Manitoba Hansard — 27 June 1983 (Sitting 96A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-96a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature Of lhe Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL XXXI No . 96.A - 2:00 p.m., MOND AY, 27 JUNE, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANIT OBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maur een HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, a.c., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clay ton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charle swood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP ND P NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP ND P NDP NDP PC NDP NDP ND P PC NDP PC NDP ND P NDP ND P

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA Monday, 27 June , 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Commit tees Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. V. SCHROEDER introduced Bill No. 100, The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of members to the gallery where we have the presence of the Peruvian Ambassador to Canada, His Excellency Mr. Fernandini. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Manitoba Disaster Assistance Board MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Government Services. On Friday, he reported that he and his Cabinet colleagues had fired all members of the Manitoba Disaster Comm ittee and had appointed a new chairman in place of Mr.

Elswood Bole, the long time distinguished Manitoban who had held that position for 17 years or more, but he was not in a position to tell us the names of the other members who had been appointed in substitution for the members who had been fired by the NOP. First of all, Mr. Speaker, is he in a position to tell us today the name of the person who was appointed to the position of Vice-Chairman, which was previously held by Mr. Sid Reimer, who was the Chairman of the Mennonite Disaster Service for this province and has done a distinguished job in that connection? Who have the NOP appointed, in place of Mr.

Reimer, the Chairman of the Mennonite Disaster Service? MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Mi nister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I indicated quite clearly, I believe on a number of occasions on Friday, that I would be making an announcement in that regard earlier this week and I will do so. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, the third member of that board was Mr. Bernard Ayotte, the former well- known Secretary Treasurer of the Rural Municipality of Montcalm. Is the Minister in a position to tell us who the NOP have su bstituted for that distinguishe d Manitoba citizen? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the government, as I indicated, had replaced the three members of the board and I will be announcing the replacements as I have indicated. McKenzie Seeds - Conflict of Interest MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds. Can the Minister indicate whether the government has received a report on McKenzie Seeds from the Provincial Auditor regarding the possible conflict of interest? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Commu nity Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, I can advise that the Auditor is continuing his work and no report has been received. MR. A. DRIEDGER: A further que stion to the same Minister then. Could he inform the House whether the government has asked three senior officers involved in a possible conflict of interest to take a leave of absence? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The three officers in question have indeed taken a leave of absence.

There were some difficulties with respect to getting some records of companies that are not now held by people who appear to have any kind of conflict of interest but there may have been a conflict of interest at a previous time. So it appears that the investigation may go on for longer than was initially expected, so there was a decision reached; and I might say it was jointly by the Aud itor , the Board of Di rectors of Mc Kenzie Seeds and the di rectors, those th ree particular people, to take the particular course that's being taken now.

We're in the process of getting an interim president and comptrolle r, or someone in the Comptr olle r's Department, to take charge. Today we have Mr. Chiswell from the Provincial Auditor's Department, who had been working on the case, going down there to take over as well as another individua l from the Auditor's Department and this is interim. We're looking for people who would be doing it on a short full-time basis. MR. A. DRIEDGER: A further question then regarding this same matter: can the Minister indicate whether 3949

Monday, 27 June, 1983 the three members who have received leave of absence are receiving it with pay? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EVANS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can advise that the board of directors have agreed to allow the officers involved to take leave and they have granted that leave of absence with pay. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister in charge of McKenzie Seeds could inform the House what the total amount of pay is involved that these people will be getting on the leave of absence, and I would also ask him if he could inform the House whether or not he or the chairman of the board was approached by any employees of McKenzie Seeds within the last year and a half and was told that there were possible conflicts. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the money involved in terms of payment, I'll take that question as notice and get back to the member as quickly as possible. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Me mber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds, I wonder if he could inform the House whether he or the Chairman of McKenzie Seeds had, within the last year-and-a-half, received some evidence from some employees who had visited with them that there were possible conflicts occurring at McKenzie Seeds? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L.

EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I indicated an answer to that type of question previously. As I indicated when the Member for Turtle Mountain raised a number of questions that this information was news to me. Inspection Standards - meat packing houses MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My que stion is for the Honourable Minister of Health. Last week, there was a report in the newspaper about the fact that two Manitoba meat packing houses were closed down temporarily from shipping meat into the United States.

Are the officials of his department concerned that Canadian inspection standards are not stringent enough since these packing houses were allowed to continue to sell into Canada at that time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice. MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder if the Minister would also then take as notice a concern that I have, and I'm wondering whether or not the Minister shares the concern about the fact that it is indicated that Canadian inspectors assured consumers north of the border that the products would be reconditioned and sold on the Canadian market. Would he also take that consideration as notice as to whether or not his staff are satisfied with that?

As a third question, would he also take as notice a qu estion as to whether or not his de partment is considering increasing the standards or has made any recommendation to him or to the Minister of the Environment, since Public Health Inspectors come under the Minister of the Environment, whether or not they have recommended increasing Canadian standards to match those of the United States? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to take those questions as notice. Abortion clinic - Dr. Morgentaler MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. H. CARROLL: I have a question, Mr.

Speaker, for the Premi er. I heard on the radio over the weekend that there has been a second raid of the Morgentaler Clinic. Could the First Minister advise the House whether this raid was authorized by the Attorney-General or by the government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the raid in question would be on the basis of the evidence that the police would have obtained, and would be based upon the normal process of police investigation and police prosecution arising from information brought to their attention. MR. H. CARROLL: A supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker, has the government caved in to the Pro Life lobby, and will it condone harassment of the Clinic until the charges resulting from the first raid have been heard? What I'm suggesting in the meantime, there are charges laid; there is a hearing to take place, will this government sit back and allow charge after charge after charge to be laid, thereby harassing the Clinic? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the honourable member that this government has not caved in to any lobby.

This government is permitting the administration of the laws of the land of Canada, and is not interfering in respect to the administration of those laws. In fact, it would be incorrect and it would be improper for the Attorney-General to permit himself to cave in to any lobby pertaining to matters pertaining to criminal jurisdiction in the Province of Manitoba. 3950

Monday, 27 June, 1983 Employment Standards Branch re babysitter MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for St. Norbe rt. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday and Friday, I raised a number of questions with the Minister of Labour .. . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. MERCIER: Last Thur sday and Friday, Mr. Speaker, I raised a number of questions with the Minister of Labour regarding the plight of one, Mrs. Normand, who had been ordered to pay over $900 to a babysitter by the Employment and Standards Branch of her department under a law passed by the NOP at the last Session of the Legislature.

I believe on Friday, the Minister of Labour indicated she would be in a position today to answer those questions, and I would ask her if she has those answers for us today. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the questions regarding advertising. I can't comment on the case itself, since it is before the Labour Board and that would not be proper for me to do. However, the regulation was advertised through press release giving all of the particulars of the regulation. That press release was issued on November Sth. There was a news

article in the paper on October 31s t and the changes to the act were covered. There was news coverage of those changes, or of the discussion of those changes, during the time that it was at the committee stage, at second reading of the bill. The Director of the Immigration and Settlement Branch has been meeting with various groups that supply homemakers, or provide services as domestics, to employers and informing them of the new regulations and there has been an

article in the Welcome News. Because there might still be some concern about this that has been raised by this case that has been reported in the paper, and I might add the

article that was in the paper received a correction in a later issue of the paper after the Employment Standards Officer, or the Assistant Director, I believe it was, called the paper and informed them that there was misinformation in the original article. A correction did appear a few days later. Because we realize that there may be some confusion about this, I have today or de red that letters of information and clarification will go to all employment agencies and all Canada Manpower offices, and we will also be letting people know in whatever way we can, perhaps through a notice in the ad

section of the newspapers, so that the regulations are cle ar to everyone. It is to be remembered that they apply only to those persons who are employed by a single family, paid by members of that single family, in the family's home for more than 24 hour s a week, the reby constituting that as a full-time job. MR G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, was it then the intention of the government and is it now the effect of the law 3951 which they have passed that wherever a babysitter works more than 24 hours per week in a person's home that the employer, the mother, is required to pay at least $4 per hour? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: Well, first of all, Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the mother is suddenly the employer. That may be the case, it may not be the case, but it certainly isn't the only situation that exists when a person is employed in the home. It does point out the fact that the mother is the one who has been expected to do this work. However, I think that the . . . HON. S. LYON: Stop being ideological and get back to common sense, you silly woman. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr.

Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition, the current Leader of the Opposition, wishes to stand on his feet and put into Hansard the fact that he has just referred to me as a silly woman, then I would be happy to respond to his questions as well. HON. S. LYON: Any time at all. HON. IM.B. DOLIN: In the meantime, I will attempt to answer the questions of the more polite member of the opposition, the Member for St. Norbert. He refers to babysitters rather consistently, and in this case that is apparently, and I use the word "apparently," what the woman was doing.

I don't know that and I think that is the case that is before the Labour Board. The regulation and the amendments to the act indicate "domestic" as the word. That is the word that is used. I don't know whether the Labour Board will redefine this word. I don't know whether they will attempt to do that; it is not for me to say. It's not for any of us to comment on at this point when it is before the Labour Board. So the regulation is quite clear. I'm sure it is available to everyone. The case is before the Labour Board and I cannot comment further on that case. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Me mber for St. Norbert.

MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I only referred to mothers because it is from mothers that I'm receiving a large number of calls, and it is mothers who are the ones that have indicated their concern to me. I grant that there may be some single-parent families where fathers will be the ones most particularly concerned. Mr. Speaker, was it the government's intention, and is the fact that a person who works as a babysitter in a home for more than 24 hours per week is to be included within the term "domestic?" Mr. Speaker, it is important that the public know the intention and the effect of the government's legislation.

HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is proper for me to define the term now in a case that is before the Labour Board. The situation with babysitters, and we have been certainly responding to calls explaining that a babysitter is normally someone that is hired for less than 24 hours

Monday, 27 June, 1983 a week or often the children are placed in someone else's home. The law doesn't apply in these cases. If you are talking about employing someone; you are the employer and you are employing someone, then in fact, yes, we're talking about whether it's part-time work or full-time work, or whether they have any rights as an employee. That I suspect will be further defined by the Labour Board. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Sp eaker , in view of the statements by the President of the Winnipeg

Chapter of Parents Without Partners, to the effect that this legislation is ridiculous and could put both babysitters and the employers out of work, and the fact that he cited a number of examples, where persons who are employing babysitters are making $7 an hour and are expected to pay $4 an hour minimum wage, where both the husband and wife are working and attempting to make ends meet, and as a result of this legislation it is not worthwhile for them to continue working.

Is the Minister not concerned about the effects on employment throughout the province for the mothers who happen to be in this particular situation, and for the babysitters who will not find jobs at this minimum wage rate for the kind of work that they are expected to do? HON. M.B. DO LIN: Mr. Sp eaker, I would never underestimate the problems that this may be pointing up.

They're societal problems, they are the way we have been working for some time and we will have to define a lot of measures to deal with the problem that women often work for minimum wage and often carry the responsibility of raising childr en and doing their own domestic work as well. That is a societal problem though and is obviously not dealt with by this particular amendment to The Employment Standards Act. The same

article that the member referred to quotes the person involved as saying, "How can I pay a babysitter the $4 an hour provincial minimum wage, when I'm making $7 a hour? That takes more than 50 percent of my monthly salary away for someone to look after my children." That person, or another person perhaps, but I'm not sure who the quote is from, indicates that $1 an hour is all she can afford for someone to care for her children.

I remember the Member for Kirkfield Park, I believe, questioning me in this House about how she interpreted a program we had, that she interpreted as paying women $1 an hour and she was appalled at the thought that might be taking place. We clearly explained that was not the situation in that program she was talking about, but the point is that she was appalled that women might have to work for $1 an hour. I think there is a relationship. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour.

Is a mother who employs a babysitter for more than 24 hours per week also requi red to pay the payroll tax and Workers Compensation Board? HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, under the regulations the responsibilties of an employer who employs a domestic in their homes for more than 24 hours a week, employed by that same family for more than 24 hours a week, is clearly defined in the regulation, which, if the member does not have, I would be happy to table a copy of those regulations. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister has confirmed that in this situation a mother will be req ui red to pay the payroll tax, Workers Compensation Board, and quite possibly a number of other benefits, is the Minister not concerned enough about this situation to leave these arrangements between mothers and babysitters to themselves to make, as they have done for so many years in this province, in this countr y, to make whatever arrangements they make between themselves and enact some sort of legislation at this Session of the Legislature, so that people can continue to make these arrangements between themselves without the heavy hand of the government being involved?

HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, without dealing with the specifics of what we are going to do with legislation - because I don't think that's appropriate right here - I will mention that th6. 3 are alternatives we are putting into place for parents who need C'Clre for their childr en. I would refer the member to our day care programs, our enha nced day care programs, and the improvements we are making in the number of spaces. We know that this is an area that must be improved and we are working on it.

We are bringing forward those kinds of improvements a little each year as we can do it, and those are some of the alternatives that are available to parents. There are other arrangements that can be made. Many parents place their childr en in family day care, which means that there are a few children staying with a neighbourhood person who chooses to stay at home and earn her living - usually "her" living - in that way. The regulation does not specifically refer to the health and post-5econdary education levy, as regulations do not ever refer to that in our acts in particular that I am aware of.

So the kinds of specifics that the member is talking about would be in another act in a general way, not in this particular regulation. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the First Minister. In view, Mr.

Speaker, of the demonstrated inc apacity of this Mi nister to deal - other than ideologically - with a question as simple as fathers or mothers hiring babysitters, which, with respect, Sir, is no damn business of the government, will this First Minister give an undertaking to the people of Manitoba that he will cause to be stopped this kind of nonsensical, social engineering that is being carried on by this present Minister of Labour to the consternation of thousands of parents throughout Manitoba, to say nothing of youngsters who are doing babysitting, for no good cause other than to have us all I suppose going into some corner socialist day care centre which will make all of them get their giggles and titillation to the obvious prejudice of the public interest of Manitoba? 3952

Monday, 27 June , 1983 Will he not, Mr. Speaker, give that assurance to the people of Manitoba that common sense has not entirely left this government? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether that was indeed a question or whether it was a . . . HON. S. LYON: You bet it was a question. You better start thinking . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . fullf ledged statement, Mr. Speaker. HON. S. LYON: You've got to be fools to interfere with private citizens' lives. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I'll point out to the attention of the Chamber that the Leader of the Opposition referred to members on this side of the Chamber as "fools." In view as to the source of that comment, Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to make much ado, but that should be clearly on the record and should be on transcript as to the Leader of the Opposition's comment. It seems to me that maybe the Leader of the Opposition is touchy because of the announcement that came from Con servative Party sources over the weeken d. A MEMBER: Got a job yet, Sterling? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I reject any suggestions that this has been foolish social engineering or any other kinds of references that the Leader of the Opposition has undertaken. Certainly we will be looking at the entire approach and policy to ensure that it's fair and equitable and we will be doing that, Mr. Speaker. But I reject any suggestion of foolish social engineering, etc., that the Leader of the Opposition has been uttering by way of an attempt to inflame this particular issue. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minister give an assurance to the parents of Manitoba that he and his intrusive government will keep their long, meddling noses out of private affairs of people hiring babysitters? Since when did that become part of the election platform of the government, that they were going to intrude into parents' decisions to hire babysitters? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in reference to, again, the Leader of the Opposition's reference to fools and to meddl ing, if there was a government that was prone to meddle unfairly in affairs it was the government that was led by the then Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, I am prepared, as is indeed our entire caucus, to examine this matter and to look at this matter to ensure that it is fair and that will be done. HON. S. LYON: Well, then, Mr.

Speaker, if the First Minister is gradually coming to his senses, will the First Minister give some unde rtaking to the parents of Manitoba that he will stop the foolishness that the Minister of Labour has perpetrated upon the people of Manitoba by this ill-considered legislation, put into suspension cases that are before the Labour Board, and cure the legislation which brought this nonsensical situation about which is causing heartbreak to thousands of Manitobans today? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the time SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think this is the time for statements. I belie ve that debate takes place subsequent to question period. Bilingualism - proposed resolution MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct a question to the First Minister and would ask him, in light of the many resolutions the government has received from municipalities, in light of the public concern that is starting to be voiced with regards to the bilingual resolution on the Order Paper, will the Premier now reconsider his course of action and indeed call an intersessional legislative committee to deal with this subject matter before the public, so that the intersess ional comm ittee, a commi ttee of the Legislature, can deal with this proposed resolution in a time frame that is much more acceptable to all Manitobans, and that this important issue be discussed by all segments of society and all Manitobans?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will be dealing with the first of the resolutions pertaining to this during debate, and at that time I will be making a statement pertaining to process. MR. R.

BANMAN: In light of the conc ern being expressed by the public and in light of the lack of time that has been given by all members of the Legislature as well as the general public to discuss this particular issue, will the government if they insist on dealing with this resolution this term, will the First Minister be allowing a free vote so that members from Dauphin, members from Kildonan, members from Elmwood, members in this Legislature will be able to express the true conc erns of their cons tituents and not be handcuffed by the First Minister to ram something 3953

Monday, 27 June, 1983 through in a time frame that is unacceptable to most people? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that is a suggestion that is worthy of serious consideration. Forage shortage MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Agriculture, or the one that maybe can take it as notice. Considering the pending shortage of forage in the southeast livestock industry, is the government considering a freight assistance program of some de gree for the farmers in the southeast?

In certain areas of the province, there is more forage than others. Is the government contemplating programs at all to assist the shortage of feed for southeast Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take that qu est ion on behalf of the Mi nister of Agriculture. Ma nitoba Hydro high voltage lines MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct a question to the First Minister.

Last week, I asked the Mini ster of Energy , the Min ister re sponsible for Manitoba Hydro, whether or not he would not consider convening a meeting concerning the municipalities in the Red River Valley, particularly Cartier, Macdonald, where Manitoba Hydro intends to build the second of perhaps a number of high voltage transmission lines. Mr. Speaker, the Minister responded favourably to that question or that suggestion that a possibility of a high voltage transmission corridor should be looked at by Mani toba Hydro.

Has the First Min ister had an opportunity to discuss this matter at all with the Honour able Minister responsible for Hydro? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still under consideration by the department and when a report comes forward, I'm sure that there will be discussions between the Minister of Energy and the First Minister. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I raise it and I will continue to raise it, because Hydro has indicated that they wish to arrive at a decision by the first week of December. The summer has a way of going all too quick ly.

What the municipal officials and the people of that area wish, they wish to meet with the decision makers. Would this government consider convening a meeting with the Chairman of the Manitoba Hydro and/or some of the Ministers responsible in setting Hydro policy? Would they have an opportunity of meeting with some of the municipal officials that are very much concerned about Manitoba Hydro's action in this regard? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Sp eaker , I think that the Honourable Member for Lakeside has certainly offered a constructive proposal, one which I would certainly like to pursue further with the department and the Minister involved. MR. H. ENNS: I want to thank the Honourable First Minister for that question. I want to assure him that he will be responded to by those persons for whom I'm asking this question. They want to very much have that kind of a meeting. Demonstrations - nuclear weapons Mr.

Speaker, a second question on a different subject, directed to the First Minister, who from time to time has a propensity for letting his Ministers act in their individual capacity to 3ttend various demonstrations, etc., etc., etc. The question comPs from the fact that France has announced that they have just successfully tested the neutron bomb. I see no demonstrations around this Legislature or indeed anywhere else with respect to that very horrific advancement of nuclear weaponry. My question, Mr.

Speaker, is: Is it only when the Un ited States does these kind of things that we demonstrate, or are we genuinely concerned about the potential nuclear holocaust? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, just so it will be clear, I do n't want to be est ablishing a precedent for responding to questions pertaining to international affairs. At the same time, I don't want to appear to be ducking the question from the Honourable Member for Lakeside.

I want the honourable member to know that I disapprove of the testing of neutron bombs, whether it be by Com munist Soviet Union, whether it be by Reagan's United States of America, or whether it be by a Socialist Government in France. CNR Sy mington Yards - accident MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Environment, but in his absence, I'll direct my question to the Honourable Minister of Highways.

Over the weekend, I had occasion to discuss some important things at a meeting with some employees of the CNR, particularly who worked at the Symington Yard in St. Boniface. I was told that there was an accident of some magnitude there. Can the Ho nourable Minister of Highways bring me up to date as to the nature of such an accident? 3954

Mond ay, 27 June, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Speaker, the member should appreciate the fact that my responsibility does not extend to railway system, which is indeed the jurisdiction of the Government of Canada and, environmentally, of course, federal and provincial. MR. A. KOVNATS: I don't know to whom to direct the next question, Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as it is of great concern, seeing as my constituency is right next to Syming ton Yard, and the Ho nour able Mem ber for Radisson also has a constituency next to Symington Yard.

I think the Honour able Member for Springfield has a constituency close to Symington Yard, and the Honourable Member for Transcona has a constituency close to the Symington Yards. I wonder who I may ask a question to see if there was any danger to the residents of those constituencies, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: Not this government, they don't know. MR. A.

KOVNATS: I would direct the question to the Honourable First Minister as I have nobody else to direct that question to, seeing as the Honourable Minis ter of Highw ays has relie ved hi mself of any responsibility concerning this potential - this accident that happened over the weekend. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Honour able Member for Niakwa for raising this matter of concern.

It's a matter that would properly fall within the responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, and I'll take the matter as notice and raise it with the Minister for an appropriate response. Careerstart Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other day, in fact, several times over the past couple of weeks, questions have been raised about activities under the Careerstart Program.

I would like to give just a brief answer and then table - I think for the Member for Minnedosa, that was the person who asked the question on Friday - for himself or for the Member for St. Norbert if he wishes to take it for him, a complete report on the issues. Very briefly, advertising was very complete for this program and it was done throughout the province at the same time. There has been no indication that any civil servant received any information before the rest of the public did.

The sons and daughters of potential employers are eligible, but that particular fact, the fact that immediate relatives were not deemed ineligible, is not a particular feature of this program nor one that has to be advertised. In fact, the intent of the program is to encourage additional positions over and above the regular positions that an employer might have. Therefore, and because of the Human Rights ruling on this issue, that the Human Rights Commission did advise us to include a clause eliminating immediate relatives would cause the employers to discriminate on the basis of family status.

We removed that particular clause, but it was not an issue which was going to be advertised. This is not a program set up to hire people's sons and daughters. The fact is that in particular cases they may in fact be hired. There are 49 employers who have hired their own children into these positions.

In that entire area around Dauphin, which is our Parklands regions, in Employment Services there have been 726 positions approved just under the business and farms area in Careerstart The budget - this relates to the question of how many applications were refused - of 9.1 million was divided between the business and farm applications and non profit organization applications at the same ratio as the number of applications received. Therefore two th irds of the bu dget went to busi ness and farm applications and one- third went to the non-profit organization sector.

This in fact enabled the program to fund every business and farm application which was qualified and submitted by the deadline date. I'm pleased to tell you that as money does become available some funds always become available through what is called slippage as applications are cancelled for one reason or another. As that money does become available, people who were perhaps not approved for their entire application level, say not all three positions are being contacted and offered further assistance, no one had the advantage of acce ssing any of this information early.

The conflict-of-interest situation, civil servants hiring people under this program - some business owners and farmers also happen to work at Civil Service jobs - we have carefully perused all of the applications from the Parklands regions. They may have applied under the business and farm portion of the program, these people may have, but we have no way of knowing it as of course a different name is used than their own personal name which is the one under which they work for the government All applications were assessed during the week after the deadline date, and the date of application was received.

As long as the application was received prior to the deadline, it played no part whatsoever in the assessment process. So after careful inquiry we find that all of the allegations of abuse of the Careerstart Program are unfounded; we have not been able to find any facts to substantiate any of them. I will table the complete report with a listing of all of the areas of advertisement and so on. Unemployment rate MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Memb er for St Norbert MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, could the Minister of Labour inform the House as to how many thousands of young Manitobans between the ages of 15 and 24 are still unem ployed? HON. M.B. DOLIN: I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker. Order for Return - Lionel Orlikow MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. 3955

Monday, 27 June, 1983 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Acting Government House Leader. I've asked this question on a number of occasions, but I wonder if the government is yet in a position to respond to my Order for Return regarding the employment of Lionel Orlikow. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to take that question as notice. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, before . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Acting Government House Leader. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE HON. A. MACKLING: Before commencing the items, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to give an announcement that Law Amendments Comm ittee will meet July 5th at 10 :00 a.m., that's Tuesday, July 5th at 10 :00 a.m.

From this point on, would you first call the Constitutional Amendment on Aboriginal Rights, standing in the name of the First Minister, found on Page 7 of the Order Paper; and then second readings in this order, Bill No. 92, standing in the name of the Minister of Urban Affairs; and Bill No. 85, standing in the name of the Minister of Transportation; and then Bill No. 84, standing in the name of the Minister of Housing. PROPOSED RESOLUTION CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT RE: ABORIGINAL RIGHTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Sp eak er, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minister of Com munity Services, for a resolution to authorize His Excellency the Go ver nor General to issue a proclamation respecting amendments to the Constitution of Canada. WHERE AS The Constitution Act, 1982, provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the 3over nor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and re solutions of the Legisl ative Assem blies as provided for in

Section 38 thereof; AND WHE REAS the Constitution of Canada, reflecting the country and Canadian society, continues to develop and strengthen the rights and freed oms that it guarantees; AND WHE REAS, after a gradual transition of Canada from colonial status to the status of an independent and sovereign state, Canadians have, as of April 17, 19 82, full authority to amend their Constitution in Canada; AND WHERE AS historically and equitably it is fitting that the early exercise of that full authority should relate to the rights and freedoms of the first inhabitants of Canada, the aboriginal peoples;

NOW THEREFORE the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Manitoba resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a proclamation un der the Gr eat Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada as follows: PROCLAMATION AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA I. Paragraph 25(

b) of The Constitution Act, 1982 is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "(

b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so aquired."

Section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is amended by adding thereto the following subsections: "

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.

(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons." 3. The said act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after

section 35 thereof, the following section: "3 5.1. The governme nt of Canada and the provincial governments are committed to the principle that, before any amendment is made to Class 24 of

Section 91 of The Constitution Act 1867, to

Section 25 of this act or to this part, (

a) a constitutional conference that includes in its agenda an item relating to the proposed amendment, composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the First Ministers of the provinces, will be convened by the Prime Mi nister of Canada; and (

b) the Prime Minister of Canada will invite representatives of the aboriginal peoples of Canada to participate in the discussions on that item." 4. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after

section 37 thereof, the following part: "PART IV.1 CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES 37.1(1) In addition to the conference convened in March 19 83, at least two constitutional conferences composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the First Ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada, the first within th ree years after April 17 , 1982 and the second within five years after that date.

(2) Each conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the Prim e Min ister of Canada shall invite 3956

Monday, 27 June, 1983 representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.

(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representativ es of the govern ments of the Yu kon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.

(4) Nothing in this

section shall be construed so as to derogate from subsection 35( 1)." 5. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after

section 54 thereof, the following section: "54. 1

Part IV.1 and this

section are repealed on April 18, 19 87. 6. The said act is further amended by adding thereto the following section: "61. A reference to the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 shall be deemed to include a reference to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation, 19 83. " 7. This proclamation may be cited as the Constitution Amendment Proclamation 1983. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, in beginning the debate on the first of three Constitutional Resolutions to debate it in the House in this Session, I would like the House to be clear in the procedure that we propose to foll ow. As I and the Government House Leader stated when this matter was first discussed on June 17, 19 83, the government will not agree to referring the subject matter of any of the resolutions to a committee of the House for intersessional study. Certainly with respect to the aboriginal rights matters which I introduced today and a proposed amendment to

Section 23 of The Manitoba Act, it is important in our view that the matters be dealt with at this Session. It is also our view that it is important that the public have an opportunity to receive full information on all of the issues and to be able to raise questions, and to express opinions. It was with this in mind that we had announced on June 17 th the holding of a number of public meetings in various Manitoba centres. I expect the Government House Leader to announce full details of these meetings later this week.

I'm advised that it is likely that the first of these meetings will be held in Brandon on or about July 7th or 8th. These meetings will include a public meeting in Winnipeg. In addition, the Attorney-General, in due course, acting in his capacity as Government House Leader will introduce a motion to refer the subject matter of the resolutions to one of the Standing Comm ittees of the Legislature to provide a more formal opportunity for presentations from the public. The referral will req uire the committee to report back prior to the conclusion of debate on the resolutions.

With respect to amendments these, of course, will have to be introduced, if at all, during the course of debate in the House. The rules do not provide for a committee stage on the text of resolutions as is the case with bills. I deem it is desirable at this time to clarify the question of amendments particularly to the resolutions dealing with

Section 23 of the Manitoba Act. As pointed out by the Attorney-General the agreement is in effect an agreement to resolve a court case. It follows that before the Government of Manitoba could agree to any amendments it would have to insure that other parties to the court action and the Federal Go ver nment which must introduc e an amendin g resolution in the House of Commons, in the Senate, in exactly the same terms as the amending resolution in the House would agree. Mr.

Speaker, any questions that may rise in respect to the process will be followed, will be addressed to this House by the Government House Leader upon his return to the House tommo row. The resolution before us today results from the First Minister's Conference on aboriginal matters which was held in March of this year. At that time the Provincial and the Federal Governments of Canada met for the first time with representatives of Native peoples and territorial governments to discuss amendments to the Canada Constitution pertaining to aboriginal matters.

This conference provided the first real chance to begin the process of fulf ill ing the responsi bilities of all Canadians for its Native peoples, to ensure that all aboriginal and treaty rights are eventually identified, defined, respected, enshrined. At the conclusion of the two-day conference a consensus had not been reached on agenda items. Therefore all parties except for Quebec unanimously agreed to the resolution before us and the parties agreed to submit this resolution to the respective Legislatures for approval.

I am pleased and proud that I and my caucus have committed ourselves to the passing of this resolution. It will ensure that the Manitoba position remains clear, strong, unwavering in support of the Native people's objectives of enshrining their rights into the Canadian Constitution. The passing of this resolution is yet another important step in this historic process.

It will provide the basis on which future conferences can occur, and it is through these conferences that dialogue can take place which will result in permanent entrenchment of the guarantees and rights which the Native people of this country so justly deserve, justly not only because the Native peoples were the founding nations of this land, but because the recent repatriation of our Constitution took place without addressing or without resolving the important matter of dealing with the concerns of Canada's founding people.

It is incumbent, therefore, upon the present federal and provincial Legislatur es to proceed with determination in the passage of this resolution so that a just, fair agreement can be reached as quickly as possible. The position of the Manitoba Government concerning this constitutional amendment is clear. Prior to the March Conference, we publicly indicated that we would do what we can to press for the entrenchment of aboriginal rights for Canada's Indian, Inuit and Metis within the Canadian Constitution. This was and remains our basic objective.

Indeed, this objective was first established following our election in November of 1981. - (I nterjection) - 3957

Monday, 27 June, 1983 We were elected amidst a national debate over how aboriginal rights might be entrenche d within the Constitution. At that time, we committed ourselves to the entrenchment and to the definition of aboriginal rights, and we are proud that we continue to work toward that goal. The position, the objectives which the Manitoba delegation brought to Ottawa was established in large part as a result of the close and intensive consultations which the government undertook with Manitoba's Native peoples and organizations.

In the year leading up to the Co nference, this process of consultation was by no means perfect, but for all its limitations it brought us to the table with the strength of well-developed concepts, well-developed ideas. The Manitoba position was reflective of a common will which resulted from working on a common cause. It was also reflective of what can be achieved through a consultative, co operative approach. Indeed I am proud that more than half of Manitoba's delegation was comprised of Native representatives. In this regard, Manitoba has provided a model for other provinces.

Through this ongoing teamwork process, we were able to draft a statement of principles which defined the specific objectives which we hope can be reached once an agreement is realized at the Constitutional Conference.

Briefly, the obj ectives outlined in our statement of principles are equality of rights for Native women; the repeal of those sections pertaining to the extension of provinces and to the Territories and to the creation of new provinces; providing a Constitutional guarantee to Treaty rights to include modern agreements similar to treaties such as the James Bay Agreement; ensuring an ongoing process within the Constitution to renew, to extend in time the mandate given to the First Ministers to define those aboriginal and Treaty rights to be entrenched in the Constitution.

We believe that such a set of principles must be adopted by the parties that are involved in the Constitutional process for such a set of principles can provide the basis upon which specific items might be subsequently defined as rights for inclusion in Canada's Constitution. The resolution now before us basically declares that aboriginal and Treaty rights are guaranteed equally to males and females. It further states that the rights and the freed oms guaranteed in the Charter do not take away from righ ts acqu ired by way of land claim settlements.

It calls for at least two more Constitutional Conf erences on aboriginal rights before 1987. The items contained within the resolution are critical building blocks of the ongoing process. They will allow us to proceed to the next step, the next Constitutional Conference. I am confident that an a§reement will result which will provide the guarantees which our Native people seek. The March Conference showed Canadians that the Native peoples have the leadership to eloquently and forcibly state their case. I belie ve that most Canadians are sympathetic to the plight and the positions outlined by our Native peoples.

I believe that most thinking people do not feel threatened by the aspirations of Native peoples for we should all realize that the entrenchment of aboriginal rights does not diminish, does not reduce the rights of other Canadians. It strengthens all our people, all of our society. Indeed, removing social and economic roadblocks that will allow Native peoples to su cceed will be a victory for all Canadians and not just for aboriginal people. Those concerns, these aspirations must be fully understood, must be fully addressed for the aboriginal peoples in our Canadian society do hold a special status.

They do so by virtue of the fact that they occupy and they own the lands of this country prior to the European settlement and the application of European law. At the time of the Eu ropean sett lement, our ancestors encou ntered aboriginal peoples who existed and who had long existed as distinct nations. These aboriginal peoples exercised the power of self government over their religious, over their cultural, over their economic, over their political life. They exercised control over their territory and over the living and over the natural resources in the land that they inhabited.

This is true for the aboriginal people who lived in what we now call Manitoba as it was for those in other parts of Canada, now comprising the Canadian provinces and territories. Where the several centuries which have followed have altered, have drastically affected the Native way of life, it is still essential that the Canadian Constitutional struc tur e identify a1.:l define aboriginal rights for inclusion in the Canadian Constitution. This process on identification and of defining aboriginal rights for inclusion in the Canadian Consitution.

This process of iden tification and of defi ning aboriginal rights, which have existed for centuries, will be a difficult but trying process and one which must take place over a considerable period of time. That is why we strongly believe that the conference of last March was but only a beginning, and that is why we advocated for a constitutionalized ongoing process, and because this process will profoundly affect the future of the aboriginal peoples we believe it is essential that the aboriginal people be able to play a leading role and have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into that process.

It's my hope that other provinces and Native organizations will follow the lead of Manitoba and undertake closer direct consultation with one another, so that provincial positions and representations at these conferences incorporate the mutual goals and the aspirations of Natives, as well as of the general population. It's our view that a constitutional Charter of Rights for the aboriginal people would be su bstantially incomplete without a meaningful role, in being able to initiate amendments and being able to apply their consent to constitutional amendments which exclusively and directly affect them.

I am hopeful that with the unanimous passage of this resolution in this Chamber the government and the people of Manitoba can send to Ottawa a united, strong message, a message which un derli nes our full commi tment to re solving matters of conc ern to aboriginal people so that the defi ning and the entrenchment of aboriginal rights can become a reality in the not too distant future. We should all view this ongoing process as a hopeful prospect. I believe it can be beneficial for all Canadians and for all Manitobans, both aboriginal and non aboriginal.

Our Constitution can never be complete, nor can we be fully and firmly established as a nation until this critical process is complete. We owe it to our 3958

Monday, 27 June, 1983 Native people as the founders, as the first dwellers of our country, and we owe it to ourselves if we are to demonstrate our respect for history, our belief in social and economic justice, our concern for the destiny of our peoples. In closing, I commend and recommend this resolution to the House, and I urge all members to support this resolution. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Spea ker, I have a question of clarification of the First Minister. Could he advise who will serve on the Informational Comm ittee? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the Government House Leader will be making announcements pertaining to those hearings, as I indicated in my early remarks, before the end of the week. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a second question. The First Minister referred to public meetings. In view, Mr. Speaker, of the tradition among Manitobans and Manitoba workers who have managed to accumulate enough funds to buy a modest cottage and spend the month of July, or a part, at the lake, which is traditional in Manitoba among many many workers in Manitoba, has he considered appropriate that so-called public hearings be held in the month of July? HON.

H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that has always been a problem traditionally in this House. I can remember when we dealt with many pieces of legislation in the summer months in the past, dur ing times from '69 to '77, from times '77 to '81. Again, we unfortunately will be having to deal with matters pertaining to seat belts, the Cattle Produc ers Association, other matters during the months of July and August, just as we had to deal with many many matters since 1978, '79, '80, '81, during the months of July and August and June, or late June, Mr. Speaker.

I have no doubt that there will be a great deal of participation in the hearings both in the House and by way of the informational meetings. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by th e Mem ber for Niakwa, th at the de bate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILLS Bill NO. 92 - THE CITY OF WINNIP EG ACT HON. E. KOSTYRA presented Bill No. 92,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill No. 92,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act. The amend ments prepared for consi derat ion of the Legislature this Session are mainly administrative in nature. It is the intention of this government to establish a committee review in the fall of 19 83 to assess the success of The City of Wi nnipeg Act in providing Winnipeg area residents with the most responsive and effective government possible. The most significant changes proposed in Bill 92 will permit City of Wi nnipeg employees to be nominated for election to, or to become members of City Council, the Legislative Assembly, and Parliament.

At present, civic employees are disqualified for running or sitting on City Council. To safeguard the public's interest and the rights of civic employees, Bill No. 92 will require that any employer of the city or its agencies who proposes to become a candidate for election of a member of council shall apply for and be granted a leave of absence for the period of his/her candidacy and, if elected , for a period commencing on the date of the election.

In response to mee tings with the additional zone association municipalities, Bill No. 92 will enable the add itional zone muni cipali ties to conduc t public meet ings on zoning and subdi vision applications. Presently the designated committee of the City of Winnipeg is requir ed to conduct such meetings. Bill 92 will give the additional zone municipalities the same status in terms of planning and zoning as that of the City of Winnipeg's community committees.

In order to conform, two provisions contained in Bill 47, The Municipal Conflict of Interest Act, Bill No. 92 will repeal and amend sections of The City of Winnipeg Act which presently forbids anyone who has a major conflicting interest from seek ing office as a ci ty- councill or. Bill 92 adds new sections to The City of Winnipeg Act to clarify the que stion of contruction in designated floodway areas. More than half of the amendments in Bill 92 have been drafted in response to specific requests made by the City of Winnipeg over the past two years.

Most of these changes in wording clarify terms, strengthen present powers and sanction existing city practices. Bill 92 provides City Council with greater latitude in establishing its own pension plans and permits it to institute for the first time its own group insurance plan. The City of Winnipeg Act presently prescribes the amount of benefit to be received and who is entitled to receive it. The government is of the opinion that the City Council should be given the powers to determine its own pension and insurance plan.

Provision is also made in Bill 92 to reduce the advertising requirements for rezoning variants and conditional use applications. Presently such applications require two notices to be published in two newspapers having a general circulation in the city in each of two successive weeks prior to the public hearings. The City of Winnipeg Act requires that the applicants pay the advertising fee charged by the newspaper, which at this time is $360 for a rezoning application. Proposed changes to the act will reduce these costs by half.

Also to reduce mailing costs to the City of Winnipeg, reports required in the act to be forwarded to those who have made rep resenta tions at communi ty commit tee reqarding a zoning matter will be permitted to be sent 3959

Monday, 27 June, 1983 by regular mail rather than registered mail. In order that all members of the Legislative Assembly be familiar with the provisions contained in Bill 92, I will have distributed to you shortly a brief listing and

summary of each provision. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend Bill 92 to the honourable members for their consideration and adoption. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Me mber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Tuxedo, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill 85 - THE HIG HWAY S AND TRANSPO RTATION CO NSTRUCTION CO NTRACTS DISBURSEME NT ACT HON. S. USKIW presented Bill No. 85, The Highways and Transpor tation Construction Con tracts Disbursement Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister. HON. S.

USKIW: Mr. Speaker, members of the House are probably familiar with why the need for the changes that we are introducing through this bill having to do with the fact that inevitably every year we have one or two cases wher<:o a general contractor is unable to fulfil! his or her obligations or the company obligations entered into with the Department of Highways and the way in which we currently operate to resolve that kind of a problem.

Under the general condi tions, specifications applicable to all highw ays con tracts has always contained the following requirements: Payments under contracts - The contractor shall pay every claim for the price of work, service or materials made by a person who performs any work or service upon or in respect of, or places, or furnishes any materials to be used in performance of the contract and the payment of every such claim by the contractor shall by an obligation under the contract as fully as the doing of any work thereunder and, so long as any such claim remains un satisfi ed, the co ntr act shall be de emed to be uncompleted.

Also another provision - When the contractor gets into financial difficulties, he cannot pay his creditors and the department cannot pay the contractor, the general conditions go on to say as follows: If four months after the completion of all essential physical work on a contract, the contractor is unable to complete a statutory declaration showing that all accounts for labour, materials and services reasonably required in the completion of the contract have been paid, or provision for the payment has been made, the Minister reserves the right to pay all mon ies owing to the contractor to the bonding company; or in the event that the bonding company does not wish to accept the monies subject to the trust conditions imposed by the Minister, then the Minister may pay the monies to a trustee for distribution.

Previously, Mr. Speaker, when the money had to be paid to a trustee for distribution, it required a special Cont ract Disbursements Act. In other words, for each contractor that came into default, we had to have

an act for that particular default. The time involved, of course, members will appreciate, is extremely significant in that it sometimes takes a year to two years to bring resolution to that kind of a case under the existing provision, wherein a new bill has to be introduced and must go through all of the re adings and committee hearings and so on. It is prososed, therefore, that since the department is expected to be excluded from The Builders Liens Act - and that's

an act that is an amendment that will be coming forward - to pass one act called The Proceeds of Contr act Disbursements Act to allow problem contracts to be handled in a more expeditious manner. The individual Contr act Disbursement Act format, however, has been used as a basis for the new act, but the words, "contract, contractor, holdback and trustree" have been defined to reflect the fact that this is a general piece of legislation. This act also allows some leeway in distributing the contract proceeds.

The department is given the option of simply retaining the holdback until directed in writing, and that would be by the parties in dispute, how to dispose of it, or take interpleader proceedings before the court so that the matter can be settled judiciously or by the appointment of a trustee. The trustee can be a firm of accountants or any other independant person that the Minister may decide upon. In essence, Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is providing through this bill a means by which we can much more quickly rectify the question of how to disburse funds in a situation where we have a default in contract.

We believe that that's in the interest of the public, and <:ertainly is in the interest of the contractor in question and ail of the lien holders in question. So, I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation should receive unanimous support. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question for clarification? Previous today, when we were in question period, I asked the Honourable Minister a question concerning an accident in Symington Yards, and I was advised that this was not his responsibility, that it was a federal responsibility.

Yet, this bill today, it starts with Highways and Transportation, and would assume that he would be the Honourable Minister of Transportation also. Would this fall under his jurisdiction, or is he just accepting the responsibility for this particular act. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Transportation, HON. S. IJSKIW: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Niakwa raised a question relating to environmental concerns. 3960

Monday, 27 June, 1983 Of course, th at is a matter that the Mini ster of Environment must deal with. The Transportation Act provides for the Minister of Transport to have jurisdiction over the highways of Manitoba in particular, although we are also responsible for the area of interfacing with the Government of Canada with respect to, yes, airlines, railway tariff, etc. We have a division within our de partment that specializes in that field and which was formerly in the Department of Industry.

But with respect to the specific of an accident on a railway, that indeed is a federal responsibility and our role as the province, of course, has to be one of environmental protection, which is that of another Minister. MR. A. KOVNATS: I thank the Honourable Minister. Mr. Sp eaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill NO. 84 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE RESIDENTIAL RENT REGULATION ACT HON. J. STORIE presented Bill No. 84,

An Act to amend The Residential Rent Regulation Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. STORIE: Thank yo u, Mr. Sp eaker . My comments will be brief. The amendments to this act are generally of an administrative nature and are designed to clarify the intent of certain provisions within The Residential Rent Regulation Act. For example, the definition of residential premises is suggested for amendment so that it will conform with the definition contained in The Landlord and Tenant Act.

In addition, occupancy permits we have found are not always issued in the manner that was assumed in the drafting of The Rent Regulation Act. There are cases in the province where no occupancy permit is issued, and other cases where the occupancy permit is issued subsequent to the particular occupancy of a given unit. Because of these unusual situations and the variations that occur across the province, I am bringing forward an amendment to cover these various possibilities. The act, Mr.

Speaker, was designed to provide, as well, owners of small residential dwellings, that is, with three or less units, with some latitude in rent setting. It was not intended, however, to apply to condominium units where there may be many owner-occupied units, with three or less of those units rented. The amendment I'm suggesting would help to clarify that particular situation. Finally, I am suggesting an amendment that would administratively simplify the matter of handling late appeals.

The amendment would allow the Co-ordinator of Appeals, rather than an Appeal Panel, to determine if there exists good and sufficient reason for a late filing of an appeal. I believe that the Co-ordinator of Appeals is in a better position to look into such matters than is a panel, and would not require the convening of a panel when, in fact, the panel would have no subsequent function. I would, therefore, recommend this bill to honourable members for their consideration and adoption. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye, that debate be adjourned on this bill. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting House Leader. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you call these bills in this order please: Bill No. 89, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Virden; and then Bill No. 60, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Pembina; and Bill No. 47, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Arthur. BILL 89 - THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 89, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Virden. The Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you , Mr . Speak er. The Honourable Member for Virden adjourned debate on this bill on my behalf. Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Housing introduced this bill for second reading, he ind icated that the amendments were of a minor housekeeping nature and, except for the compensatory measures due to tenants freeing-up their premises to a landlord under certain provisions of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act, there was nothing of consequence in the bill.

I took the Minister at his word. In fact, as I reviewed his statement, he said, "Most of the amendments to this act are of a housekeeping or administrative nature." I took the Minister at this word and went away for a few days to look after some other ende avours in Ottawa, and then only began to peruse the bill as I re turned. When I looked at it, I had a number of concerns that I thought ought to be raised. Firstly, this act was just amended last year.

If these are only of a minor and a ho useke eping nature, given the fact that we are currently faced with over 10 0 bills and a very heavy legislative load, why would the Minis ter have his department push it forward at this time? Why, if they are of such a minor and a housekeeping nature, are we being asked to consider this legislation at this time when we do have such a heavy load? Can't the government get its act together; can't the Cabinet decided on priorities and try and deal with legislation that is essential, that is necessary at this time, when 3961

Monday, 27 June, 1983 we are facing, as I say, such a heavy load of debate in the House and consideration of bills? I guess that the new Minister is attempting to justify the existence of the new department, the added staff and the expense and so on that's been incurred by the government in creating this new department. I guess that is probably why they have to proceed with it. If they have to proceed with it, given the fact that this session has gone on for quite some time, why is it being done in such a rush? I, personally, have counted at least four typographical or editorial errors that have been made.

That's only in the English version of a five page bill. Why is the department proceeding with it in such haste, and without giving it due consideration, as I see it? That's another question that I have, and I will raise the editorial or typographical errors that I have picked up as we get into committee on this. Getting to the bill, Mr. Speaker, and its contents. As I perused it, a number of things became apparent to me; the first of which was that I don't believe this is a minor housekeeping bill.

In fact, believe that there are some serious areas of consideration in this bill that somebody, whether it's the Minister or his staff have decided to proceed with, that, to my way of thinking, are more than just minor and administrative in nature. For instance, in the provisions of this bill, Mr. Speaker, there are amendments to sections of the existing Landlord and Tenant Act.

The Landlord and Tenant Act has always acknowledged the right of the tenant to continued occupany with limited exceptions as long as the tenant is not in default of any obligations under the act or under his tenancy agreement, but even under these exceptions, a forced move can be expensive or socially disrup tive. So th ere ought to be lim ited circumstances under which a tenant can be forced to leave the premises. I believe we all acknowledge that; I believe we all probably support that sort of provision in the act, and it exists there.

Under this provision, whereby a tenant might, under certain circu mstances, be required to move, and those are limited circumstances, as I look through the existing act, I see that the circumstances are where a landlord requires the possession of the premises for the purpose of demolition; where the landlor d re quir es the possession of the premises for purposes of carrying out major renovations, rehabilitation, and so on; or where the landlord requir es the premises for his own occupany, or that of his parents or his spouse's parents, or in this case now, an adult child, and I'll speak about that particular amendment.

So, those are rather narrow circumstances under which a tenant might be required to leave the premises that he has occupied in the past, and what we are doing is making sure that there is some compensatory offer to the tenant for this socially disruptive circumstance that could be brought to bear of requiring him or her to move. We are now making a change that requir es that they be given firstly, three months notice, which doesn't seem to be unreasonable; and secondly, that the landlord must forego the last two months of rent on the premises.

On the surface that may appear to be reasonable, but let's take a look at what might cause the triggering of this compensatory action on behalf of the landlord, the three months notice and then the last two months being given rent free. But as I said, the th ree major circums tances are that the landlord requi res the premises back for the purpose of demolishing the building. Well, first ly, if the landlord req ui res the repossess ion of the prem ises for this purp ose, presumably he is going to be replacing that revenue bearing property with some other revenue-bearing set of circumstances.

If we look at the situation and I've talked to various landlords and property managers in the city , and cer tainly a numb er of them have circumstances at the moment, that that will govern. There are properties, as the members are probably aware, for instance, along Broadway just down the street from us, that are currently residential rental premises, that are owned by a major landlord that have commercial zoning and that are about to be demolished and replaced with a large revenue-bearing commercial property.

Under those circumstances, if you take some of the things that are on the books right now and you take, as I say, a large valuable piece of property, you would find, for instance, that they're going to be replaced with a multimillion dollar commercial complex and perhaps it's a $5 million project.

So if the landlord has to forego the last two months rent on a 100-suite apartment that exists, for instance in one case, we're dealing with perhaps $70,000 of compensation that is going to have to repay to his tenants and that amounts to 1. 5 percent of the project cost and I'm sure that would be built into the project cost of the reconstruction and that would probably not affect the major landlord too drastically. They wou:d just simply have to take that into account and make sure that the property with which it is being replaced is sufficient to bear revenue to justify that kind of expenditure.

But time and time again, from my experience in the portf olio that the Min ister occup ies, ther e are circu mstances always - and I say this as well from my experience as a city councillor - in which we, as government, would like to see old, deteriorated, badly decayed property that is currently being rented out, being upgraded and replaced with better properties.

In other words, you may find an individual home or a duplex or a small set .. of rental properties that is in various areas of the city, in which, on a spot renewal basis, you could upgrade the area and replace it with a better residential property, again, that may be rented out. It seems to me that we don't want to discourage that kind of thing happening. We don't want to tag the small property owner, who wants to replace his old, deteriorated, decayed property with a better property; we don't want him to be discouraged from doing that.

Yet this provision will do that and it will lead to continued decay, deterioration in various areas of the city. And I say that if you 'r e looking at, for instance, the replacement of a duplex that may be very badly deteriorated with a new modern one, you're now asking a person on a $80,000 renovation renewal project, to perhaps forego something in the order of $1 ,500 in rent - you know, two properties, two months, and that sort of thing.

It seems to me that we're now getting into a range that may cause him to think twice and if he is not inclined in the first place to do it, but under some encouragement from zoning laws and that sort of thing he wants to, this is now a discouragement to do that kind of thing, to do the kind of upgrading renewals in various areas of the city that we'd like to 3962

Monday, 27 June, 19 83 see happen. That's with respect to the demolition portion. Now if you apply this particular provision of the two months rent free to the existing tenant for requiring them to move under provisions that were put in the act with good reason because there ought to be this kind of provision so that landlords can be encouraged to do the thing we want them to do, so this is not a provision that was put in there under duress or because landlords said they must have an out.

This was put in knowingly by previous administrations because we want to encourage the replacement of old decayed properties with better properties. Se cond ly, we want to encour age the rep air, renovation, restoration and rehabilitation of existing properties at all times; major work that we would like to see done to upgrade rental properties so that we don't have a deteriorating housing stock; so we don't have people living in poor condi tions in rental accommodation in this province and this government opposite acknowledged and encourages that kind of thing happening in rental properties.

As a matter of fact during the bringing in of The Residential Rent Regulation Act - and I can remember this Minister's predecessor proclaiming loudly the fact that his act would not have the kind of problems that other acts did in major centers, that other rent control legislation in other major centers in North America did - that is, that they restricted or discouraged people from upgrading their rental properties, and it led to the kind of decay and deterioration that you found.

He mentioned major cities in the United States like New York, Chicago and so on in which rent controls have led to a deteriorating rental housing stock because there's no incentive for the owners to upgrade. Well in this particular case, Mr. Speaker, we now are bringing in a provision that goes directly contrary to that which is in their act and that is, their act calls for and allows for rehabilitation of rental properties with the incentive that, if it's brought up to a certain standard it will then become rent free for a period of up to five years.

That's, apparently according to the government when they brought that in, a direct incentive, a very strong incentive. They called it an enlightened approach to rent controls. They said it was a provision that should be applauded by all members of the community, both landlords, tenants, and taxpayers alike.

Here the next year, the very next year, they bring in a change to The Landlord and Tenant Act that goes directly against that and is a disincentive to somebody who wants to rehabilitate, upgrade, restore, renovate rental housing stock. (Interjection) - They now have to pay, as compensation, two months rent to every person that they kick out of accommodation in order to do the rental rehabilitation.

It goes against, not only their principles in bringing in !he rent control legislation, but Federal and Provincial Go vernments, this gover nment and the Federal Government are, through various programs on the books right now, attempting to encourage this kind of rehabilitation, restoration, and upgrading through RAP Federal Program; through the Core Area Rehabilitation Program of rental housing stock; through CREDA which is the Conservation Renewable Energy Demonstration Agreement.

These are all areas in which funding can be provided by Federal and Provincial Governments to upgrade, renovate, reh abilitate, and now we're coming forth with a disincentive, a direct disincentive for people to do that. So I wonder what this Minister's department is thinking. I wonder what his advisers are thinking when they're going against the very programs that they are funding to encourage this upgrading of house stock. They come against it by providing a direct disincentive to that kind of thing.

Well, that's a problem as I see with the second area, that's a severe penalty, and I think that this just indicates to me that there's confusion in the Housing Minster's Department, there's confusion in the government that is setting policy and the left hand doesn't know what the right hand's doing, if there is a right hand on that side. Well, it seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that this kind of thing would have been alleviated or avoided if they had had prior consultation about this act But I have found from contacting people throughout the rental industry, the property management industry, that there was prior consul tation in bringing forth thes e recommendations. The property managers that I spoke to received a copy of this act from the Minister the day after they received a copy from me. So he introduced it in the House, he gave the opening statement on it and then he sent it out for discussion. Well it seems to me that that's putting the cart before the horse.

If in fact he had some concerns for the viewpoint of those who would be most closely affected, why did he not ask about it before he made the changes in the act, brought them into the House, and put them forth as legislation at a time, as I say, when we're already dealing with too much legislation in this House? When we are already overbur dened with work in this House, why would he not have consulted first and maybe found out that there are some serious weekne sses to the chan ges that he's proposing in this so called housekeeping legislation? The next area, Mr.

Speaker, that will be affected by this is the area in which a residential property will be repossessed by an owner for use of the immediate family - and I read the definition of immediate family and th at inclu des the owner for his or her own occupancy, or that of his parents, or a spouse's parents, or as the act currently says his married son, or his married daughter - and we are rep lacing th at terminology of married son, married daughter, by adult childr en and I agree with that move.

As a matter of fact what we are doing is clearing up the act so that it doesn't have archaic I think we all recognize that the marital status of adult childr en should not be a it's jus t their relationship to the owner that was done at a time when we didn' t recognize suppose as today different relationships of adult and whether or not they are married should have nothing to do with whether or no! they are entitled to the occupancy of their parent's-owned rental premises. So in th at itself I have no question in supporting it. I said when I was Minister of Housing Mr.

Silverman, who is the President of the Landlords Association, except at the time he came to me and asked for that change to be made when there were no other changes we were going to bringing to the 3963

Monday, 27 June, 1983 legislation, it didn' t seem to be a very big deal. It's a question of archaic wording. I don't think there'd be one case in a thousand that somebody would be disqualified; one case in a hundred that somebody would be disquali fied from using those premis es becaus e they wer en't married . So I said to Mr. Silverman, look, I can't justify bringing in the act for an amendment for that minor change in legislation. I saw Mr. Silverman.

Incidentally I must say that I criticize the Minister for implying as he did in his opening statement, that these changes are made as a result of - and I mean these changes in general, the whole group of chan ges - as a re sult of di scussions and recom mendations by the Mani toba Landlords Associa tion. He said, the amend ments meet the requirements of the Manitoba Landlords brief. This, to my knowledge, is the only one of all these changes that the Mani toba Landlords Association has recommended to the Minister.

I take exception to him sort of including it all in a large net of recommendations that he's going forward with. Only this very minor amendment to the archaic wording of that clause is what the Landlords Association has recommended, and they certainly do not support or favour any of the other. I'm sure that they'll tell him that when they get to committee. I am amused by it, because when I saw Mr. Silverman by accident on the street, as a matter of fact out front of the Legislature, I asked him what he thought of these amendments to the legislation. I said to him, you know, Mr. Silverman, what do you think?

Of course, he went into a lengthy tirade. I said, well, I don't want to discuss this any further with you, because I am sure that you 'll bring all your comments to committee in any case. But I said, you know, you remember that when I was Minister, I declined to make that minor amendment because I thought that it wasn't proper to open up the act for a very minor amendment and it wasn't hurting anybody to any large extent. As I say, there may have been one case in 100 in which a landlord's child was affected adversely by this, so I didn't see it as warranting a major legislative change.

I said, your insistence that this was a big deal, and he made a public disclosure of it, saying that the Minister wasn't interested in the Landlords Association's position and that they were very upset with me because I wouldn't consider this change. I said, you know, I'm reminded of the story of the person who said, "I used to be very very upset about the fact that I had no shoes; I really felt badly until I met a person who had no feet." This is the kind of thing where I'm sure Mr.

Silverman will rue the day that he ever asked the Minister to make amendments to The Landlords and Tenant Act on one minor thing, when all of these other things have now been brought into the net and all the problems are created. Well, Mr. Speaker, who will this amendment affect, this amendment to the bringing in of the adult children? Is it going to affect the big landlords? Of course not. I mean, how many times would you assume that the owners of Lakeview or Shelter Corporation or Imperial Developments or any of those invoke this clause to repossess a suite from a tenant? Almost never, I would gather.

So who might ever have to use this clause? It's a small individual landlord who owns a couple of pieces of property or a duplex and wants to get half of the duplex back so that his son or daughter can move in or his parent or something like that. That's the person who is going to be affected by that. Well, now, they are going to have to pay two months rent in compensation in order to get their own suite back to rent out to a member of the family. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it's a ridiculous kind of provision and a terrible slam at one type of person, one group of people.

The other thing that occurred to me with this was that there are many people who rent out their premises because it's convenient both to them and to the party to whom they rent it. I'll tell you about the circumstances under which I had to rent my house out, on Borebank Street in River Heights, when I moved to Brandon for a couple of years. My company was transferring me out to Brandon, and it was agreed that it would be about a two-year posting out there.

It seemed to me at the time that we might be better off, given the rising prices of housing in Manitoba, just to rent our house out because in all probability we would move back to Winnipeg a couple of years hence and we'd like to still have our house where we were living before. So we found some very suitable tenants. It was a professor at the university and his family. They were looking for housing in River Heights and they were delighted with the circumstances. It was for them a good deal; it was for us a good deal. We had a specific two-year agreement.

There was no question that, at the end of two years, it may or may not be extended. It was a two-year agreement. Well, under these circumstances, we would have had to give them the last two months rent-free in order to get back into our own house two years later. We were not big landlords. That's the only time in my life that I have been a landlord, when I rented out my own house to somebody else. We were not, shall we say, the powerful people dealing with the powerless tenants.

In fact, the person to whom I rented was probably in better economic circumstances than I, but because he was in a position where he didn' t have tenure at the university and there was a possibility that he might not live in Winnipeg for a lengthy period of time, he was only looking for a two-year lease at that time. It was a very convenient arrangement for us and for them. They were very happy with the house, they became best friends with people around in the neighbourhood, and it was a very good arrangement, but under no circumstances was it the powerful landlord dealing with the powerless tenant.

So now you are disrupting thos e kinds of circumstances, and I suggest to the Minister that there are literally hundreds of these situations that arise every year. You are saying that any time anybody rents out a premis es and then moves back into their own premises, they have to forego two months rent in order to get back into their own premises; no exceptions, no considerations otherwise, you just have to forego two months rent. Well, see, here's the problem.

A lot of these amendments appear to be aimed at sort of helping those powerless tenants against the powerful landlords, except that's not the way it works. This is the same sort of situation as you have done with your amendments to The Labour Act where, by bringing in the babysitters and the dome stic s and the 3964

Monday, 27 June, 1983 housekeepers into this whole net of legislation and jurisdiction, you now have created a terrible hornets' nest. I say to you that you haven't helped out tenants in any way, shape or form in this kind of legislation, but you have created an indication, a signal out there to people that you believe that tenants should be made all- powerful over and above anybody who owns property regardless of circu mstances. That's what you've done. It is a very seldom used

section but, all of a sudden, it's the old class warfare. Here we have the tenants being placed in a position where they have precedence over any landlord regardless of circumstances; that th ey de serve to be given special consideration regardless of any circumstances. I say that's a signal; putting that tenant in a special class as a special class of citizen, that is very harmful to the relationships that we are developing between landlords and tenants. Surely , there should be an override clause that can be put into leases that allows people, by agreement, to waive that situation, to forego it.

Otherwise, you are going to be disrupting hundreds of circumstances every year in which a person rents out his house for a specified period of time, knowing that he is either going away on a sabbatical or he's going away to a posting somewhere, and he intends to come back into his own home, but under this legislation, it's going to cost him two months rent to get back into his own home. I think that's ridiculous. I think it is sheer stupidity for this government to be messing into private people's lives in this way. Mr.

Speaker, this kind of one-sided legislation, I think, just reinforces and demonstrates, again, the attitude of this go vernment towar ds anybody who owns anything. Regardless, whether it's their own home, there's an attack on their ability to own property in Manitoba, by virtue of legislation that's being put in place. You know, the Member for Thompson said a few days ago, when he was talking about the conflict-of interest legislation, nobody said we were hostile to successful people, for people who own properties or possessions, that we're hostile to any of that kind of thing.

He said, we've never said that; nobody on his side had ever said that, he said.

Well, you know, what you do, speaks so loud ly, I can't hear what you say you're going to do because this kind of thing is, again, an attack on people who own a property, regardless of how big or small, regardless of its value, that's an attack on someone who owns a property, as far as I'm concerned, that kind of legislative change, and it just fits in with all of the anti-business, anti-investment legislation that's being brought forward by this gover nment, such as, The Farm Lands Ownership Act; such as, the fact that the NDP would not agree to entrenching property rights in the Federal Constitution.

Over and over again this New Democratic Government is showing, even in its minor amendments to legislation, that they're one-sided; that they're always opposed to people who own anything. Mr. Speaker, when we look at some of the other things that have been changed here, the penalties that have been put in for non-demolition. If somebody exercises the option ol requiring someone to move out of their suite because they're going to demolish it, and then the landlord doesn't carry through, he's subject to a penalty of $1 ,000 plus four months rent. Well, that's stiff, but it may be justified.

If the Minister feels that kind of thing is being abused, that people do it and they have no intention of demolishing it, it's just being used as an excuse to get somebody out, and this is a stiff penalty to make sure that nobody abuses that. Okay. It's stiff, maybe it could be justified though. I'm prepared to accept that it could be justified if it's being abused. On the other hand, there may be legitimate reasons why somebody starts out with the intention of demolishing a suite and gets stuck at some point along the line.

It could be that they get a zoning change through and then that zoning change is appealed and they then are faced with a situation where they've given the tenant notice, he has moved elsewhere, and the zoning change is appealed and overturned and they're stuck with an empty suite, and they also can't demolish it because they can't replace it with the kind of property that they thought they could. Well, it seems to me that there should be some mechanism for somebody to take into account what the circu mstances were in that whole transaction.

Why just say, if you envoke that clause and you don't carry it through to the demolition stage, you pay $1 ,000 plus four months rent per suite, a tremendous penalty, It should be that somebody could show cause to someone in authority. It could be that finance is withdrawn. Let's say that they move in there and they start to get their tenants out; they start the procedure, and financing is withd rawn from their scheme because interest rates go up substantially, and their scheme to replace it with a commercial building falls through.

They have two options; either leave the suites em pty, which we don't want, I don't think as a government; or let somebody move back into it, but if they let somebody move back into it, they get $1 ,000 fine and four months rent penalty. Now, that's a stiff penalty for somebody who's made a legitimate honest mistake.

It seems to me that there should be someone in authority who could have the responsibility to evaluate that set of circumstances and decide whether or not the person was being dishonest, or whether or not they were acting honestly and they were legitimately denied the opportunity to do that demolition and replacement exercise. But it's not in this legislation; it's just carte blanche. If you do it and you make a mistake, or something happens that changes your plans, you really get nailed by this government.

The other thing, of course, is that the mediation and arbitration powers of the rentalsmen are being broadened so that they can do more things, and I subscribe to that I told the Minister that he had difficulty because his department wasn't handling things that they should have been able to handle just on a straight mediation, arbitration basis; so they didn' t open files, so they didn't enter into reams of correspondence and months of activity to settle minor complaints. He's doing it and I congratulate him for it; I think that's worthwhile, Why though, Mr.

Speaker, is CMHC and MHR C, Canada and Manitoba, being exempted from payment of two months rent to a tenant when they get them to leave? Why are they being exempted from thos e � rovisions? I don't understand it. Why should the government act any less responsibly, or differently, than the private landowner does when he asks his tenant to leave. If he has to give him two months rent in 3965

Monday, 27 June, 1983 compensation. why shouldn't Canada and Manitoba, who are major landlords in this province, have to do the same thing? Mr. Speaker, in

summary, I don't hold any brief or candle for the landlords, for the large property owners and managers. I know that they'll live with this legislation very well, as I demonstrated by what I'm saying. They're living with rent controls and they'll continue to do so, and my criticisms are not in support of them. The ill effects of this bill are threefold, however.

One, it's the attitude that it conveys, that regardless of logic and reason, this government is prepared to pass one-sided , punitive legislation, without regard to fairness on both sides, and I've demonstrated my concerns about the fairness to small individual homeowners and property owners who rent out their premises. Second ly, what I'm as well concerned about, is the dishonesty that is perpetrated by this Minister and this government, in general, in saying that they consult widely those people who will be affected by legislation.

They solicit opinions and it's open door policy, yet they bring in legislation that has serious piifalls and they don't consult the very people in the industry who are going to be affected it - the property managers and the landlords and property owners. This Mi nister would have found out about the criticisms and the pitfalls that I have pointed out to him if only he'd ask some people who are involved in this industry. Why would you go to the industry after you've drafted the legislation; tabled it; introduced it in the House for second reading; and then go to it?

Why would you assume that you people have more ideas and information than the very people who make their livelihood in this industry? Are your social theorists and planners and bureaucrats more plugged in to what's happening out there in the private sector than the people who are operating the private sector? Send it out for opinion the day after you've introduced it in the House; I think that's ridiculous. My third major criticism of this bill, Mr.

Speaker, is the fact that, like the changes that they've introduced into The Labour Act, where babysitters and companions and domestics fall into the net of all sorts of problems with respect to minimum wage and payment of UIC and CPP, and payroll tax and workers compansation, all those; the people who will be adversely effected by this legislation are indi vidual home owners ; small property owners who can ill afford to pay two months rent to get their house back when they want to move back into it, after being away for a year on a sabbatical or something like that; not the large property owners.

They're not going to be affected one whit by this and they are the people who, I think, this government ought to have a concern about; they should think about individual circums tances, not build up a case that's aimed at that mythical big owner out there who doesn't care one bit about this. He'll live with this legislation just as he does with rent controls.

You'r e trying to overcome a balance-of-power situation between the property owners and the tenants when those people may be in the same economic circumstances and they're just making a convenient bargain to allow somebody to rent their home when its convenient for both sides. So, I say, Mr. Speaker, that this legislation, to me, should not have been introduced and I pass it onto committee because I know that there are going to be serious considerations and I hope that people will be at committee to tell the Minister all the problems he's creating in this legislation because I know he is doing it. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that we're prepared to let it go to committee, but we will want answers to all questions that I've put forward today. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister will be closing debate. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I was not actually prepared to close debate today, but given the member's intention to allow this to proceed, I would just make a couple of remarks with respect to the comments that he made, and will acknowledge that the member has brought up a number of concerns that I think are legiti mate, cert ainly conc erns that have not gone unno ticed.

We're cert ainly aware of some of the problems that may be created. However, I will indicate that the member in his comments ignored a large part of the population by whom this legislation I think will be greeted with a certain degree of enthusiasm and that, is as he acknowledged, the compensation may be something that is warranted and something that should be reviewed. I'd indicate as well that the concerns that he expressed for the small landlords have been expressed to me by the Manitoba Landlords Association and I take those seriously.

I recognize that smaller landlords are in a sometimes precarious situation, and certainly this government is not overlooking some of their specific concerns. The member suggested that we were not in tune with those people whom this bill might affect. Mr. Speaker, I couldn't disagree with the member more on that. I did su bmit this legislation once it was dr afted. I submitted it to those individuals whom it would most obviously effect most directly. I would indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that if the member had any faith in the amendment process which is designed to allow individuals and the public and those directy concerned to make their rep res entations, to make their presentations and make their feelings known, then he would acknowledge that we have to accept the fact that those presentations will be made in the amendment stage. If the govern ment, and in this case my department and the legislation that I'm responsible for, is interested in using that proc ess, then it's an appropriate method to use. I have met with the Winnipeg Real Estate Board; I met with them today.

I will be meeting with other indi viduals conc erned before this come s before committee to get their concerns in person, to look at some of the specific examples of hardship that it might cause. I would indicate however that it isn't as black and white as the Member for Tuxedo indicates, that there are many good aspects to the legislation. Certainly, the present situation creates hardship for tenants, for long--term tenants, for seniors who have been in occupancy of a particular suite for 10 or 15 or 20 years, who are not in a position to move, whose move would cost them considerably out of pocket.

The member acknowledged - (I nterjection) Mr. Speaker, ihe member suggests that we put in something reasonable 3966

Monday, 27 June, 1983 ��- and certainly that is our intention. I think the member will acknowledge that when a landlord offers a particular suite, a particular unit for occupancy, that in the majority of cases - although th ere are excep tions, I will acknowledge - in many cases, the tenants assume occupancy on the basis that occupancy will be allowed to continue until such a time as there is a decision on the part of the tenant to vacate.

There are exceptions that are provided by The Landlord and Tenant Act, and the amendments that we're suggesting are in line with those and in recognition that from time to time tenants may be required, asked to vacate, and at those times there has to be a recognition of the cost of dislocation to them; the personal trauma that it creates for their childr en when they're required to move from school to school; the financial hardship that it might create, and so forth. So it isn't that one-sided. Obviously any piece ot legislation requires a balance.

The member was trying to suggest that somehow this particular legislation was undul y hampering and interfering with the particular rights of the landlord, and he neglected to mention the significant rights of the tenants and the hardship that legislation from time to time creates, that those special circu mstances were provided to landlords and in using them from time to time, it creates hardship for tenants. Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's comments with interest.

I think he made a number of valid points and I'm sure those will be pursued most vigorously by the Landlords Association; by the Property Managers Association and others who are interested in the legislation. I will listen with interest. Amendments, I am sure, will be suggested from a number of those groups when we get to committee, and at that time, at the appropriate time, amendments will be made if it is deemed appropriate. Those basically are my comments and I thank thf' honourable member for his comments. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. Bill 60 - THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the propos ed motion of the Honour able Min ister of High ways, Bill 60. The Honourable Member for Pembina. The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to speak and at the conclusion of my comments on this bill, I want to leave it in the name of the Member for Pembina. Mr. Speaker, what I have to say this afternoon in regard to this bill, No. 60, so much has been said, over and over again.

A lot of what I have to say is repetitious, but however it does not hurt at all to rem ind the government of the day the mistakes that they are making on the compulsory aspect of everything, whether it be babysitters or seat belt legislation; whether it be helmets or what it be, it seems to me that it's in their minds that everything must be compulsory; their wish to take that freedom away from the individual. This is where I certainly cannot agree with them at all. Mr.

Speaker, had the Minister brought this particular bill in three separate bills, there's one aspect of that bill that I would feel reasonably comfortable, and that is the child restraint. I really see no reason at all why the Minister could not have brought that bill separately, and I'm sure he would have had considerable support. Even with the child restraint, Mr. Speaker, it is the compulsory aspect of it all that bothers me.

They are determ ined, Sir , th at th ey 'r e going to take the responsibilities; they want to take all the responsibilities away from the indi vidual, th e parents, who are responsible for these youngsters that are riding in the cars of today. I want to see th e governme nt put back the responsibilities where they lay, and that is with the mothers and fathers of these children today; not putting it into the hands of the government itself. Mr.

Speaker, I don't care whether it is in the cars that our kids are riding in today, whether it's in the playgrounds of our parks, our schools, or where it is, the responsibility should be left with the mothers and fathers, those who brought those kids into this world. They still should be left the responsibility of raising those childr en alone; not government interference, Sir. There is such a thing as educating the young child of tod ay. I want to, just for a moment, refer to my own grandchildr en.

I've been blessed with five, the sixth was just a matter of a week or 10 days ago, and I want to refer to my own grandchildren, Sir. It has been a habit of my sons and daughters to see that those kids use their baby restraint seats that are provided; but it was really encouraging to me and to my wife to see, as those kids grew older, when they climbed in that car, the first thing they did, Sir, was to jump right into that little seat in the back seat and waiting for someone to whip that strap across them. This is where, Mr.

Speaker, this government should be aiming their efforts, on education of the parents, education of those little tots who need the guidance of each and every one of us. This is where they should be putting their efforts; not in the complusory aspect of seat belt legislation or helmet legislation. A MEMBER: They need the fines changed. MR. L. HYDE: You brought a good point out.

It has been sugge sted in this Ho use that it will be a tremendous way for the government of today to be re elected, try to be re-elected as government of this province through the monies that they're going to be taking in by the fines imposed upon people, who are saying to me, Sir, I'll pay my fine rather than be strapped in. That is not the case entirely. There are some people who believe, and rightly so they should. They believe in the fact that there is some need for a restraint of some sort, whether it be seat belt or baby restraint or helmet legislation.

There are some people who believe in that, but the percentages of the people in my constituency, Sir, on a questionnaire that I sent out, the results of that seat belt compulsory aspect of it all, th ere was 38 percent said that th ey bel ieve compulsory seat belt legislation was good; but let's look, there were 62 percent that said, no way should the government be involved in compulsory aspects of seat belt legislation. I still say, Mr. Speaker, that education alone is the big benefit that can be arrived at to protect these people �i967

Monday, 27 June, 1983 in our province. I don't want to see the responsibilities taken away from the parents of the childr en of today. Mr. Speaker, I said that 62 percent of my constituents do not want the compulsory seat belt legislation. Talking to the farmers of my constituency, and I would say there is a heavy concentration of farmers in the area around Portage la Prairie, mixed farmers. There's vegetable growers, heavy grain growing production areas of the province around Por tage, but, Mr. Speaker, this law is going to compel those farmers to buckle up in their trucks and . . .

A MEMBER: Not in their tractors. MR. l. HYDE: That will be the next thing; they'll be making that compulsory. But they are bound and determined that those farmers who work from daylight to dark, often into the long hours of the night, asking them to buckle up when they leave that field to move from down the municipal road into their headquarters where they have truck their grain into storage, they'll be compelling those people to do that, and I defy the government to say that there's enough police officers in this province of ours that will be able to enforce that. They just will not do it; they can't do it.

It would appear that they have their knives in the backs of the free enterprisers of this province. I am positive that the RCMP forces of our province, the City Police force of Greater Winnipeg, and other areas of the province who have to rely on the private police force, I'm sure that there is much that they can be doing, rather than checking out the driver proceeding down the highway as to whether or not he has got a belt across his lap. Another thing that has been brought to my attention by the farmers of our area, Mr.

Speaker, as I said earlier, we have vegetable growers, many of them out there, and they have trucks backed into their sheds that are brought out at harvest time each year. Now, lots of those vehicles are mechanically sound; they'r e old vehicles, serve their purpose to draw their potato crops or beets or whatever it might be, to draw their payload into their pits and dump them, that's all they have to have. Now, they're going to be forcing these people I'm sure to supply trucks that are going to be most costly.

They can't afford to buy these massive numbers of trucks to use for three weeks or a month in the fall of the year and then put them away until next year; they can't replace those trucks in order to have the proper seat belt protection that these people want. But there's many older types of vehicles that are perfectly mechanically sound, are being used by farmers at harvest time that are not equipped with the proper seat belt regulations. I want to speak for a moment, Mr. Speaker, about a letter that I know the Premier of our Province and the Minister of Highways received.

It was from a cancer patient in Portage la Prairie. This woman - I have the letter here and I have to confess that it is a duplicate copy of the letter that the First Minister received and I can hardly read it, to tell you the truth, but there are sectors of that and it should be read into the House however - but this woman, she is taking this five-year cancer society breast screening plan - she's on that plan - and apparently these women who are taking up this voluntary screening program, taking

part in it, they are told by their instructors, their doctors I expect, that whatever you do, do not at any time bruise that vital point of your body, meaning their breasts. Now, this woman in this letter, it says to me and is said to the Prem ier, if I am stopped on the highway by a police officer demanding that I buckle up and put a strap across my chest she says, I will pay my fine rather than bruise that part of my body. Mr.

Speaker, I know and this woman also knows that today she can get, if this legislation is passed, she will have that privilege of going to her doctor and saying, now I apparently need a letter stating that I do not have to wear a seat belt across my breast. Mr. Speaker, if this is the case, that woman or any woman, should she wish to, has to carry that letter. She will have to have a letter tucked away in her purse or in the glove compartment of her car, she will have to dig it out and produce that letter in order to proceed down the highway without having to pay a fine. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I think they've gone too far. This woman is a friend of mine. I know that the Premier and the Minister has received a copy of that letter. I hope, Sir, that the members of the governmen; will take note of the suggestions that are being brought forward by the different people in Manitoba, expressing their very deep concerns about which way, where is this government heading, what are they doing? They're just determined to take that freedom of choice, the area that many of us do. We appreciate the fact that we have that choice today up to this point that we can say, do I have to buckle up or do I not. Mr.

Speaker, it's gone too far. There's an editorial here I took note of awhile back that comes from the Valley Leader, May 4, 19 83, "Freedom of Choice Going," they're taking it from the people of Manitoba. With the majority of NDP members - I'm just reading a portion here of it - I think this is most important that the people probably hear this.

"With the majority of NDP members coming from urban ridings. not rural, we assume they do not realize there is a significant difference in driving on roads within urban areas compared to traffic conditions facing the rural motorist." How many residents of the City of Winnipeg, for example, drive on highways in rural areas? Just what percentage of their mileage per year is spent on driving within the city limits compared to mileage on highways in the rural areas? We

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-96a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 96a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	184a837edbd05018603cf590b91474b6b44c3c8d

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