Manitoba Hansard — 11 July 1983 (Sitting 104A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-104a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-549 2 Second Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the 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. 104A - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 11 JULY, 1983. Prmted by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA 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 GOURLA Y, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton 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 13randon West Ellice Churchill St. Bo niface 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 Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP INO NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Of MANITOBA Monday, 11 July, 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 Committees Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. V. SCHROEDER introduced Bill No. 10 9,

An Act to amend The Legis lativ e Assembly Act (2). (Rec om mended by Her Ho nour the Lieutenan t Governor.) MR. G. LECUYER introduced Bill No. 10 4,

An Act to amend

an Act to Incorporate The Sinking Fund Trustees of The Winnip eg School Division No. 1. HON. J. BUCKLASC HUK introduced Bill No. 11 0,

An Act to amend The Consumer Protection Act. ORAL QUESTIONS Constitutional amendments MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. This morning the present Member for Ellice, and the NOP candi date for mayoralty of Winnipeg, indicated that any change in the Constitution should be based on some public consensus, and that lacking public consensus, there should at least be a free vote of the members of the Legislature.

Can the First Minister advise the House whether or not the Member for Ellice is reflecting the views of the government on that issue? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, as I've indicated previously, the question of whether the vote will be a free one or not will be a matter that will be dealt with in our caucus, as I'm sure it will be also one that will be dealt with in the opposition caucus. MR. B. RANSOM: Well, Mr.

Speaker, it's evident that the issue is not being dealt with in the NOP Caucus, because the Member for Ellice stated his position this morning on an open-line radio show. My question to the Fi rst Min ister , perhaps it's repetition, but perhaps you would care to answer it: Does he intend to pursue that avenue of having a free vote? Is he going to take that position, the same one that the Member for Ellice takes? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I've already dealt with that question several times, both last week and this week. Mayoralty election - Winnipeg MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G.

FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the First Minister. Will the NOP Government be endorsing the Member for Ellice as a mayoralty candi date in this fall's civic election? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Perhaps the Honourable Member for Tuxedo would wish to rephrase his question so that it refers to a ma tter which is with in the com petence of this government. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that's possible, so I will go to another question.

Has the government agreed to broaden the powers of the position of the mayor under The City of Winnipeg Act, should the Member for Ellice be elected as the mayor as a result of this election? Mr. Speaker, is the government considering broadening the powers of the mayor under The City of Winnipeg Act in view of the fact that there is a candida te who th ey, I believe, have some sympathy for? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: I thought it would not be necessary to rise to point out that's a hypothetical question. MR. G.

FILMON: I am sure that it's hypothetical that the can di date, the Mem ber for Ellice, has some sympathy from this government, but it isn't hypothetical to ask whether or not the government is considering broaden ing the powers of the mayor under The City of Winnip eg Act. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the Minister of Urban Affairs . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am rather surprised by that question, Mr. Speaker.

I leave it to you to decide, but there has been a bill with respect to changes to The City of Winnip eg Act that has been deba ted and received second reading and has been referred to the Municipal Committee of this House. If the member opposite wishes to have that amendment included in the bill, then I would suggest that he raise that amendment in committee discussion of the bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I was told over the weekend tha t the government is considering expanding 4215

Monday, 11 July, 1983 the powers as a result of the involvement of the Member for Ellice in the race. So my question is: Would the Minister indicate whether or not that consideration is being given or has been given and, if so, would he consider sharing it with the other potential mayoralty candidates? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I think the government's intentions with respect to The City of Winnipeg Act are clear. There is a bill that's presently before this House on its way to committee to be discussed; so the government's int ention with respect to changes to The City of Winnipeg Act, Mr.

Speaker, are contained in that bill. Anything that may happen in the future is some conjecture of the member opposite. As far as the specific question, as far as any assurances, the answer is no. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , wi th respect to the Minister's response, my question (Interjection) - to either ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . the Minister or to the First Minister is that anything that may happen, could that possibly be a restoration of the original clauses of Bill 36 that brought Un icity into being, that was introduced to Manitoba by the then NOP government under the chairmanship of Mr. Saul Cherniack, which included very much stronger powers for the mayor of the City of Wi nnipe g , is th at being contemp lated by this administration? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I thought it was made very very clear that although Monday is the first day of the week, surely it is not the day for gossip sessions which appears to be what we are developing into. Nursing shortage MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Sp eak er.

My question is to the Honourable Minister of Health, and I would ask him, Sir, whether he can confirm the ob servati ons of the president of the Ma nitoba Organization of Nursing Associations to the effect that the danger to patients in hospitals in Ma nitoba continues unabated and that the danger has continued to increase as a result of a number of poor staffing situations in hospitals in Manitoba throughout the year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't confirm this.

I can confirm, however, that I have asked the Manitoba Health Services Commission to initiate a review, that they are doing a thorough review on a priority basis, and as soon as I get a report I will share it with the members of this House. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise the House as to the method or form in which the president of MONA, Vera Chernecki, communicated her concerns to the Minister's office and to the government?

Reports indicate that those concerns have been directed to the government and that the association itself is stepping up what it calls its campaign to make the public aware of these problems. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the usual way that this is done, there is such a thing as the Manitoba Health Services Commission and there usually is a dialogue, or the concerns should be brought to the Commission, and I can't answer at this time. I will check; I don't know what form or when they did communicate with the Commission. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister confirm that MONA raised concerns of this kind publicly several months ago in Manitoba, and could he confirm that presumably, at that time, those concerns were made known to ihe Health Services Commission and the Minister's office, and that t'"le public of Manitoba would have expected that the Commission and the Minister's office would have acted on those concerns by this time? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the concerns have been exp ressed on occasion and that's checked imm ediately .

Now, th is is a gener al concern and accusation, or a statement that this is done, and I say that my honourable friend would know exactly how he deals with it, because that was done. This is not something new. Ever since I have been sitting in this House, there has been the concern of a shortage of nurses. That has come up two or thr ee times a year. Sometimes it's valid; sometimes it isn't. Because of the fact thdt a general statement was made that it is happening all the time, this was the reason why I have asked the Commission to look into it.

As I say, when I have a report, I'll be very pleased to share it with the members of this House. I think there is a concern al ready said that I don't overreact every time that there is a statement in the media. Yo u know what would happen if I did that, is that everybody would go directly to the media. There are a lot of people that are doing that. In a democracy, this is their right, but I think it would be wrong to overreact until we have facts and figures. This is what I'm committing myself to, to sharing the report and the findings with mem bers of this House. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, given the fact that - to use the Minister's reference - a shortage of nurses or a difficulty in providing adequate nursing supply is not new, conceding that fact, would the Minister also concede that concerns levelled by the major umbrella nu rsing organ ization about danger to patients in hospitals in Manitoba is new? It's not new in 1983. It was raised earlier this year by the organization referred to, but in essence that situation, unlike the cyclical nursing supply situation, is new; a situation in which 4216

Monday, 11 July, 1983 nurses are say ing that patients in Manitoba hospitals are in danger. Would the Minister concede tha t point, because certai nly the majority of Manitobans would concede that point? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I certai nly won't concede that. It certa inly isn't new to me. It is something, as I said, that I have heard at different times from either the nursing profession or the medical profession. This is something that we have to be very careful. This is something that we might agree with them or we might not.

Now the responsibi lity is sha red also by the government - of course, I'm not trying to duck any of my responsibilities - by the Commission, and also the diffe rent boards of the diffe rent ho spitals and institut ions, but that is not the first time that has been said by any stretch of the imagination.

At any time that I've heard and I have had representation in the last th ree or four years, I think some of my colleagues were with me, where MONA and other groups have told us that they were endangering the life of the patients in that freeze that the former government had made, for instance, tha t they were putting an extra load on the nurses and would endanger the life of the patients. In fact, there has been a form of process to follow through for the criticism and for a chance to express their concern. That has been used for a number of years now, Mr. Speaker. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, a final supplementary.

Cons ider ing the fact tha t the pr esident of the organizati on concerned says that the danger to patients continues unaba ted and has continued to rise as a consequence of staffi ng problems throughout the year - I presume she is referring to the year 1983 - would the Minister concede that a lengthy casual easy-going diffident review of the situation, which might produce some results and some answers for this House and the people of Manitoba several weeks from now, is not good enough, and would he agree to this House to pursue that exploration immediately with all haste and urgency this week and to report to the House as quickly as he can, hopefully this week, with respect to the safety level of patients in Manitoba hospitals?

HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member might try to put words in my mouth, but I don't think I can allow that. I think that when I stood up, I stated that I've asked the commission to investigate and get a thorough investigation as a matter of priority and to have it as soon as possible, and I've also committed myself to share this report as soon as I get it. Now, as I say, this is not something new; this is something that's been going on for a number of years, and I might say, Mr. Speaker, tha t no hospitals have been asked by the commission to reduce their staff.

So if this tha t exists has been existing quite a while, in fact, there has been some review; in many instances, staff has been increased (Interjection) - If you have any other questions, instead of yelling from your seat, why don't you stand up like a man and ask me the question? MR. D. ORCHARD: Yo u cut staff ... Yo u've got the half-truth disease . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Stand up and ask the question like a man. MR. D. ORCHARD: I did and you lied to me . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health on a point of order. HON. L. DESJARDINS: ... I've been accused of lying and I will insist that there be a withdrawal of that statement. The Honourable Member for Pembina said that I lied to him and this is not the case, and I would expect that you would ask him to withdraw it, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable Minister of Health had responded to a question and there was an audible accusation that the the Honourable Minister of Health had lied to this House. Now, the Honourable Member for Pembina uttered th ose words from his seat. He wasn't formally on his feet, but everyone heard him and he owes it to the Minister of Health and all members in this House to apologize. I call upon you, Mr. Speaker, to advise the honourable member that he must apologize for that remark. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain to the same point. MR. B. RANSOM: Ye s, on the same point, Mr. Speaker.

I believe that if we come to the point where heckling that's carried on back and forth across the Chamber between two members, the exchange which is not on the record, then, Sir, I think that it will be extremely difficult for you to handle that situat ion. This particular situation is one that is not on the record and it took place between two mem bers who had not been recognized by the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: To the same point of order.

I think it is hardly right to say tha t you can hide behind the word, or supposedly heckling, to have no decorum at all in this House. I think it is very easy to establish that the honourable member, if he said it, should withdraw it or at least say that he did not say it. Then we'd have to take his word if it's not on the record, but he is not doing that. Yo u can just imagine, Mr. Speaker, what's going to happen if this is allowed if on the pretext of heckling, 4217

Monday, 11 July, 1983 if you can yell any name, it could be obscene material or anything in this House, what kind of decorum we're going to have in this House. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The point that the Honourable Minister of Health makes is a very valid one, that members should not heckle from their seats in such a way as to make unparliamentary remarks or to say those things which are against the decorum of the Hous e. Ho wever, Beauchesne is clear that unparliamentary words are those which are spoken in debate.

I would have to ask the Honourable Member for Pembina whether he wishes to comment on this matter or whether he has any explanation to the House. The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I wish to withdraw no comments to the Minister of Health. Autopac - new claims centre MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Autopac. Can the Minister indicate to me whether or not Autopac is planning the construction of a new claims centre in the City of Winnipeg? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: I'll have to take that question as notice. I'm not aware at the present time of any such intention. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I apprecia te the Minister's answer. Would he in taking that question as notice indicate, if indeed those are the plans of Autopac, what area of the city the new claims centre would be located? Predation of farm animals MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, another question to a different Minister - to the Minister of Natural Resources.

I have sheep ranchers in my part of the country that are suffering a continuing loss of sheep to predators, wolves and coyotes in these cases; also, bear, I believe, are causing some of the problems. Is the Minister prepared to react to them? The special area that I'm referring to is the lnwood-Narcisse area. This particular rancher has suffered a considerable number of losses in the last little while. Could the Minister consider giving him a special permit to rid himself of these predators? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, predation of farm animals is something that's gone on for many many years. One of the worst problems we have, of course, is the human predator and the poaching that has taken place. I do believe that in some portions of the Interlake MR. W. McKENZIE: Sheep. It's sheep, Al. HON. A. MACKLING: . . . there have been significant losses of sheep. I know we had . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members don't want to hear an answer to a question. Their baying reminds me of lost sheep, Mr. Speaker. They are looking for their leader. Mr.

Speaker, there have been problems not only with the opposition but with some sheep ranchers in the Interlake, and it' s true there has been predation by wild animals. The department did track down a wolf that was alleged to have been the cause of some significant sheep loss and destroyed tha t wolf. If th ere are sign ificant problems, there's no difficu lty in our department granting special permits if the area can be identified, and there is a strong likelihood that it is a predator animal that is causing the problem.

I would invite the honourable member to give me the particulars and I'll see that the department is apprised of it. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister's willingness to, in this case, co-operate with the rancher in question. I want to assure him that it is bear, likely, or wolves that are taking the sheep, not humans in this case. But, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister will grant a special permit to allow the rancher to help himself in this particular instance, I'll see that the Minister gets the specific information. French school for lie des Chenes MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B.

DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As the Acting Minister of Education, I would like to answer a question taken as notice by the First Minister, a question from the Member for Tuxedo the other day. It was with regard to the French Regional School at lie des Chenes. The Minister of Education was informed that tenders for the project in question actually came in at $600,000 over the budget. The Minister was further informed that a meeting between the representatives of the Seine River School Division, which is Division No. 14, and the Public Schools Finance Board did take place on July 8th.

At that point, the school division representat ives commit ted them selves to effect whatever reductions would be required to bring the cost of the school down to the budgeted amount.

The chairperson of the Public Schools Finance Board made it very clear to the representatives of the school division that the board would not authorize any additional funds over those that it had provided according to its costing formula. :�he Minister has been assured that the revisions now being considered by the school division and by the , trchitect in question will succeed in bringing the project into line with the original budgeted amount. The Minister completely endorses the position taken by the Public Schools Finance Board. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, is the Acting Minister saying that they can achieve a one-third reduction in 4218

cost in the construction of that school by redesigning it and still be able to offer all the services and programs that were intended? HON. M.B. DOLIN: We ll, Mr. Speaker , my own experience with the Public Schools Finance Board and their planning that they do with school divisions when a school is built is that this association is rather close between them, and they do communicate hopefully between one another. When original plans for a school are drawn up, they can be added to along the way as a school division sees a need or a wish to add more programs.

In this particular case, I don't know whether the Seine River School Division is removing programs that they added later or whether it's actually the physical design of the school that is being changed to effect the reduction. But the fact is that in their consultation with the Public Schools Finance Board, orginally, there was a budgeted amount set. As the planning progressed, they exceeded that budge ted amount. They are now saying that they can effect the change and come in at the original budgeted amount by making whatever changes they feel are appropr iate.

It is the school di vision's responsibility and right to do this. Constitutional amendments MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West . MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. On Thursday last in Brandon, there was a hearing on the amendment to the Constitution that was chaired by the Attorney-General. One of the ground rules was that there was to be two hours, and two hours only, for this meeting, and the Attorney General proceeded to speak for a good half of that time. My question, Mr.

Speaker, is: Is it the government's policy to limit the debate or to muzzle the people of southwestern Manitoba from giving their opinions on this particular amendment? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: No, Mr. Speaker. The very fact, in case the hono urable mem ber is not aw are, that informational meetings are being held is to ensure that there is public input and the opportunity to receive information from the public. Those meetings are taking place in Thompson and Brandon, in Dauphin and in Winnipeg.

My information is that the Attorney-General spoke for much less than that time which the Honourable Member for Brandon West indicated , closer to 20 to 30 minutes. There was one-and-a-half hours opportunity insofar as public input. In addition, of course, there will be the legislative commit tee opportunity for public input, contrary to what is the general procedure pertai ning to resolutions that are brought before the House. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the First Minister could advise how much money was spent and 1983 where the advert ising was done, in terms of local newspapers and newspapers in southwestern Manitoba, with respect to the hearing last Thursday night in Brandon. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker , I think tha t's a reasonable question for the member to ask through an Order for Return if the member wants to have a calculation as to the costs of the advertising pertai ning to the holding of the meetings. MR. H.

CARROLL: An Order for Return is perhaps the correct way; however, the government is in such a rush to rush this bill through that perhaps I would like to have my information before the bill is passed. Municipal information re budget MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs if he or his department have seen fit to instruct the municipal auditors to mail certain letters out to the municip alities in this province when they do the audit, and ask them to sign, the reeve and the secretary , and desig nate that certain things have happened in the municipalities before the audit is complete? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice, and get the information for the honourable member and report back to the House. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker. Can I also ask the Min ister of Muni cip al Affairs if this information that the auditors are requesting of these municipalities on their own stationery is confidential and it's filed with the Minister and the department, or is it just for the confidence of the auditors? HON. A. ADAM: I'll take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker. MR. W. McKENZIE: Can I ask the Honourable Minister if he is prepared to use this auditor's vehicle in the conflict of interest legislation that is now facing the municipalities as well? HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker, there is a bill before the House, Bill 47, on the conflict of interest . Any views, such as the member puts forth, can be dealt with at commit tee or in the deba tes as it's presently before the House. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I hate to disagree with the Honourable Minister. I don't see anything in the legislation, and I wish that he would correct the false impression that's in it, and advise me if the 4219

Monday, 11 July, 1983 municipalities have to live up to those regulations of the ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order. HON. A. MACKLING: Ye s, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is standing in his place making a speech, and I would like you to advise him that this is question period. I would like you to advise the honourable member that this is question period, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker , can I ask th e Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs again, do the municipalities in this province have to abide by these letters that are being sent out by the municipal auditors asking them to disclose certain confidential information to the auditors, which they understand is going to be publ ic in forma ti on? Is th at the poli cy of this government? Is it the policy of the Minister, or when did it start, or where did it come from? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I believe the honourable member is asking about the approval of municipal budgets.

Certa inly, there are regulations in regard to the inf or mation th at is requir ed in order for the department to appro ve the budgets. There are certain regulations that have to be followed by municipal governments in order to have those approvals for their budget. Mr. Speaker, if there are transfers of funds from reserves, unauthor ized expenditures and so on, certa inly those have to be approved before the budget and Finance will give appro val to the budget. MR. W. McKENZIE: Can I ask the Honourable Minister when tha t change was brought in?

Is it government policy, or jus t changes brought in by the department? HON. A. ADAM: It is my understanding that policy has always been there; that there has been no change, insofar as I am aware, in that direction. Royal Insurance Company - staff transfers MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Ho nou rable Mini ster of Economic Development.

In view of recent news reports that indic ate a major portion of the Winnipeg staff of Royal Insurance Company is going to be trans ferred to Calgary, I believe some 50 people, has the Minister been in touch with the company to determine why Winnipeg is being de-emphasized in their corporate reorganizati on? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, no, we haven't, but I, too, noticed that in the paper and will undertake to speak with the management of that firm. MR. G.

FILMON: I wonder if the Minister could question them as to whether or not it's the payroll tax, or the fact that the CPI is increasing more rapidly in Winnipeg than it is in other cities in the country, or the fact that the government is planning to enter into the life insurance indus try, that is causing them to make this decision about their corporate reorganization. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, if I am asking them for their reasons for rationalizing their business, I will ask them just that and I will listen to the reasons that they give. I don't intend to put words into their mouth.

If they raise those particular questions, I will certai nly listen and attempt to enquire to what extent those taxes or costs are impinging on them, and also if there are any balancing factors of costs between the two sections that also need to be looked at. According to our most recent inf orma ti on, the cost of doing busine ss in Winnipeg overall is substantially lower than the cost of doing business in Ca:;:iary. However, I intend to listen to what they have to say and theri analyze the results. Crow Rate MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question to the First Minister . Could the First Minister confirm and would he agree that Manitoba's livestock and poultry production, the importance of it to Manitoba and

part icularly to the farmers, that it, in fact, makes up about 40 percent of the income to the farm community; that is, the livestock production and poultry production? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think that's a matter of record that the honourable member himself can easily check out as to whether it's 40 percent or 38 percent or 42 percent; certai nly, it's in that neighbourhood, I believe. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the First Minister's recognition of the importance of the livestock industry to Manitoba and the incomes to farmers, as well, I'm sure, as he's aware of the major packing house ind ustry in Manitoba which we're on the verge of losing if something isn't done, would the First Minister meet with representation from the Manitoba Livestock l;1dustry , which held a press conference this morning, pointing out that if the proposed Crow rate changes are to be implemented, as has recently been introduc ed in the House of Commons, that it would cost our hog producers a potential of $5.00 a hog and $30 for every slaughter animal, would the First Minister meet with the livestock producers?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, this government has been consistent in its opposition to the Crow rate proposals tha t have been enu nciated by way of Mr. 4220

Monday, 11 July, 1983 Pepin. There has been no uncertainty insofar as this government's position perta ined to Crow rate changes. Will I be prepared to meet with the livestock producers? Certain ly, I will be prepared to meet at any time with the livestock produc ers in the Province of Manitoba, as will my Minister of Agriculture. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, as well, could the First Minister confirm that it is the choice of Manitoba livestock produc ers to have the $65 1 million paid to the livestock producers in Manitoba rather than directly to the railways? In view of that, Mr.

Speaker, will the First Minister reassess his government's position and try to encourage the production of livestock in Manitoba and rethink his total approach to the change in Crow rate? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thought that this chamber but a short few weeks ago passed a resolution unanimous ly, I thought it was all 57 members of this chamber unanimously opposing the changes that were being proposed by Mr. Pepin. I thought tha t resolution reflected both the views of opposition and of government members. There cert ainly is no change in respect to the position of government members on tha t resolution.

MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, a final question to the First Minister. I would ask the First Minister if he would consider getting in step with some of the people of Manitoba at some particular time, because on every other issue, he's completely out of step, and I would ask him to get into the real world and deal with the real problems of the people of Manitoba? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, if there has been a group that has been out of step, has ducked the issue of the Crow, has wobbled on the issue of Crow and has sometimes spoken out of both sides of its mouth, it has not been members on this side of the cham ber, it has been consistently members across the way tha t form the opposition in this chamber. Mr. Speaker, if it has also been members that have been out of step with the position, not only of this government but also of the Government of the Province of Saska tchewan, it ha s again been hono urable members across the way, Conservative members in this cham ber.

Number of bills this Session MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mount ain. MR. 13. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, today is the 10 4th day of the sitting of this Legislature, July 11 th; there are three new bills for first read ing toda y; the bills are piling up at a rate tha t ma kes it very di fficult for the government and the public to have an opportunity to thoroughly review them. Can the First Minister give any indication to the House whether we have seen the end of the bills that the government intends to introduce? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think th ere are very few bills that are left to be introduced. There may be several bills that will be introduced in the next fow days, not of a major nature but of a minor nature. Mr. Speaker, I know that we have been sitting for 10 4 days, but there is a great deal of very important legislation, important mate rial, that has to be dealt with in respect to this Session of the cham ber and we're prepared, as I'm sure honourable members are across the way, to ensure that the important business of the House is dealt with. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speake r, when the New Democratic Party was in opposition, of course, they frequently criticized the Government of the Day for bringing in bills late, and with some justification, Sir, because at this time of the year when one gets into July, people, the public, don't have the same opportunity to focus their att ention on what is happening in the House. So could the First Minister give us an indication whether he intends to have any other bills introduced beyond those routine bills that deal with the necessary supply and perhaps even a statutory law amendments bill? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, The House Leader will take that question as notice as to whether there are any remaining bills to be dealt with. I do note, Mr. Speaker, by way of interest, that many of the bills that are sta nding are stan ding in the names of honourable members across the way, so that I think that should be clear on the record that in fact if there is any delay in respect to debate - I haven't taken a numerical count - it appears rather obvious that a goodly chunk of the bills are st anding in the name s of honourable members across the way. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, my questions have been dealing with the bills which the government intends to introduce, not with the proceedings of the House. As it happens, I believe, on Frid ay, for example, members of this side of the House allowed five bills to pass second read ing; one of them as soon as it was introduced, Sir, and perhaps some of the other five that are stan ding in the name of the Government House Leader might be allowed to proceed rather quickly if they were introduced as well, Sir.

But my question is to the First Minister, since indeed he is the First Minister, can he not tell the House what bills his government is yet to introduce, what laws his government intends to impose upon the people of Manitoba? Can the First Minister not give that information? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thought that just a few moments ago I indicated, so that we would be sure that we would be accurate, I know that there are some bills that the House Leader has to introduce of a minor nature that we will be . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H.

PAWLEY: . .. that I'll take that question as notice so that I can ensure whether it's one or two or th ree, and the ind ica tion is gi ven to ho no urable members across the way. 4221

Monday, 11 July, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The time for oral questions has expired. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I rise on matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker, in the past month, I have had my secretarial and research assistance cur ta iled and withdrawn by the New Democratic Caucus . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. R. DOERN: . . . and, in particul ar, by the chairman of the caucus. Mr.

Speaker, on June 10 th, my secretarial assistance and my research assistance was curtailed because of a questionnaire that I circulated to the people of Elmwood. The secretaries were instru cted not to have anything to do whatsoever with that poll. They were told not to open my mail, to count my mail, to help in the analysis of those replies. Mr. Speaker, 10 days later, I dictated th ree letters which were then held first of all by the secretaries. These were letters from people in my riding and from outside of my riding.

These letters were held by a secretary, shown to the chairman of caucus who read the letters, and then determined that they could not go out, first of all, in one instance, for a couple of days. In the third instance, that letter , Mr. Speaker, is still not in my possession because it has either been destroyed or filed by the chairman of caucus. A MEMBER: Fault the government. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I regard that as a high handed action by the M LA for Radisson in his capacity as chairman of caucus. I have asked for newspapers and been told in one instance I could have lhem, but they had to go back.

I asked for newspapers last Friday and the chairman of the caucus came up to me and said that's it, from now on you are cut off. Yo u have to go in there, get the newspapers and bring them out; you cannot have a page bringing you the newspapers. Mr. Speaker, I have had my phones not answered by the caucus secretaries. In this fashion, I have lost messages and my constituents - (Interject ion) - well, one of the members says, good. I would like to know who said that. Mr. Speaker, I also have been under some pressure from the caucus, but that is my own concern. Mr.

Speak er, I have also been cut off caucus documents, which again may be an internal matter, but it was "by mutual agreement" that the Premier and I agreed tha t I would be out of caucus, not attend caucus until the question of bilingualism was resolved. But all caucus documents of any note or impor tance other than routine matters pertaining to any question of any significance has been cut off from mail to me in spite of the fact that I have said that in most , if not all, instances I would be supporting the government's program and that I would be speaking in favour of the government's program. Mr.

Speaker, these are some of the things that have been done. The consequence of this is that I have a backlog of mail. The consequence is that I cannot properly perform my duties as the MLA for Elmwood; that I have in my office - I have asked, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Government Services for the following: a desk, a chair, a typewriter (electric), and a partial budge t for a secretary. This was denied. Mr.

Speaker, as a result of this I feel that I am working under a handicap, and I consequently move that this Assembly instruct the Committee on Privileges and Elections to examine the wit hdrawal and/or restriction of my privileges as a Member of the Legislature for Elmwood, moved by myself and seconded by the MLA for Brandon West. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member makes a rr.c�•on.

It is my submission that his motion dealing with what he alleges to be a grievance in respect to rights accorded to him by the government caucus is a matter for de termina tion wit hin the government caucus. It is not a matter for determination by this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to make my point of order in relative peace. Mr. Speaker, it is not a question. He doesn't in his motion raise a question about denial of rights of a member of the Legislature, he is raising a question about his alleged denial of rights as a member of a caucus. Mr.

Speaker, it is my submission that motion is out of order; it has no tasis for consideration for this House. I would like to speak on the alleged grievance and point out when I do, Mr. Speaker, that I believe there is no basis for the grievance either . But I submit that in respect of the motion that is sought to be placed before you it is entirely out of order, because it has no basis to be placed before this Assembly as a motion for this Assembly to deal with an alleged grievance in not receiving certain services from his own caucus. Mr. Speaker, I ther efore submit that the motion should be ruled out of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek to the same point. Mfl. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I have been in this Legislature for 14 years and all the time I have been here there has been money supplied by the government to support the services of members within their caucus. Sir, we had meeti ngs la st year, being among a committee, to decide what services caucus members might have. It was discussed by both sides. There is a bill in the House at the present time which is exp ressi ng from the go vern ment a need for the government to supply services to caucus members. 4222

Monday, 11 July, 1983 The Member for Elmwood stated in his privilege that he had an agreement with the First Minister that he would not leave caucus, but he would not discuss one particular issue. But to take his services away from him is wrong, because the money is supplied by the government to service those mem bers. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The members should not be debating the merit of the issue at this stage, merely whether the matter of privilege is in fact in order or not. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert to the same point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: Just briefly, Mr.

Speaker, I would submit to you, Sir, when we hear an allegation that a member of this Legislatu re's mail has been censored by another member of this House, I think that is sufficiently impo rtant enough that it be referred. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside to the same point. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, members of the opposition are obviously working to some disadvantage, not having the written copy of the motion before you.

But recalling as best we can from what was said by the Member for Elmwood, it is an appropr iate matter for the House to concern itself wit h, when any one of the 57 members in this House has some of their rights curtailed. The member referred to services by the pages that are being employed by the Legislature, referred to certain secretarial help that we, under The Legislative Act, agreed to provide for all 57 members.

I say all this without in any way indulgin g in the internal politics of the New Democratic Party Caucus but, as the services that are supplied to individual members of this House, they are a matter of concern and legitimately so for this Chamber, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health to the same point. HON. L. DESJARDINS: On the point of order, as you rule, we should not discuss the merit of the concern of the resolution, only that should it be in order. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that the conduct of any party or any caucus is the responsibility of the members and nobody else.

There is always something that can be done by the member, exactly the same as the Member for Brandon. If they are not satisfied that the y' re getting the proper service as per the ruling of a party, then he can ask any single member, can ask that his money, his allotment for secretarial and research go directly to him, and that is the only recourse to be done. The rest is not the place and time to discuss what's going on in any party.

This is the responsibility of the parties themselves. (Interjection) - That's exactly it, the service paid for is so much per member, and then all he has to do is give instruction that the money go directly to him and take care of his own services. That's exactly what has to be done, exactly . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain to the same point. MR. B. RANSOM: Ye s, Mr. Speaker, I think what has to be determ ined, Sir, is whether the motion indeed deals with a legitima te question of privilege.

Certai nly I would suggest that the matter of withd rawal of services from one member of this Legislature is a question of privilege, especially when secretarial help, for instance, is supplied directly by the taxpayer, not through a grant to the individual member. In this case the allegation deals, at least in part, with the removal of that privilege from the member of the Legislature, Sir.

So I suggest that it is in order, and the role of the Speaker is to determine whether or not the issue has been raised at the earliest opportun ity, and, secondly , whether or no t the member has established a prima facie case that indeed the privileges of that member have been violated. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Radisson to the same point. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if this is in order, but I have here a letter addressed to the Member for - (Int erject ion) - let me finish my question first. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. G. LECUYER: I have stated, Mr.

Speaker, in the first place that I didn't know whether it was in order, and I don't propose to read the letter at this point, but I have a letter that I did send to the Member for Elmwood, which I'm not going to read now unless you determine that it is in order for me to do so, but which goes a long way to show that the allegations made by the Member for Elmwood are purely allegations. The Member for Elmwood has the same services of caucus as all members of caucus. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Radisson was surely discussing the merits of the case rather than whether the motion itself is in order. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye to the same point. MR. R. BANMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could get the Member for Radisson to table the letter he referred to? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell to the same point. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, as a member of this House, tha t's sat here as long as the Honourable Member for Elmwood, I would think that the least that this House could do is to recognize the member's concern in his resolution, and have his problems brought to the commit tee at the earliest possible convenience, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the charges and the allegations that the honourable member has raised are serious ones. They have never been raised in my time in this House and I have been here since 1966.

I think the matter should be dealt wit h, with dispatch, at the earliest possible date by the committee as the honourable member has requested. 4223

Monday, 11 July, 1983 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources to the same point. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Sp eak er, hono ur able members are addressing the question of whether or not this motion is in order, using arguments in respect to the rights of individual members of the House, and I submit that the argument that was add ressed to you by the Honour able Member for Elmwood complains about an alleged lack of service from a caucus, not a denial of the privileges of the House. There's no question, Mr.

Speaker, that there has been some brief change in the relationsh ip between the Member for Elmwood and his caucus. That is a matter that was obviously arrived at by a mutual decision. Now the honourable member is complaining about the arrangements of that mutual decision. That is a private matter for that honourable member to deal with with the New Democratic Party Caucus. If he decides that he wants separate arrangements, if he wants the rights of an individual member of the House as distinct from the New Democratic Party Caucus, he has his choice of action.

But to allege that these voluntary arrangements that he has made are somehow not to his sati sfact ion is not a motion that should be before the House and it is out of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden to the same point of order . MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to indicate that when this motion comes forward, I would also like to speak on the motion, but right now I'll speak to the point of order. Mr.

Speaker, as a former Speaker, I recognize the position that you're in, because it is inherent in the role of any Speaker to protect the rights of all members of this Assembly at all times. Yo u have a properly put forward motion of an alleged breach of privilege of this House by a member of this Assembly, and he is asking that this motion be debated and the House make a decision on whether or not tha t is referred to a committee. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that it is very much in order, and any other action from the Chair that would deal otherwise would be one that would be so grievous in this House tha t we must always protect the rights of every member in this Assembly to stand up ... even in the Wilson thing. I realize, Mr. Speaker, it's rather improper . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. GRAHAM: . . . on a point of order. When I was Speaker, and I make reference to it, Mr.

Speaker, that when I was Speaker of the House, and until I received instructions from the House to do otherwise, I recognized the Honourable Member for Wolseley as one who wanted to speak, and I was prepared to recognize him in the Assembly. I put that on the record, because the Speaker's role is to protect the indi viduals in this Assembly. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry to the same point. HON. l. SHERMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order.

It would seem to me that the motion moved by the Honour able Member for Elmwood rests on the fundamental principle of this Chamber, and that is that th ose words and statements that are uttered by members of this Chamber are taken at face value and on good faith by other members of the Chamber as being true and intentional stat ements. The chairm an of the go vernme nt caucus has interjected a new point of discussion and consideration now into this matter.

If it is the view of the government that this is not a legitimate motion of privilege, then the chairman of the government caucus has an urgent reponsibility, Sir, to table the letter to which he refers, because at this juncture we have accepted - and I'm sure all members of this Chamber are prepared to accept in line with the fundamental principle of this House to which I referred a few moments ago - the voracity and the truthfulne ss of the statement that the Ho nourable Member for Elmwood has said.

That statement points to a very serious abrogation of his rights and privileges by the chairman of the government caucus affecting matters which are those between the member and the citizens of his constituency and the taxpayers of this province, not matters purely between himself and his caucus. A MEMBER: Right. He's elected by the people. MR. L. SHERMAN: So, Sir, we cannot have it both ways.

Either the government has to accept the fact tha t the motion moved by the Member for Elmwood is legitimate and he's entitled to see it proceed to study, such as he has proposed here, or the subject matter referred to obliquely by the Member for Radisson must be brought to the full att ention of the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster on the same point of order. MR. D. SCllTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It never quite ceases to amaze me of the Member for Elmwood's ability to try and grab headlines. But on this issue . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

Order please. The Honourable Member for lnkster should confine himself to the point of order without making personal remarks about another member of this House. The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Well, Mr. Speaker, when a members ha,,e a difficulty within their own caucus, they have a c' Yice to make. They have a choice to stay within that ' aucus or to leave that caucus. What we have right , 1ow is we have an issue . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please.

The honourable member is again discussing the merits of the case and not the matter of the resolution and whether or not it is in order. 4224

Monday, 11 July, 1983 The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, in referring to the point of order raised by the Acting Government House Leader, the argument that he has put forward is that there appears to be some question as to whether or not the Member for Elmwood is properly interpreting his rights. I say, Mr. Speaker, that those rights, privileges and services that he has referred to in his substantive motion are ones that ought to be th erefore discussed.

Since there is a question in the mind of the Acting Government House Leader and members opp osite as to whether or not he is properly interpreting those rights, privileges and services that he has as a member of this Assembly, the motion should be ruled in order so that such information as the letter that the Government caucus chairman has referred to, and other matters that are being speculated upon here, could be put on the table and could be properly discussed and assessed. That's why I believe it ought to be ruled in order so that we can send it forth for debate. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Bu rrows to the same point of order. MR. C. SANTOS: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. Without going into the merits of the motion, we can say that no member of the Legislative Assembly can be denied any right, privilege or service that is equally avai lable to every other member of the Legislative Assembly. That is one bundle of right as members of the Legislative Assembly.

As a subsystem of the Legislative Assembly, every caucus has its own rules and regulations and its own bundle of rights and privileges, but it is a sub-system of the total bundle of rights and privileges of the Legislative Assembly. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. C. SANTOS: To the same logic, no member can be denied any basic or essential rights and privileges as members of the Legislative Assembly. Similarly, no member can demand any greater right than any other member can have a right or privilege or access to.

If it is a right of every member of this Legislative Assembly to have a private secretary, every member should have that right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, without attempting to get into the merits of the case, which I see members find it very easy on the question of the point of order, because the question of whether or not the motion is in order and the merits of the case are very closely allied. Mr. Speaker, I think two things are relevant on the point of order as. to the admissibility of this motion.

The first one is the question you have to decide as Speaker, and that is whether or not, as it's put on Page 25 of Beauchesne, there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed. Mr. Speaker, there certai nly is no prima facie case in that all we've had here are allegations, a whole series of allegations about the internal activities of one of the caucuses in this Assembly. The Member for Fort Garry suggests that members' statements are taken at face value, but if that were to apply to matters of privilege then the requirement to prove a prima facie case would then be irrelevant.

So, certa inly that requirement, which is contained much later in Beauchesne and relates to sta tements in debate, cannot be made to apply to the raising of matters of privilege; othe rwise we would be doing it daily on all sorts of allegations relating to differences between members, where one asserts against another that he or she has stated the facts as they are and for anyone to say otherwise would be a matter of privilege. That, Sir, then would seem to rule the matter out of order because a pr ima facie case ha s not been demonstrated. But more importantly , Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Elmwood, and others commenting on this, ha ve pointed out th at this is a decision by the government caucus; that none of the services provided directly to the Member for Elmwood by the government as his right as a member of the Assembly have been infringed upon. He's not said that it's right to make long distance phone calls which are equally available to all members, that those rights which are available to all members have not been infringed upon; but only those rights which relate to the internal operation of the government caucus.

Members opp osite have made spurious allegations during this discussion about the opening of mail. I don't believe the Member for Elmwood alleged that his private mail was opened. I'm sure that allegation wasn't made. But, Mr. Speaker, there has been no service denied to the Member for Elmwood according to the allegation that he has made in his matter of privilege, which is a service guaranteed to all members equally.

The allegation that the member has made has been to the inequitable distribution of the services that are available to members by right of their membership in caucus; that's the allegation he's making. Mr. Speaker, if that allegation is to be made, even if it has substance, it relates to the internal administration of the caucus and not to the Assembly as a whole. So, Mr.

Speaker, I would submit that the resolution propo sed by the member is out of order, but I think the member makes a serious allegation - and because of my own personal concern that the services to members are services about which all members should be concerned - I submit that it would do all members in this Chamber good to air this by its referral to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I think all members would benefit from airing the question of what rights a member has in his or her own stead , and what rights accrue to that member by virtue of their membership in a caucus.

That's a very important distinction and one which most members who have discussed this matter have failed to make. So for tha t reason, Mr. Speaker, even though I submit that on several grounds the motion is out of order, at least for the purpose of clarifying the question, it would be worthy of debate in this House and in committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur to the same point. 4225

Monday, 11 July, 1983 MR. J. DOWNEY: Ye s, Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Mention has been made that the very principle of the democratic system is in question. The Member for Elmwood has been sent here by the electorate of his constituency; he's had privileges in operating effectively inte rfered with. I think it's the responsibility of this Assembly to support his motion. I, as well, Mr.

Speaker, would think that there has been reference made to a letter by the Member for Radisson, that it should be tabled in this Assembly because of reference made, and that we should get on to debate the content of what the motion is. SPEAKER'S RULING MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I thank all th ose members who have offered their advice on this matter and I also refer to Page 25, which says tha t there are two conditions to be satisfied whenever a matter of privilege is brought before the House.

One of them, which has been referred to, is that there should be a prima facie case shown that there has been a breach of privilege, and the other condition being that the matter must be raised at the earliest opportun ity. In looking over the motion and listening to the Honourable Member for Elmwood, it would seem that he has indeed made a prima facie case and tha t his privileges as a member of the Legislature have been reduced or restricted in some manner.

As far as the second condition is concerned, I have he ard no thing from the Ho nour able Member for Elmwood that this in fact is being raised as a matter at the earliest opportunity and tha t it ther efore deserves to take precedence over every other matter of the Legislature in being debated at this time. Since the resolution does not satisfy both of those conditions, I would have to rule it out of order. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountai n. l\ll R. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we must respectfully challenge your ruling. MR.

SPEAKER: The question before the House is, shall the ruling of the Chair be susta ined. Those in favour, please say aye; those against, please say nay. In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried. ORDERS Of THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. l\ll ACKLING: Ye s, Mr. Speaker, would you call third readings, start ing on page 3 of the Order Paper, Bill No. 50? ADJOUR NED DEBATES ON THIRD READING MR.

SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, Bill No. 50, stan ding in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. (Stand) The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 15 , Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On the pr opo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Highways, Bill No. 15 , sta nding in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris. (Stand) The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 35, sta nding in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: On the pr opo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, Bill No. 35. (Stand) The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 12, Mr. Speaker, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: On the pr opo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources . . . HON. A. MACKLING: Why aren't you debating it? Why aren't you moving on the legislation? Yo u're disgusting! I told you Friday, you are disgusting . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Bill No. 12. (Stand) HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 57, Mr.

Speaker, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, Bill No. 57, the Honourable Member for Turtle Mounta in. (Stand) The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. . .. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty hearing myself articulate the Order of the Day. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A.

MACKLING: The Honourable Member for Sh.i;g eon Creek, during his comments, accused me of 1g in need of psychiatric assistance. I suggest, Mr. ,_ieaker, that if honourable members are not prepared ) debate these bills, they might be in need of psychiatric help. MR. B. RANSOM: We told you what piece of business we were prepared to debate. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 73. MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, Bill No. 73, 4226

Monday, 11 July, 1983 stan ding in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mounta in. (Stand) The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, Bill No. 76, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. SPEAKER: On the prop osed motion of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, Bill No. 76, stan ding in the name of the Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain. (Stand) The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 26, Mr. Speaker, standing in the name of the Honour able Minister of Finance. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. THIRD READING - AME NDED BILLS BILL NO. 26 - THE FINANCIAL ADM INISTRATION ACT HON. V. SCHROEDER presented Bill No. 26,

An Act to amend The Finanical Administration Act for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Tuxedo, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 18, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. He was in the House a moment ago. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING MR.

SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 18, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. (Stand) The Honour able Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 30, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On the pr opo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Finance, Bill No. 30, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for Tuxedo. (Stand) The Honourable .Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 31, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion ot th e Honourable Minister of Finance, Bill No. 31, stan ding in the name of the Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. B. RANSOM: Stand, Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure if any member on the other side wishes to speak, we would have no objection. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, you might say on a point of order, it's very gracious for the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain to indicate that other members can speak. I might indic ate that later on, of course, we may not be prepared to allow bills to continue to stan d.

Bill No. 47, Mr. Speaker. BILL 47 - THE ELECTION FINA NCES ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the prop osed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill No. 47, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, just for the benefit of the House, Sir, which was something that would have made your job much easier, if we had a person leading the House at the present time that was using any brains at all, we would not have had to go through all this nonsense that he's been going through for two days, mainly because he is very vindictive and using the same procedures he did when he was last in this House to get himself kicked out the first opportunity the people had to do so. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that is well on the way, the way he's going, and I can almost guarantee it. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 47, it's rather amazing to me that the Premier of this province would even allow anybody to bring in a bill such as this; a Premier that at one time was the Minister of Municipal Affairs in this province; a Premier that did, I must say , build some conf iden ce with the elected memb ers of the municipalities when he held that position under the Schreyer Government. Of cou rse, the big difference is Mr. Schreyer was a Premier, and Mr. Pawley wasn't then and isn't now. Mr.

Speaker, the thing that really is amazing is that this bill goes completely opposite to what the Premier used to say about the elected members in this province, municipal members and urban members, etc., is that they were except ionally fine people , devoted their lives and much of their time to their job, took time away from their families to do their job properly, and regarded it as a sacred vow to do the best for the people of Manitoba. Now all of a sudden, we have a bill that says, as far as I'm concerned, we don't trust you anymore. We have to know everything about you.

We have to know everything about your investments of your wife, and we have to know everything about the investments of the children that live at home with you. In other words, they all have to be listed and documented for the public to see at any time. That's disgusting, Mr. Speaker. In 4227

Monday, 11 July, 1983 fact, I can't understand the mind that would think that up. There is an old saying, "it takes a thief to catch a thief." If that's the way tha t this government intends to operate and if that's their attitude towards the municipal people, if that's the attitude that the First Minister has after praising municipal people for their services while he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, if that's the attitude he has toward them at the present time, I say to him, Sir, that he was misleading them very badly when he was out moving around with them when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs.

I don't recall anybody dur ing the last election discussing a conflict of interest bill that went down to disclosure of assets of all of these people that work with us so hard and for the benefit of the people within the municipal offices that they're elected to. Mr. Speaker, can you visualize a member or elected member in a town in Manitoba or an elected member in Manitoba - and the same will apply to this Legislature - saying to his wife that you must disclose all your assets for me to run or stay in my position? Does she not have any rights, Mr. Speaker?

Does the man's wife not have the right to say that my investments tha t I have are my own affair? Are we saying to the spouses of people that are elected that they don't have any rights? Well, Mr. Speaker, you can't read it any other way, and the present Minister of Municipal Affairs said in Woodlands, "This will be better for you ." I can almost see it causing a separat ion in a house.

Yo u know, it's just downright cruel to say to the other spouse that you, the other spouse, one or the other - I know that's hard for the Minister of Finance to understand but you know, for the other spouse, other than the elected person, to make it easy for him to disclose their assets - (Interject ion) - and I hear from that firefly cause chasing Member for lnkster again, the wavy-kneed little boy that sits in the corner with his little green hat on, or I can see it anyway - then you'd have the situation where maybe a child that has been married, there could be a death in that family or there could be a divorce or a separation and one of the children comes home to live with the parents, maybe when they're 25 or 30 or 45, whatever, the minute they walk in the door and make their add ress the same address as tha t elected member, they must disclose all their assets.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, how foolish, how silly, and actually how cruel can you get? How democratic do you think that is? Well, I submit, Mr. Speaker, that's not very democratic. That's saying to the person that wants to run that your spouse or your children have no rights to make any investments that are not going to be disclosed if they live with you. Mr.

Speaker, I would say that - and I know the same thing is in our legisla:ion - if I was still a municipal councillor, as I was, and I said to my wife you must disclose all your assets, she would every right to say to me: "Frank, that is my privilege, tha t is my business and you don't have any right to it." I believe she has rights, and I believe that my children have rights. I had a situation where one of my children moved home for a while and they would have had to disclose their assets, and I believe they have rights. So, Mr.

Speaker, tha t's the kind of democracy that this previous Minister of Municipal Affairs places upon the men that he praised and the women that he praised so highly for the work th at they have done. It's sheer hypocri sy, absol utely , and the present Min ister of Municipal Affairs says, "That is better for you." Now, Mr. Speaker, I remember an occasion in this House when I first was the Minister of Housing and I appoi nted a board within a month of bec oming government.

Then the Member for Brandon East at that time stood up in this House and he questioned whether the people that were on that board should be on the board or not. I said th ey're on the board because I believe tha t they are experts in that business, and to be experts in that business they have to work in that business - people like Mr. Denton and those others - and I said I have every confidence that they will do their job for the benefit of the people of this province. Do you know what the then Member for Kildonan, I believe was his constituency - Mr.

Miller - he was questioned outside the House about those statements that were made in the House and about the questions tha t were put forward by the Member for Brandon East, and I can show you the quote in the paper; I still have it . Mr. Miller said, "You either have integrity or you don't." And he said that he felt that he had confidence in people tha t were appointed to do their job and if they had integrity they .vould do their job properly; if they did n't, it would come out ar.d discipline would have to take over. We have had very very few occasions when we've had to discipline any municipal people, Mr.

Speaker. I don't think we'll ever go through this life or forever without having some occasion to discipline somebody if they haven't got integrit y, and the people will vote them out if they don't have integrity or there'll be rules to see that they have to quit if they don't have integri ty. But to put this type of legislation before us, which doesn't say conflict of interest, it says disclosure of assets. Mr. Speaker, I often refer to the Minister of Resources, the Member for St .

James, and I refer to him quite harshly these days and he deserves every bit of it, but if somebod} had put that in front of him while he was the councillor in the City of St. James-Assiniboia he would have raised so much hell that you would have heard him across this count ry. Now, we have a situation where all of a sudden, because there is a new NOP Government in power under the leadership ol the present Premier, all of these municipal people are basically dishonest until they prove otherwise. - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speaker, I hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs tha t that's a lot of nonsense and I want the Minister of Municipal Affairs, when he closes debate on this one, to tell me that the disclosure of assets of children living in that elected member's house is not telling tha t person tha t you don't tru them . Yo u don't trust his children to have the pr· per assets, you want them disclosed. You don't trust ris wife or her husband; therefore, you can't trust them very clearly.

You want them to walk in here and give you a list of their assets before they run, and when they run you want them all listed for the public to see. You tell me tha t is trusting somebody? Yo u tell me that's trusting somebody? Well, Mr. Speaker, tha t is the type of thing that this Premier has become famous for, because I don't recall at any time, when he was Minister of Municipal Affairs, travel ling around the country , smiling at them like he 4228

Monday, 11 July, 1983 smiles at the camera every day, and telling them you'll have to disclose your assets before you can run in this province. I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Premier that he worked under, Mr. Schreyer, wouldn't allow it, that's why. Now he gets sitting there and that's what happens. Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation where you've got a government, you have backbenchers like the Member for lnkster who doesn't believe that anybody should have the privilege of doing anything ii they have any assets and who doesn't know how to accumu late any himself. So, Mr.

Speaker, we have that situation of the people tha t are trying to influence this type of legislation coming forward and saying to the municip al people that this is the type of thing that you will have to do, and your wife or husband will have to do, and your children will have to do before you can run for election. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 47, The Municipal Council Conflict of Inte rest Act, I have before me at the present time - and I wonder if the Minister of Municipal Affairs has maybe talked to the Minister of Urban Affairs, and maybe it would get to him one way or another - 12 pages of questions the City of Winnip eg asked about this bill, 12 pages of questions about this bill; 12 pages that basically everyone of them, and every

section on every page tha t they refer to says this should be cleared up, it's not clear. It also says in this one from the City of Winnipeg, which will take them into effect as well, it says the City of Wi nnipeg because of its size operates considerably different from a small town. If a councillor in the City of Winnipeg has to disclose his assets, and I might say and his wile, and his children as well, he can make disclosure and ii he's part of a business there's lots of other businesses around in Winnipeg tha t car, "and you maybe not have to deal with them ." By the way, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the man .vho checked up on Bill 47 for the City of Winnip eg said, "What happens when a committee has the authority to let the tender on a job?" Has anybody figured that one out? Not the council, but the committee has. That member was on the committee, and if he wasn't on the comm ittee, maybe he gave his opinions to somebody else in the committee. The City of Winnip eg tell.s them it can't work. Did they talk to the City of Winnipeg?

Did the Minister of Municipal Affairs ol this province presume to pass legislation that would take care of a city the size of Winnipeg without talking to the Minister of Urb an Affairs? I would ask, when the Minister of Municipal Aflairs gets up, if he's seen this. I wonder it he knows what it says about the principle of this bill in here on one sect ion.

He says, "The bill is based substantially upon the 1980 Ontario Conflict of Interest Act." Yo u know, the Minister has got up and said it is just about like the Ontario Conflict of Interest and other provinces, but did he ever continue with this and say, however, the Ontario act was repealed and replaced with a new act in February of 1983, which the fellow from the City of Winnipeg attaches. He attaches the new bill which made considerable changes. So, Mr.

Speaker, now we have a situation that if it did work in the muncipalities, it won't work in the city; if it works in the city, it won't work in the municipalities and towns. Well, let me say a city the size of Winnip eg versus a city the size of The Pas - the Member for The Pas is sitting there - doesn't the Minister of Municipal Affairs know that in smaller towns you might have a very reputable person who happens to be the bulk dealer of oil in town?

The only bulk dealer in town, and he's a reputable person that's worked at the community club, he's hammered nails, buildings, skating rinks, and he has done everything. He's run picnics, he's taken an interest as an elected member in tha t area, and he all of a sudden becomes a person that we mistrust because he owns a business. We not only mistrust him, we mistrust his wife and any children that are living with him. - (Interjec tion) - It is true. Mr.

Speaker, for the Minister of Muncipal Affairs to tell me that's not true, ask him to read the bill and it says - it says right in the bill, that's the main principle of the bill - disclosure of assets. It says tha t the member, he or she, will disclose their assets; his spouse will disclose her assets or his assets; and his children who are living in his home will disclose their assets - (Interject ion) - Now, did I hear the Minister say that doesn't mean that. Well, Mr.

Speaker, disclosure o! assets before you can become an elected member in this province is saying that if he has any specific assets, that they're going to have to be completely public or he can't be there, or if he does have these particular assets, tha t gives the people the opportun ity, maybe, to watch him more closely when all they really want to be concerned about is his integrit y. That's what it's all about, his integrit y. By the way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people can decide who they want to elect to office.

Then why should the Minister of Municipal Affairs put in rules and regulations to decide who people can vote for and who they can't vote for? Why does the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who casually stands up every time and says this will be better for you. This will be better for you, this will be better for a person running for office if his wife says I won't tell you, or his children say I won't tell you, you can't run or he's got to quite. That's real better for him isn't it? That's real better for him. That's going to make them awfully happy out there. Mr.

Speaker, as I started out to say, when you live with the mentality that "it takes a thief to catch a thief," I guess you write this type of legislation .. We haven't had any problems in Manitoba, and this will create problems. It is the old socialist rule, divide and conquer. Get people into conflict and then take over. That's basically the way they work and this will create conflict. This bill will create conflict and they don't care. - (lnterjec tion)- Well, they are in favour of anyth ing that comes rolling down from the group who writes their legislation; they just get told what to do.

There isn't anybody really over there that would stand up to any of the high-powered, high-paid NDP people that they brought in from the head offices in Ottawa and what have you. There isn't a member over there that would stand up to one of them at anyt ime anyway. So that's why we get the type of legislation we get but, Mr.

Speaker, I just want to say tha t I think the example I give of a member who has a child who was married and, for some reason, t:1ere is a death or divorce in the home, that they come back to live with their parents and their parent says to them, if you live here, you must disclose your assets. That's democracy? 4229

Monday, 11 July, 1983 MR. A. ANSTETT: That's dependent children. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the little Member for Springfield says dependent children. He always come up with some little gem of wisdom. Could there not be a situation where the parents would be helping out tha t child who came back? What is dependency? If the parents decide that you'll only pay for four meals a week instead of all? Is he dependent on the parents for those four meals? What is the definition of dependency? Let's have it Yo u see, the Member for Springfield, he sits in the corner up there and he laughs most of the time. MR. A.

ANSTETT: You give me a lot of reasons, Frank. Yo u give me a lot of reasons. MR. F. JOHNSTON: He laughs. Yo u see, that's what I mean . Here we go, now here he starts again. After he laughs, he sits down and puts his hand on his face and he looks up at the gallery and he smiles at all of them first, then he grins at the press, and then he has another laugh. Yo u see, Mr. Speaker, it's typical. It is the same as the Member for lnkster waves his knees, he waves his knees all the time. There they are; his knees are waving, the firefly with wavy knees. That's about it. Anyway, Mr.

Speaker, the thing that I am saying is let's get back to the bill that they think is so funny. Let me tell you how funny it is. MR. L. SHERMAN: The village smile r. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Let me tell you how funny it is, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been trav elling in this province as an elected member since 1963, and I know a lot of members out there. I have known people that have been in municipal councils longer than I, and I have been 20 years, either at a municipal council in St. James-Assiniboia, plus my legislative days.

I was the critic at one time for Municipal Affairs in opposition, and I travelled to all those meetings before. I have travelled to two of them this year. I attended different meetings in Brandon, and what have you, and I know many of those ladies and gentlemen personally. I didn 't just walk away after I finished having my lunch and was back here by 2:00 at the House when I went to Woodlands. I stayed for the afternoon and listened to their resolutions and discussed them with them after. I stayed and had a social 45 minutes with them and had dinner with them and then came home.

All that time, I was having conversation with these people, the same as all my colleagues did when they attend these type of meeti ngs. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs very sincerely that he doesn't know what is going on out there if he thinks the elected mem bers in the mun icipal councils of towns and municipalities like this bill. If he believes that, he doesn't know what is going on out there, and he should. He does not have any idea of what's going on out there (Interject ion) - That's right. You know, Mr. Speaker, so we have a bill of not conflict of interest.

It isn't conflict of interest. Yo u can write in this bill that the member must say that I have some interest. I can't speak on this. Yo u can have all the regulations you like, if they find the person to not have integrit y, to remove him, but disclosure of assets of his wife or husband and his children, I would like to know what assets.

Yo u know, I read this thing and I say if somebody has a 12-year old child that has some bonds or something, or if the parents have put some stocks in his name, and I know the legalities of minors, etc ., that are available, but I want to know and so will the people who run want to know what kind of stranglehold this bill has on them . The Minister of Municipal Affairs, he thinks it's all very fine. Somebody sent it down, the person that sent it down obviously knew that it would create problems, and that's really what they try to do, is create problems.

Divide and conquer, create confusion, and then go out and try and correct it and make it worse. Then they'll say, well, if you won't run, somebody else will. That's democracy? Yo u take that privilege away from a person who has worked hard all his life in a rural area and worked for the town, so you take them away. Yo u say to him, we don't trust you. What you also say to him is, you know, we're going to put you through the wringer before we allow you to run.

So you take that person .who has an interest in his municipality and has an interest in this town and he says, I just don't want to be bothered with all this. My last comments would be from the Member for Burrows. I can only say tha t his comments only relate to a place that he has a lot of experience in, and I have a lot of respect for that member, but he does relate his remarks to an area that does not apply to the Province of Manitoba.

I don't know where he had all his experience, or where he learned that people must be shackled, or where he learned that elected people can't be trus ted , because obviously he thinks that they can't be because of the rules and regulations he believes in. I don't know where he learned that, but it does not apply to the Province of Manitoba. But this kind of legislation will start to make the Province of Manitoba elected people much more bitter. They won't run, and you will create a conflict within all of the people out there that have had an interest in being good legislative members. Just while in closing, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I'll repeat for the benefit of the Member for St. James, because he wasn't here when I said it, if that bill had been put in front of him when he was a councillor in St. James, he would have raised hell from one side of the country to the other. He would not have bought it . Mr. Speaker, I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, get out there and find out what's happening out there because you don't know. (Interjection) - Ye s, I saw you. He said he was and our colleagues saw him very briefly at the meetings. Mr.

Speaker, I say to him, find out what' s going on out there and then maybe you'll make some changes to this bill that is conflict of interest and not disclosure of the wife or the husband and the children. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Are you ready for the question? The Member for Virden. 4230

Monday, 11 July, 1983 MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Ho nou rable Mem ber for Tu rtle Mountain, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker, I have some committee changes. For Private Bills, the Member for The Pas will substitute for the Member for Rupertsland; and the Member for lnkster will substitute for the Member for Logan. On Agriculture, the Member for The Pas will substitute for the Member for Thompson. AD JOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING Cont'd MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting House Leader. HON. A. l\ll ACKLING: Bill No. 55, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Bill 55 -THE LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 55, on the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, stan ding in the name of the Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don't intend to speak at great length on this bill, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to offer some comments in criticism of it and opp osition to it.

I would begin by asking you, Sir, and members of this Chamber and , in particul ar, of course, the Attorney-General who is the architect and pilot of the bill, why are we proceeding with this legislation at this point in time, Sir? Why do we need this kind of legislation at this stage and state of Manitoba's economic chall enge? It's not essential legislation, unless it's politically essential to the New Democratic Party, the Government of the Day, and therein, Sir, may well lie the ·answer. I can see very little other justification for it. My primary objection to it and difficulty with it has to do with the

section of the bill that deals with the constituency allowance, the new parameters and the new policies related to that allowance; the constituency allowance that provides for some $2,500 per fiscal year to be provided to each member of the Legislature on a basis tha t is laid out in the legislation itself and is somewhat different from that in existence at the present time but amounts in my view, Sir, to the same thing. It amounts to what the current constituency allowance amounts to, that is an additional burden for the taxpayer of the province to bear in terms of supporting his and her Provincial Legislature.

It goes, in fact, beyond the parameters and policies surro und ing the present constituency allowance because it seems deliberately designed to me, Sir, to establish a particular kind of co nstit uen cy sup por t and activity tha t I think is substantially partisan in its overtones, and I mean partisan in a sense of being partisan with the New Democratic Party in mind.

We have at the present time an arrangement for constituency allowances that recognizes the fact that over and above the regular expenses that members of this Assembly incur, which expenses are addressed in a separate expense portion of the annual indemnity, there are additional requirements bearing upon each member to carry out duties and functions in his or her constituency that do require some additional assistance.

That additional assistance is provided through the $1 ,500 constituency allowance which the member then uses to meet those requirements that he or she finds facing him in the conduc t of his or her regular political responsibilities in that constituen cy. I think that's a reasonable and a responsible approach to the challenges and political responsibilities that MLAs have.

This legislation goes beyond tha t and provides for a new type of constituenc y allowance totalling $2,500 per member in each fiscal year, which is set up on the basis of accountability and which is designed in my view, Sir, not very subtly to promote the concept of the est ablishment of constituency offices. There is nothing wrong with a constituency office, but I do not think that we should be facing legislation in this House and put in a position of imposing legislation on the people of Manitoba that adds up, in effect, to a constituency office bill. For me, Sir, that's what Bill 55 is.

It's the political answer to the community clinic. HON. S. LYON: At the taxpayers' expense. MR. l. SHERMAN: It's the political answer to the community clinic at taxpayers' expense - and I note there is some rather wild and irresponsible laughter emanating from the seat of the Member for Springfield who was described by my colleague, the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, during my colleague's remarks of a few moments ago, as one who is given to illogical and outrageous fits of laughter in this House.

I would hope he would think a little more carefully about what my colleague has said in that respect and about what I am saying here because it is no laughing matter when a Government of the Day, whether NDP, Progressive Conservative, or Liberal, or whatever stripe, designs legislation tha t is very craftily and very subtlely but not so responsi bly, Mr. Speaker, inten ded to reinforce the partisan ambitions of that particular party, tha t parti cular go vernment. I think tha t this is a transparent attempt at practising NDP politics at the constituency level.

Any legitimate party is entitled to practise its politics in whatever style it chooses, but I don't think the taxpayers of Manitoba should be made responsible for supporting those

part icular styles. HON. S. LYON: Let them pay for their own propaganda. MR. l. SHERMAN: In this case, Sir, we're looking at a style of politics which is

part icularly unique to the New Democratic Party. It's what I and others refer to as storefront politics, on-the -street activis m, on-the street recruitment and that's why I say, Sir, tha t it is the political equivalent of the community clinic, where you open a storefront operation and through outreach 4231

Monday, 11 July, 1983 programs recruit all the activity, all the caseloads and all the political involvement that you can. I think that happens through the community clinic concept, although in the health field community clinics certai nly have their place and certai nly perform good works as well as questionable ones. But in the political arena, I can't even see beyond the partisan level where any good works are accomplished by that kind of activity.

I think only cynical works are acco mplished, because I think it is the precise motif and technique of a particular approach to politics; i.e., the NOP approach to politics, to operate at that storefront on the street level. What the government is doing is saying we're going to do that and we're going to ask the taxpayers of Manitoba to pay for it.

The bill is very clear that the new constituency allowance, which has to be accounted for indeed, I don't question that point, but the new constituency allowance shall be payable for certain types of expenses identified in the rules, including expenses for office rental, utility services for the office, salaries for staff, stationery and office supplies and equipment. So, Sir, I think it is clear and demonstrable that it is a piece of legislation that is highly cynical from a partisan political point of view and, as my leader suggests to me, is unconscionable in its purpose and its principle.

For the Member for Springfield to laugh about that, I suppose is underst andable, because he has from time to time demonstrated an inabil ity to recognize and different iate cons cio nable from un consc ionable legislation and political practices, but that's his business, that's his affair. It is not a laughing matter. It is not a laughing matter to the people of Manitoba who face, probably to a greater degree than most Canadians, a very severe economic challenge in this decade and in these times that is far from being resolved, far from being resolved.

There are signs and evidences of economic recovery in other parts of Canada and certai nly in other parts of North America, but they are few and far between in this province at the present time, Mr. Speaker. Manitobans are still stru ggling with a crippled, nearly paralyzed, economy. They are still struggling under a cloud of political bias and prejudice which operates against enterprise, incentive and investment activity. They are operating in an environment which shows one of the highest unemployment rates in Canada and the highest unemp loyment rate in our histo ry. They are operating in an environment, Mr.

Speaker, which shows a record level of busine ss failur e, farm failur es, bankruptcies across the province; they are operating in an environment which had seen four major economic and indus trial opportu nities which could have been job generators of enormous magnitude, booted away by this government, booted away by that front bencr over there, Mr. Speaker.

They're operating in an environment that shows this province in devastating debt, facing a deficit position that is going to burden our children and their children for decades to come, and they have offered no creative or innovative approach to find our way out of that difficu lty, and to fight our way through those problems.

So, Sir, let us address the contents of this kind of cynical legislation in that context; a context wherein Manitobans are very hard-pressed now to get mileage out of every dollar tha t is produced in this province; and a context in which Manitobans indeed are very hard-pressed under the atmosphere created by that bunch, that government, Sir, to even produce dollars in a meaningful way. In that context, along comes a Government of the Day, this current inept, incompetent New Democratic Government, which is saying, well, we're going to get our slice anyway.

Regardless of how difficult things are for the people of Manitoba, we're going to get our share; and one thing we're going to do is make sure tha t we nail down those seats that we've got and attempt to nail down and secure our re-electi on. I think that's a forlorn hope, Mr. Speaker. I think the people of Manitoba have long since decided that they cannot afford this government of incompetence, but one would naturally un de rstand if the curr ent government failed to subscribe to that view itself.

So, in pursuit of their own political ambitions, they intend to do what they can to try to ensure their re-election, and Bill 55, Mr. Speaker, I suggest is a precise, carefully crafted and deliberate document aimed at doing what it can to secure the re-election of the New Democratic Government of the day. They know that this type of po liti cking, this type of storefront office in constituencies, suits their approach to politics, suits their on-th e-street type of politics. better than it does the style of some other parties, Mr. Speaker. So here we have Bill 55, not

an act to amend The Legislative Assembly Act, but Bill 55, the constituency office bill. Bill 55, the let's try to ensure and craft the re-election of the NOP bill. Bill 55, the answer as I've said, in political terms, to the community clinic. Bill 55, the bill that is going to promote NOP style storefront politics. That is what I have against this legislation, Mr. Speaker. HON. S. LYON: At the public's expense. At the public's expense. Let them pay for it thems elves. MR. L.

SHERMAN: There is nothing particularly wrong with that type of approach provided the NOP and its members, and its legions, and its minions are funding and financing that kind of activity themselves as a political party responsible for raising funds to be spent in elections and to maintain such constituency offices if they wish them. There's nothing

part icularly wrong with the desire to practise that style of politics, provided the responsibility tor financing it rests with and is met by the party wishing to do it. But where the difficulty comes in ... HON. S. LYON: Let the Canadian Labour Congress pay for it. MR. L. SHERMAN: . . . in fact, Mr.

Speaker, difficulty is too mild a word; where the unacceptability comes in, where the cynicism comes in and where indeed I suggest to you, Sir, even the immorality comes in, is when that party or any party says this is the way we're going to do it and we're going to load the burden of payment for that on the backs of the taxpayers, the taxpayers are going to fund our type of pol itical recruitment, our type of political pressure, our type of storefront politici zation of the community. 4232

Monday, 11 July, 1983 If the province were enjoying an enormously healthy period in its economy, it might not be of such concern to me tha t the government is doing this kind of thing, Mr.

Speaker, although I would always find it totally unacceptable in principle, but to take that cynical rejection of principle, that cynical trampling of principle and add to it the burden of additional cost to the taxpayers at this difficult time in our economy is, I suggest to you, Sir, totally unacceptable and constitutes a political position, which I, for one - and I know my colleagues share my view - intend to fight as vigorously as we can.

There can be some improvements made to The Legislative Assembly Act in days to come, in years to come, in sessions to come; no one is saying the current Legislative Assembly Act is perfect, Mr. Speaker, but surely members opposite cannot argue for one second tha t this is one of the top priorities in Manitoba tod ay.

We're faced with a government that has loaded in bill after bill, piece of legislation after piece of legislatio n, much of it highly controversial, provocative, and divisive, and their excuse has been tha t there is a great deal to accomplish, and tha t it doesn't matter if we're here all summer and well into the fall, in our responsibi lities to accomplish it. Well where tha t legislation is required, where it's called for, where it's demonstrably of importance to the people of Manitoba, I agree, Mr.

Speaker, and my colleagues agree 10 0 percent; but where it is patently calculated to be politically self-serving, we do not agree. This is not a priority piece of legislation in these times and in this economy in Manitoba. This is politically self serving legislation, and it should be put on the back burner until some time long into the future when that government opp osite has done something actively and creatively about solving the real problems of Manitoba. This isn't going to solve any problems in Manitoba. It may save one or two seats for the NOP, that isn't going to help Manitoba in any way.

In fact, it could be argued, Sir, but might sound cynical, that such a result would hurt Manitoba more than it would help it. Certainly the attention of this Legislature to this issue, rather than the opportunity to attend to other more pressing matters and certai nly the expenditure called for here which constitutes a greater financial burden for the people of Manitoba, add up to a great disservice to the province and to the citizens of Manitoba at this time.

Now I appeal to the Attorney-General who, as I say, is the architect and pilot of this bill, and I appeal to his colleagues to consider very seriously the morality and the equitability of their forcing the Legislature and the people of Manitoba, to devote time, energy, and money to this kind of legislation at this time.

What this government should be doing is withd rawing legislation of this kind and dealing with the current crucial crushing issues of unemployment and deficit spending, and getting this province moving in a way that we have a vigorous economy that gives men and women the one greatest service you can give them, tha t is an opportunity to fulfill themselves through career opportuni ties and job opportu nities, that make for self fulfillment; and then when tha t is achieved if they want to tinker and tamper in their political way with the political structu res that they spend so much time reviewing and revising, let them consider amendments to The Legislative Assembly Act - not necessarily this kind of amendment because the principle would still be the same - but amendrnents that they have in mind to The Legislative Assembly Act.

But, Sir, those are simply not the important priority issues for Manitobans tod ay, and this bill is not. In fact this bill adds a much greater note of cynicism and burden to the situation in Manitoba, and to the problems of Manitobans. I think the go vernment, which legitimately faces severe public criticism at the present time for some of the positions it has taken with respect to major issues, wou ld be wel l adv ised if it's as intere sted in its political future as this bill demonstrates it is, would be well advised to consider pulling this kind of legislation at this time.

Sir, one of my colleagues, in addressing this bill, pointed out that in his view it seems to represent a fur th er tendency in the gr ad ualism towards the esta blishment of the full-time MLA; the sort of the creeping est ablishment of the full- time provincial politician, and I think that's an important point to be noted for the record and considered by the citizens of this province, Mr. Speaker. I think it does reflect that kind of tenden cy, in those benches oppo site, to make service in this Legislature a full-time career occupation . That is a typical NOP attitude if one may say so, Mr. Speaker.

I do not believe that members of other parties, in this province and in this countr y, feel the same way about political office. They feel, we feel, certai nly my party feels, that the office to which we are elected is an office of high responsibility and commitment, and commands a great deal of our energy and time, and deserves all th at we can give it; but should not be exclusive. should not isolate us from the affairs of the world; should not isolate us from life at the working level and life in the real world; and life where livings have to be made; and earnings have to be pursued.

We should, all of us, be engaged in activities of a career nature, outside this Legislature, so that we know what the citizens at all levels of our economy, and in all components of our economy and our society face on a day to day basis. If you go away from that kind of principle, that kind of approach and develop the professional politician , you develop, Sir, a man or woman who is isolated and insulated from those realities of life. So that's another difficulty that we have with this legislation, that's another reason for rejecting this legislation.

It appears, and I think can be clearly demonstrated, to imply a further creeping development in tha t direction of the establis hment of the full-time MLA, which is a concept that I know is dear to the hearts of members opp osite, but which is a concept which we in the Progressive Conservative Party reject outright. So, Mr.

Speaker, given those obvious flaws, the fact that this is a piece of cynical legislation which is self serving political craftsmanship, partisan craftsmanship; given the fact that it represents an increased expense and burden for the taxpayers of Manitoba who need encouragment and help in other ways, not in this way, but in other ways; given the fact that it is a piece of legislation tha t is well down the priority list, well down the importance list in comparison to the challenges and issues facing Manitobans today; given the fact that 4233

Monday, 11 July, 1983 here the NDP has concocted something that is going to provide them with a political mechanism that they can demand the people of Manitoba pay for, that they can see their expenses paid for. their offices paid for, their election campaigns paid for to a much fUller degree than is the case tod ay, and to a degree that I think is totally unaccept able; and given the fact, Sir, tha t it contribu tes to that growing trend towards establishment of the concep t of the full-time MLA, I ha ve to reemphasize and reiterate my very vigorous objection to it.

I know my colleagues join with me in this position of objection. We appeal to the government to withd raw frivolous and cynical legislation of this kind and get on with the important legislation of building an economic recovery for Manitobans. Leave the constituency office bill, Bill 55, until some easier, more comf ortable economic time when it doesn't constitute such an onerous burden and a cynical burden to Manitoba taxpayers. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lakeside, tha t deba te be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Springfield on a point of order. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the bill tod ay, if I may, before the Leader of the Opposition adjourns it. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker . Mr. Speaker, I have heard several of the members opposite address their concerns on this bill.

I have attempted to be in the House when any of them spoke, because of my particular intere st in this bill and in the subject matter , and I have heard some very interes ting arguments from members opposite. Mr. Speaker, I have some difficulty accept ing the logic of a position which is founded on some rather archaic assumptions about the nature of the legislative process, abo ut the na ture of parl ia mentary traditions in Manitoba, and about the ability of men and women in the 20th Century to enter into politics.

It seems that some of the members opposite wish to hearken back to the days when only a very select number of people in our society, perhaps harking back three or four centuries in the British parliamentary tradition, to only those who had the rights and the privileges to represent, what were often called in those days, rotten burroughs, to become politicians or, as they were referred to then much more appropria tely, parliamentarians, in a weird turn of phrase. Because, in those days, Mr.

Speaker, the House of Commons at Westminster was made up of people who were just as much professional politicians as the Member for La Verendrye, or the Member for Emerson, who spoke to this point, and today the Member for Fort Garry was concerned about. These were people who, by gift of birth, or some other right, several hundred years ago were entitled to be the candida te in certain burroughs in the Uni ted Kingdom. HON. S. LYON: Yo u don't even know your history, Andy. MR. A. ANSTETT: The Member for Charleswood says, I don't know my history. Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Charleswood would be well advised to do some reading about the many burroughs in England which were hande d over genera tion to genera tion. Ther e is absolutely no question about that; in fact, in The Great Reform Act in 18 32 over 28 rotten burroughs were wiped out because they had represented no one and had become hereditary seats based upon the exclusive ownership of all the land in the burrough by one family; that's history.

Now I understand that 160, 151 years later, the Leader of the Opposition sti ll has trouble accommodating the prog ressiveness of The Great Reform Bill of 1832, but to say that it's not history should send him back to the school books, Mr. Speaker, not me. Mr. Speaker, the difficulty that some members on that side have is recognizing the fact that the job of being an MLA in the Province of Manitoba is, for all intents and purposes, a full-time job.

What I find interesting about their lack of acceptance of that is that every single member, including the Member for Fort Garry who just spoke, acknowledged the fact that it demands a great deal of his time, his energy , commitment and everything else that he has to give. In fact, if he's going to do anyth ing else, it has to be, by definition, a part-time activity; something to which he cannot give anywhere near the energy he could give if he were not involved in the political arena. I don't think the Member for Fort Garry would want to change thos e words.

That is basically wha t he sai d, I'm paraphra sing, but I think that's the message that came across, tha t the demands of politics in this province, of being an MLA in this province, are such that one is virtually captive of that position. Now that doesn't mean that one cannot engage in other activities; certai nly the Member for Fort Garry does; cert ainly some members in the backbench on this side do; obviously those in the Treasury Benches are not allowed to because of their position; but certainly many members on the other side do.

But the Member for Lakeside would willingly tell this House, and so would certain other members who have been in this House long enough to have seen the difference, is that the responsibilities of government, and the responsibilit ies of an MLA, even in the last dozen years, have grown to the point where members have less and less time today for their private activities, whether they be business or personal, than they would have had even a dozen years ago.

I'm sure the Member for Lake side remembers speeches by the former Member for Lakeside who was in this House longer than any other elected member, who talked about the dramatic growth of government, something about which he wasn't too fond, and cert ainly members opposite have expressed some di sdain for tha t growth of government; but the fact of the matter is, even when they were government, they accepted the tact that 4234

Monday, 11 July, 1983 government today is much larger and more intrus ive in society than it was in the days when D.L. Campbell was first elected in the early '20s. Mr. Speaker, the days of a four-, six-, or eight-week session are long gone; the days when members' caucus rooms were only open for that short period are long gone. The fact of the matter is, Mr.

Speaker, MLA's are called upon by their constituents, and by their governmental responsibilities, either in opposition or in the government backbench, to be engaged in a lot more activities than was the case a dozen years ago, and certainly was the case in the days when D.L. Campbell was first elected. MR. F. JOHNSTON: We're paid more than a dozen years ago, too. We're paid more now, too, so we should do our job, to keep it very simple. MR. A. ANSTETT: The Member for Sturgeon Creek makes a very good point. He suggests from his seat that MLA's today are paid more than they were a dozen years ago.

Even allowing for inflation, they probably are paid about the same, or a little more, than they were a dozen years ago. I'll accept that point, and that is a direct reflection of the fact of greater res ponsibil ity. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is no one can hold down a full-time job and be an MLA. In fact, I would challenge any member opposite to suggest that it's possible. Some of us know of one backbencher in the previous government who tried to maintain a profess ional career while he was an ML A.

Those members opposite who know of whom I speak know that individual had a great deal of difficulty trying to do his job as an MLA and carrying on his work as a school teacher , virtually impossible. Mr. Spea ker, what's more important, get into the discussion of the part-time or full-time status of MLA's, is the recognition that for most people it is impossible to carry on a career, or a business activity , and be an MLA, because of the demands of the job. The Member for Gladstone says, we're too far from home.

Of course, for many rural members, the ability to carry on a business in their home constituenc y, or a career in that constituenc y, is virtually wiped out by their election. For many members in this city who are professional people in priv ate practice the opportunities to carry on, at least some modicum of private business, is reserved to them, they scale down the operation or whatever. But what about the school teachers, public servants, people working for employers in the private sector, who are not able to reserve for th emselves that scaled-down position?

What about all those people, in effect, who are not self-employed? Those people very seldom have the privilege that those who are self em ployed have, of scal ing down their job to accommodate the duties of an MLA. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time being 4:30, when this motiqn is next before the House, the Honourable Member for Springfield will have 31 minutes remaining. PRIVATE MEMB ERS' HOUR RES. NO. 7 -TOWARDS DEMOCRACY IN THE WORKPLACE MR. SPEAKER: Private Members' Hour. The first resolution on the agenda is that proposed by the Honourable Member for

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-104a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 104a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	188cc8c6486b1905877149b612d5c042b174753d

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