able to speak out on 2398

Tue• d•y, 28 May, 1815 the behalf of small cream shippers. I say to the Milk Board and to those people respo nsible for the decisions that it was welcome, and will in fact help the enhancement of rural Manitoba and continue to support the putting of daily bread on the tables of many family farms who depend on it. I say thanks to those people who made the decision, but no thanks to the Minister of Agriculture who would take no action on behalf of the small people in their agricultural commun ity. Mr .

Cha irman, in dealin g with Farm and Rural Dev elopment Division, I want to, as well, say that there is a major concern coming forward from many commun ities at the removal of services by the Department of Agriculture. I'll make some specific re ferences, but there Is a dir ect move to diminish services traditionally provided by the department in the farm commun ity.

I will be asking specifically for num bers, but at this particular point it appears that in a general sense of the word there is a reduction of agricultur al repres entation in some of the rural communities; that there is lack or a removal of home economics services to rural Manitoba - (I nterjection) - yes, Mr. Chairman. The Minis ter sits there and, speaking from his seat, is making light of it. I am not making light of it, Mr. Chairman, because I can make specific refe rences. I know the Town of Deloraine has lost their assistant ag rep. I know that the home economists have far too great an area now to cover.

They are now in the position of having to cover great distances. The control of the Home Economist Branch has pretty well drif ted over to the Department of Health and has left the agricultural commu nity. Mr. Chairman, it is these kinds of actions and these kinds of moves made by the Department of Agriculture that give us the reason to be concerned that the Provincial Govern ment's priority is not with rural Manitoba and the provision of services, but is continuing to diminish. Mr.

Chairman, I would ask the Minis ter of Agriculture as to why this Is happening, as to why he is removing support for rural Manitoba by removing staff. Ye s, he makes refe rence from his seat that it was last year that Deloraine lost their assistant ag rep. The fact of the matter Is that they lost their assistant ag rep. Ye s, they lost their ag rep, Mr. Chairman.

Whether it happened last year , whether it happened this year , it's unacceptable to the communi ties that lose agricultural services. it's unacceptable to the farm commun ity. it's unaccepta ble to the homemakers In the farm community that we've lost the support of the home economist that has been traditionally In the farm community and in rural Manitoba. Mr . Chairman, where are the priorities of this government? As well, Mr.

Chairman, I want to put on the record, and it's in the area of provision of communications, and further has been disclosed to me that not only in the hiring of a political person for the assistant director of communications did he not tell totally as it was in this Assembly, in the Chamber, but in fact it was not a unanimous decision by the committee that suppor ted that individual for the hiring in the communications assistant directorate. Not only that, Mr . Chairman, but two very valuable people that were employed by the Depart ment of Commun ications quit over the hiring of that political pers on. Ye s, Mr.

Chairman, there were two people that worked for the Communi cations Branch, very capable people, quit the department over the hiring of that political pers on. Ye s, Mr . Chairman, so there is further evidence coming forward every day that points out that what we had brought forward here in the beginning of the Estimates is actually manoeuvring by the Minister and not supported by the department. So we have lost valuable people because of his actions.

We have now seen that it was not a unanimous decision by the selection committee in the hiring of that individual, so let the Minis ter not say that it wasn't political, because in fact it was. Mr. Chairman, as well, we were told by the Minister we would be able to debate the areas of flood assistance and drought assistance under the Farm and Rural Development Division. Mr. Chairman, I want to firmly place on the record that we had a di sastrous administration as far as this Minister was concerned in dealing with the allocation of drought and flood money.

But let me talk about the flood mo ney, first of all, because this Minister of Agriculture did not take the lead on behalf of the farm community to provide assistance to start with. 1t was the Province of Saskatchewan that provided assistance to the farmers in northe ast Saskatchewan, some $10 an acre, and then went to the Federal Government and said we're putting money on the table. We're giving money to our flooded farmers. What will you do? Ye s, and the Federal Minister said, we will provide support for Saskatchewan, but at the same time, we will provide it for Manitoba.

Ye s, it wasn't this Minis ter of Agriculture in Manitoba that went to the Feds, went to the farmers and said we're going to provide support. The Federal Government came to him and said we're providing money for Saskatchewan. Do you people want it for your farmers in Manitoba? The Minis ter had to say, yes, Mr. Chairman. lt wasn't leadership on behalf of this Mini ster . He was being pushed by the farm community and pushed by the Federal Government to provide a program. Ye s, Mr. Chairman. This man is not a leader In agriculture, Mr. Chairman.

The only thing that ever happens is when he gets pushed into some thing. lt was sugar beets, he was pushed Into getting involved with that. He was pushed into the cream business, and he'll be pushed into the changing of the milk regulations, Mr. Chairman. I want to and we will, Mr. Chairman, elaborate as we get Into the different regions on some of the specific areas. But lt does bother me, Mr.

Chairman, when we're discussing Farm and Rural Dev elopment that we have had very little, If any, leadership from this Minister; that we've seen the removal of traditional services from the farm community in the forms of ag reps and assistant ag reps and home economists. Mr. Chairman, what Is this Min ister of Agriculture doing? He's playing politics with his depart ment, with the Communi cations Branch. He has allowed two very valuable people to quit the service, because of his political manoeuvring. Mr .

Chairman, we have seen the handling of drought money being questioned, and I don't know why he didn't use mu nicipal councils when it came to the allocation of funds. I have had several councillors come to me, very unhappy at the way in which it was handled, 2399

Tuesday, 28 May, 1985 discrimination amongst farmers. Farmers who had feed supplies were getting drought money, and those farmers that were unable to get drought assistance were, in fact, buying from farmers that got assistance. Mr. Chairman, I want some clarification as to whether or not farmers who did not maintain their cow herds to the 1st of April as what they had as of the 1st of August, if they've maintained those numbers or whether they have to pay funds back. I would lik

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-57a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 57a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	091443529bf6f09fd70fe0f65eb143355bd6575b

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