Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 52 (34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-52

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, October 18, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING RE PORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTE ES Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Chairman of Comm ittees): Mr . Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations. Mr.

Cl erk (William Remnant): Your Stan ding Committee on Industrial Relations presents the following as their Second Report: Your committee met on Tuesday, October 10, 19 89, I at 10 a.m., in Room 255, and Tuesday, October 17, 1989, at 10 a.m., in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consider Bills referr ed. Your committee heard representations on Bill No. 54-The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (5); Loi no 5 modifiant le Code de la route, as follows: Mr . Ha rvey Pollock- Cit izens Against Impair ed Drivi ng.

Your committee has considered Bill No. 54- The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (5); Loi no 5 modifiant le Code de la route, and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION : THAT

Section 15 be struck out and the following substituted: 15 . Su bsection 263 .2(6) is amended: (

a) by adding "In a review under this section," before "The registrar"; (

b) in Clause (a), by stri king out "or other inf ormation accompanying the application" and substituting "and any other relevant information"; and (

c) in clause (d), by striking out "the evidence" and substituting "in addition to matters referred to in clauses (a), (

b) and (c), any relevant evidence". All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr . Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Gimli (Mr . Helwer), that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Hon. Jame s Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr . Speaker, I would like to make a ministerial statement and I have copies for the Members of the Opposition. Mr .

Speaker, I am please to announce today the Govern ment's approval of some $500, 000 from Lotteries rev enue to enable the Departments of Nor thern Affairs, and Cultur e, Heritage and Recreation to jointly deliver a two-year Nor thern Remote Community Recreation Program. My colleague, the Honourable Bonnie Mi tchelson, Min ister of Cultur e, Herita ge and Recreation and I are proud to participate in this joint program to stimulate recreational opportunities in northern Manitoba.

The need for increased northern recreation was clearly identified at a Remote Communities Recreation Conference held in Thompson in March of 19 89. No rthern re sidents, com mun ity leaders and representatives from Native organizations identified at tha t conference the need for leader ship at the community level to motivate northern residents to participate more fully in sports and recreation activities.

My Government believes recreation is a positive influence in the development of youth as increased opportunity for recreation will build leadership skills and motivate people of all ages to pursue leisure-time activit ies tha t are both enjoyable and personally satisfying. My Government also recognizes the need for local leadership to organize recreation programs and to offer communities a diversity of activities to meet their individual needs.

To provide this leadership at the community level, my Government is proposing to employ eight recreational directors to organize full community participation in recreational programs and to ensure these programs reflect the div erse needs of the region. My department will administer the two-year program and will be responsible for placement of the directors and setting of local recreation committees, while the Department of Culture, Herita ge and Recreation will be responsible for providing trai ning. There are thr ee fundamental principles on which this program will be based.

First, the communities will participate fully in the hir ing and program development. The second criteria is that the program will be flexible and adaptable to ensure that it reflects the diversity of the needs of the northern communities. Finally, my Government is aiming for long-term community involvement and commitment to future recreational programs in the North. Mr . Speaker, I would like to as well add that we have with us today a former NHL hockey player in the person of Mr . Jim Neilsen, who is visiting us in the gallery, who 1963

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 will as well· be carrying out other recreational activities with the northern and Native youth. Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): I am pleased to respond to this statement. I am encouraged by the fact that we have here a program that has been a long-standing necessity. We know tha t the remote northern communities have many youth who need recreational activity, who need to be involved in organizational sports. This is a program that can develop leadership ability and can promote the motivation, as the Mi nister has acknowledged.

I notice also in the statement he made that some of the lo ttery revenues that have been collected are returning back to some of the people who do contribute much to this kind of activity for raising revenues. This is encouraging and I am pleased to recognize that this is done. I also noticed that they did reference the fact that they are going to be getting community involvement in the hir ing program and in the development.

I trust this will also mean that the people who will be hir ed will be Northerne rs and that the training provided will be for future development of the same kind of skill development that the program itself is supposed to initiate in the youth. This will also be done in the part of the program that is bringing the leadership to th at. In that respect I am pleased this program has been introduced. It reflects of course the fact that it is necessary.

I would like to see that some of the same kind of thinking goes on into some of the economic activities that take place in these northern communities, because much of this recreational need is as a result of the fact that other areas, other things are unable to be done and consequently employment too should be one of the highest criteria, highest objectives of this particular Government. Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): I am pleased to hear the Min ister of Northern Affa irs (Mr . Downey) announce this program. We are in favour of such a program.

However, there are a lot of programs that have been discontinued by this Government, changed criteria for the people in the North, such as the Jobs Fund. We had a $2 mi llion program in wh ich many of the communities, such as Garden Hill Band, were denied some funds for job creation. * (1 340) Also under the NO A, we are very concerned about the progress of the NO A in which many of these things would be negotiated to cost share the development in our north .

I believe the Minister is not doing enough to ensure th at the federal Government has tha t responsibility and I do not know whether this program includes the northern reserves to be able to participate in this program. If they are, how many dollars are they looking at? It seems to me that $500,000 for a two year period is not enough. As the Minister had indicated, we have a lot of unemployment and he know that the employment situation runs as high as 90 percent in those commun ities. We have a lot of issue that this Minister ha s bungled including Treaty Land Entitlement, the urban-Native strategy.

I believe some of th ose programs like LA PD in which Limestone Aboriginal program contributed about $350,000 for the training of youth, I do not know whether this Government is continuing that process. I have some questions and with this response that I am getting from the Minister I do not know whether I will get anything. If I go on for two years, I am sure he would give me the same answer. I welcome th is opportunity to have some funds, it is not a new idea. It is an idea which I started in the Depart ment of Northern Affa irs to provide some recreation funding in the North.

So it is not somethi ng new that this Government ha s brought up. Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I have a brief statement that I would like to make to the House, Mr . Speaker. I ha ve copies for the Opposition. There are reports today that federal Communications Minister Ma rcel Masse plans to introduce legislation tom orrow tha t will give the federal Gover nm ent regulatory control over provincially owned telephone utilities. Such a move would take away local control and autonomy from the Manitoba Telephone System and all of its ratepayers. Mr .

Speaker, th is is an unpr ecedented federal intrusion into provincial jurisdiction. It is a direct assault on the Pr airies and a direct assault on our rural communities. Regional sensitivity is essential in regulating any publicly-owned body such as Ma nitoba Telephone System, which is mand ated to serve all Man itobans regardless of where they choose to live in this province. As such, provi ncial res ponsibili ty for telecommunications is essential to protect consumers and to ensure telephone rates are sensitive to the needs of smaller and rural communities.

It is our un dersta ndin g tha t under the federal Government's plan, the Public Utilitie s Board of Manitoba will lose all of its rights to regulate a Man itoba Crown Cor poration and as such, remove the opportunity for Manitobans to be involved in managing the company which they rig htfully own. As Premier of Manitoba I am shocked and disappointed that the federal Government apparently has deemed it appropriate to exercise its regulatory muscle at the expense of Ma nitoba Telephone customers. Mr .

Speaker, this flies in the face of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision involving Alberta Government Telephones. The Supreme Court ruled that telephone companies owned by the thr ee prairie provincial Governments enjoy Cr own immun ity from federal jurisdiction. The federal Government has now deemed it appropriate to override the paramountcy of Cr own immunity and take over regulatory control of Manitoba Telephone System. Mr . Speaker, the federal Minister gave his word to this Government that there would be consultation before 1964

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 such action �ould be considered. No such consultation has taken place.- (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order , please. The Honourable Member will have an opportunity to get his remarks on the record. The Honourable the Fir st Mi nister. Mr. Filmon: There has been no consultation to address the concerns of ordinary Manitobans who depend on their provincial telephone system and who now thr ough careful management of the Crown corporation enjoy among the lowest telephone rates in the country.

Under the federal plan, as we understand it, these rates will be jeopardized with rates set by a regulatory body far removed from the realities and sensitivities of Manitoba. I, as Premi er, along with my Min ister of Telecommunications, the Honourable Glen Findlay, will not accept this unila teral action by the federal Government . In the interests of protecting all Manit obans, our Government-m y Min isters and 1- will fight this decision with whatever means we have � at our disposal including legal action. Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): We too were shocked to learn this morning that legisl ation was already dr aft ed and ready for presentation in the House of Commons tomorrow on the Railways Act, which would in fact impinge severely upon the ability of the Manitoba Telephone.System and the Public Utilities Board in the Province of Manitoba to carry out their manda te as presently legislated. We are pleased that the Premier has finally stood up to his federal counterparts on something that impacts on the Province of Manitoba.

We certainly have heard little of anything on VIA, little of anything on UI C, little of anything on base closures, little of anything on grains payments, little of anything on GST from the Government; but more importantly, Mr. Speaker, we want to know where the Cabinet Min isters, representing the same political Party as the Premier of this province, have been while this legislation was presented to Cabinet and so is now in the position that it is ready • to be presented to the people of Canada? Where was , Jake Epp? Wher e was Charlie Mayer?

Wher e is ther e no ability from our federal Conservative Members of Parliament and Cabinet to stand up to the needs of Manitobans. Mr . Speaker, the Manitoba Telephone System and the Public Util ities Board must have the ability to continue with the mandate of service. Local service at local service rates will be severely impacted by this decision of the federal Govern ment. It is intolerable, it is unacceptable and let us make sure that this ministerial statement by the Premier today is not the only action he takes. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, it is a disgr ace that has happened to the Province of Ma nitoba and western Canada with the announcement by the federal Government today. I would remind Members of this Cham ber that when the original court decision came out, we warned the people of Manitoba and western Canada that this would be the inevitable result because that was the action the federal Tories wanted to take, and roll the tape back, what the Min ister said with the court decision, and roll the tape back, what the Pr emier said: oh, this is a good decision for Manitoba; oh, this will not hur t us at all; oh, the NDP is scaremongering.

Roll the tape back because th ree to four weeks ago this Governm ent should have got in and fought for western telephone systems, non-pr ofit systems tha t have brought telephones to the North, to the farms and provided the lowest rates in North Ameri ca- not today . Mr. Speaker, we implored the Govern ment then to get involved and these last minute figh ts are not going to work. You have got to be fighting from the day the gun is rung in terms of the fight-back campaign. You cannot surrender at the last minute as this Government does.

Oh, yes, they will send out a press release, and they will bring it up at the Fir st Mi nister's conference but nothing is happening. We are losing every battle. Rural western Canada is being destroyed. It is the post offices in rural Manitoba, in western Canada, it is VIA Rail, it is Rural Ec onomic Development grants. This country is destroying the regions. The publicly owned telephone system is just part of the break of our infr astructure and our quality of life in this country. *

(1350) In conclusion, we sat and fought with Fl ora MacDonald until th ree in the morning to stop the takeover of the telephone system by the federal Government. We fought against Fr ancis Fox when the Li berals wanted to do the same thing in terms of deregulating the Canadian telephone system. I believe ·it is essential to fight this as much as we can, because the inevitable results will be that rates will go up 40 to 50 percent on the fir st step of the loss of our Telephone System with federal regulation and a dere gula ted fr ee trade North Ameri can telecommunications environment. Hon.

Gerrie Hammond (Min ister of Labour): I have a ministerial statement, Mr . Speaker. Today is the 60th anniv ersary of Person's Day. Person's Day marks the fi rst official recognition of women as having rights and privileges as "persons" in society. Last year my colleague, the Honourable Cha rl otte Ol eson, as the then Min ister responsible for the Status of Women, announced the Women's Initiative, and I had the pleasure of chairing that initiative. The Women's In itiative visited 24 communities in Manitoba and heard from over 1, 000 women.

The consulting committee submit ted a report last March, on Internat ional Women's Da y, that made 94 recommendations. It is my pleasure to announce that the majority of those recommendations have been acted on or are in process today. We have heard major announcements that will mean a revamped and better funded wife abuse system that will see two crisis lines being funded in the upcoming year and two new shelters being opened, one designed for aboriginal women and Osborne House's new facility. 1965

\W!dnesday, Octol>er 18, 1989 We are seeing a court system ·that is becoming more sensitiw ·to the issues of domestic violence through trai nihg 6f Crown prosecutors an.d judges. We have seen the intr oduction of a dome stic violenc e tracking system that will monitor do mestic violence cases so any problems in the cour ts can be ident ified and corrected. We ha ve seen the de cen tral iza tion of my own department, the Manitoba Women's Directorate, to The Pas and Portage la Prairie so women can have better access to informa tion.

We have seen educ ation a11d trai ning initiativ es of far reach ing prop ortions, di stance educa tion, augmentation of efforts to attract women into alterna te occupations, and increases in such programs as Single Parent Job Access. We are initiating programs tha t will make the existing systems more responsive to women . Beginning in Janu ary, single-parent families will have immediate access to the provi ncial social assistance program. We know that women 's issues have maintai ned a high profile. Issues are being treated with interest and concern as they are identified . we have heard the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) announc e, at the request of Manitoba women in Government, an audit of the Civil Service, to ident ify any problem areas that may mean women do not have equitable access to all Civil Service jobs. Th is Go ve rnment has maintai ned its commitments that women are persons in Mahi toba and I would like to salute my women colleagues in the House and all women in Manitoba on. t�is Person's Day. Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): Mr. Speaker, certainly we on this side of the House join with the Government in the celebration of Person's Day.

We do no t, however, quite have the same idea that in fact the recommendations of the Women's Initiative have by and large been completed by this Government. I think as we listen to the Minister this afternoon speak about the programs that they have put in place, one sees that in the area of some programs for women in regard to family violence, we have seen some moves. But there are a lot of other gaps in service and needs that were identi fied by women across the Province of Manitoba and those have not been add ressed at all by this Minister or by this Government.

We waited for an implementation plan from the Women's Initiative team to be tabled in this House. We have yet to see those recommenda tions. We have yet to see that plan and it is five months later, Mr. Speaker. We heard about the needs of women in rural Manitoba in regard to family counselling services, services in the area of mental health for women. We have yet to see any of those issues addr essed. We still have the Women's Post-Treatment Centre with waiting lists of one year in order for women to get service.

We still have the Fort Garry Women's Resource Centre with waitirig lists of four months in order for women to get service. We still have rural and nor thern Manitoba who do not even have those resources. I think that for the Minister to leave the illusion that they have moved far ahead in the area of the Women's Initiative and what those recommendationi; are, I say that they have not.

We even have a situation where the shelters have got together for a conference and want to form a Manitoba coalition of shelters and the Government refused to send a representative, and at this point is no t even recog ni zing this val uable organization as an advocacy group of the shelter. So I ask the Government, Mr. Speaker, where really is their commitment to women and to women 's issue? They talk about an audit of the Civil Service and, yes, we welcome that audit. It will take a long time.

It will take probably months and months and months, but in the meantime we have a Government who deli berately defies the civil servants and what is going on and wha t is going to happen in the short term. In summing up, Mr. Speaker, although we have seen some changes for wife abuse and in the shelter system, we have a Women's Initiative Report that dealt with many, many problems and very, very few of those issues have been addr essed at all. Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of my caucus I would like to recognize this special day, the 60th anniversary of the Person's Case pay tribute to those women who championed that cause back in the early 19 00s, the women by the names of Emily Murphy; Nellie McClung; Louise McKinney; Irene Parleby and Henrietta Muir Edward s, those women who championed the cause and fought a deci sion, a court ruling that said women are persons in matters of pains and penalties but not persons in matters of rights and privi leges.

On that same note, I want to pay tribute to all the women of this province who have pioneered so much on behalf of women 's equality and worked to ach ieve so much. Mr. Speaker, I want to admire the courage of this Governme nt to stand up toda y and ack nowledge Person's Day, acknowledge the 60th anniversary of this historic development on the day after it has snubbed its noses at the child care profession made up of over 90 percent women and said that they are not worth more than the $1 5,0 00, $1 6,000 a year they earn for providing incredible service to this province, to this country. Mr.

Speaker, not only has this Government snubbed its nose at the majority of women in the child care profession, it has refused to act on every significant area facing women in this province. It has studied the issues time and time again but refused to act. Not only has this Government refused to act on quality child care and recognition for child care workers, it has refused to move on pay equity leg islation. Sixt een months or more this Government has been in power and it has still only said it is studying the question of extending pay equity to school boards, municipali ties and the private sector. Mr.

Speaker, this Government two weeks ago tabled the report of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women which gave a scathing report card to this Government on every area of possible action for women. 1966

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 It gave it a scathing report on da y care, on pay equity, on the treatment of abused women in our justice system in terms of counselling services for women , in terms of not a single penny going to women 's groups to help study the important issues of reproductive technologies, and the list goes on. * (1 400) Today, Mr. Speaker, this Government has nothing to be proud of.

The women have nothing to be proud of, and I think if they are serious about celebrating the 60th Anniversary of Person's Day, then they better put their money where their mouth is and start doing something on behalf of women and equality between women and men. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Edward Connery (Mini ster of Co-operativ e, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is • my pleasure to table the Annual Report of the Co operative Promotion Board for 19 87-88. INTRO DUCTION OF BILLS BILL NO. 61- THE CITY OF WINNIPEG AMENDMENT ACT

(2) Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minis ter of Housin

g) introduc ed, by leave, Bill No. 61, The City of Winni peg Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur la Ville de Winnip eg. BILL NO. 63-THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(3) Hon. Edward Con nery (Minis ter of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 63, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (3); Loi no 3 mod ifiant la

Loi sur la protection du • consommateur. BILL NO. 64-T HE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT Hon. Edward Conn ery (Minis ter of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 64, The Business Practices Act;

Loi sur les pratiques commerciales. (R ecommended by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor) BILL NO. 65-T HE FATALITY INQUIRIES ACT Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 65, The Fatality Inquiries Act;

Loi sur les enquetes medic o-legales. (R ecom mended by His Honour the Lie utenant Governor) 1967 BILL NO. 66-T HE

SUMMARY CONVICTIO NS AMENDME NT ACT Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) introduced, by leave, Bill No. 66, The

Summary Convictions Amend ment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les pou rsuites

sommaires. INTRODUCTION OF GUES TS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Ques tions, may I di rect Honourable Members' attention to the gallery where we have from the Princess Elizabeth School, thir ty Grade 5 students under the di rection of Anne Brow. This school is located in the constituenc y of the Honourable Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Tartan Lake Mine Closure Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld).

Today we have learned , as this Government has, that another 87 Manitobans will lose their jobs as a result of the decision to close the Tartan mine near Flin Flon. This Minister indic ated in the House two days ago, and I quote, the Tartan Lake mine may indeed close. How long has this Minister known that this mine would close and what did he do with that information, if anything? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker , the princip les of Tartan Lake mine annou nced the closure today. It has been known in the mining community for some time that they were losing money.

The cost of production for Tartan Lake mine gold is approxima tely $408 an ounce U.S., not counting the capital write-offs. As we all know, gold sells for about $365 an ounc e U.S. today and for that reason Tartan Lake has closed. The ownership of Tartan Lake mine has cha nged recently. The new owners have indi cated that they want to follow exploration for base metals. We encou rage that because the greenstone belt in the Flin Flon and Snow Lake area is rich in base metals and we do believe that if they continue exploration in that area they will find depo sits that have not yet been located.

Northern Communities Mining Closure Impact Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): The Minister indic ates that the mining community has known for some time. I assume that he has known for some time. Mr. Speaker, again for the same Minister, what the Minister clearly knows and has known for some time as well is that with the closure of the Lynn Lake mine

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 and now this closure, the mining industry in this province is in trouble. What other communit ies in northern Manito t>a are at risk of losing jobs? Perhaps he can fill his col leagues in this time prior to the axe falling so that the Government can be prepared to protect the people and jobs in northern Manitoba. Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, Tartan Lake mine does not represent an isolated community. The miners at Tartan Lake all come from the Flin Fl,on area. It is not as though a community is closing up. · Some Honourable Mem bers: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Order, order. Mr. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, it would be unfair of us to make comment of mines who are in danger of closing. The mines are publicly traded corpora tions and if we were to start annou ncing on behalf of the owners of the mine that they were in danger of closing it would not be fair to the owners, it would not be fair to the investors, it would not be fair to anybody at all. * (14 10) Tartan Lake Mine Labour Adjustment Strategy Mr. Paul Edwards (St. Jam es): Mr.

Speaker, if this Minister does not think that those 87 employees are not going to have an effect on the community of Flin Flon he better wake up. The y are members of that community and it is going to have a very, very serious effect on that community. Did the Minister-w e assume he has known for some time this closure was coming take the time to walk up the hall to his colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) so that she could get some pro-active work in place in the Labour Adjustment Branch that would protect these jobs and keep these people in Manitoba? Hon.

Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) is aware of what is happening and was aware of what was about to happen at Tartan Lake and has been working and has continu ed to work in the interests of the miners at Tartan Lake. Tartan Lake Mine Labour Adjustment Strategy Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. James, with a new question. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I have a new question to the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond) . The job losses in this province since this Government took office are now in the thousands.

The Free Trade Agreement, the callousness and shorf-sightedne ss of the federal counterparts in Ottawa, arid now the impend ing GST which is going to severely affect this province have put this province in deep trouble· in terms of the labour environ ment and this Government is asleep at the switch. Ther e is no more telling evidence of that than the lip service given by this Minister to the labour adjustment needs of this pr ovince. The letter announcing the closing states that operations will be suspended as soon as this can be accomplished . My question is- Mr. Speaker: Will the Honour able Member for St.

James kindly put his question? Mr. Edwards: My question is- ***** Mr. Speaker: Ord er, ple ase. The Ho nourable Government House Leader, on a point of order . Hon. Jam es Mcc rae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the Honour able Me mber for St. James is notorious in this House for his lengthy pre ambles, not only to his first questions but to all his subsequent supplementary questions. I would ask that he be called to order and not allowed to carry on with these lengthy

preambles. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honour able Government House Leader. The Honourable Opposition House Leader, on the same point of order. Mr. Reg Alcock (Op position House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader knows full well the arrangements that have been made. The Member is speaking on a new question and considerable latitude has been allowed the first questioners. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank both Honou rable Members.- (interjection)- Order, please. The Honour able Member for St. James was just going to put his question. Mr.

Edwards: What contact has this Minister had with the company and the union to ensure that a labour adjustment strategy is in place and has done its job before these employees stop getting pay cheques, given that the lette( to the Mini ster specifically states that the se job s will be lost as soon as this can be accomplished? Hon.

Gerrie Hammo nd (Min ister of Labour): I think that the Member probably knows there is a period that a company has to give before people are laid off in this type of a situation, and that the labour adjustment unit- the staff have been in contact, they will be in contact today. to see if they wish a labour adjustment unit started at the mine. Mr. Edwards: In fact that period in this case, by the advice of the company, will be 10 weeks.

What are this Minister's dep artment's specific plans to get up to Flin Flo.n and start job counselling and start retraining procedures ·tomorrow given that this Government, by the adm ission of its Mini_ ster of Energy

) Wednesday, October 18, 1989 and Mines (Mr. Neufeld), has known for some time that this is coming? Mrs. Hammond: Labour adjustment units canno t go into a firm until we have been formally notified that ther e is going to be a closure. There is a procedure tha t they go through, and one of the areas that they have to do is that they ha ve to survey the people who are going to be laid off to see what kind of help they need. We need to know their work background, the types of things that they need , what kind of retraining, and it is a very indi vidual process and we will get moving on it immedi ately. ***** Hon.

Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines, on a point of order. Mr. Neufeld: The Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) indicated that I had said that I knew they were going out of business. What I said, it was well- known in the mini ng community that they were in trouble, but there is a big difference between being in trouble and going out of business. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Minister does not have a point of order. A dispute over the facts -(interjection) Order. Order, please.

Are there Honourable Members wishing to carry on private conversations here? Labour Adjustment Industry Analysis Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. James, with his final supplementary question. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, finally this is for the Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond). In fact, the de Grandpre .Report ind icates that labour adjustment branches in this country have to be pro active and ind ustry-specific.

My question is: what is this Government doing to in fact be pro-active in the area of labour adjustment, and specif ically , what ind ustry analy ses have been done by the labour adjustment branch to prepare this province for these increasingly common layoffs, given that the de Grandpre Repor t specifically manda tes that they should be doing that now, and Manitoba is getting hurt worse than any provi nce in this country? *

(1420) Hon. Gerrie Hammond (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, to my honour able friend from St. James, as a matter of fact the labour adjustment unit has been very successful in relocating people into other trades or jobs. I would like to say that we are very pro-active in the fact that the minute that we get a notice the dep artment gets right in touch with the employees and the employer and they get something immedia tely started. So they are working with the employees, with the employers, to make sure that they all get jobs. 1969 Manitoba Telephone System Jurisdictional Control Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in the early' SOs when the Telephone System and its abili ty to service Manitobans and western Canadians was threatened , there was a grass roots movement dev elo ped with Go vern ments, municipalities, consumers, seniors, other groups in our province, to.fight the possible takeover of the Telephone System by the federal Government, and to fight the deregulation and competitive environment. My question to the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) is: has there been any strategy at all by this Government to fight the federal Government in terms of its potential takeover of this Telephone System, and why has this Government not developed a grass-roots campaign so that we did not find ourselves with legislation that is proposed for tomorrow in the House of Commons? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party continues to promote their style of politics which is to gather pep rallies together to try and create politic al supp or t for themselves, but not to accomplish a purpose. Our purpose, Mr.

Speaker, is to retain our jurisdictional control over the Telephone System.- (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Filmon: The New Democrats are not interested in hear ing the answer. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, yes, we are interested in the answer. Your style is to surrender on every issue. You surrender on every issue instead of working with the people of Manitoba to stop these decisions.

My question to the Premier is-he did not answer Vl(hY he did not develop a grass-roots campaign of Manitobans to fight this decision -did he di scuss this issue and his objections, and our Go vernment' s and people of Manitoba's object ions to any possible takeover, with the Prime Minister of this country in any di scussions he had with the Prime Minister? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Leader of the New Democratic Party that I made those objections clearly known to the Honourable Marcel Masse less than 10 days ago when he was in Winnip eg. I can tell -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please.

The Honour able First Minister. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, clearly the Leader of the New Democratic Party has no control over the rabble in his backbenches. They all want to go on with their rabble rousing with no interest in the issues of the day, with no concern about this serious issue to the people of Manitoba. They want to talk about pep rallies and di sorganized rabble around here. Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue before us. The issue is jur isdictional control. My Minister responsible for •

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 . .Telecom munications has met not only wi th th e Honourable Marcel Masse and expressed ourv ery, very grave co ncerns and our total opposition to any move by 'the· federal· Government to take over jurisd ictio n. He has also met with and discussed the issue with his counterparts in Alberta and Saskatchewa n. I might say that a similar announc ement to the one that we made toda y is being made in the Saskatchewan Legislature toda y by the Hono urable Grant Devine and his Minister responsible, Gary Lane.

We are prepared to fight the federal ;Gov ernment with everything at our di sposal, including whatever legal action is necessary under the circumstances to ensure that the federal Government knows that we do not want this takeover, and we will use everything and every power Linder our contro l to fight it. Mr. Doer: The answer to my question, Mr. Speaker, is no, you did not contact the Prime Mini ster, you will not call for a First Ministers' meeting on VIA Ra il, you will not fight the Prime Minister· on other cutbacks in Manitoba, you cannot get a meeting on the basis of Manitoba's cutbacks in the province.

My question to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is: why is he afraid to escalate our legitima te concerns to the Prime Minister and call on the Prime Minister to reverse this decision and fire Marcel Masse for taking away the authority of the telephone systems from western Canadian publicly owned corporations? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, not only will .

I call on the federal Prime Minister who is away now overseas, if the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr� Doer) follows the news media, just as the Leader of the New Democratic Party was away when· there was a day care rally here, the fact of the.matter is that we wil l not only contact the federal Prime Minister and let him know that we are opposed to this and tha t we are going to take every step under our jurisdic tion, including legal action to fight him on this issue, but we are also gaining the support of the other prairie provinces who will be similarly affected , and ensuring that we will have a joint action against Ottawa of all three provinces, because that is the best way for us to fight this issue.

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, some of us do not have perimeter vision. We are outside of the City of Winni peg on certain days. My question to the First Min ister, given.the fact that the court case came down on August 14 and that many of us at that point de$cribed the situation as serious in terms of the jeopardy of our telephone systems, and given the fact that Manitoba had a joi nt agreement with all province s a couple of years ago on terms of the jurisdiction of the telephone system, not just western provinces, my question to the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) is: is his lack of communication and contact with the Prime Min ister on thi s ·issue a matter of being afraid of dealing with the Prime Minister or is it just naivety in terms of the court decision in terms of the Province of Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker. let me begin by sayi_ng that Mr� Speaker: ' Order. Mr. Filmon: .,.,.. 1. again suggest to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) that he control his backbenchers, If they have a question that they want to be answered I 'Will' be. happy to do SO, but not with the nonsense that is going on from that side of the House. Mr.

Spea ker: Ord er, order . The Ho nourable Fi rst Minister. Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, when the Supreme Court decision came down it provided for jur isdiction of the prairie provi nces with their Crown-owned utilities over the telecommun ications in our province. Under those circumstances, that was a victory for us. What hap pened of course was-wha t is apparently happen ing is that the federal Government unilaterally is going to change legislation to remove that jurisdiction. There is a difference quite evidently that does not flow naturally from the Supr eme Cour t de cision.

The Supreme Court upheld the ju risdiction of the prairie provinces and their Crown-owned utilities. * (1430) mi ght say that with resp ect to the telecommunications issue-I raise'd this at the Western Premiers' Conference and I raised it again at the Premiers' Conference in Quebec City and inde ed there is support- CN Rail Rail Line Abandonment Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speak er, the federal Government ha s taken uni lateral action almo st consis tently since this Government took office some 17 months ago, and we have heard barely whimp ers out of the Government as the official representative of this province. Perhaps the Premier (Mr. Filmon) should learn that leadership antici pates action. It just does not react to action. Mr. Speaker , during the 17 months of thi s Government' s ad ministration, CN has cancelled $16.6 million for upgr ading of CN lin es.

CN has also aband oned the line from Optic Lake to Snow Lake and applied for abandon ment of the rail line from Neepawa to Ru ssell. My question to the Premier is, in that Mr. Lawless announced yesterday a further 4 percent which is the legal limit under NTA of rail lines cut this year, how many rail lines in Manitoba are now going to be affected by this recently annou nced abandonm ent program ? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): I wish that the leader of the Liberal Party would make up her mind.

You know, . when we went to Ottawa, twice with respect to the Portage air base closure, she said why do you not talk to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. So I went to Ottawa and I spoke to the Prime Minister about the Portage base closure. She said I should not have been talking abo ut the Port age ·base clo sure and econ omic 1970 �

I Wednesday, October 18, 1989 development for Manitoba, I should have been talking about something else. The Leader of the Liberal Party canno t make up her mind. With respect to issues to do with transporta tion and any of those matters with regard to CN, those matters are being hand led by the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger), and if she wants to ask any questions of the Minister of Transportation on what he has done to protect the interests of Manitoba, with respect to VIA rai l cutbacks, transportation cutbacks in the federal sector of any sort, she is welcome to ask that question. Mrs.

Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, let us make the record straight. He went to Ottawa with Portage la Prairie people. He did not get to see the Prime Minister of this country, he got to see the Minister. ***** Mr. Speaker: Order , ple ase; ord er, please. The Honour able Government House Leader, on a point of order. Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): The Honourable Leader of the Opposition is not the lead-off speaker today in Question Period. She yielde d the floor earlier to the Honour able Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), who the Honour able Member for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock) reminds us should be given latitude because he was lead off questioner. Now, we find the Leader of the Opposition later on in the Question Period engaging in lengthy speeches during the course of

preambles to questions, and we know that

preambles are not part of supplementary questions. So I ask you to bring the Honour able Leader of the Opposition to order.- (interjection) - Which way do you want to have it? Mr. Speaker: The Hono urable Opposition Ho use Leader, on the same point of ord er. Mr. Reg Alcock (O pposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker , I can un ders tand the Go ver nment's em barrassment on this issue, and I can unde rstand the need to buy a little time for his Premier to think up his answer. But, Mr. Speaker, we of this side have faith in your ability to determine the length of the pream ble. Mr. Speaker: That is right.

The Honour able Mem ber for Thompson, on the same point of ord er. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Government House Leader currently has such a great interest in the length of

preambles. I would suggest if he wants to have better use of time he should start by talking to his Ministers to ask them to have more brief and to the point answers. I think that would assist us far more than these points of order that he has risen on repeatedly in this particular Session. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! 1971 Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. I would like to remind all Honourable Members that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, supplementary questions asked to not req uire a

preamble. ***** Federal Operations Job Layoffs Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): With a question to the Premier who forgets to raise issues with the Prime Minister. Since he took office, Manitoba has lost 633 jobs. Can the Minister tell us how many of the additional 100 job s annou nced yesterda y are going to take place here in the Province of Manitoba? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would think that the Leader of the Liberal Party would be interested in knowing that there are 19,000 more people employed in Manitoba than when we took Government.

It represents an increase, a net increase, of more than 1, 000 jobs a month since we have taken Government. I would think that she would be happy with that, Mr. Speaker, but of course she is always negative; she is always critical; she always looks at the dark side of every thing. She goes throughout this provinc e to Toronto, to Ottawa, to the East Coast, to the West Coast, saying that Manitoba is a have-not province. She bad mouths, she poor mouths this province. I would think that she would be ashamed to ask a question like that in this House. CN Rail Rail Line Abandonment Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, if we have finished the premierial temper tantru m, perhaps he would like to now answer this question? Can the Premier tell us what action his Go vernment has taken with regard to the annou ncement yesterday that the maxi mum figure for rail line abandon ment will be applied in this fiscal year? Hon. Al bert Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition 's questions regarding our position on rail abandonment, I have to indic ate that our position, which was formulated under the previous administration together with the three other western provinces, has always been the same from way back. We put forward a proposal to the federal Minister and the federal Government in terms of our proposal of how this should take effect. Tha t was presented to the federal Minister in February of '89 . Tha t proposal went forward from the four pro vinces.

We received a reply on July 6, 1989, in which the federal Minister of Transport rejected the four western provinces' proposal that they put forward . * (1 440) Mr. Speaker, we are proceed ing and are hopeful that the annual review of the National Transportation Act

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 will result in p0licy changes being introduced in line with the western provinces' position to eliminate these long-standing barrier s in the interests of both system efficiency and meeting the needs of all affected parties. Municipal Works Yard Air Sampling Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr . Speaker, silicon is a known cause of silicosis, a serious lung disease that leaves permanent debilitating scarring. Silicon dust also noticeably exacerbates breathing difficulties with people with other breathing problems.

The Premier admitted only yesterday that the Municipal Works Yards have been an envir onmental problem for some years. My qu estion is to th e Min ister of Urban Aff airs (M r. Ducha rme). Will the Min ister in sist tha t the city immediately conduct air sampling and testing of dust blowing from th ose yards, testing which they are attempting to put off until spring, 1990? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr . Speaker, I will take that under advisement and pass it over to the Min ister of Environment (Mr. Cummin gs). Mr. Taylor: M r.

Speaker, the blowing of sand and dust in the yard has serious impacts on those with asth matic conditions, particularly seniors and those in local day cares. Again to the same Min ister, when can the day care and other children and other people bothered by breathing problems expect any relief? When can they be allowed to safely go outdoors at any time? Can t he Min ister address that, please? Mr. Ducharme: Mr . Speaker, I am quite aware that the Member that is asking the question sat on the City Centre-Fort Rouge Commun ity Committee for quite a length of time.- (i nterjection)- Mr. Speaker: Ord er. Mr.

Ducharme: I know th at th e Minis ter of the Envir onment is continually working with the City Of Winnipeg and I will pass tha t information on to th e Minister of the Environment. Relocation Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr . Speaker, the Works Ya rd operations cause noise, traffic, and obviously air pollution problems. Wh en will the Min ister take a leadership role and initiate discussions with the City, with the goal being the relocation of those yards to a less sensitive site? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minis ter of Urban Affairs): Mr .

Speaker, I think the Pr emier explained yesterday, if that is what the Member is referring to. If the Mem ber looks back in his past perform ances on dealing with these yards as a member of the Community Committee, he would not ask such a qu estion. Goods and Services Tax Impact on Manitoba Hon. Clayton Man ness (Minister of Finance): Mr . Speaker, yesterday the Premier (Mr. Filmon) took three questions as notice. The Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) asked a question with respect to vari ous impacts of the GST.

Let me say that he showed some confusion in his question because of course there is a gr eat difference as between the economic impact on the province and the fiscal impact as to the revenues of the Province of Ma nitoba. Let me say, Mr . Speaker, that all the numbers that seem to be around are numbers that are legitimate and that stand. We sense that there could be an economic impact on the province, upwards of a quar ter of a billion dollars. We sense that the direct fiscal impact on the revenue side of Government with respect to the implementation of the GST could be upwards oi $70 million.

Fur thermor e, we sense that there may be an additional $30 million on the expenditur e side. So, Mr . Speaker, all the numbers add up. The second question dealt with the tabling of a report.- (interjection)- Let me indicate to the Member opposite, the report that Min isters of Finance from across Canada discussed yesterday in Montr eal is something that will be delivered to the Prem iers for their consideration in their meeting next month, the First Min isters. At that time the Pr emiers will decide how that report is to be dealt with and in what fashion it will be released. Mr .

Speaker, I think most of the questions are now answered. Northern Development Office Relocation Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr . Speaker, my question is to the Minis ter of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). I know he wants me to ask him some questions. I knew he mentioned that I had been absent fr om the Cham bers, but oftentimes some of our aboriginal beliefs and tr aditions take me away from the House. However, this .time I was doing some work, and after the forest fir e I did some practical research into the wildlife.

My question to the Min ister is: does the Government consider it acceptable for the Northern Development office to be closed in Thompson, and also the staff being moved to Edmonton? How does this fit in with the Govern ment's proposed commitment to decentralization? Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr . Speaker, I did not make any reference to the Member's absence fr om the House. I want to make that very clear. I can tell him that the Minister or the Government of Ma nitoba are not moving anything out of Thompson.

We are moving activities into Thompson which relates to· northern development. 1972

) Wednesday, October 18, 1989 Northern Education Government Support Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): The federal office is being moved to Edmonton. However, I want to ask the Min ister of Northern Affairs whether this Government or the Minis ter will commit to continued support on educational programs like social work, BUN TEP and northern nursing programs which have been part of the NO A funding process? Also during the summer he participated in the Fast for Lear ning because the federal Government was cutting back on educational programs. Will he support those programs? Hon.

James Downey (Min ister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr . Speaker, let me again put it on the record very clearly that this Government is very committed to development in the North and moving of offices to the North, the very opposite to what he and his Government were doing when they were in office. Let me answer the second part of the question, Mr . Speaker.

Yes, we do support educational and social programs that relate to northern Manitoba, but let me say, as has been demonstra ted over the past few years, we still have some 90 percent unemployment that flows from the direction the previous administration had given to the Northern Development Agreement, as admitted by his speeches in the House. It is deplorable, the continued unemployment, and that is our objective, to create economic opportunities and jobs for his people in the North. Aboriginal Leaders Government Support Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsla nd): Mr .

Speaker, will he take seriously the recommendations being made by the aboriginal leaders in northern Manitoba? I know that the Min ister has been involved in the process. Will he take seriously the recommendations made by aboriginal people and not just the token input by aboriginal leaders? * (14 50) Hon. James Downey (Minis ter of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr . Speaker, I am not sure I was clear what the Member said, whether he referred to the token input of the aboriginal leaders. I would hope that is not what he said because I have not seen any tokenism come from the aboriginal leaders.

I have seen very real and meaningful leadership come from the aboriginal leaders as it relates to education, a far greater concern than the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) has shown in his last comments about the northern people when I just sat down a few minutes ago, his insincerity to solving problems in northern Man itoba. Centre for Disease Control Site Selection Reversal Mr. James Carr (F ort Rouge): Mr . Speaker, my question is for the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

We were delighted to learn this morning, thr ough a radio interview with the Honourable Jake Epp, that the federal Min ister is prepared to rethink the decision to move the federal lab. The federal Min ister has now said that he is prepared to look at the decision again should the council of the Cit y of Winnipeg change its mind. We were also very much encouraged by the remarks of the Premier (Mr. Filmon) yesterday, and we applaud the Premier for encouraging the council to do exactly that. My question is very simple to the Premier. What form will this encouragement take? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): I am not sure whether the Mem ber for Fort Rouge (M r. Carr) did not understand what I said yesterday or whether he still does not understand that the City of Winnipeg is the body who has to change its position, the council has to change its position. One major opportunity for that to happen will be the election of a new City Council later this month. The mayor is onside with respect to this issue. In fact, he and I have been tr ading phone calls this morning, because I know he wants to talk further about the issue.

The federal Min ister has indicated that the federal Government would be receptive to this, but what has to happen is for the new City Council to make the right decision this time around. I have told them there will be a golden opportunity with the election of a new council to reconsider th e issue, and I would hope he would start to go out and try and influence his friends on City Council to change their position so ther e will be a majority in favour of th at downtown location. Mr. Carr: I appreciated the challenge issued yesterday by the Premier, and I intend to take him up on it.

My question simply in return is: is he prepared to talk to some of his friends, Mem bers of the Progressive Conservative Party, on City Hall, who voted the wrong way on th at decision? Mr. Filmon: That is a blockbuster. I may have difficulty with this one, Mr . Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order , please; order, please. Let us give him a chance to answer to them. Mr. Filmon: Yes, Mr . Speaker. Site Selection Agreement Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge, with his final supplementary question. 1973

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 Mr. Ja mes Can (F ort Rou ge): Th ree levels of Government have co-operated in a number of ways in the City of Winnip eg, the North Portage Development Corpora tion, The Forks Corporation, Core Area One and Two and the Shoal Lake Agreement. Is the Premier prepar ed to partici pate in a three-level-of-Government solution to this problem? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): The three-level solution only requires one level to make the decision. The federal Government has commit ted a $96 million lab. The Member for Wolseley (Mr.

Taylor ) has already repeated the thi ngs I said about the land use inapp ropri ateness of the current location of the yards, the possible environ mental concerns and so on. All the good reasons are there. I repeat, if what he is suggesting is tha t we dump millions of dolla rs on to the table and bribe the city councillo rs to do the decision that is right for the right reasons, I think he is cr azy. Some Honourable Mem bers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Order. Water Resources Plumas District Mr. Bill Uruski (Interlake): My question is to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.

Penner) responsible for water services in this province. Exten sive studies to dete rmine the best sou rces of. water for the community of Plumas and district have been undertaken since the early' 80s. PFRA, water resources and water servi ces ex ami ned six possi ble alterna ti ves and recommended a pipeline from the Assiniboine delta aquif er at Hamme rstein (pho netic) to Plumas as the best and lowest cost option, while the Lake Manitoba alternative is being the most costly by at least 50 percent and being of poor quality.

I want to ask this Minister why he has acceded to the obvious political interference of the Member for Gladstone (Mrs. Oleson) and the Member of Parliament, the Honourable Charlie Mayer, in with holding this licence to the community, which was recommended by the Clean Environment Commission and issued by the Department of Environ ment on August 1. Hon. Jack Penner (Minis ter of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the content of the question.

If I remember correctly, last year during the deba te on the Raff erty -Alameda, it was the Honour able Member from the area that ind icated very clearly that we should make sure that we would not damage our most precious resource. Tha t is our water groun dwater and service water. During that debate the opposition Mem bers on both sides of the Ho use indica ted very clearly that we should assure Manitobans that those water resources would be maintai ned .

I am saying to the Honourable Member that it is our intent to assure ourselves that the studies that have been done are adeq uate and that the source of water tha t we will finally access to provide water to the West Lake area will in fact be in the long term a sustainabl e supply. * (14 50) Mr. Uruski: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister then explain why he, as Minister of Natural Resou rces in his department, issued new irrigation licences on that same aquifer while he is now denyi ng the community of Plumas and di strict a source of water when they are short of water? Mr. Penner: If memory serves me corr ect ly, Mr.

Speaker, the licences that the Honour able Member is referring to were two licences that were issued last year to irriga tors in a severe drought situation when they in fact were in jeopardy of losing their crops. Th ose crops were dependent on keeping an industry that supplies a large number of jobs in rural Manitoba going. The Town of Carberry in fact depends on those jobs of that potato processing industry for their very survival. I am amazed now that the Honour able Member will imply that we should shut down that industry as well as shutting do wn the irriga tion in that area. Water Rights Act Violation Mr.

Bill Uruski (Interlake): Only 18 percent of that aquifer is committed. The irrigators are using eight times the amount of water that the West Lake project will use. Can this Minister indic ate why he would violate The Water Rights Act which gives human consumption the prime use of water over potatoes and other irrigators when there is enough water for everybody? Why is he holding up that licence? Hon. John Penner (Min ister of Rural Development): Mr.

Speaker, as I said in my first response to the Honourable Member, we were concerned that we would in fact source water for the West Lake area that would be a sustainable source and supply. We are not at all certain whether the aquifer can sustain the irrigation that is presently going on or the water use that is presently going on or whether we should allow others to access water from that area for supply.

I think it is dependent ar:id imperative that we make sure and ensure all Manitobans that the access that we make to supply water to tha t area is in fact a supply that will be sustained over a long period of time. Tha t is the reason why the additional study is required . Women's Initiative Action Plan Ms. Avis Gray (Elli ce): My question is for the Minister responsible for the Status of Women (Mrs. Hammond). Today the Minister has indic ated in this House that the majority of reco mmenda tions through the Women's Initiative have been acted on or are in process. Mr.

Speaker, there are over 100 recommendations and there are at least 60 in this book that in fact have not been acted on. Now I know the Conservatives do not know what a major ity is, but my question to the 1974

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 Minister is, will she please indic ate to this House, by tabling in this House, what the specific action plan is from the Women's Initiative implementa tion team? We have been wait ing for it for five months. Hon. Gerrie Hammond (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we released the action plan some time ago. I will have to look and I think maybe the Member is having trouble counting today, I am sorry to say. We had 94 recommendations, not over 100, so we are well on our way to having all those recommendations implemented . Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expi red .

NON-POLITICAL STATEMEN T Ms. Avis Gray (Ellice): May I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have leave to make a non-political statement? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: The Honour able Member for Ellice. Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like today to take this opportun ity to ind icate that this side of the House takes great pleasure in celebrating the 60th Anniversary of Person's Day. We know that Person's Day marks the official recognition of women having some rights and privile ges as persons in our society, but lest we forget -(interjection) - Mr.

Speaker: Order, order. The Honou rable Member for Ellice. Ms. Gray: -we must also remember that some women were considered persons in 19 29, but it was not until the early '60s that in fact our Inuit and Native women were in fact given the franchise. I think as we look back over the history that it would be easy for women in Canada, and for people in Canada, to sometimes get the illusion that in fact we have progressed quickly in the last century in regard to the women 's movement, in regard to women's rights. We now have more women in non-traditional careers.

We have seen some move towards equal pay for work of equal value. We have access to child care and we have the franch ise, but we must remember a quote that was given a number of years ago where an ind ividual ind icated , "Join the union girls because we must fight for equal pay for work of equal value." Tha t particular statement was said by Susan B. Anthony in 18 69. So we have had over 10 0 years and we have still have not been able to deal with that particular criteria. I think, Mr.

Speaker, it is important that as Person's Day that we look back on our successes of women in North America and in Canada and that we look forward to the future. We look forward to a movement where society's attitudes will change because they do need to change in regard to women and their equal place in society. 1975 I am sure all women in this Legislature, and I am sure that all women in Manitoba, would join today in a celebration of Person's Day. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. ORDERS OF THE DAY * (1 500) Hon. James Mccr ae (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: Numbers 47 to 52, 54, 34, 42, 31, 32, 27, 6, and the remainder as listed on the Order Paper. If Bill 54 were to be conclud ed today, we would have His Honour come in today at 4:50 p.m. for Royal Assent. SECOND READINGS BILL NO. 47-T HE DEPENDANTS RELIEF ACT Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) presented Bill No. 47, The Dependa nts Rel ief Act (Loi sur l'a ide aux personnes a charge), for second read ing, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr.

Speaker, as Honour able Members are aware, Bill 47 is the first of six Bills that constitute a package of reforms in the field of Family Law that grows out of a review process that has taken place over the last four years. In my remarks about Bill 47, I will provide the background that has led to all of the bills, and the principl es that underlie these reforms. My remarks on the subsequent five Bills will therefore be much shorter. Clause-by-clause explana tions of all the Bills will be provided to Opposition Critics.

Family Law reform has taken place in phases with the first major overhaul and moderni zation taking place in the late '7 0s when The Family Maintenance Act and The Marital Property Act were passed. Those two Acts still cons titute the cor nerstone of Family Law in Manitoba, although they have, naturally, been amended in detail since. Under the previous NOP administration, significant reforms were carried through in the administration of Family Law, with the creation of a unified Fam ily Court in the City of Winnipeg.

Th ere was a complete overhaul of the old Child Welfare Act to produc e The Child and Family Services Act. I believe it is fair to say that reform in Fami ly Law has rarely been the subject of the partisan political battle, instead the policy considera tions that have motivated Government action have usually been the subject of broad di scussion before legislation reaches the House.-(interjection)- It would be good, Mr. Speaker, if the Honour able Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) had been listening to me a moment ago when I was giving him and his Party cred it for certain Fami ly Law reforms, important Family Law reforms, happening in this Province, and I would appreciate the opportunity to make my remarks without being heckled for the rest of the afternoon .

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 ,.Mr . Steve Ashton .(Thom pson): I said not in 19 77 . . . Mr. Mccr ae: -and I referred to Family Law reform starting in the late '7 0s and deal ing with the history of Family Law reform in Manitoba. I went on to refer to significant reforms being carried out by the previous NOP ad ministration, including the creat ion of a unified Family Court in the City of Winnip eg, and there was a comp lete overhaul of the old Child Welfare Act to produce The Child and Family Services Act.

I believe that it is fair to say that reform in Family Law has rarely been the subject of a partisan political battle. The Honourable Member for Thom pson seems to want to make this a partisan matter. I think it is an important matter. It is an important .matter to families and to childr en in Manitoba. I do not know wha t I have said to deserve this outburst of hee<kling on the part of the Honourable Member for Thomp son. Some Honourable Member.a: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Honour able Member for Thom pson will have ample opportun ity to get his remarks on the record .

The Honour able Minister of Justice. Mr. Mccrae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will say again wha t I said a minute ago. It is fair to say-for the benefit of all Honour able Members, I will say this for tlie third time. Reform in Family Law has rarely been the subject of partisan, political battle.- (interjection) Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member refers to 1977.

The Honour able Member conti nues to refer to 19 77, and here we are trying to introd uce a package of Family Law refo rms, which will be to the bene fit of all Manitobans, I suggest, and the Honourable Member does not want to seem to let me finish my speech. I am having difficulty, Mr. Speaker, getting through with this type of interjection this afternoon . It is nice to see the Honour able Members on the Liberal side of the House wishing to hear my speech. I appreciate that considera tion. An Honourable Mem ber: Especially the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudr y). Mr. Mcc rae: Especially the Member for St.

Bon iface. The Member. for Seven Oaks (Mr. Minenko) is being particula rly charitable this afternoon, Mr. Speaker , and I do appr ecia te tha t. I should never forget the Honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mr. Laurie Evans) and hi s app roach to parliamen tary deb ate. I do appreciate it very much. Mr. Speaker, instead of partisan politic al battle, the policy consider ations that have motivated Government action have usually been the subject of broad discussion be.fore legislation reaches the House.

For exam ple, the Carr Report on Family Law Reform was made public, and there was ample opportun ity for reaction to the proposals from w.omen's group, the Bar , and indeed from all interested Manitobans. I notice Liberal' Leaders h9ve really perked up now, Mr. Speaker.

Simila rl y, th is. legi slati on aris es from a public proced ure of coosultation. 11 began with the publication of a series of Law Reform Commission Reports and the Law Re form Comm ission Rec om menda tions, together with several other recommended changes in Family Law were circula ted widely in the province by the publication of a Family Law Discussion Paper in 19 87. When the Government changed , it was decided to mo ve qui ckly on th ose matters tha t clearly ha d consensus for early implementation.

Last year the Government was pleased to annou nce that the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench would be expande d across the province, an expansion that has now taken place, an expan sion we are very proud of, an expan sion that began under the previous New Democratic Party Government, a good expansion seen by this Government to be a good thing and expan ded throughout the province. We are very pleased about that. * (15 10) Moreover, we were pleased to present to the House ground breaking legislation creating the first Access Assistance Program in Canada.

Other items in the Family Law Discussion Paper were held over to permit the Government to canvas fully the reaction to some of the proposals made in the discussion paper. The six Bills in the Legislature this Session dealing with Family Law are the result of that review. The first Bill, entitled The Dependants Rel i.ef Act, .is to replace The Testators Family Maintenance Act .. The title of the Bill, as opposed to the existing Act, ind icates the chang e in the law that the Go vernment is recommending to the Assembly.

Present legislation focuses on mainta ining the family of the testator, and the courts have established a moral duty of the testator towards his or her family as being the prima ry test, wh ile looking at the cond uct and the char acter of the applicant and the state of dependenc y of the applicant as factors affecting the moral duty. This Bill chan ges the thrust of the legislation by restricting applicants to th ose who are truly dependent and do not ha ve reasonable provision for maintenance and support, either from· the estate of the diseased or from some other source.

We submit that if a person has adeq uate inde pendent means there should be no cause to rewrite their father's or their mother's or their relative's will. Secondly, this Bill will expand the classes of eligible app licants. At pr esent The Testators . Fam ily Maintenance Act restricts applic ations for relief by defi ning "dependant" to mean "spouse," "child" or "commo n-law spou se" under cer tain rest rictiv e circumstances. Bill 47 proposes to expand the scope to reflect modern . views of wt iat constit utes depende ncy.

Accord ingly it is proposed that former spouses having mai ntenanc e orders, gra ndchildr en, parents, grandpa rents, or brothers and sisters of the diseased who were substantially dependent on the diseased, should all have the right :to apply. Very importantly, the Bill Will-ROW permit a.child; who is noMhe child of the 1976

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 diseased but whom the diseased treated as his or her child and who was at the time of the death substantially dependent upon him or her, to make application. These are the major change s in the legislation proposed by this Bill, although the Bill does make several important technical changes that will allow The Dependants Relief Act to mesh better with other legislation.

First, it introduces a conflict of laws scheme to govern situations where the deceased dies in one jurisdiction with property located in another; second, the Bill give the court the power to make interim orders, as well as orders to vary existing orders; finally, the Bill provides for a supplement to a property-sharing regime. That means that the present rule that a spouse must choose between The Testators Family Ma intenance Act or under The Dower Act will be abolished so that any award under The Dependants Relief Act will be a supplement to The Dower Act. Mr .

Speaker, the changes outlined above in The Dependants Relief Act will, we believe, more accurately reflect what Manit obans in general believe should be the rules that apply where a person dies. Therefore, I commend Bill 47, The Dependants Relief Act, to the House. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I move, seconded by the Member for lnkster (Mr . Lamoureux), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 48-T HE INTE STATE SUCCESSION AND CONSEQUEN TIAL AMENDMEN TS ACT Hon.

James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) presented Bill No. 48, The In testate Succession and Consequential Amendments Act (L oi sur les successions ab intestat et modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives), for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Mcc rae: Mr . Speaker , I assure Hono urable Members that the remarks on the remaining five Family Law Bills are not as lengthy as they were for the first Bill.

We will move thr ough these as quickly as possible, recognizing of course the importance that we as a Government attach to these Bills which deal with Family Law in our province. Bill 47 represents an updating of the law where a person dies without adeq uately providing for dependants. Bill 48, The Intestate Succession and Consequential Amendments Act, is a Bill that more accurately reflects how Manitobans would expect to have an estate distri buted where a person dies without a will. Bill 48 will repeal and replace The Devolution of Estates Act.

The provisions of this Act are somewhat complicated but the principles of the Bill are relatively straightforward. First, in exceptional circumstances, the Bill will provide tha t all of the deceased's estate will go to the spouse. At present, under The Devolution of Estates Act, the surviving spouse receives the entire estate only if the estate is relatively small, less than $50,000, or the intestate had no issue, that is no children, grandchildren, or other lineal descendants.

The Bill provides that where a deceased is survived by a spouse and no issue or only by issue of the survivi ng spouse, the surviving spouse receives the entire estate. Where there are children of a previous marriage, the surviving spouse will receive the first $50,000 or, where it is larger, the first half of the estate, and all the children by all of the marr iages of the deceased would then divide half of the remainder of the estate with the survivi ng spouse receiving the other half of remainder of the estate.

An injustice under the present Devolution of Estates Act is that it does not make any differentiation between the spouse who was living with the deceased at the time of death and the spouse who was separated from the deceased. In both cases, the surviving spouse is presently entitled to share, although it is highly unlikely that the deceased really intended that the surviving spouse take the bulk of the estate. The Intestate Succession Act will provide clear rules for circumstances where a separated spouse loses the right to apply.

In particular, where the parties have been separated for one year or wher e one of the parties has applied for a divorce or for an accounting under The Marital Property Act, or where there had been a course of conduct which showed an attempt of the spouses to finalize their affairs in recog nition of the marriage breakdown, the right to a share of the estate will lapse. Mr . Speaker, this Act also includes changes to the method of determining next of kin and intr oduces inheritance by representation.

Ther e are other rather tech nical and arcane matters and follow the recommenda ti ons made by th e Law Reform Commission. Mr . Speaker, I commend Bill 48, The Int estate Succession and Consequential Amendments Act, for the consideration of this House. Mr. Mark Minenko (Seven Oaks): I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for lnkster (Mr . Lamoureux), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 49-T HE DOWER AMENDMENT ACT Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) presented Bill 49, The Dower Amendment Act (L oi modifiant la

Loi sur le douaire), for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. (Mr . William Chorn opyski, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Mr. Mccrae: Mr . Deputy Speaker, Bill 49, The Dower Amendment Act is very much ancillary legislation to

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 The Dependa nts Reli ef·· A>ct v and The In testate Succession and Consequential Amendments Act. First, it provides that rights under The Dower Act take priority over an order made against the estate. under The Dependants Relief Act. Honourable Members will realize this is essential if the plan to make an order under The Dependants Relief Act is supplement to Dower Act provisions is to be affected. Secondly, the Bill will provide the same rules for determining when a separated spouse loses dower rig hts as applied to a separated spouse losing rights under The Intestate Succession Act.

Separation should have the same effect on the surviving spouse whether the deceased leaves a will or not. Mr. Deputy Speaker, ther e. is really nothing more to this Bill, and ther efore I commend it to the House. Mr. Edwards: I move, seconded by the Member for Seven Oaks (Mr . Mi nenko), tha t debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. *

(1520) BILL NO. 50-T HE WILLS AMEN DMENT ACT Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) presented Bill No. 50, The Wills Amendment Act (L oi modifiant la

Loi sur les testaments), for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Mccrae: Mr . Deputy Speaker, this Bill makes some tebhnical amendments to The Wills Act, but it does make a major amendment whicti again I submit reflects that what most Man itobans believe should be the rules, and fur thermore, it implements the recommendation of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission.

Under the present legislation where a testator with a will leaving a gift to his or her child, and that child died before the testator's death without a will, the gift would be distributed as if the child had died intestate. In plain English that means tha t in almost all cases the gift will go to the spouse of the child rat her than to the gr andchildren of the person who died with a will. The effect of the amendments. proposed by this Bill is tha t the grandchildr en of the deceased child, the testator's grandchildren, will in herit the gift .

This amendment brings Manitoba in line with several other Canadian jurisdictions. The other amendments set out in the Bill are techn ical and merely implement recommenda tions made by th e La w Reform Commission to make The Wills Act easier to read. Mr . Deputy .Speaker, with that brief explanation, I commend Bill 50, The Wills Amendment Act, to the House. Mr. Paul Edw8!rds (St. James ): I move, seconded by the Member for Seven Oaks (Mr . Min enko), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presentt!td and carried." BILL NO. 51 ...... THE ·M A:RITAL PROPER TY AMENDMEN T ACT Hon.

James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) presented Bill No. 51, The Marital Property Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les biens matrimoniaux), for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Mccrae: Mr . Deputy Speaker, you will be surprised when I tell you this, but it is impossible for me to keep my remarks on this Act as brief as the Act itself. It makes only one minor amendment to the Act and that permits a judge to make interim equalization payments, or other interim orders, under the Act pending the disposition of the application for equalization.

In fact, the proceedings for-equalization can be rather lengthy and several judges have made interim orders, but this amendment will make it clear that they do indeed have jurisdiction to do so. I commend it to the House. Mr. Paul Edwar ds (St. James): I move, seconded by the Member for Seven Oaks (Mr .M inenko), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 52-THE FAMILY MAINTENANCE AMENDMENT ACT Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) presented Bill No. 52, The Family Maintenance Amendment Act (L oi modifiant la

Loi sur !'obligation alimentaire), for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Mccr ae: Mr . Deputy Speaker, the Honourable Member for Elmwood (Mr .

Maloway) I know is learning a lot from these speeches that I am making on these Bills, but he will be pleased to know that I am now coming to the end in my remarks on all six Bills, forming the Famil y La w amend ments, proposed by the Government for this Session. · · The amendments to The Family Maintenance Act proposed by Bill No. 52 are primarily of a housekeeping nature, but I 'dr aw the attention of the House to the fact that the Bill would enable the court to order that an obligation to pay child support be binding on the payer's estate.

There is a similar provision in the Act now for spousal support, but no such provision with respect to ongoing support for children. I believe all Members of the House will agree that children should have this protection. · · Mr . Deputy Speaker, the Bill also clarifies the right of access to the non-custodial parent to school and medical records. The existing

section of the Act has been interpreted so that the non-custodial parent has not only tileJ right ·to 'be informed of the reports but also a r ighf fo be consulted. ' Elnfortunateiy it is not 1978 '

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 normally in the best interests of the child that a parent not having custody be given this kind of right to consult. It can lead to disputes between the parents, as if there were joint custody, in a situation where the courts have already designated one parent to have custody of the child. It is the parent having custody who should make the decisions in these matters. Finally the Act provide s jur isdiction for the court to order intermittent serving of sentences imposed for failure to comply with the terms of a support order.

Given that jail sentences may jeopard ize some payers' employment or reduce his/h er income, we believe the option of intermittent sentences should be available to the court. Of cou rse sinc e th e provision is not manda tory, it is always possible for the judge to impose the imprisonment as a continuous term should the judge consider that to be better. Again I remind Honour able Members that explanatory material prepared by the department, including the clause-by-clause explana tion, will be given to each caucus to facilitate consideration of this and all the � other Family Law Bills in this Session.

I commend Bill No. 52 for the consideration of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and thank Honourable Members for their attention. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I move, seconded by the Member for Seven Oaks (Mr. Minenko), that debate on Bill No. 52 be adjou rned . MOTION presented and carried. BILL N0. 54- THE HIGH WAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

(5) Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I can understand the problem here. Bill No. 54 is not listed on the Order Paper, and leave is required to bring it forward tod ay. By leave, I would move, on behalf of the Hono urable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger), seconded by the Hono urable Minister of � Family Services (Mrs. Oleson) that Bill No. 54, The Hig hway Traffic Amend ment Act (5) (Loi no 5 modifiant le Code de la route) as amended and reported from the Stand ing Committee on Ind ustrial Rela tions, be concurred in. MOTION presented and carried. THIRD READINGS BILL NO. 54- THE HIGH WAY TRAFFIC AMENDMEN T ACT

(5) Hon. James. Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) presented, by leave, Bill No. 54, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (5) (Loi no 5 modifiant le Code de la route), for thir d read ing. MOTION presented. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to enter into debate on thir d reading for 1979 Bill No. 54, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, dealing with an issue that was before this House last June, I am sure one that the Government does not want to be reminded about at this particular time, but one that it is very important, I think, that we do in Opposition remind the Government of.

Tha t is the fact that we discussed and deba ted at length the issue of drinking and dr iving and how the Government of this province should be responding to ensure that the incid ence of drinking and dr iving and the pain and suffering and costs associated with it would be reduced in this province. We did that with great sincerity and pride d, I guess all the Parties but particularly the Government, itself that it was bringing forth legislation that was going to be the leading legislation insofar as toughness and action by a Government in this country.

Yet only three or four months later we see another rather substantial Bill which is amend ments to the Bill that was passed last year. In other word s, the Min ister of Hi ghways and Transporta tion (Mr. Albert Driedger), the Attor ney General (Mr. Mcc rae), and his colleagues, did not have their act together to the extent that they could get these amendments done properly on the first go around.

As a matter of fact, it is not even a matter of the first go around, it is the second go around, because last June when they brought the Bill in they had to themselves, not on the part of the Opposition although the Liberal Critic did bring in a number of amendments. At the time I thought tha t he was just simply trying to make some points with the Government on doing things a different way, perhaps, but not necessarily substantial amend ments that were really necessary.

Since that time I have changed my mind a bit about some of the pro posals that he has brought forward and I want to cred it him with those.- (interjection) - * (1 530) Well I will tell you who fli p-flopped, it is this Government. They realized that they had a Bill that was such a mess it could not be implemented. Once they came forward with their Bill, they passed their Bill with the help of the opposition Parties because we believe this issue is so important and we wanted to see it add ressed. We did not want to be seen to be holding up something as serious as this, as important as this for Manitobans.

Then we see the Government attempting to perfect its legislation after it is introduc ed in the House through a bunch of amend ments, which shows incom petence at that point. On top of it, after that they do consultation on the Bill. Normally these Bills are developed in consultation with a lot of different groups that are affected beforehand, before it is even brought into the Legislature, but in their head long rush to bring this forward they messed it up the first time, then they messed it up the second time with more amendments in the committee than the Bill was long initially.

They had so many amend ments brought in that they had to move. So we co-operated with that in that process with a some what qu iet amusement at the Govern ment 's

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 . , .contusion anAb is .issue. Then we see after a numb er ·- of months it comes time to proclaim this important Bill , and they bring in another Bill ·whe n the Session resumes, which is again substantially long in terms of the numb er of amendments that they are bringing forward-a nother Bill, still confused at this point in time. One wonders how many more Bills they will have to bring in, and how much more time will they have to waste of the Mem bers of. this Legislature on .issues as they try to perfect their legislation in the.

House, in stead of in a process beforehand in their caucus, in their Cabi net, where it should have ·been done· iri ·t he first place, .where it sho1Jld; have been perfected, They have bbvi oiJSly not learned' that thef have to: before bringing in legislation; · go thtdugh all · df these hoops to perfect and to ensure that the legisl8.tion they are bri6Qing in does precisely what th'ey•wa nt it to do and onfy' that, ·and does it in a way that is workable in the cdurts and is riot full of loopholes so that anyone can get around the legislation when they go to challenge it in the courts.

This is what we have at this particula r ti me. ·· 1. want to say that the other day _i n Estimates of the Hig hways Department, Mr. Deputy Speak er, I called for the Minister's resignation. I said, why do you not resign? You have obviously been so in competent with this Bill on dri nking and driving last year, as one of the issues related to his incom petence and, of course,: there were others. He took issue with this and he felt that I was not be ing fair to him, but I think this iS very important and · all these Min isters sho1,1ld. recognize that there should . be egg on th efr face .

The y shouid . be em barrassed beyond description when they bring in a mess like they brought into.this Legislature, when they attem pUo rush things through witho ut conside ring it carefully. They talk about being managers? They talk about being able to be successful business people, to d.eal with issues, to analyze? Where li�e mey� _W hat is wrong with them? Why were they not able to handle this issue in a competent way? The Min ister of Ed ucation (Mr.

Derkach) does not . like to hear this because he knows that it reflects on him too because he sat around the caucus. table, he sat around the Cabi net Table, he approved the.se various amendments that were brought forward, he .approved that Bill, hi:! gave his endorsation .· witho ut . bringing forw1Vd correctionsJa it. . . ·. .. . Now, ; what we have here, '.Mr. Deputy Speaker, ·ar e so.me amendm ents that hope fu lly will make this legislation workable.

We hope that. indeed it -will be workable and it will be successful and that it wm result in the saving of lives, in foe reduct ion of drinki hg and d'rivin11' on oo� highways, the: saving ot costs. and so on In this province and tliaf ltwll.1 elfminate the tragedies tha t. o�lii" sp freq uently . on 'ou r hig hways ir\ ttiiS p� oViric e •• �s we ll as ill, all, cou11tries o,n this i;jlo,be. It is_ somettiing that has to be l!dd ressed in a s� rio� s way, arid that is why w1f t iave supported this ·init iative. ' .- . . ' . . . ; . • :':.: ' • ·. . .. : - •. ' . . • -. °';'� . .on the other hand, I say, . Mr ..

DepuW.S peaker, �hat, thts Governmenrhas to .learnJrom this process because I wo.uld not -want to�. see ·;t11 em · go th rou gh, th is· embarr1¥1sing , p(ocess. in the; future, Insofar as, this particular Bill , I want to point out to ·the Min ister that it is incum bent upon them, the Mi nister of Justice (Mr.

Mccra e), the Min ister of Hig hways and Transport at ion (Mr . - Alb ert Dried ger) and the Government , to ensure that they monitor 1he impa ct of this Bill .carefully, that they monitor the degree of compliance, that they monitor the num ber o( cases that are involved and the num ber of convictions, the num ber of people charged and so on.

Not convictions, but in terms of results, the numb er of licences suspended und er this legislation, and to do a statistical analysis to h,ave the iJi)iversity or other 0rganlzati6ris conduc t som� stafisli cal infoi'.m;if ion and studie s l?i;\ the impact of this Bill so that we can , determine exai;:tly whether this Bill . is working or .whet�er iri fact it is not. Insofar as it is breaking new ground; it truly is; It means-that there are much larger powerifltOW in the hands of the police•enforcenient officers in this province, and they are going lo be able to suspend, on the spot, drivers.

What is important is that drivers and the people of Man itoba generally know their rights under this Bill. As we said when were debating this in the committee the other day, we feel it is absolutely important that this Go ve rn ment conduct a two-stage mean ingful com munic at ions pr ogra m with the public of this province. Not sim ply that drink ing and driving is like the Broadcasters Association has sponsored that the Attorney General would sit in front of a pictu re of his Premier and say tha t drinking and driving is wrong. There is much more than that.

I always notice the smiling pictur e of the Premier in behind the'A ttorney General. I thought it very strategically placed. It is not hidden by his head or anything. It is just sitting in there just perfect , and the square is very small, buf'it has been placed just perfectly. He is looking ·o ver 'the ·Justice Min ister's shoulder as he speaks. It is qu ite nice. It means that me too, I agree with what my Min ister is saying about drinkin g and driving? ;o, · �?JC An Honourable Member: He doe� ag ree. Mr. Plohman: Yes, I am sure he does, as we all do.

But let us not forget that we have here a need to commun icate some major changes to The Highway Traffic Act and to the rights of drivers, or the privi leges that drivers enjoy, and the impactof legislation on them. * (1 540) ' -· ; •' 'The costs are' goinf tb be r�th,e� subst,antial_.

If a 1river i_ss \o_pped_ \Jli�l.le, drin!<in� ; Ji� i� gOi.�g to lose h�s hcence; he is going to· have his car rinp ourided, It will cost him $35 for thf} 1rfipourid ill eriteha rge; ·i t will cost him $50 for a garage keeper's charge, which he would be refunded only if his appeal is granted , and he demons trates. that Jn fact he was unjustly o5uspended . So he wou ld ine.ur. that,,co st.

He wou ld incur a reinstatemen t. after suspension of $40.0&, He would incur up.tQ $1 35 for·an. appeal,, and. he would Jncur $5 a da y for im po1,mdm ent --of •t hat vehiol e�ao days impound ment, $1 50;0(1"-Thecosts,a re $410 for a driver for drivin g-while drinking. · Thati s·imp e.rtant that we knew that, It is serious and it should. !bEHcosti¥o Ttiere ,should · be .major impacts, 1980

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 There should be laws tha t are toug h, but let us remember that people have to be aware that when they get into that car or when they make arrangements to go to a social event where they are going to have to drive home that they may be facing these kinds of charges, if they should take that gamble and go onto the highways while they have been drinking, knowing they have to know full well the impact of what is going to happen to them. This is where the Government has an obligation to publi cize.

Then let us not forget the criminal code side of it, that there could be convictions on drinking and driving, or refusing a breathalyzer, or whatever, over .08, which will amount to an additional fine of a substantial amount by the courts, perhaps $500 or more. In addition to that, they will try to protect their rights by hiring a lawyer perhaps, which will cost them another few hundr ed dollars. I see this coming in, Mr . Deputy Speaker , at least $1 ,500, perhaps $2,000 for an indi vidual who gets stopped while he is driv ing, having been drinkin g at the same time, or before that, and so he is impaired.

That is a financial im pact, a financial penalty that is prohibi tive for many people in this province. There are many people who will not be able to afford to go through that process. Some may say, well, how can they afford to drink and dr ive. Tha t is the message that we want to get out there. I think that makes my point, that because I have taken the time to add this up-and maybe I have not added it up quite right, but I think it is clos e. I had the opp ortu nit y of get ting this informa tion at a committee.

The average person in this province is not going to have access to this information un less th ere is a conc erted effort made by the Government to inform the public that these kinds of costs will take place. They will have that to face. Their family will feel the impact. They will not be able to pay their rent perhaps or buy the food that they want for their fam ilies, if they gamble on this. So I think it is very important that the public generally knows about this, and in addi tion to that-a nd I think the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) raised some valid points.

Th ose are deal ing with the kinds of procedures they have go through, the forms, the various agencies they have to deal with once they have gotten themselves into this mess. At that point in time, they have to know where to go for advic e and information, and they have to have a number that they can call. Th ere should not be utter confusion at that point, because that does not have to be part of the penalty confusion in the system. The penalty is already there financially, the embarrassment, and many other impacts on their lives, and being without a driver's licence, losing their job perhaps.

That is the other part of it that I did not even mention, the financial cost. Many people will lose their jobs because perhaps they depend on a driver's licence for a livelihood and therefore they could lose their jobs. Those people who are into this mess have to know where to go so that they can move through the process, so there needs to be a communic ation process.

I think that at every opportunity, in written information, in the med ia of all kinds, the video media, audio media, 1981 radio, televisi on, all have to include information on this so peo ple will be aware of it, but particularly targeted those who are in that mess, in that situation after the fact. So we have to have two kinds of commun ication: one that tells the impacts to the publ ic, what they should know· and then those that are impacted because they have in fact violated the provisions and have themselves in a situation where they have been stopped and have lost their licence. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair) So I say to this Minis ter, to this Government, that they should undertake this kind of a program. Of course, I believe they should unde rtake it, not strictly for information purposes so that people are aware, but because of the impact that it will have on their attitudes, the im pact th at it will have kn owi ng tha t the Government, the legislators, this Legislature, feels that this is such a serious issue that they have put in place these kinds of penalties and proced ures.

Then I believe it will have an impact on their attitudes and on the incidenc e of drinking and driving, and so it will act as a preventative measure, as a deterr ent, which is really what we want to do with this in any event. We would like to have, I am sure all of us, fewer and fewer people penalized under this law, fewer and few�r incidents of this kind of activity, so that in fact we will not see as much or as many people put at risk by this activity in this province. That of course is the primary goal as a deterrent, as an educating device. It is important then, Mr.

Speaker, that the Government undertake this as a deterrent in this information to people involved . I think, as I have said in other issues that we talked about in this House, in the Environment and other important issues facing people of the province, this is an area that we should be providing as much educa tion as possible to people in our schools, to our young people, so tha t they develop their attitudes toward alcohol that are respo nsible, moderate, safe, in terms of their approa ch.

I think tha t the Government, in addition, should be looking at the kinds of programs that are available through commit tees on drinking and dr iving, whatever other mechanisms they have at their disposal, to put in place additional measures if there are gaps and holes in the system at the present time, and to look at what age this information should start being provided through the school system.

I know that the schools have enormous pressures on them for so many di ff erent thin gs, fam ily life educa tion , and many different pressures put on the schools, so they do not have enough time in the day to cover all of them. But we should look at whether there can be some thin gs offered through the schools to ensure that our young people have access to the proper information, and so that they will learn the responsi ble att itude s towards dr inking and that eventually we-in fact, the Min ister of Education (Mr .

Derkach) is here and I address that to him as well at some point can look back and say, really, we are

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 the lowest per capita province in terms of inci dence oi dr inking and dr iving .in all of North America. Would that not be a position that we would like to achieve? Hold our heads high. and say that Manitoba has the lowest incidence per 1, 000 population or whatever other yardstick or measuring stick we want to use in this whole country.

When many of these Min isters have left this hallowed hall of the Legislature of.Manitoba, when they are moved into oblivion, now recognizing that in fact they are tempor ary custodians in their positions tha t they hold in this province, they can look back and say, that was my greatest hour when I had a hand in putting forward measures.that have redueed the inci dence of drinking and driving to the point that Manitoba is the lowest incide nce in the whole of North America. Would that not be a great recor·d that they could point to? . .

So let all .of us ensure that .there is follow-up, that this is monitored .to determine if it is effective, and if it is not effective that additional steps are put in place, that education takes place and that communic ations are put in place to ensure that all of the public is aware of what we have been doing here. because that is critical. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson ): Mr . Sp eaker , I appreciate the opportunity to partici pate in the debate on this Bill. I share the sentiments that were put forward by the Mem ber for Dauphin (Mr . Plohman) .

I know it is an area that the Mem ber for Da uphin, as a former Hig hways Minis ter, has a great deal of interest in and played a leading role in the development of policy.

The Mem ber for Dauphin should be congratutafed for that because I think one of the clear thin gs that should be put on the record is that our Government previously did take a numb er of fai rly sign ificant init iatives in this regard and I think that should be said for the record because we recognized what I think has become a growing recognition from society as a whole that drinkin g and driving just is not acceptable in society. * (1 550) We also recognized , as legislators, only a few months ago that one of the problems with the current structur e to deal with people who continue to drink and dr ive is that while the systems we have in place are working with what I would call the law-abiding 95 percent of people, there are unfortunately that 1 percent, that 5 percent; whatever .the figure is, of people who are not going to listen to the education that is taking place, who are not going to be responsi ble, who are not going to be affected by the views of their peers in society and are not going to stop dr inking and driving.

You know, I have seen a dramatic shift in attitude s over time to the point where I would say a significant majority of people · now, for example, if they go to a social in my constitu ency, will take a cab afterwards. Now that is something that was almost unheard-of 10 or 15 years ago. What has happened is there has been a change in attitudes in society. It is the same thing tha t has happened generally, but we are still left with a situation where a small percentage of people are the habitual offenders, and I know that was the intent of this particular Bill, to deal largely with that segment of our population.

I know some difficult decisions had to be made in ·t erms of the trade off between rights and ·l iberties on the one hand, and the public interest on the other in terms of preventing drinking drivers from being on the road. I know it was not an easy matter to deal with but, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that h ere again we are having a sense of deja vu when in the same Session of the Legislature this Government has to come back in and has to be redrafting legislation, a tim e when we should be paying attention to the vast majority of Bills on the Order Paper that are being introduced for the first time, new Bills, going through those. What are we deal ing with right now? Dealing wit h a matter that has previously been raised and dealt wit h and I might say was-I hate to use this word, I hope the Justice Min ister does not take any offence, but I think it was- bungled .

It was messed up, Mr. Speaker. In fact I could use a few other words here, but I know · in the Legislature we have to be careful of the language used. What would the Min ister of Justice describe the situation as when we have to reconsider a Bill that was passed only a few months ago, and by leave? Well, Mr.

Speaker, it is interesting because we end up in a situation where in this Session of the Legislature we are seeing the Min ister of Justice and Liberal Members, apart from · the Leader of the Liberal Party, now having the opportun ity to hear this Memb er in Opposit ion, he would be the first one to rise to his feet and critic ize the previous Government for-in fact, he can use th e word bungl er s-inc om petence, incomp etence. There are Mem bers sitting in this Chamber now, unfort unately there are not � many perhaps as should be sitting in this Chamber, who wou'ld . remember this particular item. Mr.

Speaker, if the Minis ter of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) wants an exact count of how many Government Members are in the House, I suppose that the Opposition Memb ers could leave, call a quorum and the y would find out, but I think we have shown every op portu nit y for this Government to try and get its act together. We are looking at a situation ·n ow, Mr. Speaker, and without referenci ng anybody's absence, there are less than a quorum present in this House for the Government. It is the Opposition that is maintai ning the quorum. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. ***** Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Min ister of Housing, on a point of order. Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the Mem ber for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is referring to the Mem bers in the House. I would · like to maybe remark that uno, one NOP, uno. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Mem ber does not have a point of order. We do not make reference to the fact whether or not Mem bers are present ·or .not. 1982

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson. Mr. Ashton: Not only does the Member not have a point of order, he also cannot count. This has been indic ated by the Whip.

I would appreciate if the Conservative Whip would make sure there is a full attend ance for listening to this speech because I would like to remind some of the Mem bers who were so qui ck to be talking about incompetence only a few years ago to now sit here and listen and explain to me why this Government had to bring the same Bill in twice in the same Session of the Legislature, and through the leave from the opposition Parties, both when we considered it first time, and now we are considering it again.

Why do es the Opposition have to bail this Government out of what I would say is the clearest case of incompetence in the eight years that I have been a Mem ber of this Legislature? Why does the Opposition have to deal with that, Mr. Speaker? Well, it is because the Government is having a great deal of difficulty, I think, defi ning its agenda, sticking to its agenda. I hear a Memb er saying I am wrong. How can you explain the fact we are dealing with the same Bill here, as I said, thr ough the leave of the Opposition? The Opposition is bailing out the Government because it could not get it right the fi rst time.

The Government with all the resources of the Min ister of Justice 's department, all the legal resources, here the Opposition with lim ited resources in terms of legal expertise, they brought it in and within a few months, even before the whole policy was imple mented, they had to come begging cap-in-hand to the Opposition saying, please, will you allow us to review this Bill, to bring in a new Bill, to change the Bill so that we can have it imp lemented in Manitoba by our dead line? We were responsible. We said that we would assist the Government, we wo uld bail them out of their own incom petence.

The Min ister of Justice (Mr. Mccr ae) says he appreciates it, and so he shou ld, because as an Opposition Mem ber, as I said, he would be the first one, even on the most minor point, to talk about incompetence, the most minor point. Here we have a significant omission on the part of this Government and this Government should recognize that. I really do not know what is happen ing as I look at the rather pathet ic Benche s. I will not make any reference once again, Mr . Speaker, to absence of any specific Mem bers.

I realize that is against our rules but I m ust say it is unfortunate when the Government has even the difficulty in making sure that the most basic functioning of the Legislature, the time when we have in debates are met . Once again right now, it is the Opposition that is bailing out the Gov ernment, because if the Opposition was to walk out of here there would be no quorum and we would not be debating this Bill. I consider that to be incom petence piled on incompetence on the part of this Government. They asked for the assistance of the Opp osition in bringing this Bill.

We said we would 1983 give leave to have it deba ted today and have it passed today, and what is happening is they are showing no effort on their part to see it put through, Mr. Speaker. There is not even enough Government Mem bers in the House to assure a quorum on this. It is only, once again, because of the Opposition Mem bers. Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Honourable Mem ber for Thomp son is being totally irrelevant to the Bill which is being debated here today. The Honourable Mem ber for Thompson kindly keep his remarks to the principle of the Bill. The Honourable Mem ber for Thompson. Mr.

Ashton: I am ref erring to the fact tha t the Opposition Mem bers have bailed out the Government on this Bill. I am referring to the fact that in this debate today-I recognize your ruling and I will abide by it we are also bailing out the Government today because of their complete incompetence on this issue. I really did not see any reference in the Attorney Gener al, pardon me, the Min ister of Justice's comments. He has a new title now. I will use that title. There was no real reference to it, no real acknowledgement of the situation we are in, in terms of this Bill, why we are dealing with it.

Sure, he acknowledged the fact that the Opposition did giv e leave, but there was no real acknowledgement of why this matter was bungled. The Attorney General (Mr. Mccrae) says he has not spoken . He has spoken at previous times on this Bill. He may not have spoken on this reading, and I hope when he does speak on this reading he will explain to this House and to the public of Manitoba why we have to be dealing with this matter again.

I also ask for some assurance, before we do provide support to this Bill once again from the Min ister of Justic e, that we will not be again dealing with this Bill as we go into the Session. This Session certainly appears to be here for awhile. I am not sure exactly when the Session wil l conclude, Mr. Speaker, but let us put it this way, as we head into the New Year I will be interested to see whether we are going to have yet another version of this Bill from the Min ister of Justice (Mr. Mcc rae) saying, well, just before we go any further we want the opposition Parties to bail us out again.

If at first you don't succeed, try, try again. First time, unlucky; second time, unluc ky; thir d time, lucky. Is that what we are going to be dealing with? * (1 600) Will the Min ister of Justice, before we pass this Bill today, assure this Legislature that we will not be subject to the same sort of difficulty, the same incompetence, and will not be dealing with this matter, as I said, as we go further into the Legislature at a later point in time? I am hoping the Min ister of Justice (Mr.

Mcc rae) will do that because really, I think, .it is not the kind of message that we want to be sent to the courts, because the courts will interpret literally the wording that we have in place. We saw the Mini ster of Justice in a few short months recognize that his original draft had a major loophole in it that.w ould have gutted the im pact

Wednesday, October 18, 1989 of the Bill. That is essentially why we are dealing with it today. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Min ister of Justice says, no. Is he not saying that there would have been a serious probl em with the original Bill if it had not been dealt with? I would hope the Minis ter will clarify because certainly !'c ould tell you that our critic in this particular matter is dealing with this, providing the co-operation the Min ister req uested, because certainly the view was that if it was not to be acted upon there would be problems.

There would be problems as I said, because of the incomp etence on this matter. There would have been problems in enforcing the program that the Min ister himself had planned. ::;- In fac{f the reason we are dealing with it by a "l eave" -1 mean, Mr. Speaker, we should be debating Bills normally right through the Session giving the type of consideration that is necessary, but we have given this Government essentiall y leave twice. We assisted in bringing it through prior to the recess in the summ er, and we are bailing them out again here on October 18.

For the second time in the same Session we are facilitating brin ging this through. It is frustrating, Mr. Speaker. It is frustrating as the New Democratic Party House Leader, it is frustrating as a Mem ber of this Legislature to see the Government floundering on this particular item , to see the level of incompetence and to see that we are bailing them out. We should not be dealing with this und er normal circumstances. We have recognized that the intent was to bring it in as soon as possible, recognized that the general intent of the Bill was positiv e.

We indi cated tha t, and on second read in g both ti mes it was considered. Now as we deal with the final reading of this Bill, we are dealing with the specifics. That is why I am referencing the specific fact that this Go vernment has not handled this matter properly. I am sure the Min ister will do everything possible to try and get the maximum amount of publ icity on this matter. I have heard the advertisements on the radio from the Min ister of Justice (Mr . McC rae), in his own voice, ta lkin g about drinking and dr iv ing.

I am wondering if the Min ister of Justice is going to put out a new series of ads saying, well, we blew it, but we finally got it right and now this is going to be the law in Manitoba. I wonder if that is going to be the approach. I wonder if the Min ister of Justice is going to say thanks to the opposition Parties, we have new changes to our system in dealing with drink ers and drivers. Is the Mi ni�ter going to do that, Mr. Speaker, because I am sure -the commun icators in the Government must be having a very difficult time with this now.

This, I am sure, was supposed to be one of the main initia tives in this Session. God knows this Government needs some major init iatives. When I look at the legislativ e package, when one nets out matters that were drafted well before this Min ister came into office, when one nets out what would be basically called very basic legislation, we have one Bill here which basically just changes the num t;>ers on one particular Act, when one nets that out, what are we left with, the Fiscal Stabil ization Fund, final offer selection and this Bill? What does that speak for the agenda of this Government?

An Honourable Member: Major changes in The Cit y of Winnip eg Act. Mr. Ashton: Well, a major change in The City of Winnip eg Act. Perhaps coming from outside of the city, I do not put it in qu ite the same category as other Bills. I will defer to those Mem bers such as the Min ister of Ind ustry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst) from the city in terms of the relative importance of that Bill. So we are up to four major Bills in this Session. I would consider the Bill we are debating right now to be an important one.

If it was not important we certainly would not have given leave back in June, and we would certainly not have given l

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-52
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 52.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	27561cf18e05893b6ce15c4a1c8e2aa5ba662248

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