Manitoba Hansard — 4 October 1989 (Sitting 43, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-43

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday , October 4, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCE ED INGS PRESEN TIN G PETITIONS Mr. Harry Harapiak {The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of parents of the children who attend the Halcrow Lake Day Care Centre in the Pas, Barb Henderson, Audrey Prouse, Wayne Ja ckson, and others strongly urging the Government to reconsider increasing the maintenance grants and staff salaries of child care workers in the Province of Manitoba.

As a parent of a preschool child, I would like to take � this opportun ity to express my support for the child , care workers that care for my children while I work. They provide a very valuable service to the community at large and to me and my fam ily directly. The care they provide is of the highest quality. They combine the special traits of sincerity, interest and concern for my child's well-being physical ly, emotionally and intellectually. Without their commitment to quality care I would be unable to leave my child on a daily basis with the assurance I now have that my child is well cared for.

I strongly urge this Government to reconsider their attitudes toward the child care profession by increasing the maintenance grants and staff salaries to justly reflect the worth of their services. Without adequate salaries it will be hard to keep these caring and dedicated individuals within the child care field. Our children are worth the investment in a well-maintained child care system. PRE SEN TI NG REPORTS BY STAND ING AND SPECIAL COM MITT EES Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Economic Development. Mr.

Cle rk (W illiam Remnant): Yo ur Sta nding Committee on Economic Development presents the following as their First Report. Your committee met on Tuesday, October 3, 19 89, at 10 a. m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Reports for Manitoba Mineral Resources Ltd. for the fiscal years ended December 31, 19 87 and 19 88. At this meeting, an alleged matter of contempt was brought to the attention of the committee. Prior to consideration of the Annual Reports, the Honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr.

Taylor) sought the floor to discuss matters pertaining to a meeting of the Standing Committee on Economic Development 1571 held on May 1, 19 89. The Honourable Member for Wolseley stated: "The Government Mem bers on the committee, the Min ister of Fina nce (Mr. Man ness), the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns ), and the Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer, immediately following an adjournment motion, which was defeated, simply rose and left the committee room. Shortly thereafter, the then chairperson of the committee, the Member for Minnedosa (Mr.

Gilleshammer), despite clear advice from the committe e, recessed the committee and left the room. The Minister of Fina nce (Mr. Manness), by walking out of the committee, aware as he was that a motion to adjourn had been defeated, acted to obstruct and impede the committee in the discharge of its duty. The chairp erson, at the time this contempt occurred, did not act to protect the rights of the Members of the committee who remained. The committee was pr operly constituted, called by the Government at the request of the Minister of Finance and proceeding according to the accepted practice.

A motion to adjourn was put and was defeated; in defiance of this the Government walked out. A quorum remained and, despite its clear intention of a desire to discuss the matter, the chairperson walked out. " Following his remarks, the Honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) moved the following motion, which was subsequently passed:

(1) THAT the events which occurred during, subsequent to, and related to the May 1, 19 89, meeting of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be referred to the Sta ndin g Commit tee on Privi leges and Elections; and

(2) THAT this committee strongly urge that the Sta ndin g Com mittee on Privi leges and Elections be instructed to meet within 10 days of the acceptance of this motion and as frequently thereafter as the committee may decide, in order to review the matter and to report to the House as soon as possible. All of which is respectfully submitted. * (13 35) Mr. Speaker: I believe a few words about the process would be helpful to all Honourable Members. An alleged matter of contempt is afforded the same prior ity as a matter of privilege and is considered in the same manner.

In this particular case, the report from the committee takes the place of the more usual raising of the matter in the House by an Honourable

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 Member. No motion that the report be received is required in this case, just as a report respecting gr ave disorder in a Committee of the Whole House does not require a motion that it be received. The Chair will entertain brief and relevant comments by a spokesperson from each of the Parties respecting whether or not the conditions of contempt or privilege have been met before either taking the matter under advisement or ruling on it. The Honourable Member for Wolseley. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, as you yourself have stated, concerns which are being brought to the House today are very serious ones. They involve questions of pri vilege and of contempt for this House. While the circumstances which led to this coming before the House are familiar to you, 1. would like to briefly review the events and outline why we feel this motion is warranted. On the 1s t of May, 19 89, during a meeting of the Standing Committee of Economic Development, the Government Members on the committee: the Member for Morris, the Minister of Fina nce (Mr.

Manness); the Member for .Arthur, the Minister of Northern Affairs, and Nativ e Affairs (Mr . Downe y); the Mem ber for Lakeside, the new Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enn s); the Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), immediately following an adjournment motion, which was proposed by the Minister of Fina nce and which was defeated, simply rose arid left the committee room. In so doing, Mr. Speaker, I believe they acted in contempt of the committee and this House. Very shortly the reafter , the chair pe rson of the committee, · the Me mber for Minn ed osa (Mr .

Gilleshammer), despite clear advice from the committee, of which a quorum was still present, recessed the committee and left the room. Wh ile it is common practice for a chairperson to recess a committee to receive advice, it is extremely unusual for such a recess to continue beyond a few minutes· without seeking additional advice from the committee, or taking· the matter under. advisement and continue the meeting itself. In acting in the manner th at he did, the chairperson aided and abetted those Members who I have already indicated acted in contempt of the committee.

Mr, Speaker, this has raised serious questions about his ability to act as an impar tial Chair of a committee. On the first opportunity, the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) raised this matter to your attention as a matter of privilege. In doing so, he stated that normally an al leg ed breach of pr ivi lege , which occurs in committee, would come to the floor of the. House in the form of a report from the chairperson of the committee.

However, as the ch air p erson of this committee is himself the subject of the allegations of contempt of the committee, I feel that I must appeal to you, Sir, in your capacity as Speaker of this Assembly, to ask that you ensure that my rights as a Member are protected and that the Rules of the House are upheld. At tttat time, Mr. Speaker, you referred it back to the committee and stated, and I quote: ". . . there is no doubt that the charges which have been brought before the House are very serious ories.

" Then you went on to state that this issue would have to be brought to the attention of this House by a report considered and agreed upon by the Sta nding Committe e on Economic Development and presented to the House. Mr. Speaker, you went on to say, "The Standing Committee is now able to meet and could be called, at which time it could consider the matter ... . " 'i:ou concluded by saying, quote: "This does not preclude the matter from being raised in another manner.

" You made that ruling on Frid ay, June 2 of this year. * . (13 40) We have tried repeatedly since that time to have a meeting of that comm ittee in order to deal with this very serious matter. The Govern ment has frustrated all of our attempts to have the matter raised and delayed the calling of the committee until this past Tuesday, yesterday, at which time the meeting was held and the motion now before us was considered and passed. Mr. Speaker, simply stated, the questions before us are thr ee.

Did the Gove rn ment Mem bers of the committee act in contempt of the committee by instruc ting or impeding the committee in the performance of its functions; did the chairperson of the committee breach the privilege of the Members of the committee by also absenting himself from the meeting; and three, is the chairperson in contempt of the committee when he left the committee despite a clear indication by a quorum present that they wished to continue? Mr.

Speaker, you are charged with the duty of determining whether or not a prima facie case of privilege exists in order that debate on a motion which must accompany such a matter by giving precedence. According to the Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms 6th Edition, Citation No. 11 7. (1) in doing so you must: "be satisfied, both that privilege appears to be suff iciently involv ed to justif y giving such precedence; and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.

" On the question of time limits, I believe that in keeping with the practice of the House, I am well within the definition of "earliest opportunity. " The salient question then is: is privilege sufficiently involved'? Considering this question I would ask that you review the definition of privilege as set out in (

a) the appendi ces of our own rule book which state that insults and obstructions during· debate are breaches of the privilege of the House; (

b) Beauchesne's 6th Edition Citation first 24., "Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the p,eculiar rights enjoyed by .each House collectively . . . and by Members of each House individually, without which they .could not discharge their functions'' and 26. (2) "A ques tion of privilege, ... is a question partly of fact aod partly of law-t he law of contempt of Parliament . . . . " Mr: Speaker, while contempt is admittedly difficult to define, 1. believe. that the general definition provided on page 196 of Mr. Jo sep h Maingo t' s book on 1572

Wednesday , October 4, 1989 parliamen tary privilege in Canada is widely accepted. Mr. Maingot defines contempt general ly as: "any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his parliamentary duty. " Mr. Speaker, the committee was properly constituted, called by the Government at the request of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and proceeding according to accepted pr actice. A motion to adjourn was put and was defeated.

In defiance of this, the Government walked out. A quorum remained, and despite their clear indicat ion of a desire to discuss the matter , the chairperson walked out. That is why this matter is before the House at this time. We cannot let these actions on the part of the Govern ment, and of the Chair, remain as a precedence. That is why this motion is before us. The House must deal with the issue and the proper forum, I believe, is a Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. We � must review the incident, hear all sides and decide , upon how such disputes will be resolved in the future. Mr.

Speaker, I urge you, and all Members of my caucus urge you, to allow this debate to proceed. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): I believe it is quite clear that this matter has been dealt with in the most appropria te manner. Beauchesne's Citation 10 7. indicates clearly that breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the House itself on report of the committee. I believe that what is taking place today really is the first opportunity that we have had to deal with this in the appropria te fashion. The Member for Wolseley (Mr.

Taylor) has outlined the circumstances that took place and I think really the important thi ng to emp has ize is tha t the circumstances were unprecedented, and I think if they are allowed to stand as a precedent, are a dangerous pr ecede nt, not just for this Legislature but for Legislatures in the parliamen tary system anywhere, because what we saw was not only contempt by the � Minis ter and a number of other Members of the J committee walking out to try and frustrate the business of that committee, but when the chairperson of the committee as well walked out, leaving a quorum of the committee, which intended to continue to do business, in a position of being paralyzed, being unable to perform its duties.

That is something that I have never seen in the eight years I have been here, and it is something that I have not been able to find in any other Legislature or Parliament. lt is quite unpr ecedented, Mr. Speaker. * (1 345) I think some of the points have bE:en raised about the definition of privi lege, the definition of contempt. Wha t I want to do is just cite perhaps the foremost principles of parliamentary law, and just cite a few of them to show why this matter is of such serious concern.

I am referring to Beauchesne Citation 1, in particular a number of the citations in No. 1 which refer to the need to secure the tran saction of public business in an orderly manner, to enable every Member to express opinions within limits necessary to preserve decorum 1573 and prevent an unnecessary waste of time, to give abundant opportunity for the consideration of every measure; and it continues, Mr. Speaker. I think what occurred that night frustrated each and every Member of the committee in each and every one of those citations I have mentioned.

How can you maintain quorum when Members of the committee, including the Minister and the Chairpers on, walk out of a committee leaving it paralyzed? How can you consider a matter when the committee no longer has a functioning Chair, and because of that fact is unable to elect a new Chair, as we later found out? In fact, Members of the Opposition went so far as to call a meeting of the committee, with the quorum of the Members of the committee. The problem, Mr. Sp eak er, once again was whether it was a duly constituted meeting of the committee or whether it was just a meeting of committee Members.

I think one can see how bad this precedent is. I really feel that what happened that night may have been something that was spontaneous. I think it was irresponsible on behalf of the Members of Govern ment, but I do not believe that they thought through the consequences that took place. That is why we need to deal with this as a matter of privilege. lt is a very serious matter. That is why we need to send it to committee.

We need to do that to ensure that this action that took place in that committee that evening is not a precedent either in this House or any other House, because if that does happ en, as I said, the fundamental principles of parliamen tary law will be violated. I think each and every Member of this Legislature, in dealing with matters as serious as this, should ask themselves what the public of Manitoba, who perhaps do not really have much interest in the Rules of this House, would say about what happened. I think it is quite clear, Mr.

Speaker, that the members of the public of Manitoba would be amazed to learn that Members of the Govern ment and the Chair of the committee walked out because they did not like the fact that they just introduced a motion to adjourn, and it was defeated. I think that would be something that members of the public in Manitoba would consider to be absolutely irresponsible. That really is what we are dealing with in this case, our Rules, but our Rules in many cases are based on common sense.

Common sense has been developed over hundreds of years of parliamentary trad ition, but common sense that is supported by many people in this province. That is why I believe that according to our Rules and according to common sense, what happened that night was irresponsible, unacceptable, should not be allowed to be a precedent in this House, and needs to be referred to the committee so that it is dealt with, and dealt with as soon as possible. Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I submit that what we have before us today in this Cham ber is a combin ed majority Opposition which has no control over itself. We have an Opposition tha t has lost sight of any real istic objectives for the people of Ma nitoba , and an Opposition which has clearly no agenda for this Legislature.

Wedn esday, October 4, 1989 Above all, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that there is no question of privilege before this Assembly. The report by the Standing Committee on Economic Development does not state that a question of privi lege was raised by the Honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor). The report indicates that a certain motion was moved by the Honourable Member regard ing an incident which took place in a past meeting of that committee. Nowhere in the report do you find that the Chairman of the committee ruled that there was or was not a question of privilege before the committee.

In that regard , Citation 821 of Beauchesne says that all ruli ngs of the Chairman may be appealed to the committee. *

(1350) What is before the House, in my opinion, is a report from a committee which expresses a concern about a particular deiiberation and offers to the House an opinion that there might have been a deviation from the normal procedures of the House. The report does not indicate what occurred, or did not occur, on May 1. The report does not inform the House as to which Member action should be taken against, Mr. Speaker. Further, the report does not outline what breach of the Rules has taken place.

I therefore submit that the report presented to the Assembly is an opinion which is not in the mandate of the Standing Committee on Economic Development. The committee was called together to consider the Ann ual Reports of the Manitoba Mineral Resources Corpor ation for the fiscal years 1987 and 1988. That was, until they finis h their deli berat ions on those matters, stilt their mandate. Nowhere in their mandate did this House give that committee the power to bring forth an opinion regard ing their proceedings held some time ago, or in a previous Session, or relating to another Annual Report, that of Manfor.

In ·support of my argument, I draw your attention to a ruling brought down by Mr. Speaker Murray on June 21, 1883, found on pages 65 and 66 of the Jou rnals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, where he states in part , a committee has no power to report an opinion without permission from the House. Mr. Speaker, I make th.is point only because the Honourable Member for vitolseley (Mr. Taylor) did not raise this matter as a question of privilege during the deliberations of the committee on Tuesday. Prior to the summer adjournment you ruled, Sir, on a matter raised by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert (Mr.

Angus) regarding the events of the same standing committee on May I, again dealing with Manfor. In that ruling you stated, " ... it is my opinion tha t to be han dled in accordance with lon g-es tabl ished practices and procedures, this issue would have to be brought to the attention of the House by a report considered and ag reed upon by the Sta nding Committee on Economic Development and presented to the House. " You further stated, "The standing committee is now. able to meet and could be called, at which time it could consider the matter raised by the Honourable Member. for St.

Nor bert and could decide whether or not to report the matter to the House. " Mr. Speaker, your very sound ruling indicated to Honourable Members Opposite the procedure which should be followed if they felt that their privileges had been violated. I want to submit that the failure of the Honourable Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) to rise on a question of privilege in the standing committee negates the ability of the committee to bring this matter to the floor of the House under the guise of a question of privi lege.

In my submission to you on May 19, I qrew the attention of the House to Beauchesne's Citation 822, which states, "Procedural difficulties which arise in committees ought to be settled in the committee and not in the House. " I suggest that the report of the committee tabled in the House today is an attempt to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. The body of the committee's report recommends that the uns pecified matters of alleged breaches in procedure be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of this House.

This, Sir, is in violation of Beauchesne's Citation 824, which states, "As the committee has no power to censor nor to refer matters to other committees, a motion to report alleged improper conduct should state that the matter be referred to the House for its action. " I will not argue tha t the Honour able Mem ber for Wolsele y has attempted to use the pro visions of Beauchesn e's Citation 823, which allows a committee to report a wide Vii riety of disord erly matters , but the Honou rable Member has failed through his motion in the committee to leave the matter in the hands of the House.

Instead he has asked for another committee to look into this matter , which as I stated earli er, Mr. Sp eaker , is procedurally incorrect. I draw your attention to the ruling made in the House of Commons of Canada by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on December 4, 1973, when he stated on pages 83 and 84 of the House of Commons Debate that there were doubts as to the advisability of having proceedings of one committee investigated by another committee of the House. Indeed, Mr.

Speaker Jerome on May 26, 1975, ruled on pages 609, 7 and 8 of the House of Commons Debate that the Committee on Privileges and Elections should not be allowed to become a court of appeal for the pr oceedings in other sta ndin g committees. These precedents are a clear indication, Mr. Speaker, that matters of alleged breaches of order and privi lege once raised in a committee should be dealt with by that committee or submitted by way of report with specific allegations to the House.

This, Sir, has not been done in this instance. * (13 55) I therefore suggest that the report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development ·presented to the House today does not contain in. it sufficient grounds for a question of privilege and that consideration of this report under the guise of a question of privi lege should not be given precedence over other business in this House, other important business. Mr. Speaker: I would lik e to thank all Honourable Members for their advice. As I have stated previously, 1574

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 this is indeed a very serious matter. I will be reviewing Hansard on this because there has been some very detailed information brought forward. So I will be taking this matter under advisement and will report back to the House at a later date. INT RODU CTION OF BILLS BILL NO. 49-THE DOWER AMEN DMEN T ACT Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 49, The Dower Amend ment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le douaire. BILL NO. 50-THE WILLS AME NDMEN T ACT Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 50, The Wills Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les testaments. * (14 00) BILL NO. 54-THE HIGHWAY TR AFFIC AMEN DMEN T ACT

(5) Hon. Albert Driedger (Mi nister of Hig hways and Transportation) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 54, The Hig hway Traffic Amendment Act (5); Loi no 5 modifiant le Code de la route. BILL NO. 53-THE ENERGY RATE STABILIZATION AMEN DMEN T ACT Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney Gener al) introduced, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), by leave, Bill No. 53, The Energy Rate Stabilization Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la stabilisation des emprunts d'Hydro-Manitoba a l'e trange r. (R ecommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor) Mr. Speaker, at this time as well, table the message from His Honour. SPEA KER 'S RULIN G Mr. Speaker: Prior to oral questions, I have a ruling for the House. On Tuesday, September 26, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). In raising his point of order, the Honourable Member questioned whether it was in order for Ministers to rise at a subsequent day when they did not take a question as notice.

I have carefully examined the First Minister's (Mr. Filmon ), response respect ing ru ral economic dev elopment infrast ructure costs as re corded in Hansard for September 22 and 26. I note that the First Minister did not indicate on the 22nd any intention to take the question or any part of it under advisement. In responding on the 26th, he did refer to the question 1575 asked on the 22nd by the Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), suggesting in my opinion that he was responding to a question taken as notice.

The authorities contain many references relating to brevity, relevance and the avoidance of repetition of questions during Question Period. As stated by the Speaker of the House of Commons, "Time is scarce and therefore should be used as profitably as possible by as many as possible. " I am therefore ruling that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) was out of order by responding further at a subsequent sitting to a question which had previously been asked apparently in fulL Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, certainly at all times I endeavour to be as open and as forthright and as complete in bringing information to the House, but I respect your ruling and will certainly attempt to follow it in future. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honourable First Minister. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD VIA Rail Cutbacks Government Position Mrs. Shar on Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, when we raised the issue of VIA Rail cuts one week ago, the Minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated that they did not particularly want to respond to rumours. Today we know that they are no longer rumours.

We have heard that the cuts will be dealt with in spades by the federal Government and that we have in essence cut in half the national dream of Canada. The result in Manitoba will be three trains through Winnip eg per week, a drop from 14, 224 Manitobans to lose their jobs, some 37 percent of the VIA employees and some 16 percent of all rail employees.

We know that 8.2 percent of all cuts for Canada will take place in this province, and I want to know what the Minister is going to do today in terms of policy announcements, in terms of efforts that he is going to make for the retention that differ from his answers of one week ago. Hon. Albert Driedger (Mi nister of Highw ays and Tra nsp ortat ion): Mr. Sp eaker , based on the announcement made by the federal Minister, today is not a happy day for Manitobans or Canadians. I have to indicate that I am disappointed in the decision that has come forward from the federal Minister.

As the Leader of the Opposition indicated, 224 people will be losing their jobs in Manitoba and we do not know to what extent the economic impact on other jobs that we have lost in the support sectors. Mr. Speaker, the Member asked what our position has been at this stage of the ga me. lt has not changed from the day that we started writing and lobbying on behalf of the people of Man itoba. Wha t has happened after the ruling that came down today, Mr. Speaker, I have again written to the federal Minister indicating our concern, the fact that at the

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 time of the annou ncements being made, a royal commis sion is being establis hed to look at the transpor tation sector for Canada as a whole. The fact that this is done at a time-i t is almo st like viewing the corpse-the decision has been made. I have written to the fed era l Min ister ind icating to him tha t a morat orium be put on the implementation of the decision made until this royal commission will be coming back and making a report.

Further to that, I tlave also indicated to the federal Minister that an emergency meeting should be called of all the Ministers of Transpo rtation to consult and see whether we can arrive at some kind of a moratorium. I would like to table the letter that I have sent to the federal Minister at this time, Mr. Speaker. Cutbacks Prevention Campaign Mrs. Shar on Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition ): Mr. Speaker, words, words, words, Manitobans are sick of words. When we get the words, we get a word like "disappointe d.

" Well, Manitobans are horrified, they are furious, and they want the Minister to be furious, and they want the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) to be furious, and they want us to launch a national campaign. Will this Minister launch a national campaign today to involve not only Ministers across this nation, but the peoples across this nation, to prevent this abuse of our nation? Hon. Albert Driedger (Mi nister of Hig hways and Transportatio n): Mr. Speaker, I have indicated time and time again our concern.

The fact that we lobbied extensively for the retention of the northern routes for Manitoba I think is indicative that we made our point at that stage of the game. We are continuing to try and use that appr oach, together with my colleagues. I have also sent copies of the letter that is sent to the federal Minister to all the provincial Ministers, and hope to get a response. We are trying to see whether we can build up momentum and, Mr.

Speaker, I repeat, I have asked for an emergency meeting with the federal Minister, together with my provincial colleagues across the country, to see whether we can ask the federal Minister to get him to put a moratorium on the decision that was announced today until the royal commission will be reporting. VI A Rail Cutbacks Impact Study Mrs. Shar on Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since the federal budget was announced in April of 19 89, this province has lost 1,8 65 jobs, federal jobs, in this province. Wha t does it take to make this Government angr y with their federal cousins?

Can the Minister tell us today what impact studies and what analysis of impact studies has he got for us today so that he can build a case with the federal Government, so that he can lay before them not only the impact of these cuts, but the impact of job losses of 1, 865 people? * (141 0) Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and li'ansportation ): Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult for us to ana lyze what the impact of toda y's announcement would be because the announcement just came down a few hours ago. But, Mr. Speaker, because we did not- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Honourable Minister. Mr. Albert Drie dger: Un til we had the defi nitive information of the announcement, we could not really assess the economic impact. Mr. Speaker, we have instructed my staff to look at the impact of the layoffs, economic impact, and we have stressed that in the letter that I have sent to the federal Minister ttlat he should consider, for example, the various aspects, the loss of employment, the retraining, relocation and costly severance packages, as well as losses to be incurred in tourism and CN and CP earnings. Mr.

Speaker, we have stressed to the federal Minister the impact, whet her all these things have been considered in making that decision. We will try and assess that from our point of view. Mrs.Carstairs: lt is quite obvious that Benoit Bouchard does not care about the impact on this particular province and unless this Minister makes the case it is not going to have any effect. Will the Minister tell us when, if ever, he is going to have some definitive information, since this thing has been leaked for months and months and months. Mr.

Albert Driedger: I think it would be irresponsible for me to start taking and doing an assessment before we have a decision. Based on rumours, I would have my department working 24 hours a day to try and assess these things. Mr. Speaker, we had to wait until we knew what the announcement was. We did not get it any sooner than anybody else. We are doing th at assessment at the present time and have indicated the impacts to the federal Minister.

All these things we are considering in terms of making this decision because it is my view that there will be a net loss out of this thing, not the billion dollars that the federal Government is hoping to save on subsidies to VIA Rail. Mrs. Carstairs: We had an announcement today of $1 billion worth of cuts. If you would just take our 8.2 percent, tha t amounts to $80 million in the Province of Manitoba. Wha t other figures can this Minister give us today as to the impact here in this province? Mr. Albert Driedger: I have been trying to indicate that we are working on those figures.

We got the information a few hours ago. We did not know how many jobs would be affected. We know now how many jobs will be affected. We are also trying to establish from the service industry exactly how much business will be lost to Manitoba when we service VIA Rail as it goes through here by the cutting back of twice-a- 1576

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 day service to three times a week. There are many of these things that we now know. We are working on trying to establish what the economic impact would be on jobs and on the economy in Manitoba. Mrs. Carstairs: lt is ir responsible. This Minister and this Government has known that these cuts were coming. Surely the minimum they could have done was to establish computer models which then could have been fitted with the correct numbers this morning and the numbers would have been out by this afternoon. Why was that advance planning not done in his ministry?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Transporta tion. Mr. Albert Driedger: Mr. Speaker, we realize full well that there is an economic impact on jobs and on Man itoba genera lly. Whether it is going to be a million or $2 million, regard less what the figures are, we have raised our concerns and do not agree with the decision and the position that the federal Government has taken.

We are doing, jointly in consultation with my Premier, as well as my colleagues, we are moving and raising our concerns with the federal Government in the best way we know how as the other provinces are doing, and I am ask ing again for the support of the other provinces, my colleagues, to raise this case with the federal Govern ment. Maintenance Centre Mrs. Sha ron Car stairs (Leader of the Opposition ): Mr. Speaker, regardless of what the figures are-1 mean, $1 million, $ 10 million, $50 million, $250 million-is this supposed to be a Government that prides itself on management?

My final question to the Minister responsible for Transporta tion is this: can he tell the House today if he has any knowledge of the impact on the maintenance centre, which was to be built in this province as a result of the cuts? Hon. Alb ert Driedger (Minister for Highways and Transportation ): Mr. Speaker, not at the present time. VIA Rail Cutbacks Premier's Intervention Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in terms of our national public railway system, I think the national dream over the last 15 years has become a national disgr ace.

First of all, we established a public railway system and the obligations that the CPR had, and the billions of dollars worth of land that they were given by the taxpayers of this country in exchange for a public transportation system, were given away 1 5 years ago when VIA Rail was created. We saw the 25 percent cut by Trudeau's Government in VIA Rail and today ag ain we see other nails in the coffin of our national dreams. 1577 My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Rather than leaving this issue with his Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Albert Driedger) and dealing with the federal Minister of Transportat ion, who has shown absolutely no vision of this country and

part icularly in its regions, would the First Minister please call upon the Prime Minister to have an emergency meeting of all First Ministers in this country to talk about our national dream rather than leaving it with the Transport Ministers who cannot get very far with the federal Minister of Transport. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, I regret that the Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Mandrake) finds this funny, but I can tell you that this is a serious issue.

We have grave concerns about the long-term effects of cuts in VIA Rail on all of the reg ional areas of our country. lt is a major impact on every region. This is not a particular measure that impacts only on Winnip eg or only on Manitoba. The Leader of the Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) I think quoted 38 percent losses in Manitoba. The news release indicates 46 percent losses in Montreal. Mr. Speaker, this is a major impact right across the country.

I believe that if it is going to be adequately and properly fought, this decision ought to be pursued by all Governments right across the country, every single province. That is why I raised it at the First Ministers' Meeting in Quebec City. That is why our Minister of Transporta tion (Mr. Albert Driedger) has been dealing with it and raising it with Transportation Ministers. That is why our Minister of Tourism (Mr.

Ernst) has raised it at a Tourism Ministers' meeting. lt is going to require all provincial Governments to indicate that we are concerned about the offloading on our road system, the extra costs that we, as a Province, will have to absorb. The impacts on tourism, one of our more buoyant industries in terms of growth, will be adversely affected by this. Mr. Speaker, we are not happy with it. We will raise it at every possi ble oppo rtu nity with our fed er al Government, because we believe that they ought to review and rescind this decision. That is why the Minister of Transportation (Mr.

Albert Driedger) has called for a moratorium on these cuts. First Ministers' Meeting Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I wish the Premier (Mr. Filmon) today would call the Prime Minister who was not at the Quebec City meeting and demand a First Ministers' meeting with the Prime Minister of this country who is the one who is executing VIA Rail and a national public transp ortation system in this country. We did not get anywhere with the meeting that the Transportation Ministers have held. We did not get anywhere with the First Ministers' Meeting. Why would the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) not call upon the Prime Minister to have an emergency First Ministers' meeting? Mr. Speaker, why would the First Minister not be aware that the cutbacks in Manitoba when you go from 40 trains a week in Winnipeg down to 12 is a 70 percent

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 cut in passenger transp ortation? When you cut through the public relation news rel eases of the federal Government, it is a 70 percent cut in Manitoba, and that should warrant a call to the Prime Minister today for a First Ministers' meeting. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we will put in the strongest possible terms our concerns before the federal Government.

We will do it through all avenues av ailable to us, through the Transportation Ministers, through the Tourism Ministers, through the First Ministers of this country, the fact that we believe that this is a decision that has not given consideration to the regional concerns and interests right across this country, that we are concerned about the offloading of other costs onto our province, as well as, of course, the very serious job loss. lt is the people and the jobs that we are concerned about, Mr.

Speaker, and we will make those concerns known in the stronge st possible terms. * (14 20) Premier's Intervention Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, there are thousands of jobs being lost in this country. Th ere are tho usands of rights of passengers being lost in this country. We have tried to stop this cutback, this proposed cutback, for the last six months, using all the press releases, letters, leaks, Ministers' conferences, First Ministers' conferences.

In light of the fact that nobody is speaking out for a national vision that includes a western Canadian vision, no one is speaking out for it, why would the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) not call upon his federal counterpart and talk about the 250 businesses that do business with VIA Rail in Manitoba and the· impact of the tourism industry with the cutback in the Rocky Mountain route coming to Winnip eg, and the devastating effect this will have on our western and Man itoba economy?

Why would the First Minister of this province not call upon the Pr ime Min ister to talk about the effects on businesses, on passengers, and the quality of life of western Canada and Manitoba? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, that was a rather lengthy

preamble for a third question, but I will just simply say that indeed I have raised those points, that the First Ministers, in a communique, indicated those concerns to the Prime Minister, and that is precisely what the Tourism Ministers and the Transporta tion Ministers have been laying before their federal counterparts. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), again I cannot understand why he will not call upon the Prime Minister for an emergency meeting of First Ministers.

Surely this is a national issue; surely this is an emergency issue; surely this is an issue of national vision; surely this is an issue that the .Fir st Ministers and the Prime Minister should take direct responsibility. Northern Route Protection Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question to the First Minister is: would he get longer than a one-year guarantee for the route to Churchill the same person that has devastated western Canada, as the Transpor t Minister, in terms of the routes in western Canada has said that the Churchill route has a one-year period under which they will evaluate it using the same criteria as they cut the other routes. Would the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) also use the route to Churchill as another reason to call for an emergency meeting of First Ministers with the Prime Minister in this country? Hon. Gary .

Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as we indicated before, the Minister of Transporta tion (Mr. Albert Driedger) has made his case on behalf of Churchill, and that case has obviously been accepted by Mr. Bouchard as having merit. We will continue to work with the federal Minister, to work on him to ensur e that he knows that the rail line to Churchill is absolutely essential to the people of Manitoba, to the Province of Manitoba, and we will do everything we can to protect the continued use and the continued service on tha t line. Winnipeg Water Protection Group Funding Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, the Water Protection Group has proven to be a strong and competent advocate in defending the interests of residents of the City of Winnipeg and was instrumental in convincing the Government of Ontario of the need for a full environme ntal review on the impact of the Consolidated Professor Mine in the middle of Shoal Lake. Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnip eg has given the Water Protection Group $1 0,000 and up to a further $90,000 upon dollar matching from this provincial Government. The question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment (Mr.

Cummings), is the Minister of Environment prepared to recommend to Treasury Board the provision of such a grant to the Water Protection Group and, if not, why not? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question several times, several different ways in this House, all with the same conclusion, that we believe the people of this province and the people of Winn ipeg are not asking to have the same work done three different ways.

We have a competent Depar tment of Environment with a competent group of officials who have an expertise in water quality and the other impacts that go with environmental assessment. We will be doing that work, and we will not be funding a third party. Canadian Wildlife Federation Rafferty-Aiameda Dam Project Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, well, it is interesting to note in a communique this morning that the Canadian Wildlife Federation is taking back to court 1578

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 Mr. Lucien Bouchard , the federal Environment Minister. The question to this Environment Minister is: will this Government be a party? Will they be a co-intervener? According to their policy on Rafferty-Aiameda, I am asking for a full environmental impact assessment. Will they be going back to the federal court with the Canadian Wildlife Federat ion? Hon. Glen Cummi ngs (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, we were not a co-intervener previously. We asked for a full environmental impact study.

When the licence was issued, we were faced with the reality of the impacts of changing of flows, and how that could be managed within the Souris River Basin. In the licence, we received the assurance tha t we will ha ve an opportunity to partake in the setting of the water regime that flows through that Souris River Basin. That is the impact that will ultimately come to the Province of Manitoba. That is where we will be able to protect the quantity and the quality of the water that we need in this province. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, this Government and this province gets no protection under that licence.

This Minister grands tanded in Melita in Ju ne. Wha t are they doing to protect Manitoba's interests? Nothing, you are just rolling over and dying. Let us hear your answers, Glen. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Member for Wolseley (Mr. Taylor) does not understand his question. He do es not understand the reality of how the water regimes will be regulated and the expectation that we will have an input into that, and we have never eliminated our right to resume -(interjection)- If you are so smart in asking the question, maybe you would like to hear the answer. Mr.

Speaker, we have never waived our responsibility to make sure that we get the requirements that we have asked for in this water basin, and we will continue to make sure tha t we have tho se options kept open to us. Public Utilities Board Jurisdiction - Manitoba Hydro Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, the Court of Appeal yesterday handed down a decision that, amongst other things, pointed out ill-conceived and poorly-drafted legislation and is seemingly bad news for consumers.

The very board that was established to protect the interest of consumers has been told that it has no say over increases passed on to consu mers to help pay for mega projects and , unfortunately, the mega project can be initiated by the Govern ment, conceived, and built before the impact is found out by the Public Utilities Board. lt is clear, Mr. Speaker, that major capital expenditures and investments can result in sign ificant increases to consumers.

My question is: how does the Minister plan to protect the interests of consumers now that the Court of Appeal has ruled that the Public Utilities Board has no jurisdiction over the mega pr ojects? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Mini ster of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board has the final authority on the rates that are going to be set by Manitoba Hydro. The Public Utilities Board will be the one that will rule on the rates that are going to be set. So they have the very final authority, and they will be pr otecting the consumers of Manitoba. Crown Corporation Public Review Act Amendments Mr.

John Angus (St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board can only deal with the investments after the fact, and I would hope that-wel l, let me ask specifical ly. Wi ll the Min ister supp ort leg islation committing tha t any major capital constr uct ion pr ograms unde rtaken by Manitoba Hyd ro will be subm itted for cost-benefit justifications, plans, estimates, and schedules for development to the Public Utilities Board for its examination and for review, and that the Public Utilities Board shall report its findin gs, comments, and recommendations to the Min ister responsible for Hydro (Mr.

Neufeld) and through to the Legislature? * (14 30) Hon. Har old Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Angus) will see the folly in his suggestion. Supposing that Manitoba Hydro has a large sale which requires the construction of another generating station, it must then go to the Public Utilities Board and have the hearings which might take a year.

How can Manitoba Hydro negotiate a large hydro sale if they are going to have to go and have approval from the Public Utilities Board before they can start the construction of the genera ting station that will in the end supply the power for that sale. Manitoba Hydro Project Information Release Mr. John Angus (St. Norbert): Mr.

Speaker, is this Minister condoning the hiding of information and not allowing -(interjection)- the question is this: is this Minister not prepared to share with the public of Manitoba the details, the cost benefit projections of a mega project as a commitment that was made by the Chairman of Hydro to the Public Utilities Board? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, in the end the Government takes the responsibility for its decisions. If those decisions are to build another genera ting station, it will take the responsibility for it; but I think you can see, Mr.

Speaker, that we cannot allow a one- or two-year delay in the construction of a project that is going to be required for the genera tion, not only perhaps of a hydro sale, but for the use of Manitoba consumers. We cannot wait a year sometimes, or two years, for the Public Utilities Board to reach a decision on the need for a station when Hydro officials have already indicated that a new station will have to be built. We must build a station at the time that it is required and not after the people of Manitoba, or the Public Utilities Board , has finished its deliberations. 1579

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 Churchill River Dam Environmental Impact Study Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speake r, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. This Minister continues to profess to have a great concern for the environment, and yesterday during Question Period he said specifically we have been aware of the situation, referring to the building of the dam at Island Falls, and we have not received information that we are able to deal with and what some of the impacts may be, but that does not mean we are not concerned . Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Minister is: given the indication from the Minister of atural Resources (Mr. Enns) that the province would join, or use the courts to prevent the deterioration of water quality in Manitoba and deterioration of water quality to communities in northern Manitoba, will the Minister today indicate whether he is prepared to act with the community to do the necessary environmental impact assessments, to stop the project until they have be~n done to assure the quality of water to communities on the Churchill River? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, that is what I was referring to yesterday when I said that we would provide technical backup and information. The impact of the water on the Brochet and Pukatawagan areas , as I understand the situation, is directly related to the operation of the power plant , and the present situation needs a great deal of study in order to obtain an agreement on the operation of that plant. Mr. Speaker, unless the Member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Storie) wants to let on that he suddenly has a new found interest in this issue , I would refer him to a letter back in 1987 that was written to the previous administration asking what was going on with the Manitoba Water Commission hearings and where they were headed. Back in 1987 nothin g was happening . Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Speaker - Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! PCB Spill Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Member for Flin Flon . Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): My second question is to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Cummings) is.

The Water Commission was asked to investigate this matter , as the Minister has indicated, unfortunately the Saskatchewan Government nor Saskatchewan Power would come to the table. They have an incentive now because they are building a project worth $200 million and the Minister has an opportunity to protect them.

My ques tion to the Minister is: if he is concerned about the environment , could he tell this House whether he was informed at any stage, whether by Saskatchewan Power or the Saskatchewan Government , as rep orted in the April 22 issue of the Regina Leader-Post, that there was a 250-gallon spill of PCB-laden oil at the site in ques tion , can he indicate whether anyone in his department was informed, whether anyone in the communi ties of Pukatawagan , whose water is taken directly from the Churchill River, was informed? Can he tell the community that he will now stand up and protect their quality of water?

We were interested, we would have stopped it too. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I will take the information that he is giving as notice and reference it to the department to see if we were contacted, but I would also want to know at that time if the spill was contained and what the risks were that were involved . Mr. Storie: The Mayor of the community , downstream in a flight, saw the oil spill in the river, landed and shut off the drinking water access to his own community . So I can tell you that it was not contained. Environmental Impact Study Mr.

Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): My question is: we have seen this Minister back away from his obligation in Rafferty-Alameda and now in this situation , will he please commit to joining with the community of Pukatawagan in undertaking the necessary environmen tal studies to protect the environment in that region, and will he act to stop the Saskatchewan project until such time as those assessments have been undertaken? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker , I gave commitment yesterday, and I reiterate today , that I would be working to make sure that the technical information was available.

Also , I think it needs to be made abundantly clear that neither I nor the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) or this Government is waiving any opportunity that we would have to work on behalf of these communities. When the Member for Flin Flon wants to stand up and grandstand, he needs to remember that he neglected those communities when he was in Government . ***** Mr. Speaker : The Honou rab le Member for Flin Flon, on a point of order. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr.

Speaker, the Member has certainly cast aspersions on my fulfilling my responsibility as an MLA , suggesting that somehow I had not acted as an individual MLA to protect the interests of my constituents. I was the Member for the first time in history who ordered, and my colleague for Churchill (Mr. Cowan) will join me in this, in getting the water commission into those communities- 1580 Mr. Speaker: Order , please; order , please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. The Hono urable Member for Selkirk . Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Thank you, Mr. Speaker -(interjec tion)-

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 An Honourable Member: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order . Mr. Speaker: have ruled that there is no point of order. Community Investment Fund Volunteer Board Anouncement Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): My question is to the Premier . The Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs . Mitchelson) seems only to excel in her ability to mismanage her department . On May 16 a new Community Investment Fund was announced which was to be administered by a volunteer board to fund social and community projects and special events .

Can the Premier once again cover for his Minister and explain to this House why no such volunteer board has , as yet, been announced? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I certainly do not need to cover for my Minister of Culture , Heritage and Recreation (Mrs . Mitchelson) or any other Minister . I will be glad to take that question as notice , Mr. Speaker . Morris Conservative Association Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Will the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) then explain why the first vice-president of the Morr is Conservative Association seems to have complet e control over the allocation of these funds having been named the sole contact person according to repr esentatives from Red River Exhibition, Blue Bombers , Festival du Voyageur and others? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable First Minister. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I will take that question as notice , Mr. Speaker . Independent Board Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, this Government continues to blatantly politicize this department.

Will the First Minister withdraw Bob Swain, another Tory friend , and put in place an independent board as promised? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker , ignoring all of the false and spurious allegations contained in that

preamble, I will take that question as notice as well. Western Sun Vacations Closure Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Aff air s (Mr. Connery). Yesterday, Western Sun Vacations of Calgary, Alberta, one of western Canada 's largest tour oper ators , decla red bankruptcy leaving scores of passengers 1581 stranded in Honolulu and Las Vegas. Can the Minister tell this House how many Manitobans have been left stranded? *

(1440) Hon. Edward Connery (Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have not been informed of the number of Manitobans stranded . Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker , to the same Minister, can the Minister tell us how many people have lost deposits on future travel with this company? Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had questions in th is House from the same Member . Three times he brought inaccurate information and allegations to this House. Mr. Speaker , I will take that question under advisement. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please .

Travel Industry Act Support Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood) : Since the president of the Travel Agents Association of Alberta , Brian Symic, has asked that the Alberta Government bring in a travel Act to protect the public, will the Minister support The Travel Industry Act, Bill No. 44, that was introduced in the House last Friday? Hon. Edward Connery (Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I can inform the House that we are undertaking negotiations and discussions with the travel industry. Our department is reviewing legislation in other jurisdictions .

If and when we feel it is appropriate we will be bringing that forward . Omand's Creek Development Green Space Protection Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is for the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). Yesterday the Minister indicated that if the province received a proposal for development over Omand's Creek in my constituency that would require an environmental impact assessment , he would be more than happy to have one done. As the Minister knows, the City of Winnipeg has now formally requested the province to do such a study.

I can tell this Minister that the proposal is to build an office tower and a car wash over Omand 's Creek along the north side of Portage Avenue which would divide the green belt which is now Omand 's Creek and Blue Stem Park . Mr. Speaker, given that the Government has already spent over I million on the development of this green space, will the Minister commit today to protecting that investment and this green space in this part of the city,

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 a part of the city tha t has less green space than any other part of the city, and gu arantee that an envir onmental impact assessment will be done? Hon. Glen Cum mings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the answer is tha t we will be doing a study when we receive the proposal. We have seen via med ia coverage that the City of Wi nnip eg will be asking for an impact study and frankly it is a matter of semantics. I expect that it will be done as soon as we have the proposal. Environmental Impact Study Mr. Paul Edwards (St.

James): To clarify, is the Minister saying that if the proposal is indeed a car wash and an office tower, straddling a stream in this city, that there wm be an environmental impact assessment done. · Is that what he is saying? I would like the confirmation. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minis ter of Environment): lt is a hypothetical question, Mr. Speaker, but I think the question is if it is a proposal that would be deemed a development then there would be a hearing. Mr. Edwards: This is hypothetical, like the VIA cuts have been hypothetical. This has been around for years. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order. Will the Honourable Member for St. James kindly put his question now. Mr. Edwards: This proposal is not hypothetical. This proposal has -(interjection)- been- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question is? City of Winnipeg Act Amendments Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr.

Speaker, finally for the same Minister, if this Minister will not indeed commit to an environment al impact assessment, will he commit to an amendment brought forward by this caucus to The City of Winnipeg Act which would ban construction of commercial entities like this over rivers and streams, our precious rivers and streams in this city. Hon. Glen Cummings (Mini ster of Envir onment): Mr. Speaker, obviously not having seen his amendment, I am not going to respond to that statement. The Member for St. James need not worry about whether or not there will be a study done.

If the city requests it and we receive a copy of a proposal , then I will order one. Forest Fires Public Inq uiry Mr. Harry Harapiak (The Pas): Mr. Sp eaker , my question is to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Disaster Assist ance. During last summer's fires there was a lot of concern expressed over the priorities of the Government when it came to firefighting, There was concern expressed over the lack of communication and the lack of consultation with the responsible people. During that time the Minister promised there would be a public inquiry dealing with the fires.

When will the process begin, and who will be involved with this process when it does begin? Hon . Alb ert Driedger (Minis ter of Go ver nme nt Services): Mr. Speaker, first of all let me indicate that I have never made a commitment to a public inquiry. However, I want to take this opportunity to indicate to all Manitobans the tremendous job that EMO and the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Program have done. During the extreme disaster that we suffered here in this province, Mr. Speaker, we have been able to deal with the evacuation as well as the people that have suffered the consequences of the fires.

We have dealt with them and I am very proud of the staff that has . been working with that. Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. NON-POLI TICAL STATEMENTS Mr. James Carr (Fort Rouge): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for Fort Rouge have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. Mr. Carr: Mr. Speaker, tonight, at a gala celebration, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet will be celebrating its 50th Anniversary.

Members will know that the Royal Winnipeg Bal let has been a fla gship cultural institution for Manitoba for these 50 years and provides for us a reputation for artistic excellence which extends beyond this continent, and indeed around the world. In spite of the fact that there has been particular tragedy for the company this year, they have responded as true artists and the show has gone on.

I know that all Members of this Assembly would join us on this side of the House wishing the Royal Winnipeg Ballet a very happy anniversary and for at least 50 more years of providing first-rate cultural opportunities for Winnip eggers, Manitobans, and indeed for those who enjoy dance throughout the world. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable First Minister have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable First Minister. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I would certainly like to endorse the comments of the Member for Fort Rouge and say that I will be very pleased this evening to represent the Government at that gala, along with the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchelson), and to express the stronge st best wishes of the Government of Manitoba to the Royal Winn ipeg Ballet as they embark upon their 50th Anniversary season, a season that promises to be the most exciting and eventful in the history of the ballet company. 1582

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 lt has indeed had a colourful and exciting history that has drawn rave revues throughout the world. lt is a world-class institution, it is a ballet company that has made Winnip eg famous everywhere on this continent, and indeed throughout the world. lt will have a tour this coming year that will take it through Europe and many other places worldwide. At every stop of the way I know that they will be lauded for the quality of their performance. They are indeed the finest ambassadors that we could have.

We as a province have utilized the Royal Winnip eg Ballet as an attraction for trade missions and other events that we have held outside our province and our city. At every opportunity I can say that we have been proud of the efforts and the performances of the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. We have drawn nothing but compliments by virtue of what the ballet does for the City of Winnipeg and the Province of Manitoba. I certainly commend them and extend them all the very best wishes of the Government of Manitoba as they embark upon their 50th year. l Mr.

Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for Flin ' Flon have leave to make a non-political statement? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Flin Flon. Mr. Jerry Storie (Fiin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to join with the Premier and the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) in congratulating the Royal Winnipeg Ballet on the beginning of their 50th Anniversary season. I think both of the previous speakers have noted that the Royal Winnipeg Ballet has a reputation which extends around the globe.

The fact is, the Royal Win nip eg Bal let is not only a remark able artistic company, they are also tremendous ambassadors for the Province of Manitoba. Anyone who knows of the reception that the Royal Winnip eg Ballet received on its recent tour, the tour to Japan, and its tour to London, knows that they are spr eading the name of Winnip eg and Manitoba around the world. They are doing so in a highly creative and a very successful way. * (14 50) The Royal Win nipeg Ballet has enjoyed the suppo rt of successive Govern ments and the continuing support of the people of Winni peg and the people of Manitoba.

There is a very good reason for that, Mr. Speaker, and that is, as artistic companies go, they are one of this nation's best and perhaps the world's best. In addition to the performances, Mr. Speaker, the Royal Winnipeg Ballet also operates one of the most successfu l schools in the countr y as well. Their will ing ness to nurtur e the talent of Man itobans, Canad ians, others, is well recognized as well.

So their contri bution has been manifold to this province and we, in the New Democratic Party, would also like to join in congra tulating them and join with other Manitobans in helping them to celebrate their 50th anniversary season. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles) have leave to make a non-political statement? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mrs. Gwen Char les (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I stand today to acknowledge the declaration of Mental Illness Awareness Week.

This week has been recognized and set aside by the Government to recognize the stigma attached to mental illness, an illness which we are told will touch one out of four families in this country. Mental illness can range from a severe depression to severe states of various manic states of paranoia and goes on to the extremes, but it also is insidious and will appear in families where no one has ever known or recognized it to be before.

Mental illness deprives us of very many working people in our community. lt can hold us up just from day to day or can take lives away for years. lt is a deeper prison than any prison that we can dream of to have someone locked up within their own mind and not be able to function as we, healthy people, can. I support the Government in declaring this week, and hope that we all will work towards making this an illness we can talk about and take the stigma away from those who are suffering under this disease. Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister of Health have leave to make a non-political statement?

An Honourable Member: Leave. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minis ter of He alth): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honourable friend from Selkirk for her gr acious endorsation of our sponsorship of Mental Health Awareness Week. Let me assure you that was not unique of this Govern ment, nor repres entative of Government side of the House.

That is represe ntative of all Members of this Chamber and is indic ative of the campaign that the Canadian Mental Health Association is primarily sponsoring in theming this week, that is of course to remove the stigma surrounding mental illness because no longer is it an issue that the public is unwilling to discuss, afraid of, or wants to keep somewhere out of sight, out of mind. Very much volunteers, throughout the length and breadth of this province, this week, will join in commun ity and fam ily efforts to increase awareness, to remove the stigma of mental health and mental illness, Mr.

Speaker, more importantly, to join together with Go vern ment, as partners, in bringing mental health services, mental health care, to the forefront of the Govern ment's initiatives to address this most serious problem. Mr. Speaker, this week is one of much activity.

I had the opportunity yesterday to attend Mount Carmel Clinic where they, as an event for Mental Health Awareness Week, are formally offering their support to volunteers in the Spanish-speaking community of Winnipeg who are providing 10 to 1 5 hours of counselling per week on a volunteer basis to those newcomers to Manitoba from Central America and South America who are facing the shock of cultural adjustment and leaving their homeland under less than friendly circumstances. That is exemplary of the kind of community and volunteer 1583

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 effort that is adding daily to the strengths of our support syst ems in Manitoba to the commun ity, to those individuals who need help to overcome mental health problems. Last night I attended a reception of a number of distinguis hed individuals highly involved in the mental health system of the Province of Manitoba, and very much it was part of the kind of gr owing publi c involvement, public awareness of mental health as an issue facing all Manitobans. I did have the honour and the pleasure of joining with Mr.

Harvey Miller as President of the Manitoba Division, Canadian Mental Health Association in signing that proclamation last week. 1t is our pleasure on behalf of all Members of Government and indeed all Members of the Legislatur e to sign that proclamation of Mental Health Awareness Week for Manitobans. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James McCrae (Government Hous e Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: Bill No. 46, Bill No. 42, Bill No. 27. If we get be yond that I will get back to you. SECOND READ INGS BILL NO. 46-THE WORKERS COMPE NSATION AMEN DMEN T ACT Mr.

Speaker: Second Read ing, Bill No. 46- The Workers Compensation Amend ment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail. The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corp orate Affairs. Hon. Edward Connery (Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach), that Bill No. 46, The Workers Compensation Act, now be read a second time, and be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Connery: I do not want to take many minutes in speaking on this Bill. lt is self-explanatory Mr.

Speaker, originally it was going to be part of a larger package of leg islativ e amendments to be brought to the Legislature, but when I re alized the time frame that it would take to have the discussions and to bring it forth, I thought it was important that those injured workers who were waiting for the increased salary they would be getting through the indexing of the pensions, that we bring it forth very quickly.

I have talked to both Opposition Parties and they have agreed today to move it through to where we could have third reading today and have it proclaimed so hopefully this mon th-1 was told by the staff at Workers Comp that if we got it through today we. could likely have those increases in their October paycheque. I think it is important, in the fall and at this time of the year when the extra money is welcomed by people, that we can do it. I thank the Opposition for tha t agree ment and accommodation on behalf of the injured workers.

As far as legislating inde xing of pensions, that will come forward at a later time, long before we would have to do this by legislation again, so that Members of the Opposition will have an opportunity to discuss it. Mr. Speaker, Members of the Opposition will also have an opportunity to make all of their comments known on Workers Compensation when we bring forward a second package of amendments which is a little larger, a lot of housekeeping amendments and so forth.

They will have an opportunity to speak on it. * (1 500) The Bill basically is to index the pensions of injured workers. lt is to the full CPI of 8.6 percent for the last two years. lt is at lOO percent of the CPI, so in essence that is it. There are a couple Qf date changes but it is identical legislation that has been brought forth for a number of years, every two years by the fact of doing it, not by legislation. To give the Opposition Members their oppor tun ity to exp ress their sentiments and 4 feelings, I would move that they have that opportunity now. Thank you. Mr.

Reg Alcock (Osborne): Before we proceed to debate, I wonder if the Minister might permit one small question. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the Member for Osborne? (Agreed) Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could tell us how long he has known of the need to bring this Bill before the House. Mr. Connery: Mr. Speaker, the House recessed in June and it is retroactive from July 1. lt was not ready in June, as the Member well knows. lt was not ready to bring forward and it takes transla tion.

We had to have the in dexing, the amount of in dexing ha d to be discussed, and so when air of those clearances were made- The Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) said to me, � it takes a long time to get things done. He had a Bill that he brought forward to Legislative Counsel in June and just got it ready to introduce to the House last week. So this process does take time, but when I saw that we were going to- the bigger package would take some time and to give people the opportunity to discuss it at length, I felt that this was the appropria te thing to do and I thank Members opposite for accommodating that. Mr.

Allan Patterson (Radis son ): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise on discussion of this Bill. I should point out that we did raise this matter in Question Period in June, on Jun e 19, and at that time the Minister had stated that the matter was under discussion with WCB officials for finalization of this indexing. We might raise the question, Mr. Speaker, as to why after Jun e, Ju ly, August, some almost three months of recess, that this Bill was not ready to be presented when the House sat again on September 18? 1584

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 However, the Bill itself, as the Min ister has pointed out, is straig htfor ward. lt is a matter of continuing practic e, not a legisl ative one, but a practice that has been in existence for some numb er of years, I unde rstand , whereby th ese pensions to permanently disabled workers are brought up to da te, so far as inde xing is concerned, every two years on July 1. So th erefore, July 1 of this year would be when it was due, and th ere is certainly plent y of time to prepare and to have legisla tion ready back at tha t time.

Neverthele ss we are pleased to see that it finally has come forw ard , because we ha ve received seve ral inqui ries about it from pensione rs over the past several months. Inde ed last week in Brandon when our Leader was on an open radio show, phone-in show, the question was raised with her at the time. To that extent, Mr. Speaker , we are very pleased to see this legislation and, of cour se, certainly , support it. However, Mr.

Speaker , as we well kn ow from what has taken place in this Hous e over the past year or so, the Wo rkers Com pensa tion Board ha s been 1 somewhat of a thorn in the side, we might say, of many ' of our Mem bers and I am sure of the thir d Party Mem bers, and inde ed possi bly even of many Govern ment MLAs who have constituents or claimants who mi ght or might not be constituents calling about their problems with the Workers Com pensa tion Board . lt is still an ongoing one and some thing we are going to want to addr ess at qui te some length when the full legislation comes forth, which I un derstand will be in the not to di stant future.

Mo re specif ically, the Mem bers on this side of the Hous e time and time again ha ve ha d Wo rkers Com pensa tion clients calling about the undue dela y, the una cceptable dela y, in the appeal process, at ti mes months and months and even approa ching almo st a year in some cases from the ini tial filing of the final appeal until the final decision has been render ed. This of cou rse, the Government has adm itted is totally una ccepta ble.

We do recog nize tha t the board is and has been taking steps to try to overcome some of th ese problems, and for tha t we do commend them , but nevert hele ss ma ny of the se proble ms are still ongoing. Furthermore, the time frame from the initial filing of a claim until the first decision either to accept or reject on tha t claim at times is unduly long. Again, we would lik e to see some prog ress in the alleviation of th ese various problems. We also received many-and I must say the y are allegations, Mr. Speaker , but sometimes we might say tha t when the re is smoke ther e is fire.

We get many calls from Workers Com pensa tion Board clients who feel that- how can I put it?-th ey have been more or less run over ro ughs hod, so to speak, tha t Workers Compensa tion Board in many situations tha t the Com pensation Board 's physicians will igno re the advice or recom mendations or dia gnosis of outside physicians, some of whom might be well-kno wn specialis ts. These are allega tions- Mr. Speaker: Ord er, ple ase. The Honourable Min ister responsible for The Workers Compensation Act. Mr. Con nery: Mr. Speaker , on a point of ord er. I do take exception to the Memb er's comment.

I kno w he made it accidental ly, but the staff running roughshod over- Mr. Speaker: Order , please. Mr. Con nery: -cli ents is not accu rate. He ma y quarrel - Mr. Sp eaker: Order , ple ase; ord er, pl ease. The Ho nourable Min ister does not have a point of order . A di spute over a fact is not a point of order . The Honourable Memb er for Rad isson has the floor. Mr. Patterson: I said th ese are, I did not- An Honourable Member: They did worse under the previous Govern ment. An Honour able Member: No. Mr. Patterson: I said these are allegations, Mr. Speaker. I did not say the y were being run over roughs hod.

I said tha t clients alle ge tha t th ey have been , which is not a statement that in fact they were. Some further examp les of mor e or less heavy-handed ness, and to some extent what is felt to be on the part of clients some rudeness in the handling of their complai nts. These I say, Mr. Speak er, are allega tions tha t we received and I am not putting any, say, value judgm ents as to whether the y might or might not be true. That would take some investigation.

But, nevertheless, these are the types of things tha t are of great concern to us on this side of the Hous e, on the part of all Man itobans, and particula rly of injur ed workers. We do want to see some sign ificant imp rovement made in the legisla tion and also in the proced ures and polic ies of the board itself, many of which do not have to come forth in legislation but which are under the auth ority of the board itself to im plement and which adm itted ly the board is att empting now to do.

At any rate, this particular Bill, we are very pleased to see it, but we will want to in futur e be raising many quest ions as to how all th ese various problems that we are being made aware of are being add ressed and resolved . Thank you , Mr. Speaker. * (15 10 ) Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record before we begin the process tha t has been follo wed in this Bill, so there can be no doub t in the mind of the public of Ma nitoba which Parties in this Legislatur e are facilitating the passage of this particular Bill. Let the re be no confusion about this.

We, in the Opposition, were app roached on this matter last week by the Minis ter, told tha t if this Bill was not passed in one day, which is highl y un usual in this Legislatur e, tha t it would affect the processing of this particular item for the people who are on Workers Com pensa tion and prevent them from receiving the mone y, which put us in a very di fficult situa tion, I might say, Mr. Speaker , because I do not feel any Bill, under normal circums tances, should be discussed and passed thr ough all thr ee read ings in one day. 1585

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 But I want to say, and clearly for th e record, tha t is only beCause of the agreement of the Opposition that this is taki ng pl ace. In doing so, I also want to ind icate tha t I do not conside r it acceptable tha t the Minis ter responsible for Workers Com pensat ion brought in a Bill, brought it in toda y official ly, but raised it with the Opposition less than a week ago, when this matter could have been dealt with in May and in June of this year when we were sit ting.

We all kno w tha t it takes time to draft Bills, but why was the Minis ter not deal ing with this Bill well in advance as he shou ld? This is standa rd practice to ind ex the pensions, in this case, effective July 1 of this year. Why did this Min ister wait until October to bring it in and then only through the supp ort of the Opposition do we have this put in place? ! wo,uld say that is una cceptable, Mr. Speak er. I also want to say, on a second level, tha t it is una ccepta ble. What we are dealing with in this particular ''case is an indexa tion for a set period of time.

That has been the standard practice, but there has been a signi ficant change in the interi m. In May of 19 87, the Report of the Wo rkers Comp ensation Review Commit tee was released, and one of the ma jor recom mendations of this report tha t was supp orted , I mi ght add, by the indus try representative, by the labour repres entative, by the chai rperson of the comm ittee, was the fact tha t this should be indexed on a regular basis. I belie ve that is im portant to note for the record as wel l.

What we should be deal ing with toda y is not a partial in dexa tion, but we should be dealing with a permanent in dexa tion. lt is fine for the Min ister to say tha t he will be bringing in

an Act. He has been saying tha t and dela ying it as soon as he ma kes the statement, saying that, well, they might not be brought in. I kno w in the last part of the Session he said it might not be brought in for two years. That is una cceptable. This is a very simple amen dm ent to dra ft. I cannot speak for the Liberal Party, but I wou ld assume tha t the y would suppo rt permanent ind exa tion. I kno w the Ne w Democratic Party wou ld supp ort the permanent ind exation. So why would the Min ister last week come to us with an ad hoc, a partial in dexa tion?

Why did he not come last week and say, with supp ort from the Oppos ition, you can have this permanent indexa tion passed? How about if we pass it in one da y? I can say tha t on behalf of our caucus, as I said, I am sure the Liberal Caucus would take the same position. We would have suppor ted that, Mr. Speak er. So why did the Min ister come in with this indexa tion Which, in my mind, is too little too late? lt is too little in the sense tha t it is not on a regular basis. An Honour able Mem ber: See what happens, Jer ry. Mr. Storie: lt is fine for the Min ister to say, see what happens. Wel l, Mr.

Speaker , in May of 19 87 this report was rele ased and we are now into October of 19 89. There is clear consensus on the area of pensions. Why is this Min ister not bringing in the sect ion tha t will index it? The Min ister should be aware, of cou rse, that if the Opposition Parties were to intr od uce a Bill of this type, it would · be dis cussed in Private Members' Hour .

We have seen, because of the limi ted time we :have available in Private Mem bers' Hour, th ere is very little opportun ity for us to pass any legislation in this 'L eg isla ture, particularly when th e Govern ment is unwill ing to sponsor tha t Bill, as is their right. The y can take over the spons orsh ip of a particular Bill, give it support , decl are it as Govern ment busi ness. I wou ld sugge st to the Min ister he should be talking very clearly about what the intention of the Govern ment is in regard to the area of pensions. But you kno w, Mr.

Speaker , it is not ju st in the area of pensions, we all kno w there are serious problems with the Workers Com pensat ion Board . In fact , not a day goes by when I, as Wo rkers Com pensat ion Critic for the New Democratic Party, does not receive some sort of a com plaint either from a constituent or from people from across the province. I kno w other MLAs spend a considerable period of tim e deal ing with Wo rker s Comp ensat ion claimants. ;, · Mr. Speaker , the clear message from claimants is that the s.ituation at the board has not being gett ing better, but tha t it has been getting worse.

The dela ys have been gett ing long er. The frustra tion level has been 4 gr owing and all this time this Government has not mo ved with a badly needed reform tha t was outlined by the task force, as I said, once aga in, Ma y of 19 87. Mo st of the recommenda tions, and the re are a total of 178 recom mendations, were unani mous. They were sup ported by all th ree mem bers of the comm ittee. lt was an excellent report .

I would give cred it to the participants on that: Brian King, the former chair person of the Wo rkers Com pensat ion Board , who thi s Government, once again, have seen fit to push aside, take him out of tha t posit ion; Lisa Donn er, the Labour repr esentativ e tha t this Government fired ; and Tom Farrel l, one of my constituents who did an excellent job in putting this report togeth er. Let us not take this matter light ly, Mr. Speaker , let us look at exactly what has happened .

The only thing tha t this Government has done in terms of this report is th ere have been some admin istrativ e proposals put forward , but in fact not onl y have the y not moved with the vast majority of ch anges outlined, particularly the legisla tive chan ges, they have worked against the report. � For exam ple, Recom mendation 101 in this report recomm ends there be no merit rating system . We all kno w, Mr.

Speak er, tha t one of the first thin gs that this Govern ment did when it had the oppor tun ity was to bring in the merit ra ting system in Man itoba, through pressure on the Workers Com pensa tion Board , and foll owing pres sur e from the Cha mber of Com merce, from big busi ness, tha t had been pushing them. Let th ere be no doubt what this will result in. If one wants to see the type of resu lts you have to expect from this system , one only has to look at companies such as CN and CP where the y are on E!Ssentiall y that system .

They ess entially pay to the Wo rkers Com pensation Board an amount that reflects how much is paid out in cl<tims in that period . I can tell you that the highe st percentage of complai nts I get in regards to Workers Com pensa tion is from people working in CN and CP. I have a file tha t thick of people working in the shops in Transcona who are facing contin uous harass me nt, not even actually so much dir ectly from 1586

Wednesday , October 4, 1989 the Comp ensation Board , but from their own empl oyer, becau se it is in the di rect interest of their own emplo yer to keep them off Workers Compens ation. Let us not igno re the fact tha t tha t will happen . lt will happen and it is happening now. There are people already who are being sent into work who should not be work ing. The y are disabled , the y are injur ed , and yet the y are being taken in to work, forced into work by their emplo yers, so as not to have tha t injur y recorded , and so as not to have the company su bject to high er Workers Comp ensation prem iums. Mr.

Speaker , tha t is absolutely una ccept able. I kn ow th ere are Mem bers of this Hous e who can talk from perso nal experience about the way tha t system works. The Mem ber for The Pas (Mr . Ha rapiak), I kno w, from perso nal experience from when he worked with lnco in Sudbur y, and I have had many friends of mine in Thom pson who have gone through tha t experience. Mem bers of my own family have gone through the experience of being forced back to work before the y � are ready. Well, Mr. Speaker , the Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says, name them. What is his intent by saying that?

To have them su bjected to further harassment? I am sure the re will be many people that would like to kn ow the names of tho se people, including the friends of the Min ister of Northern Affairs, some of the people tha t have been responsible for harassing th ose people back to work at a time when the y should not have been going back to work. That is the one thing the Government has done. Who is it in favour of, Mr. Speaker? lt is in favour of the Cham ber of Comm erce and big busi ness. lt is not in favour of the workers of this province. You kno w many of the recommenda tions in this report would, Mr.

Speaker , have assisted the workers of this province. There are many key sect ions in here. I ju st want to cite Reco mmenda tion I, which talks about rewriting the Act to make it more accessible to injur ed workers. I want to talk about Rec om medation 6 and � Recom mendation 9, which talk about the pensions and allowing workers to have the choice of their own doctor, something they do not have at the present time in terms of the Workers Com pensat ion Board .

Recommendation 13, which talks about the need for a speedy decision, that is a crying need because there have been increasing dela ys with in Workers Compensa tion -i ncr ea sing dela ys on even the most routine of cases. I would point to Recommenda tion 41, the onus of proof. The onus of proof has to be clearly placed on the Workers Com pensa tion Board to ind icate tha t a person should not be eligible for compensa tion. Tha t is the way the Act reads at the present time, but in practice it is the opposite.

In practice often the injur ed worker has to prove that he or she was injur ed at work and they should be eligible for comp ensa tion. That is a key recommendation. I mentioned Recom mendation 101. I could recommend tha t Mem bers look at 135, which talks about The Emplo yment Stan da rds Act being amended to ensur e tha t workers do not lose their jobs if the y are injur ed in the work place. Right now there are people tha t have lost their jobs because the y have been injur ed. The y have lost their jobs for no other reason than the fact tha t they have been injur ed . That is totally unacceptable.

I could tal k, Mr. Speaker, about 136, which talks about the onus being pl aced on the emplo yer to rehir e injur ed workers. Right now tha t is one of the most frustra ting things, to see someone who has been injur ed, someone who was a contributing mem ber to that company , of the work force for many years. I have seen people with 10 and 20 years work experience with a particu lar company-t hey are injur ed and the y are out of work. lt is ter rible to see the im pact that has on th ose people in terms of their own personal situation , their fami ly, their financial situa tion.

I do not want to see it happen to anyone else. Recom mendation 154 is a key rec ommendation in terms of ensuring that claim ants have the right to initia te a medical review panel without the recommendation of the Workers Com pensat ion Board 's doctors. I could continue, Mr. Speak er, but the real question that has to be asked toda y is why is this Min ister not bringin g in a compr ehen siv e Act to reform the Wo rk ers Comp ensation Board ? Why is he bringing in some thing tha t he should have brought in thr ee months ago?

Why is he only talking in the most obscure terms about houseke eping amend ments to the Wo rkers Comp ensation Board when the system is in need of major reform? * (1 520) Mr. Speaker , that is why this report was brought forward , the Review Comm ittee. lt held public heari ngs thr oughout the province. lt was bro ught forward because the previous Govern ment recogniz ed tha t despite the change s tha t have taken place in the Workers Com pensa tion Board tha t the re needed to be a major overhaul of the structure.

Let Mem bers be aware of the history of this because I think, in a way, his tory is repea ting itself. In 19 81, the previous Conservative Government brought in the Lampe Report, and you kno w how many rec omm end ati ons th ey ins tit uted . I believe the numb er was th ree out of more than a hundr ed recommenda tions, and of tho se th ree, one of them was putting in a tol l-free telephone service. Well, Mr. Speaker, history is repeat ing itself because the one thing tha t I can say the Government has done is it has put in new telephones into the Workers Com pensation Board and actually the y are need ed.

I am not criticizing that, I think tha t was a wise move on the part of the board because people are very frus trated by the inabil ity to get through on basic inquir ies, waiting as long as half an hour or longer ju st to get thr ough to the Workers Comp ensa tion Board. (Mr . Ma rk Mi nen ko, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) But that was what the pr evious Cons ervat ive Government did in the four years the y were in. When the New Democratic Party came into Government, most, if not all of the Lampe Repor t recom mendations were impl emented.

There was also the Coopers Report tha t was released in June of 19 82, and once again the vast 1587

Wedn esday, October 4, 1989 majority of th ose rec ommen dations were im plem ented . There is the Cerico Report and the Sect ion 100 Reh abili tation Report which were introduc ed in 19 82, in 19 83, respect ively. Of tho se thr ee-i ncident ally, I would lik e to stress the fact tha t the Lampe Repor t, the Sect ion 10 0 Repor t and the review comm ittee were all comm itte es that held public hea rings, so the y were the result of the concerns of injur ed workers throughout this province. Well, tha t is what happ ened. As I said, in 19 87 this document was released .

I think it is clear from what has happened sinc e this Government has come into office what their true agenda is in regard to workers compensa tion. Their true agenda is not to listen to the injur ed workers of this province, the concerns that were expressed by hundr eds, literally hundr eds, of injur ed workers throughout the process of consulta tion of this document. I hope the Min ister for the Wo rkers Comp ensat ion Board (Mr . Con ner

y) will listen because this is a key matter, a key matter , Mr. Acting Speaker. The Go ver nment is not li st ening to the dail y complaints from injur ed workers tha t have hap pened since the y have been in Government. As I said before, we are deluged with com plaints, and I kno w in some cases the y have tried to get thr ough to the Min ister and the y have been unable to get assistance , un able to get answers to their quest ions, and - The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minenko): The Honour able Min ister responsible for the Workers Com pensa tion Act, on a point of order . Mr.

Connery: Yes, the Member says tha t people canno t get thr ough to the Min ister 's office and get a return on it. That is erroneous. All calls either by telephone or by letter are rep lied to and informa tion obtai ned and forwarded on, so the Memb er is erroneous in his statements. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minenko): I wou ld lik e to thank the Honour able Min ister for that matter, although a di spute over the facts is not a point of order . Mr. Ashton: lt is not only not a point of order , but not accurate.

The Min ister should talk to some of the inj ured workers and some of the di fficult ies the y have had in get ting a response from th is Minis ter, in fact , people in his own constituenc y, Mr. Acting Speaker , and I think tha t is imp ort ant- The Acting Speaker (Mr . Minenko): The Honourable Minis ter responsible for the Workers Com pensa tion Act, on a point of order . Mr. Con nery: Yes, on a point of order . Let it be kno wn tha t by far the vast majority of complaints tha t I received emana te from the tim e when the y were in Govern ment. The Acting Speaker (Mr.

Mine nko): The Honourable Min ister does not have a point of order . A dis pute over th e facts is not a point of order . Mr. Ashton : Mr. Acting Speaker , I do belie ve tha t the Min ister has had the oppor tun ity to put his comments forward on second read ing. He will IJave plen ty of oppor tun ity later on second read ing and thir d reading. He should allo w other Mem bers; of this Leg islatur e to spe ak, and he should also start listen ing to the injur ed workers of this province because what I am repeat ing in this Ho use, Mr.

Acting Speaker , is ba.sed on what has happened to the injur ed workers of this pr ovince. The Min ister, instead of gett ing up on pho ney points of order , should be deal ing with tho se concerns, because th ey are not bei ng dealt with by this Government and not being dealt with by the Min ister and his office. The y are sloug hing off the very real concerns of injur ed workers in this province. As I said, Mr. Acting Speaker , for the Min ister now to get up after nearly a year and a half in Government with the agen da dr afted by this task force report, Mr. Acting Speaker , this review comm ittee report.

The agenda for reforming the Workers Compensa tion with the pu blic he ari ngs al ready comple ted , with an imp lementa tion com mit tee that was already in place when the Min ister took office. I had the oppor tun ity to be part of many of the dis cussions tha t w ent on in terms of putting this into place. I wou ld lik e to kno w why the Min ister still has not im plement ed some of the most basic recom mendations of this report. I mentio ned some before, I cou ld get into the need for decentraliza tion of the Workers Com pensa tion Board .

Ther e is no reason tha t the Government can not imp lement what is recomme nded in this report , what was clearly needed , and tha t is moving the Workers Comp ensa tion Board into the role of no rthern communiti es, com muniti es such as Thom pson and The Pas, to make sure that the Workers Comp ensa tion Board is mor e accessible, Mr. Acting Speak er. Ther e is no reason not to do this and no reason, given .

part icula rly the talk by the provincial Govern ment, of dec entraliz ation. They talk about , as an overall polic y- here is a clear case wher e the y can do it. They can move Workers Com pensa tion Board empl oyees to communi ties lik e The Pas, to communiti es like Thomps on, to com mun ities lik e Dauphin and better serve injur ed workers, but the y have not done it. Well, I am not sure why this Govern ment , when this agen da is so clearly drafted for them, has not proceeded with any of the leg islative recommendations in th is report whats oever .

No t a single leg isla tiv e rec ommendation in this report has been brought forward to this Ho use by this Minis ter. In fact, the leg isla tiv e action we are seeing tod ay, Mr . Ac ting Speaker , flie s in the face of this report because it do es not bring in the permanent indexing tha t the report recom mends.

I suspect what has happened is that this Government now tha t it is in office has started listen ing to thos e-a nd I do not believe tha t it is th e majority of the busine ss com mun ity, but the minority of the busi ness com munit y, that have said what th ey want is a workers compens ation system that is more rest ricted . They want to take away the rights of injur ed workers. Mr .

Ac ting Sp eaker , they are quit e happy with a Government tha t balanc es the books, and yes, the y have had a surplus of Workers Compensation sinc e the y have been in office, but tha t is what the y had when they were in Govern ment between 19 77 and 19 81. There were hundr eds and hundr eds of complaints from injur ed 1588

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 workers who were not treated fairly because of that. So tha t is what has happ ened . This Min ister had a hit list That is his agenda. His hit list was to move Brian King from the chairpersonship of the Workers Com pensa tion Board , and he did. lt was to fire Lissa Donner , and he did. Hi s h it list was to bring in the merit-ra ting system , and he did. Where is the action for injur ed workers? All the y are gett ing is this Bill tod ay, which I say is una cceptable.

If the y are going to be deal ing with indexat ion of Workers Com pensa tion Board pensions, it should be permanent inde xation. Injur ed workers should not have to go to the Min ister every two years as th ey have had to do in this particular case and ask for it Mr.

Acting Speak er, the Minis ter says, why did we not do it lt is right here in the report, we were commit ted to bring in the recom mendations of this report and what has happened is the Cons ervative Govern ment, over the last one and a half years, has trie d to scuttle this report, tried to gut it of its recommenda tions and � is listening only to its Cham ber of Comm erce.

I said the min ority of the business commun ity because I belie ve many in the busi ness commun ity such as Tom Farrell would like to see a more huma ne, a fairer system, but there are a mi norit y in the busi ness commun ity who ha ve sai d, we want a rest ric ted Wo rkers Com pensa tion Board and what has the Min ister said? He has said, me too, and tha t is what he has done. For the Minis ter to talk earlier in this Bill about how concerned he is about injur ed workers, I think is repr ehensi ble. He should talk to the injur ed workers.

I had a news conferenc e a few months ago and I was delug ed with people who were saying the workers com pensa tion system needs major reform, and I asked them for the detai ls. The sad

part is many of the cases were rejected because the impl ementations of this report have not been put into pl ace. Many of the people that came down -a nd the Min ister should listen to this-a nd raised concerns in the meantime wou ld have been hel ped by this report. They would have received their claims instead of having their lives rui ned , losing their houses, their fam ilies, losing their self-respect in many cases, spe nding 18 months, two years, two and a half years trying to fight the case. We ll, Mr . Acting Sp eaker , I am waiting for this Government to bring in the results of this report .

Why have they not acted on the results of this report? Why ha s this Min ister done no thing, no thing, no thing, nothing, to assist the injur ed workers of this province? Why has he only listened to his friends in the busine ss com mun ity? Tho se are questions tha t I am going to be ask ing thr oughout this Sessi on, and we are going to expect results from this Government. * ( 15 30) Perhaps we are not surpris ed so much when the y bring in Bills on final offer selec tion, labour legisla tion. We kno w the y are tryi ng to roll back labour legislation in this province.

Those are issues where you expect some dis agreement, but this report was agreed to, most cases unanim ously, by all Mem bers of this panel. lt rep resents a consensus. The sad

part is this will bring in a fairer system, a reform system, but this Govern ment is not interested in that. I believe this Government is not int erested in bringing in a fairer system for injur ed workers. I kno w the Min ister today said he will be bringing in a Bill to reform Workers Com pensa tion. I want to make a prediction tod ay, Mr. Acting Speaker , tha t th at Bill will no t include the vast majority of the key recommendations in this report; tha t Bill will not, in any way, show any recognition of the situation facing injur ed workers.

I want to pred ict tha t it will be nothing more than the same sort of minor changes we have seen, the adminis trativ e change s we have seen at the board , tha t are not leading to a fairer system for injur ed workers. I do not kno w what it is going to take to get the message thr ough to this Government I do not kno w what it is going to take. On this particular occasion I suppo se we, all of us, I kno w in our caucus and I am sur e in the other Opposition Party's caucus, could have spoken on th e need for reform in the Wo rke rs Comp ensation Bo ard .

We cou ld ha ve spent considerably more than the one day in which we are going to pass this Bill, but two hour s, Mr. Act ing Speaker. I wonder if the real reason why the Min ister has brought this in, in this form , is to avoid commit tee hearings. I kno w if ther e are comm ittee hearings at Workers Compensation Board , the Minis ter is going to hear not from myself, not from the other Memb ers of the Legislature, but dir ect from injur ed workers.

Many participants in the heari ngs on the review comm ittee who ga ve their pr es entations and saw their presentat ions reflect in the recommendations are now saying, why is this Government sitt ing on this report? Why is this Government after a year and half not introducing it? The Min ister talks at length from his seat , gets off on phony points of order, and he does noth ing. The best way to alla y the concerns tha t I am exp ressing is not to yell as he does from his seat , but it is to bring in a major Bill to reform the Workers Com pensat ion Board . I want to indi cate, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that if he brings in a Bill that reflects the review comm itte e's recommendation s, if he brings in a Bill tha t reflects th ose recommendations, I think he will get un animous sup port in this Hous e on virtually all the recommendations. So it is not like on other Bills where the Governme nt is saying, well, we will not bring this in un less the Opposition suppor ts it. We all kn ow muni cipa l asses sment area. The Go vernment seems to be selective.

On some Bills the y want unanim ous support or els e the y will not bring in a Bill; on other Bills the y have unanimous supp ort, but the y will not bring it in anyway. So where is the consis tency in that? There is none. The only explanation is that this Government do es not want to off end tho se in the bu sine ss communit y. They want to see major cutbacks in Workers Com pensa tion. Mr. Acting Speaker , I wou ld sug gest tha t the system they put in place now, especially the merit-ra ting system , 1589

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 will lead to a major cut in the type of claims tha t are going to be processed by the Workers Comp ensation Board . They ma y be able to get the Wo rkers Com pensa tion process ing claims more quick ly. I think the y will thr ough some of the ad ministrative change s that, once again, were recommen ded in the Review Comm ittee Report , some tha t have been put into place, but it is no good to deal with the problem of del ays by having mor e injur ed workers get rejected when it comes to the deal ing with their claims. Tha t is not fair and tha t is not acceptable.

I think tha t is what is happe ning. I have spoken to many injur ed workers who have told me the same thing. They have said it is fine for the Mini ster for Workers Com pensat ion to get up and say, we have a surplus in the Workers Comp ensation system . The question the y ask, Mr. Acting Speaker , and the question I ask is at whose expense?

I kn ow after the one�and-a-half years we have seen this Government in opera tion with Workers Com pensa tion, it is not at the expense of their friends in the big busi ness commun ity. lt is going to be, and it is at the cu rrent time, at the expense of the injur ed workers, and tha t is una cceptable.

We are going to sup port the passage of this Bill toda y not because it reflects anything on the part of the wishes of this Government. lt reflects nothing mor e than their incom petence in bringing this in two months late in a partial form instead of a compl ete form. lt reflects their incom petence. lt also reflects their insensiti vity. The fact tha t we have a Bill to reform the Workers Compensation Act tod ay, and we have here an agenda from two and a half years ago, Mr. Acting Speaker , that could really provide reform, today what we are saying is nothing mor e than Tory-the y view it as Tory chari ty.

How generous th ey are. The y are going to pass this through and the y are going to incr ease the pensions over the Chr istmas time. I wou ld lik e to say we in the Opposition said yes, and I indic ated when this was raised tha t I felt it was una ccept able on the part of the Govern ment to expect us to bail them out in this particular case, but we have becaus e we are concerned about the injur ed workers. We ha ve bailed out this Go ve rnment from their incom petence in bringing this Bill in tod ay, a Bill tha t is really not what should be before us. We should be dealing with permanent inde xation.

While we have done it on this particular occasion, I think the message has to go to this Government that the y have to bring in needed reform in the Workers Com pensation Board , real reform based on the recom menda tions of the review comm ittee, and th ere are ma ny other areas of consensus. If the y do not, Mr. Acting Speaker , I real ly belie ve in the long run tha t is going to be one of the cl earest evidenc e to the people of Ma nitoba as to where th ey actually stan d.

Wh ose side are the y on? lt is not on the side of injur ed workers and their famil ies, tha t is clear from the year and a half that the y have been. They cannot even bring in proposals tha t are suppor ted by all sides. That is una cceptable on the part of this Government. While we will not hold up this Bill toda y to hold them to account, I will tell them and I will tell them right now tha t when the y bring in any kind of change s on the Wo rkers Com pensa tion Board , we will fight for a compr ehensi ve Bill. If the y do not bring in changes for the Workers Comp ensation Board , we will raise it.

We will raise it in the Question Period . We will raise it dur ing the Es tima tes dis cussi on. I could say to the Min ister, and I am di sapp oint ed tha t the Minis ter, shall we say, is not listening to my com ments at this point in time. lt is not un usual for tha t Minis ter. He do es not listen to the comments of injur ed workers and I think given the cou rtesy of the Opposition, as shown in this particular case, the Min ister could show a bit of courtesy in return in terms of listen ing to the comments, Mr.

Acting Speaker, because we in the Opposition have bailed out this Min ister for the incom petence of this Government on Workers Comp ensa tion. I want to say we are going to fight for the injur ed workers, and I will continue to speak up on their behalf, as I am sur e tha t my colleague in the other Opposition Party will speak out as a compensa tion Critic in his Party. You kno w the real message is coming from the Workers Compensation clai mants thems elves. I look forward to hea ring, for exam ple, the comments of the Mini ster of Labour (Mr s.

Hammond), who was at a forum in the inner-city the other week when a numb er of people said, what is going on with Workers Compensa tion? Why has this Government not reformed the syste m? Wha t is the problem with the system ? What was inter est ing was the fact tha t more and mor e injur ed workers are saying, do not blame me because I am an injur ed worker, do not blame me because I can not work, do not blame me because I have to apply for Workers Compensation and then fight thr ough a byzantine system tha t could result in months of dela ys on the most routine claims. The y are saying, who really is to blame?

That is the real question. I belie ve it is the system that is to blame for many of the problems tha t are existing, not the staff at the Workers Comp ensa tion Board . They only ad minis ter the Act tha t we, in this Legislatur e, have passed in previous years. The y are dependent on what this Min ister will do in terms of bringing in changes. I kn ow, I have tal ked to people in the Workers Compensation Board who have said tha t this whole system could be refo rmed in a way which would be fair to injur ed workers.

That is the point. 1t is not the Workers Comp ensat ion Board tha t is at fault in this particular area. lt is not the injur ed workers. The bottom line is, the problem is with the system and I think there is consent to deal with the kind of reforms we need , Mr. Acting Speaker , from all Mem bers of certainly the Op position. I ask the question: when will the Min ister bring in compr ehen sive change s to the Workers Compensation Board ? If he is not going to bring them in, why not?

I ask tha t question and I realize in de bate tha t you cannot ask tha t dir ectly to the Min ister, but I hope he will answer it at some point in time because if he do es not, I can say cert ainl y from the New Democratic Party 1590

Wednesday, October 4, 1989 we are going to be fighting him and fight him all the way on his insensit ivity to the injur ed workers and their fam il ies. That is the bottom line, Mr. Acting Speaker . it is not anything else other than the fact tha t we have a system today tha t is un fair to injur ed workers and their famili es. Thank you. Mr. Gill es Roch (Sp ringfie ld): Mr.

Acting Speaker , I, too, and my colleagues in this caucus have some concerns about the way this Bill was intr oduced . lt appears that lh e Min ister is running roughshod over this Leg islatur e the same way as the Wo rkers Com pensa tion Board is ru nning roughs hod over a lot of their claima nts. * (1 540) Mr. Act ing Speaker , as the Liberal Critic for Workers Com pensa tion stated earl ier, this matter was raised in June and was not acted upon. There was plenty of time for this Gov ernment to have a Bill ready. If the y could not have it ready for June, to have it ready for � September 18; they chose not to.

They cho se to come in the last mi nute and tell the Mem bers of the Opposition tha t this Bill mus t be passed now, tod ay, oth erwise it will not go into effect and we will blame you. That is essentially the me ssage tha t was given to us. The introduction of this Bill was largely piecemeal . As has been stated by other speakers prior to myself a new Bill , a new Act, a compr ehensiv e Act is what is ne eded so the Workers Comp ensa tion Board can be com pletely overhauled. After not just a few years, after eight long years of negle ct and misma nagement, it is int erest ing tha t the Mem ber for Thompson (Mr .

Ashton) exp ressed a lot of concerns tha t were being expressed to myself during his term of Government and inde ed that workers had been com plaining about prior to tha t. (inter ject ion) - We ll, Mr . Ac ting Sp eaker , the Mem ber for La Verend rye (Mr . Pank ratz) makes some comments from his seat . They are laughing about the injur ed workers- An Honourable Mem ber: No, no, no. Mr. Roch: Maybe he feels like an injur ed worker after the numb er the Min ister of Hig hways (Mr . Al bert Driedger) did to him, but in any case, it is not relevant to this Bill.

We all kno w that imp rovements are dr astically needed and needed now to impr ove the whole system of Workers Compensa tion. Workers, claimants find it tough enough to get respons es from the Workers Com pensa tion Board the way things are now. lt has been a year and a half now tha t imp rovements were supp osed to ha ve been ma de. Gr anted, this Governm ent inheri ted a mess . I think most Mem bers ackno wledge tha t -(in te rject ion) - but the Min ister says to go after the thir d Party.

The Minis ter has had a year and a half, the Min ister and his depar tment, his agency and his staff, to clean up the mess. Sti ll worke rs com plain, sti ll claims are dela yed , st ill not much has happ ened . If this process is allowed to conti nue, Mr. Acting Speaker, many people 1591 out ther e, some already in tha t position, but many more will be in a position where the y will in deed have to look to other sou rces for income if th ey can be eligi ble for them. Some ha ve exhaus ted benefits from Unemp loyment Ins urance.

Some are forced to turn to Social Assistanc e agains t their will, but th ey have no choice especially in the case of ind ividuals who have fam ilies to sup port. The y have to put bread on the table, th ey need to have milk for the childr en. The claim ants are com plaining because of the process. Som eti mes th ey eventually win, but it is such a lengthy process tha t although th ey eventually win at the end, the fact rem ains tha t th ey are without income for tha t period of tim e where an appeal is being heard. The Minis ter said earlier tha t he returns all calls, all letters.

Well, possibly some slip by his desk, he does not not ice them because amongs t the many concerns tha t are received by several Mem bers including myself and it seems tha t one of the more frequently occurring complaints is in regard to Workers Com pensa tion, but several claimants, several peo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-43
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 43.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	123f4b266d473748797cde4c01bbdb3451586a7a

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