Manitoba Hansard — 24 June 1982 (Sitting 83B, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-83b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOB A Thur sday, 24 Ju ne, 1982 Time - 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAK ER, J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions ... Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees MIN ISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SP EAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCH ROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 43rd Annual Report of the Manitoba Civil Service Superannuation Fund. That's for the year ended December 31, 1981. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion INT RODUC TION OF BI LLS HON. R. PENNER introduced Bill No. 65,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act. INT RODUC TION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAK ER: Before we reach Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of members to the gallery where we have 19 visitors from the Emerson School under the direction of Mr. Terry Gillis. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Emerson. On behalf of all the members, I welcome you here this evening. ORAL QUES TIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Attorney-General in his capacity as House Leader.

Would the Attorney-General advise the House as to what his intention will be concerning the order of business tonight? MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to call it with the same efficiency and expedience that I called it today, I will be proposing to call the Report Stage on Bill No. 40. I would follow that with calling the Second Read ings. I would then be calling the adjourned debates on third readings and following that by the adjourned debates on second readings or some of them.

Then, if time permits, the last item on the Order Paper that is not dealt with would be the Private Members' Bill No. 62 standing in the name of the Member for St. Norbert. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention that the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders will be meeting at the same time? HON. R. PENNER: That was my understanding, the understanding I thought I had with the Opposition House Leader. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, will the Government House Leader consider cancelling the meeting of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and refer Bill No. 50 to the Law Amendments Committee in place of that? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Environment. I would have liked to have addressed it to the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Speaker, I have been informed today that the dead stock pickup system in the Province of Manitoba has been stopped as of today.

One of the private compan ies that have been in business are now refusing to pick up dead livestock or dead stock, I guess I should put it, throughout the Province of Manitoba, particularly in the northeastern part and the eastern region of Mani toba. Could the Minister of Environment tell this House and the people of Manitoba what he intends to do with the environmental problem that will be created because of the lack of pickup of the dead stock? MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I can inform the member opposite that we have had a number of meet ings in regard to this problem over the past couple of weeks.

I, myself, and a number of other Ministers met with some of the owners and entrepreneurs in respect to those operations within the province and the gov ernment is now looking at ways by which we may be able to work with them through this very difficult time to enable them to continue operations. 3562 I can also suggest that the Minister of Agriculture may be able to address that question as well, he hav ing had a bit more contact with those individuals, I believe, than have I. MR . SP EAKER: The Hono urable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to advise the honourable member that we have indicated to the operators that, in terms of budgetary constraints, an immediate program of assistance at this point in time is highly unlikely. However, we are looking at other ways of assisting the operators, either through a direct cost by the producer, and some of the operators have embarked and have attempted to impose charges on their own or through the various organizations, such as, the marketing board and/or the organiza tions, the Hog Board, in terms of the levies that they may wish to collect on the basis of the animals that they pick up.

Those are the avenues that are presently being pursued.

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, does the Min ister of Agriculture not recall my colleague, the Memb er for Em erson. several weeks, in fact, if not months ago, bring it to the attention of the govern ment that some thing had to be done about it. This particular commod ity do es not keep very well in the summer mo nths, Mr. Speak er, and the indiv idual who I was in di scussion with indicated that they were getting some average of six calls a day to pick up dead stock and this, if left very long, Mr.

Speaker. would beco me a health hazard and a very serious pro blem to the whole envi ronment throughout Man ito ba. I wou ld request that that Mi nis ter not sit and review, but in fact deal with it expedi tiously and get on with either putting a program in place or doing some thing to resolve the problem. HON. B. U'RUSKI: Mr. Speaker, there is no doub t. We have had ongoi ng meetings and discussions for a pe riod of time. Proposals were made to the govern ment and we were unable to meet all those proposals.

I should remind the honourable memb er and I'm sure that he is aware that the onus of responsibili ty in terms of dis po sing in a proper manner of the dead carcasses rests with the owner or the person who raises the livestock and that responsibi lity, in many areas of the provi nce, has been handled by those owners because the pickup of carcasses is not made throughout the entire Provi nce of Man itob a. There are many areas within the province where this pickup does not occur and that respon sibil ity has and is being met by the producers.

The other aspect of it, the honourable memb er should be aware that even with respect to, if there is a direct sub sidy for the dis po sition of those anima ls, the marketability of the product is almost nonexis tent, Mr. Speaker. The industry throughout this country, in terms of the pet food ind ustry, in terms of rendering, because of the world supply of prote in and the cost of protein, the market is down and the likelihood that the pet food ind ustry will recover in the immediate future is unlik ely, as we have been advi sed by the ind ustry.

There is a great amount of stock in storage because it ju st is not moving. So it's a double dilemma because of the fact that even with a di rect subsidy, if that was the route that we ultimately go, it is unlikely that the pro duct can be moved in any event. MR. J. DOWNEY: A final questi on, Mr. Speaker, and I want a direct answer. Is the Min ister or is he not going to deal with the situation or is he going to leave it up to the people who prod uce the livestock to dispose of? I want him to be very clear on that. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I thought I answered the honourable mem ber.

I have indicated. we are deal ing with the situation but, as well, I reiterate agai n the responsi bility for the disposal of livestock is the responsibi lity of the producer who is involved, Mr. Speaker. So I have dealt with them. We are dealing with them. We are look ing at ways to try and assist those operators. How ever, in the meanti me- and I repeat again to the honourable memb er - there are many areas of this prov ince where there has not been a pick up service in which ani mals have been pick ed up. Thos e pro duc ers, historic ally, have had to deal with this in the way that is commonly used.

They dig a hole and they bury the carcasses and that is the way the legislation and the authority reads in terms of the dispo sition of those anima ls. That's the way produc ers should dispose of the ani mals ifth ere is no pickup and that's the way it's been done in the past and will continue to be. If we can assist the operators in some way of meeting areas that it is not bei ng handled, we are attempting to deal with that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my quest ion is to the Honour able First Min ister.

In the absence of the Mi nis ter of Health, can the First Min ister advise the Hou se, Sir, of the present status of negotia tions on a new fee

schedule between the Man itoba Medical Associa tion and the Man itoba Health Services Com mission? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wou ld take that qu estion as notice. As the member kno ws, the voti ng process is under way now within the MMA and I do not believe that the results of that vote regarding the last offer have been made known by the MM A. MR. L SHERMAN: Mr .

Speaker, I thank the First Min ister and ask him if he would take another question as notice and investigate whether the impending presen tation of either a Federal Budget or at least a state ment on the economic affairs of the nation on Mond ay night by the Federal Min ister of Fina nce, Mr. MacEa chen, has had any bearing or any influence on the negotia tions up to this po int in time, particularly the negotia tions within the past week between the two parties? 3563 HON. H. PAWLEY: No .

I certainly can understand the bas is for the question from the Honour able Mem ber for Fort Garry, because I would think that it would cause some questions to come to mind to those that are still bargaining, such as the MMA. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition. HON. S. L VON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Fi rst Min ister.

Has the First Min ister had confi rmation from the Min ister of Manpower and Im migration of the news report that we have all read to the effect that Winn ipeg is going to be denied the Aerospace Centr e that was recommended to it by the study that was done over the last year and that, instead, the Federal Govern ment has made a decision, accord ing to the news reports, to locate Ae rospace training, of the kind recom mended, in four dif ferent centr es across Canada? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr .

Speaker, this question relates to matters under the responsibil ity of the Min ister of Manp ower who, I believe, has some information. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labour.

HON. V. SCH ROEDER: Mr . Speaker, I really don't have any more informati on than I had yesterday when the matter was raised by the Memb er for Sturgeon Creek. He had raised it a number of times in the past. I ind icated to him yesterday that, based on a meeting that I'd had about a week-and-a-half ago with Mr.

Axworthy's representative here, one Gen eral McKen zie, that it appeared unlikely that there was any pros pect at all for agreement within the Federal Ca binet for the institution to come to Winnip eg at this tim e in the way that was envisi oned in the origi nal study which had been chaired by the same Gen eral Mc Ken zie. He indicated to us that, along with us he felt that was unfortu nate. It wou ld have been an appropriate move. It wasn't done, as he indicated, on the basis that he was the Chai rman and he had been appoi nted by Mr.

Axworthy and therefore he named Winnip eg, but rather on the logical ground s set forth in that agreement. He did say that there is, as we kno w, intense lobb y ing by mem bers of the Ca binet and Caucus of the Liberal Party from Queb ec and Ontario. Those two prov inces, between them, have approxi mately jus t over 90 percent of the aerospace indus try in Canada. We come in third at 6 percent. There's not that much else out there. There are discussions going on between the Fed eral Go vernment and the aerospace ind ustry and the trade unio ns involved, as I understand.

As wel l, we have people from our department who have been actively lobbying throughout for as much of the op er ation as could pos si bly come to Manit oba. It's regret table that the origin al proposal wasn't adhered to but, however, we want to make sure that we will get as much of the training here as possible. There's an indi cation that if we come up with an approp riate proposal that some of that training certainly will take place at Red Ri ver Commu nity Colle ge or another college in Man itoba. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, to the First Min ister.

In view of the fact that he will be meeting next week with the Prime Min ister, could he undertake to the Ho use and to the people of Man itoba that he will raise this matter in a serious way with the Prime Min ister and indic ate the disple asure that I am sure he and all others in this house feel with respect to this alleged decision that has been made by the govern ment, accord ing to someone in Mr.

Axworthy's office, and adhere to the position as strongly as possible that Manitob a should receive this aerospace training cen tre as origin ally recommend ed in the McKi nsey Repor t for the very reasons that are given in that Repor t, having regard also, Sir, if I may say so, to the extreme body blows that the economy of this prov ince has suffered in the last 10 days alo ne, to say nothing of what may happen in the future. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it certainly would be my intention to take this matter up with the Prime Min ister. The Leader of the Opp osition is certainly correct.

There was a very clear recommend ation that the op eration be so located here and, because of apparent intense lobbying tak ing place on the part of Quebec and Ontario Cau cus mem bers the recom mendation has been diverted from. I ju st say to the Leader of the Op position, I trust that Wednesday will be an appropr iate occasion to get that message through to the Prime Min ister. I know not for what reason yet we're going to be meeting, 10 :00 o'clock, Wed nesday morning up until noon, but I cer tainly will take the first oppor tunity to convey that message to him. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to thank the First Min ister for that assurance and to give him the further reassurance that he will have full support from this side of the Ho use in any submi ssions that he makes to the Prime Min ister and the Go vernment of Canada in that respect. It may be of some help to the Fi rst Min ister; news reports are ind icating that the Prime Min ister wishes to speak to the Prem iers about a general wage control measure that wou ld be applied to the Public Service of Canada, federally and provinc ially, if not municipally.

In view of the fact that there is some likelihood, although one can never guarantee in these times, that this Ho use may not be sitting when the First Minis ter returns from his Conf erence in Ottawa, can the Fi rst Min ister give us at this time some ind ication of the respons e that he and his gov ernment would make to the sugge stion, which has been current for so meti me, that the provi nces join with the Federal Go vernment in acknowledging some level of settlement for Public Service salaries?

Given the fact that tens of thousands of people in the private sector are being laid off, given the fact that tens of thousands of people in the private sector are either taking pay cuts or are forced to accept the status quo with respect to their salaries, can the First Minis ter indicate what the attitude of his govern ment will be to some control on Public Service salaries, notwiths tanding the fact that the Man itob a Go vernment Emplo yees' Associa tion is currently vot ing on a 13 -plus percent settlement in Man itob a which, agai nst the economic backgr ound of this pro vince, looks to be extremely generous?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Speaker, if that indeed be the purpose of the meeting Wednesday, it appears that insofar as both the Public Service in the Province of Manit oba and most of the major municipal entities have already comple ted agreements and been voted upon; the y have been ratified by memb ership and agreements have been sign ed - I think the only sign ifi cant exception wou ld be hospit al workers and the MM A. It is our view, of course, Mr .

Speaker, and con tinues to be our vie w, that the basic problems that must be confronted in Canada, on the part of the Finance Min ister and the First Min ister, relate to much more su bstantive needs within the Canad ian econ omy and not public sector wage restraint, but rather an overall economic stimu lation thrust that is required, as well as some decisiv e action in regard to interest rates. That's what we would be look ing forward to and pos si bly, with some naivete, trusting that the Prime Minis ter would be wishing to unveil Mond ay night and to discuss with the First Min isters on Wed nesday. HON. S.

LYON: Mr . Speaker, while not wanting to get into any argument in Question Period with the First Min ister, could I sug gest to him, Sir, that, given the fact that the 2,0 00 workers at Thom pson were told last 3564

night that they are going to suffer a 16 percent drop in their wages by virtue of two months' layoff, is it con sistent for the Public Service of Manitoba to be expect ing to receive 13 -plus percent increase in salary this year at a tim e when the private sector - and I remind the First Mini ster, Sir, and I'm sure he doesn't have to be reminded - that pays the bills is lab ouring under this yoke of economic depressi on in our province and having to accept freezes, cutbacks, and so on?

Does he consider it equitable and fair that the Public Ser vice of Man itoba and indeed city settlements are so tar, by contrast, out of whack with what the work ing people of Manit oba in the private sector are having to accept by virtue of the current economic recession? Will he keep that in mind, Sir , when he is speak ing to the Prime Min ister and listening to the sugg estions that will be made by the Prime Min ister and the other Prem iers of Canada with respect to how we get this economy of ours back on track? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr .

Sp eaker, certainly on Wed nesday we'll be look ing at whatever proposals the Prime Min ister has to make to us and we'll be discus sing th ose proposals at that time and sub seq uent to that occasion. I trust that the proposals will require some discussion upon my return to Man itoba. We'll be interested in ascertaining what those proposals are, see ing them, dis cussing them. I think it's a bit early now to shoot in the dark as to ju st what the Prime Min ister might have in mind. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, I certainly accept the premise that the First Min ister has ju st made that one doe sn't want to shoot in the dark, according to the express ion that he uses, but can he give this Ho use and can he give the people of Man itoba some ass ur ance that his mind is not closed with respect to engag ing in those kinds of measu res which are necessary in the public interest, in order to ensure that our econ omy get back on track and to consi der, as he has been asked before. whether or not measures, such as are being taken at the present tim e in the Province of Quebec. to roll back wage increases that were settled by negotia tion. to ro ll them back in the public interest.

Notwiths tanding the ackno wledg ed pressure that the First Min ister and his government are going to receive from Public Service unions throughout Canada - never mind the Manit ob a Go vernment Emplo yees' Associ ation here - if these measure prove to be neces sary in the pub lic interest, accepting as I'm sure he does, as I do, that the public interest takes precedence over large settlements that may have been made when circumstances of the province were not as well focused as they are now? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I want to say this, that what we will be look ing at, insofar as the package that is presented, is whether or not it sing les out any particular segment of the popu lation alone for particu lar attention or whether it is a package that brings in measu res that would be fair and equitable through out. That will have to be the principle that will domi nate our thinking. As I ind icated earlier, Mr.

Speaker, I do n't for a moment want to leave the im pression that in my view the basic problem confronting Canada is one involving inflation and/or the question of the Pub - 3565 lie Sector which, by the way, wages have fallen behind the Consumer Price Ind ex over the last numb er of years. I think the problems confronting Canada today go much more beyond, though the press ure will be, Mr. Speaker, the very op posite to what the Leader of the Opposition has suggested.

I think the pressure is going to be for gov ernments, regard less of stripe, under the pressu res to accept some sort of sim plistic solution that will indeed not work. I wo uld want to ensure that the total package was one tha t was fair and equitable and did not single out any particular group of business, labour, farm, professional, banks, alone for particular treatment. I think that the entire economic broad

section must be treated in an equit a ble and a fair manner. HON. S. LYON: Again, Mr . Speaker, I am sure that we on this side of the Ho use join with the Fi rst Min ister in the hope and expectat ion that no one sector of the total economy will be singled out. But, Sir, I remind him that one sector of the national and the provi ncial economy has already been sing led out by economic circumstances and, that is, the private sector. The mining ind ustry in Man itoba alone, with 5, 000 people viriually out of work for periods of two to three or four months varying with the compan ies.

Now, that is an indiscriminate selection that has been made by the eco nomy.

Will the First Min ister not admit that when that kind of discrimi nation is tak ing place with respect to private sector workers who pay the bills of this provinc e, along with the rest of the private sector - because the gov ernment salaries don't pay any bills; govern ment doesn't make any mo ney of its own; gov ernment only takes mone y from people who work for it - will the Fi rst Min ister keep that in mind, remem ber ing as well that his gov ernment is presently engaged in a piece of rent control legislation which does single out one sector of our economy with respect to con trols that are put on it; will he apply that same kind of egalitarian approach to the public service of Manitoba?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, in respect to the quest ion by the Leader of the Op position, it see ms to me that - and I'm glad that there is this discussion because it goes to the root of some very im portant decision making that must be made by governments, federal and prov incial. There may be need for a great deal of legitima te dis cussion and debate in Ma nitoba as to economic direction as well as the whole of Canada. It is not my view that the economic woes of Canada are going to be resolved by heaping wha t is now mas siv e layoffs in the private sector on top of massive layoffs in the public sector.

It seems to me, Mr . Speaker, that what is required is an overall economic strategy that will move to the very roots of that which has created the present problem. I say to the Leader of the Opp osition, it seems to me that we have become entangled as priso ners in the web of economic theor ies that are not working, either in theory or in practice. I can tell the Leader of the Op position what, in my view, are those theories. They will probably vary from his view as to what those theories are, but we are obvi ously caught as prisoners in that kind of web. It is my hope that the Budg et this forthcom ing Mon-

day will: (

a) develop clear and distin ctive policies which I believe can indeed be adopted in order to, first, reduce interest rates in Canada. That should be fi rst and foremost. because that is the principal cause of the layoffs and the deep ening recess ion that we are confronted with everywhere. Secon dly, Mr . Sp eaker, it is my vie w that the Budget ought not to be one that will further restrain or with draw, but will be one rather that will stimulate the economy of Canada. That means a stimulative Budget and that is going to mean the need for conside rable public invest ment. Mr.

Speaker, it seemed to me, and I want to ju st reflect for a moment, that it seemed to take some tim e after 19 29, 19 30, 19 31 , and 19 32 for it to be realized that, indeed, for an economy to be picked up and to be generated and to receive energy, it required action on the part of gov ernment in order to sti mulate. We did learn that exper ience in the latter part of the 19 30s. -(I nterjection)- Somebody says, war. Yes, that was an example, Mr. Speaker, precisely.

The war did bring the economy out of depress ion, but I am convi nced that a war ough t not to be neces sary in a sane economy in order to sti mulate that economy. Surely, Mr. Speaker, gov ernments of sanity and intelligence and reason can adop t policies that will sti mulate econom ies in time of peace to ensure there is a reduction in job lessness in our country. Mr. Speaker, what I am concerned about -(Int er jec tion)- I do n't want to prolong my answer, is that. MR. SPEAKER : Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: is that we not fo llow some simpli stic solution.

I think there is a temptation now on the part of the Federal Go vernment, in vie w of the fai lure of the MacEachen Budge t in No vem ber, to desperately flail about and to single out one small element, as though that small element in relationship to the total is responsible for the economic woes that confront the land. If th at be ind eed the direction that is pursued in isolation from all the many factors which are contri buting to the present economic illnesses in this coun try, as well as the Western World as a whole and in fact the whole world then, Mr .

Sp eaker, this forthcoming Mo nday night Budget will be doome d as much as indeed was the No vembe r MacEachen Bud get. I trust that will not be the case; I trust that indeed the Federal Go vernment will have seen the need for some wisdom in respect to their budge tary policies to ensure sti mu lation of the economy. HON. S. L VON: Mr. Speaker, we would all join with the First Mini ster in hoping that the Budg et that is brought down on Mon day night will deal realistically with the extremely adverse situation that we find in our country today .

Without mak ing too much of an edit orial comment on that, I am sure the First Minis ter would understand when I di ffer with him because Federal Go vernments in the past, and a good number of Provincial Go vernments, have pur sued policies of stimulation and policies which are based upon the mythology that there is no bottom to the taxpayers' pocket. No w, Mr.

Sp eaker, that we are faced with the results of those policies, results of Keynesianism and of soc ialism and everything else, will the First Min ister give us some assurance that realism will replace ideology with respect to the remedie s that he will proffer to the Federal Go vernment on behalf of the peo ple of Man ito ba, in order that we may again return to some semb lance of sanity in this country where go vernments of all three levels, the Federal, Provi ncial and Muni cipal Go vernments, who are pres ently tak ing some thing in the order of 42 percent of the gross national prod uct of this country when they were tak ing about 20 percent back in 19 29 and have no room for stimulation; will he face that realistic fact and advise the Prime Min ister of Canada that he is pr e pared to live, not with increases in expend iture of 16 to 20 percent such as we are seeing; not with a $350 mi llion to $400 million deficit as we're seei ng in this provi nce; not with $750 mi llion requirement for bor rowing, but that we are really prepared to get down to proper financing in this province to meet these adverse conditions that this provi nce find s itself in today, given the lack of stimulation from any of the mega proj ects that my honourable friends have managed to be able to lose over the last six months ?

HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr . Sp eaker, first, in respect to deficit and I think the Leader of the Op position kn ows full well that if you com pare provinc e-by-province the extent of deficit increase in Man itoba was third or fou rth from the bottom in regard to the 1 O provi nces in Canada, regardless of party stripe.

There's no ques tion that go vern ment, whether it be federal, whether it be provincial and whether it be Con servative or Lib eral or Party Quebecois or New Dem ocrat, are having increasi ngly difficult ti mes because of the reduction by way of revenue flows because of the weakened economy that presently exists. I want to say this to the Leader of the Opp osition and it concerns me a great deal, that sometime s I won der if we have really learned or whether we have to again re-invent the wheel.

Acute protracted restraint; further withdrawal of invest ment, whether it be private or public; further measures pertaining to tight mone y: high interest rate policies are not the kind of measures that are going to bring strength to the economy. I hate to make this kind of comparison, but unfortunately with the weakened economy we are moving into a situation that is at tim es, not that incom parable from that of the 19 29 period.

It took some tim e for public representatives and for thqse that were in positions of power to realize that to strengthen the economy, you co uld not weaken an economy by gover nment tak ing a passive or inactive role; that a gov ernment has to take an active role. 3566 It is for that reason, Mr.

Speaker, that the public capital investment in Man itoba this year was increased by 40 percent: it was for that reason that the Min ister of Health announc ed a five -year program to ensure that there was increased health and perso nal care home construc tion over the next fiv e years: it is that reason that the Min ister of Housing is advanc ing a $50 mi llion program pertaining to housing thrusts.

Now it wou ld be much more simpl er if we followed the advice from the Leader of the Op posi tion to cut out all Cap ital inves tment; to cut out the $50 million in respect to housing : to cut back on all hospi tal and personal care home construction as, indeed , did

occur in, I believe it was, No vem ber of 19 77 when the freeze took place. We co uld do all that, Mr. Speaker. We could do that tomorr ow but, Mr. Sp eaker, with what is happening to the economy as a who le, it only makes rational sense that we have enough confidenc e in the future of the Province of Mani toba to invest in the future of the Provi nce of Man itoba. It's certainly not a time for signi ficant new social programs, that I will grant to the Leader of the Oppo si tion.

This is a tim e for econ omic investment, whether it be of a public nature or whether it be of a private nature because I do not draw a differential, as the Leader of the Op position does. between the value of public or private invest ment or cooperative invest ment. I believe that they all can play their part, but once you withdr aw private investment and withdr aw public investment then, Mr. Speaker, I suggest all that we do is deepen even further the recession which now, unfortunately, is edging towards some thing even worse than a recession in this country. HON. S. LYON: Mr .

Speaker, this is no time in ques tion period to engage in an exchange of opin ion about my honour able friend's fixed 19 th century opinions and the realism of the 19 80s. Can the First Mini ster or his Min ister of Finance give us some indication as to what the consor tium have been advising them with respect to the ability of Manitoba in this year, 19 82, to borrow $750 million on the public markets, when indeed the Go vernment of Canada had to withdr aw from a bond sale as recently as 10 days ago because the market was not there to take up the bonds of the Government of Canada? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I understand that andent has had dif ficulty placing its bond s. As of a week, 1 O days ago, they were unable to place their bonds which is agai n further evidenc e of the serious ness I am glad the Leader of the Op position has asked this qof the present economic situation overa ll. Mr. Sp eaker, I say this to the Leader of the Opp osi tion. This situation is going to deepe n.

We are going to have additional problems and diffi culties until there is - stion because I think we must candidly examine it, because it contrary to what the Leader of the Op posi tion is my understanding the Federal Go vernmhas said- an attempt to innovate new directions insofar as economic approach. I don't want to suggest or leave the impression with the Leader of the Op position that there is any particu lar ideology at this tim e that's got all the answers. I think that Cons ervative Go vernme nts of Mar garet Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are obviously having deep problems.

I think Social Dem ocratic Govern ments in, for instance, France, Mit terrand, are having very di fficult problems. Cert ainly, the Com munist world is also having severe and difficult problems. So it see ms to me, Mr.

Speaker , that it certainly is a world si tuation but I believe as time advances, and the Leader of the Op position can call it Key nesian eco nom ics: he can call it soc ialism: he can call it whatever he wishe s, that the recogni tion is going to have to dev elop that govern ment will have to provide a greater activating force within the economy in order to bring about a generation of activity within an economy . That generation has to take place in cooperation with the private sector, not in isolation from the private sector.

But I find that the sentimen ts expressed by Go vernor Bouey, for instance, are not - and I don't want to be unfair because Governor Bou ey, I know, is not a politician, but he does hold a very powerful position within the direction of the Canadian econ omy - that some way or another if we simp ly bring wages under some sort of restraint, that there will be a resolution of our problems because we will bring down inflation. That has not been the case in the Un ited States. In flation may be less, but the interest rates have not dropp ed. Unemplo yment is increasing.

The defi cit is increasing massively in the Uni ted States. So I again sum up, Mr. Speaker, in my view what is required. I would like to go on with this for some time, because I appreciate very much the Leader of the Op position raising this subject because it's one that I am sure concerns him very very much. It concerns each of us on this side very much because of the difficult eco nomic times, but it's a time for pre-activity in our thinking, innovation. Obviously, many of the old solu tions are no longer wor king in the present provincial and federal world sit uation. We have to look for new alternatives.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Ques tions having expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY ORDER FOR RETURN MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Stur geon Creek . MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seco nded by the Memb er for St.

No rbert, that an Order of the Ho use to issue for Return showing the fol lowing inform ation: (1) a list of each perso n or form in receipt of financial assistanc e under the Ma nitoba In terest Rate Relief Program for small busine ss, since the inception of the prog ram up to June 22, 19 82; showing the location of the enterprise; the type of manufacturing or processing involved; and the number of emplo yees; (2) the amount of financial assistance provided to each person or firm listed above with an ind ication of their specific terms. 3567 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Go vernme nt Ho use Leader. HON. R.

PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid we are unable to accept that Order for Return. It appears to ask us to disclose information which may be confiden tial. I would prefer, if possib le, to take that as notice and give our reply as to acceptance or otherwise tomo rrow when I discuss the matter with the Min ister for Economi c Dev elop ment and the other Min isters concerned to see whether or not disclosure of the information would vio late any matter of privacy. MR. SPEAKER: May I speak to the Cle rk for a moment? Order please. The Honour able Memb er for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHN STON: Mr.

Speaker, the Hous e Leader

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 has stated that he would give me a final answer tomor row morning. I am qu ite willing to accept that. provid ing that it does come up tomo rrow morning after the question period, before Orde rs of the Day. MR. SPEAKER: I am not entirely sure that a provision is made for that circumstance within our Ru les. Ho w ever, if it is the leave of the Ho use. that can be done and the question will be called on it tom orrow morning. COMM ITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Go vernment Ho use Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Sp eaker. fi rst of all. may I announce some Comm ittee Chan ges: in Law Amend ments, the Mem ber for Gimli sub stit uting for the Memb er for Thomp son; Statutory Regulations and Orders. the Memb er for Wolsele y substitut ing for the Mem ber for Kildonan. the Memb er for Burrows substi tuting for the Attorne y-Gener al; Mun icipal Affairs. the Mem ber for Spri ngfield sub stituting for the Min ister of Health and the Memb er for Flin Flon sub stituting for the Min ister of Agriculture. Mr.

Speaker. the Op position Ho use Leader, a short time ago, asked whether one of the bills before Agr i culture could go to Law Amend ments and I con curred; I sti ll do. I am advised it would be better to move a motion to that effect and. if I can get leave, I would mo ve that motion. MR. SPEAKER: Do es the Min ister have leave? (Agreed ) The Honour able Min ister. HON. R. PENNER: I move. seconded by the Min ister of Financ e. that Bill No. 50.

An Act to Amend The Crown Lands Act and The Muni cipal Asse ssment Act be withd rawn from the Standing Commit tee on Agr i culture and transferred to the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendm ents. MOTION presented and carried. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call up the report stage on Bill No. 40? REPORT STAGE BIL L NO. 40-THE LA BOUR RELATIONS ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed amend ment on Bill No. 40. standing in the name of the Honour able Mem ber for St. No rbert. The Ho nourable Me mber for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker. the Ho nourable Mi n ister sp oke briefly to this amendment when he intro duced it the other day, beca use it was dis cussed to a CE:;rtain extent at comm ittee stage and he gave notice that he wou ld be bringing forth an amendment to this section. At least. he was giving it serious consi deration. Mr. Sp eaker. the first point however. that I wish to mak e is that the Min ister. in making the com ments he did, ind icated that it was brought forward as a sug ges- !ion from the Canadian Man ufacturers Associat ion who appeared before the comm ittee. When they were before the committee. Mr.

Speaker. and made a pres entation. they had indicated that they had made a previous subm ission to the Min ister and I requested that commit tee to send me a copy, which they have kindly done. It should be made clear for the record. Mr . Sp eaker. in case anyone is misled that the Canadian Man ufac turers Associ ation supp ort the principle of this legisla tion. They ind icated in their presentation to the Mi nis ter back on the presentation date of Jan uary 14 . 19 82, that they did not endorse the concept of First Contr act Legisla tion.

I am going to. because we are dealing with an amendment at this stage. not go into all of the reasons why they do not supp ort the principle inher ent in this bill, Mr . Speaker. but I ju st want to make it clear that their first position is to op pose the whole principle of the bill which the Min ister is now ask ing be amended at this stage. In dealing specifical ly with the amendmen t. Mr .

Sp eaker, the following words would be added: "Ex cept as may be directed by an order of the board made for the sole purpose of allowing the emplo yer at a totally shut-down work place. who in order to resume normal op erations must do so at stages." I think the Min ister agreed with the Canadian Man ufacturing Associa tion. I think we. on this side. agreed with the sugg estion that emp loyees should not be called back to work after a fi rst contract is impo sed sim ply on the basis of seni ority because that sim ply may not be practical in the circumstances. The only point I want to make with the Min ister now.

Mr . Speaker, is he perhaps unduly limiting the dis cre tion of the board when he refers to a totally shut-down work place? Wo uld it not be wiser to perhaps elimi nate the word "totally" and leave it a little more open to the di scretion of the board? There may very well be cir cumstances where - and anything can happen - a plant could be half shut down or one part of a plant could be shut down. I think. Mr.

Speaker. by virtue of the wording the Min ister is using here, he may be unduly limiting the di scretion of the board to act rea sonably in the circumstances, because the board will only be given this dis cretion at a tota lly shut-down workpl ace. Mr . Speaker. perhaps the Min ister. if he has any intuitive feeling for the sugg estion I am making, may very well wish to perhaps ask the memb er on that side to adjourn de bate at this stage and consider a further Amend ment or sub amendment to this

section that would give the board greater discretio n. which I think may very well be needed. because we certainly can't predict at this stage all of the wide variety of circum stances that could take place. I think he is unduly limiting the dis cretion of the board by using the word ing "totally shut-do wn." 3568 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labo ur. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, although I don't have the paper here with me. after we heard the Cana di an Manuf acturers Association. I went back to look at my files with respect to the Canadian Labour Rela tions Boar d and. fi rst of all. the wording in that Act is simil ar to what we had propo sed. So when the CMA

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 came along with this sugges tion, I went back to see how that board handled these types of call backs and what the y had done was to call people back on the basis of senio rity. It seemed to me, as well as to other mem bers of the comm ittee, that the sugge stion made by the CMA was a valid one, but they did very specifi cally talk about a shut-down plant. They didn' t talk about an operation that was half going. In fact, the only example given was the example of an indus try that has been shut down for some tim e and you have to send in your maintenance people first.

It would be foolish to send in the miners before you have the op eration going, or send in the people in a manufacturing plant before you have the back ground machinery in operation. So it seemed to me that this Amendment does, in fact, answer the concerns of the CMA. They were talking about shut-down workp laces. and if they're not shut down, then it would seem that that di fficu lty would not be there. QUESTION put on the Amendment and carried. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Sp eaker, would you please call second readings on Bills No. 57, 58 and 63? SECOND READING -GOVER NMENT BI LLS BILL NO. 57 -AN ACT TO AMEND THE WORKERS CO MPENSA TION ACT MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Min ister of Nor thern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN presented Bill No. 57,

An Act to amend The Workers Com pensation Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter. HON. J. COWAN: Mr. Sp eaker, there can be little doub t in anyon e's mind who has fol lowed the recent history of the Workers Comp ensation Board in Mani toba, that there is a need for a number of reforms and changes in that system which will better enable injured workers to receive those benefits which are due to them, nor should there be little dispu te as to the importance of the Workers Com pensation system in respect to the lives of workers in Man itoba.

Last year alone, there were 48,904 accidents reported to the Workers Comp ensation Board . Of those, 18 ,61 2 resulted in tempor ary dis abilities, while 51 1 resulted in permanent di sabil ity. These statistics, while infor mative, do not at all illustrate the agony and the suffer ing which many workers must endure as they face both acute and long-term pain as a result of workp lace accidents.

Every legislator in this Chamb er, every empl oyer in the provin ce, every emplo yees' represen tative will at one time or another come face to face with an injured worker whose story is not one only of pain and suffe ring, but one of frustration and often times a lack of confidenc e in a system which was desig ned to help him or her thr ough trou bled times. One also must remember that injured workers must confront that system at a very traumatic period in their lives. Not only must they deal with the actual injury which has effects all of its own, but ofte ntimes they must deal with

an Act and with a system which is confus ing and bewildering at best. The Am endme nts to The Workers Com pensation Act which you have before you , are but the beginning of a series of reforms which this gov ernment believes will assist injured workers in achieving their legitimate benefits under the Act. It must be added that, for the most part, these reforms have been sugg ested and supp orted by two recent reviews of the Workers Com pensation system.

Before addr essing the general provis ions of the Amend ments, I believe it is im portant to provide some com ments on the events leading up to the introduc tion of them. As I indicated earlier, any review of the recent history of the Worker s Com pensation system will find a system which, for the most part as of recent, has been surrounded in controversy and confronted by criticism. Outside of all the public allegations and criticisms, the Workers Com pensation system has been thoroughly studie d by the Lamp e Comm ission and through a recent review of internal management.

It is especially important, given the public attention on the most recent review and report which has taken place much to the exclusion of a very sign ificant doc ument called the Lamp e Repor t, to emphasize that the changes before you arise more out of the deli bera tions of the Lamp e Comm isson than out of the inves tigation of internal difficulties which has captured so much public attention over the past few months.

Those who are familiar with the Lamp e Repor t will realize that the improve ments to the Workers Advis er Program, the im provements to the Physici ans to Assis t Cl aimants process, and the removal of the exclusion of do mestics by defi nition under the Act arise either di rectly or indir ectly out of the recom mendations of the Lampe Comm ittee. So it is imp or tant not to let those high profile events of recent months cloud or overshadow the fine work which was done by the Lamp e Comm ittee through a series of public hearings over a period of 18 -or-so months.

That is not in any way to dimi nish the im portance of the recent review, but I think one has to put into con text the history over the past number of years if we are to fully recognize the im portance of these Amend ments and to understand their own history. In recogn ition of the well-thoug ht-out document which the Lampe Comm ission provided to the pre vious gover nment, many of the recommend ations included in that report have been incorporated into the Amendm ents before you.

That is not to say that all the recom mendations of the Lamp e Comm ission have been included, but merely to point out that many of them are before you at the present tim e by way of Am endme nt to The Workers Comp ensation Act. 3569 As well, this package includes a number of house keep ing measures which are needed to clarify min is terial respons ibilitie s for The Workers Com pensat ion Act. These remove specific references to the Min ister of Labour, which are now included in the Act, and

make provisions for the appoin tment of any Min ister by the Executive Council who shall then be em po wered to admin ister The Workers Comp ensation Act. These changes will remove a number of proced ural di ff iculties which have been exp erienc ed sinc e respo nsibil ity for The Workers Com pensation Act has been changed from the Min ister of Labour to the Min ister of No rthern Affai rs and the Min ister respon sibl e for Workpla ce Safety and Health, Envir on mental Management and Workers Com pensation. Having given that general overview.

I would like to address more comp letely some of the general thrusts of the Am end ment. Perhaps. the mo st impo rtant part of this package is the change dealing with the expansion of the Workers Adv isers Program. These Amendm ents have been desig ned to build upon our experiences with the pres ent rather limited Workers Advis er Program and. at the same time. to take into account the recommenda tions of the Lampe Commission. Those are experien ces, Mr.

Sp eaker, which I think each and every one of us in this Chamb er have undergone from tim e to ti me, as we have attempted as legis lators to assis t injured workers find their way through a somewhat comp lex and bewild ering system. So I must add that each of us as legislators do have some perso nal stake in that program, that it will enable us to be better legislators and to better assist those workers who may from tim e to time need such assistance. As you may be aware. for a numb er of years now an officer of the Department of Labour has been func tioning as a workers' advis er on a part-time basis.

As of the latest statistics which have been provided to me by the Depar tment of Labour. he has ind icated that he has been spend ing approxi mately 75 percent to 85 percent of his tim e performing the duties of a workers' adviser and the rest of his time. performing other such duties as assi gned to him. No twithst anding the abil ity or the ded ication or com mitment of this individual. the fact that he was only a part-tim e adviser severely limited his ability to meet the ever increasing demands which are being placed on the Workers Compen sa tion System by injured workers seeking benefits before the Board.

So this Am endm ent brings forward that Workers Adviser Program and the legis lative mechanisms which are necessary to put it in place. Also. by way of this Amendment we are placing the responsibil ity for funding of the Workers Advis er Prog ram within the Workers Com pensation Accident Fund. rather than in the Cons olida ted Reve nues. where it is presently situ ated. These Amendm ents will also permit work ers' advis ers to gain access to the full Workers Com pensa tion file of a claimant once that claimant has given permission to that advi ser to proceed in that way.

This, of course. will include access to med ical files once permission has been obta ined for the workers' adviser to review any such materials at that time. Worker s' advi sers will also be given certain rights and respons ibilities. which emplo yees of the Workers Compens ation Board have obta ined through previous and existi ng legislatio n. It must be noted. as well. that this Workers Adv iser Program will be operated inde pendently of the Workers Compensation Board and will report to the Minis ter respo nsibl e for the Act.

It is our belief that these changes. when taken in concert with other reforms. will greatly assist the injured worker to regain faith and confidenc e in the Workers Com pensation syste m. Another one of the present reforms. which is desig ned to assist injur ed workers pursue diffi cult claims. is a change which is being made to the existing provisions of The Com pensation Act which allow for the appointment of a physician to assist a claimant.

Basical ly, this Amendm ent will allow for the costs of this service to be directed to the Workers Compens a tion Accident Fund. rather than be taken out of the Consolida ted Reve nues. This change will more accu rately reflect the nature of those services. While discussing this particular concept. it is impor tant to briefly addr ess the history of the program.

In 19 77, the gov ernment of the day brought forward an Amendment to The Workers Compensation Act which allowed for the appointment of a physician who would be em powered to provide assistance to an indi vidual claimant who might be pursuing a di fficult or a med i cally sign ificant claim. It is jus t recently that this par ticular prov ision of the Act has been utilized and approval has been granted in two specific cases to allow for the appointment of a physician to assist claimants. It must be added at this time that we don't anticipate a wide spread use of this program.

Ho wever. we do recogn ize its im portance in certain instances. It is our belief that it was clearly desig ned to be used on a selective basis for extremely difficult cases or for med ically sign ificant cases. We intend to use it in exactly that manner. Another change. which will benefit the injured worker involved in diffi cult cases. is the Amendm ent to the presump tion provisions of the existing legisla tion. While this change is more one of clarification than a major rewriting of that particular clause of the Act or the Act in general, it is important nonetheless.

The actual word ing change is a sub stitution of the word "shown" by the word "prove n." As the Act sta nds now, "Where an accident arises out of emplo yment or occurs in the cou rse of emplo yment, it shall be presumed that it arose out of. or occurred during the course of, em ployment unless the contrary is shown. " With Amend ments to the Act. the contrary would now have to be "proven" rather than "shown." I have reviewed this change with Legis lative Counsel and they inform me that the actual im pact of the wording change will be mi nimal in legal terms.

At the same time however. the clarification which is provid ed by the new word ing will be signi fi cant for the injured worker who must have confidenc e in the process by very clearly spel ling out the pre sump tion prov isions for an accident claim before the Workers Compensa tion Board. We are providing a concis e statement to both emplo yers and empl oyees as to the way by which claims will be ju dged. 3570 So the major sign ificance of this Amend ment lies in perceptions and that is not. in any way, to attempt to minimi ze it or to sugge st that its im pact will not be signi ficant.

It is ju st to point out to mem bers op posite the way by which we susp ect that im pact will be felt. The remaining major change is a part of a larger package of Am end ments for various pie ces of legisla tion which include: The Emplo yment Standards Act; The Vacat ions With Pay Act; The Payment of Wages

Act; The Hum an Rig hts Act, and The Work place Safety and Health Act. This, of course, is the removal of the exclusion by defi nition of dome stics from The Workers Com pensation Act. By doing so, I hope you will agree that we are extending the protection of this legislation to this group of workers who have so long been denied the se rights. It was deemed appropriate to proceed with this particular change at this time in light of the changes in other legislation which have been brought forward by other Min isters and by myself, in par ticular reference to The Workpla ce Safety and Health Act.

In essence, that is an outline of the amend ments included in the bill before the Ho use at the present time. The gov ernment fully realizes that these are but beginning steps in a long and difficult process of im proving· upon the present Workers Comp ensation syste m. While we recogn ize that it is no easy task, we also realize that these changes that you have before you today are both urgent and important. They have been desi gned and developed to specifically assist those workers who have difficult or troublesome claims before the Board.

While it does not mean that all their claims will be accepted, it does mean that they will have greater access to the ass istance which is necessary to enable them to make certain that their own claims receive full and comp lete consi deration. It also spells out very clearly and concisely, the basis upon which their claims will be reviewed by the Workers Compensation Board.

As a gov ernment, we intend to watch closely the programs which have been outlined in the Am end ments before you, as well as to begin to review other important aspects of the Workers Com pensation sys tem, such as we will be doing with the new Advisor y Comm ittee on Rehabil itation Proced ures of Workers Com pensation Board and the review of management and com munications syste ms which is begi nning to take place this week.

We fully anticipate that, thr ough this short-term and the long-term approach to many existing problems at the Workers Com pensation Board, the system will evolve and will best meet the needs of the parties it is intended to serve. For that reason, we commend this Amend ment for the appro val of the Ho use. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Memb er for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Sp eaker, I wonder if the Min ister would permit a question.

I ju st notice in reviewing the bill that in a numb er of clauses, notably Cla use 9, 16 , 17 and so on, and indeed in the exist ing bill, that there are conti nuing references to workmen and workman. I wond ered, in vie w of the fact that the Min ister was bringing forth an amendment to the Act, was any consi deration given to amend ing all parts of the Act to remove gender references in it? HON. J. COWAN: Yes. There certainly was consider ation given by myself. Beyond that, there was direc tion given to Legislativ e Counsel to review how we could bring that about.

It was, at one time, consi dered that we would ju st change the particular sections which we have brought forward. However. that seemed to be unworkable in the minds of Legisla tiv e Counsel because it would create differences in the Act which 24 Jun e, 1982 3571 would make it cumbersome and bulk y for individuals to use. Then consideration was given to going through the entire Act and making the necessary changes. However, given the tim e with which we had to work to pull these together. that was precluded by the fact that we wanted to bring the se Amend ments forward this particular Session.

I do recogn ize the sexism which is inherent in the Act in respect to language. It 's in many Acts and I think, by way of example, perhaps in the next Sess ion or shortly thereafter, we can start to clean up those Acts as we bring Amend ments forward and I certainly intend to do so at every op portunity, had wanted to do so in this particular instance. Ho wever, I was informed by Legisla tive Couns el that there may be a better day to do so.

But I will look forward to reviewing all the Acts with the Me mber for Tuxedo who, I kn ow, shares that basic desire to see the language which we use as legislators more accurately reflect the times in which we are in power to make decisions. So I am look ing forward to wor king with him in that regard over the next number of years as other Acts come forward and, in specific, as this Act comes forward. MR. SPEA KER: The Ho nourable Memb er for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Sp eaker, I am going to risk respo nding to this bill right at this moment. Mr .

Sp eaker, the bill raises in my mind - and I appreciate firstly that under our admin istration, our Min ister of Labour took an initial step, you could mayb e call that, towards the concept of worker advis ers and the Mi nis ter acknowledges that. The Min ister is now taking a much larger step in that direction. One has to wonder, fi rst of all, Mr .

Sp eaker, and certainly there is no memb er of this Asse mbly who doesn't want to see an injur ed worker attain the bene fits that he is entitled to, but one must won der, at least cause to wonder and perhaps the Min ister wou ld lik e to resp ond to this when he sums up. There are a number of boards established in this provi nce and the fi rst one that come s to mind is Au topac.

There have been a great deal of complaints recently on the front pages of our newspapers about the op eration of Autopac and the im pression has been left in the mind s, I am sure, of many readers and many citizens of this province that the only way you can get com pensation from Autopac is to have a reporter put your story on the front page or the front part of the news paper in order to get the public corporation to respond sensitively to the insurance claim. Now, Mr.

Speaker, we have under that system of Autopac, which is well accepted and well regarded and certainly unchanged by our gove rnment, a situa tion where the adj uster no longer - under the previous automobile insurance schemes in the province, when a person had a private insurance policy, he generally had an agent or an adju ster work ing on his behalf. That concept has been lost somewha t under the Autopac scheme.

It might very well be said by many claimants who have had experiences with Autopac that they should have a claimants' advi ser set up under the Autopa c scheme, so that there is someone work ing on their behalf and assis ting them in attempt ing to process their claims. Tha t could be extended

Thur sday, 24 June, 1982 with respect to a numb er of situations in the province where peo ple make claims or are entitled to co mpen sation of some sort. The question that must be asked is, why is the Mi nis ter, why is the govern ment, why is the Board that the Min ister has named to replace the previous Board in Autopac, why can't those who oversee the op eration of the Board issue directions to the staff to accomplish the purposes that the Min ister and the gov ernment want to see done, especia lly to such a large extent, I think, as the Min ister proposes to do?

I raise this question with the Min ister: is it not a direct criticism of the peo ple who presently work for the Worker s Com pensation Board? Is it a criticism of that or is it a criticism of management ? Has management not given clear instructions and di rectives to those people who receive the claims for co mpensation and deal with them? If there is a problem, could the problem not be resolved by directions from manageme nt? Is it neces sary that this large step be taken now by the Minis ter?

As I say, he's expanding perhaps largely upon what the previous Min ister did in our gove rnment, but could the situation not be resolved by Min isterial or man agement direction? Mr. Speaker, the Board, which - use a kind word - the Minis ter replaced, and I don't have their press release with me, but said at the end of their press release, they felt they were only doing the job that they were di rected to do under the Act and that is to con sider whether personal injury by accident arising in the course of the em ployme nt is caused to a workman.

They feel that is a legislative direction and the legisla tiv e mandate given to them and they say in their press release that if the Min ister wishes to change that direc tion and that objective of that whole scheme, then the legislation should obviously be changed. So I would ask the Min ister, if he is intending to cover some thing wider than what is presently the direction and the objective contai ned in the legislation. Mr.

Speaker, I don' t kno w who drafted the speaking notes for the Min ister, but he makes, I think , quite a contrad iction when, on Page 6 of his Min utes, fi rst of all he says, "One change will benefit the injured worker is the Am end ment to the presumption provi sions." Then he says, "Well, this change is more one of clarification." No w, it's just clarification. Then he goes on to say , "I 've reviewed it with Legis lative Counsel and they inform me the actual im pact will be minim al." Now, he's back to minim al.

"At the same tim e the clarification will be sign ificant." He may have got the speak ing notes on short notice, but an Am end ment is described as a benefit, a clarification, minimal, and then sign ificant -(I nterjection)- it may very wel l. That's what I sus pect, Mr. Speaker, that it's none of the above; that it really will have no affect -(l nterjection) it depends on your perspective. I want to thank the Min ister for giving me the notes, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the Min ister went on to state that the Amendm ent spells out very clearly the basis upon which their cases will be reviewed by the Workers Com pensation Board. Mr. Speaker, I may have missed a

section of the Act -(I nterject ion)- oh, I see, okay. Well, now that, Mr . Sp eaker, I find out that

section refers to the prev ious minim al, margi nal, etc., Amendm ent that was made, because I was trying to find in the bill the

section that spelled out very clearly the basis upon which their cases will be reviewed. think th at, again, the Mi nister may have not had an oppor tunity to totally review his speaking notes, Mr . Speaker. The Act clearly sets out the principle and the basis of the operation of the Workers Com pensation Fund. Tile board which has been replaced thought they were operating under that section. There were some criticisms in the sum mary of the private inquiry that the Min ister tabled in this Legis lature, Mr.

Speaker . and I cannot excuse the Min ister for the manner in which that was handled and the fact that we have only received in this Legis lature a very short sum mary, if it is indeed a sum mary, of what was actually in that report. I don't believe that kind of report that was carried out can be used as the bas is for any changes, Mr. Speaker, because of the manner in which that report was developed.

I am not criticizi ng the inspec tor; he did a job that he was asked to do; I'm ju st criticizi ng using that as a basis for mak ing any sub stantial recommendations when we wou ld rather associate ourselves with the type of inquiry that we had started, an open public judic ial inquiry. Setting that aside, Mr. Speaker, and I think our posi tion is clear on that, I think the Min ister has to answer the question in order to satisfy us is, why cannot management and the board direct exis ting staff.

If the Min ister is unhappy with the way in which they are operating, why cannot they be given a clear direction as to how they are to carry out their job and in doing so, not only protect the fund within the provisions of the Act but, where necessary, provide assistance to the claimant and at least advic e as to appeals, evi dence, informa tion that they may need to fully com plete their claim? Why do we need to hire a separate group of people to act as adversaries and be paid out of the same fund?

If this principle is to be accepted, is it to be expanded to Auto pac or to other situations in this province where citizens of this province make claims on vari ous funds that are set up by government s? MR. SPEA KER: The Hono urable Min ister of Nor thern Affairs will be closing deb ate. HON. J. COWAN: Perhaps, I can add ress the specific questions which the memb er put forward in his response and I do thank him for his prompt response.

The difficulty with the system now is that, over a number of years, it has been created in the minds of some that they need assistance outsi de of the Board, if in fact indivi dual claimants are going to be provided the best poss ible assistance. That may or may not be the case, but the perception is indeed very real and that is one of the reasons why we have taken the Workers Adviser Progr am and made it report to someone other than the Workers Com pensation Board, to give that appearance and that reality of independ ence from the Board. What we are dealing with here is a perception that exists.

Perhaps, over a period of tim e, that perception will dimi nish and I hope it does. I hope that the Workers Compens ation Board gains stature in the eyes of the indi vid ual claimant who must work with the Board, but that is not the case today . 3572 The reality is that there is an appearance that the independent workers adviser, who in the past has

been referred to as a workers advocate - and I want to come back to that point for one minute - was an inde pendent person who could assis t a claimant work their claims through the Board. We are recognizing that reality and we are hoping to, over a period of tim e, build a system whereby that might not be necessary and I underscore the words "m ight not be necessary ." But for the present time, I think we have to be content to recognize the perceptional problems that are out there at this time.

I want to talk about the dif ference between the words "workers' adviser" and "workers' advocate" because the memb er, speaking previously, menti oned in his closing remarks about an adversarial sys tem with this Advis ers Progr am. We are not attempt ing by any means to reinforce that perception that it is an adversarial system. When Lampe did his report, he took some offence to the use of the words "workers advocate," and he said the word "advocate" itself impl ies that it is an adver sarial system.

Perhaps he thought the word should be the word that is used in the Act itself which is "adviser," because that implies that the person who is occupying that position will be providing advice to the claimant on how to best proceed with the claim, rather than advoca ting on behalf of the claimant agai nst the Board. We took that sugge stion very seriously and that is why we have been careful to refer to this pro gram and will continue to refer to this program as the "Workers Advis er Progr am," rather than a worker's advocate program.

There may come a tim e when this particular func tion can be rolled into the regular activities of the Workers Compensation Board. I wou ld hesitate to make that specific prop hesy at this time, but it is cer tainly some thing that can be looked into as percep tions of the activities of the Board do change. I want to clarify the use of dif ferent words, such as minimal, sign ificant, impo rtance, which the memb er seemed to make a bit of a case around in respect to some inconsis tencies. I think it's imp ortant to put back on the record exactly what was said.

The fi rst statement I said was that I have reviewed this change with the Leg islative Counsel and they inform me that the actual impact of the wording change will be min imal in legal terms. What the member forgot to men tion was we were talking about legal terms in that specific instance. I am told - and I am no lawyer so I have to rely upon the advice and very capable legal counsel that we have - that there is really not much difference legally between the terms "shown" and "prove n," that they both mean much the same thing. So, in legal terms, it will have a minim al impact.

At the same ti me, I said, "The clarification which is provided by the new word ing will be sign ificant for the injur ed worker who must have confi dence in the pro cess." The injured worker is not usually a lawyer. Now, that exemption is not blanket exem ption. I am certain there are lawyers who have become injur ed on jobs that are under The Compensation Act but usually, in most instances, the injured worker is not a lawyer. So the mi nimal imp act which it may have legally will in fact be a sign ificant impact which it will be percep tionally for that worker.

So we're talking about two di fferent categories - no offence - of individuals here. One is the legal profes- 24 Jun e, 1982 3573 sion, who in fact have a very comp lete understanding of the difference in those two words and the mini mal impact of them. The other is of the worker out there who is used to using dif ferent term inology in dif ferent ways. So the perception is the im portant part of this particular Amend ment.

When I conclude by saying, "So the major sign ifi cance of this Amendment lies in the perceptions," I think I have very clearly addr essed the issue which the member previous br ought forward and that is how this particular wording will perceived by dif ferent indi vid uals. With in these Cham bers, where we have learned to look at those words and to seek advic e on those words, it will be a mini mal im pact. To the worker injur ed on the works hop floor, it will be sign ificant.

For that reason, I think it is imp ortant and will make a dif ference in how people perceive the Workers Com pensation system to be wor king for them. I believe I have add ressed, perhaps not to the satis faction of the memb er, but at least I have attempted to address the two major issues he brought forward. In respect to Autopac, I am not certain whether or not, in fact, Autopac may want to look at the same sort of a system, although I do know there is one major difference in respect to Autopac and also other sys tems of that sort, and tha t is the involvement of the legal profession and Legal Aid.

No w, there is no provi sion agai nst Legal Aid assis ting a worker with a Workers Com pensation claim to my knowledge and I look to the Atto rney-Gener al for confirmation; he kno ws of none either. Ho wever, as the memb er, who is a lawyer and spoke previously, has com municated to me during the Estim ates, there is some perception that there is a separation between the legal profess ion and Workers Com pensation. Now, I can also inform him that there is no prohi bi tion in practice of a lawyer appearing before the Board to assist a claimant and that was a question he had asked previously.

Ho wever, it ju st isn't generally done. There has always been, histori cally so, a distinction between the Workers Com pensation Board and the legal profession and that was part and parcel, I think, of the whole concept of the syste m which was to remove the right of a worker to sue and to provide to them a blanket insu rance coverage system in place of that right. So there has been that distinction which has been kept present for many, many years.

So the worker doesn' t usually go to Legal Aid and Legal Aid isn't really set up to deal with the worker in this instance, because they don't have the experience and one has to questi on whether or not you want to get involv ed in those sorts of legalities when pursuing a claim. That is a very impo rtant philosophical ques tion. So where Legal Aid may be available to a perso n pur suing an Autopac claim or some other claim, it is not as available, again by perception for the mo st part and practice to a greater extent, to the worker and so we have this Workers Adv isers Program which fills in the gap.

So, I think that distinction has to be illustrated and made apparent as well. Well, the Attorney -Gen eral tells me it's probably a lot cheaper. Having taken a look at what we are sug gest ing as pay scales for those individu als and having seen what lawyers make from time to time, he is prob ably exactly correct when he says, it's a lot cheaper. But that was not a consi deration at all. The consid era-

24 Jun e, 1982 lions that we had in min d when we made this change was the perception that there should be an indepen dent body to assist the worker, and that this particular system - which had been in place previous to the last adminis tration's Min ister of Labour - it was amend ments brought in under the adminis tration previous to theirs but was, in fact, expanded upon to a certain extent during their admin istration, it's recognition that system can play a valuable role in helping workers make the Workers Com pensation system work for them. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 58 -THE WO RKPLACE SAFETY AND HEAL TH ACT HON. J. COWAN presented Bill No. 58,

An Act to Amend the Workp lace Safety and Health Act, for Seco nd Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister. HON. J. COWAN: Mr . Sp eaker, I will be brief. This is part of a package of a numb er of amendm ents which I outli ned in The Worker s' Com pensation Act amend ments, which bring the do mestic under the provisions of different Acts of the Leg islature which they had been excluded from by defini tion previ ously.

This happens to bring them under the prov isions of The Workpla ce Safety and Health Act and stands on its merit as part of that package and, I think, as a correc tion of an inju stice which has existed for some tim e and is now being remed ied. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, thank you, Sir. The amendment is inde ed a small one, Mr . Speaker, but it has some very interest ing implic ations when one looks at The Workp lace Safety and Health Act.

On past bills involving do mestics, whether it be with · respect to vacations with pay or with respect to em ployment standards, we have supported those bills and allowed them to pass. But now we have an amendment which means a dome stic is a worke r under The Workp lace Safety and Health Act and the worker in this Act gives to the admini stration, Mr . Speaker, some very interesting alternatives with respect to those peo ple who may be req uired to emp loy do mestics for health or whatever reasons or financially able to employ do mestics. One of the objectives of the Act, of course, in Sec tion 2(2)(

d) is, "the placing and maintenance of workers in an occupational environ ment adapted to their physiologic al and psycholog ical condition," and the Act goes on that, "the empl oyer," housewife I �up pose. "will have a duty to provide and maintain a workp lace, necessary equip ment, systems and tools that are safe and without risk to health." It goes on and on, Mr . Sp eaker, with respect to the duties of the emplo yer in a home employing a dom estic. Man itobans may want to consider this carefully, Mr. Speaker.

"The Min ister may authorize the director to inves tigate and make a special report to him on any accident, occurrence, or any matter of safety and health in the work place," that is the home , "or appoint the director to cond uct a public inquiry into any mat ter of safety or health in a home ," Mr . Speaker. There are im mense powers of regulatio ns, Mr. Speaker, including mon itoring the atmo sp heric or other condi tions in the home and, "the director may approve and issue such codes of practice or any amendm ent, etc., as in his opin ion are suitable with respect to the work place in a home." Mr.

Speaker, a safety and health officer can make inspections and inqui ries and he can, without a war rant and without prior notification, enter a home in which he has reason to believe workers or self emplo yed persons were work ing. They can make all sorts of exami nations and invest igations , Mr. Speaker, and take meas ureme nts and photographs and test eq uipm ent in the home. No w, Mr. Speaker, of course the Min ister can issue a stop-work warning. Mr. Sp eaker, if I were financially able to afford a do mestic my wife might be very happy if the Min ister were to issue a stop-work warning to my wife.

No w, Mr. Speaker, the Min ister might wish to either reconsider or clarify, at least, in summing up the extent to which he wishe s to imp ose the sections of this Act in homes where do mestics are empl oyed for, as I say, health reasons or people who are fi nancially ab le to do so. He mi ght indicate how many do mestics there are in Man itob a that are wo rking over 24 hours a week, if he has that informa tion, because under this Act, serio usly, Mr .

Speaker, the Min ister and the direc tor and those wor king in the admin istration have awe some powers to enter homes, etc., conduct investiga tions and recommendations, and I think he may want to reconsider it or he, at least, better clarify the inten tions of this particular amend ment. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, J. Storie: Are you ready for the question? The Honour able Min ister of Nor thern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Mr .

Sp eaker, I take very seriously the concerns which have been expressed by the mem ber pre vious and inform him that they were on our mi nds as we reviewed this particular amendment in light of the larger package of amendm ents, and they did cause us some concern as well. So we reviewed that situation quite carefully. I wou ld sugge st to him that the powers which he read out are perhaps not that out of line with the powers under The Emp loyment Standards Act, The Vacat ion With Pay Act, or The Workers' Com pensa tion Act, or the other Acts which are being amended in this fashion.

There are widespr ead regulatory powers that exist under those Acts which could, in fact, prc vide the same sort of potential for abus e which the memb er has ju st laid out in his brief com ments. However, I can assure him, if it's clarification that he wants, that this Mini ster does not intend to have those provisions used in that way. But that's rather weak clarification, the Min isters changing from tim e to tim e; the will of gove rnment changing from tim e to time. So that really isn't the appropri ate test as whether or not we should proceed with this amen dmen t. 3574

I think there are two tests, three tests perhaps, when giving it consider ed thought for a few mom ents. The first test is, is it necessary? Yes. I believe it is neces sary. I believe the discrimi nation which exists, the inequity which exists and, to use a stronger word, the inj ustice which exists as a result of the exclusion of these individu als from present legislation is worthy of remedy. I think the memb ers op posit e agree as well, and they have concerns about the way you go about pur suing that remedy, if I unde rstand them correctly.

I wo uld not want to im pute motiv es to them, as to sug gest that there should be denial of ju stice to do mestics or menial servants or whatever words one wants to use, so in fact there is cause. The seco nd test is, is it out of line with other legis la tion?

The Attorney -Gen eral has sugg ested not, and I have sugge sted that it is not that far out of line with other legislation that by either amend ment, by the legislation itself or by regulation, that there are many of those sorts of powers and potential for abuse con tained in the other Acts which are now having refer ence to do mestics by defi nition, and exclusion removed. The third test, I believe, which is an imp ortant one is, do sim ilar circumstances exist in other situations and have they been shown to have been abus ed in the past? The Workpl ace Safety and Health Act has only excluded do mestics.

So that means if you have a pain ter come into your house to paint your house, your house suddenl y beco mes a workp lace or worksit e under the Act. All those very same powers which the memb er has outli ned that could be abused in respect to the use of do mestic s could also be abused in respect to the use of painters in the house: carpenters in the house: persons coming in to clean out the stop ped drain, plumb ers in the house; any number of workers, the gas reader in the house, gas meter reader.

So all of those individu als who are performing work by defi nition under the Act, in fact, do present the same situation where that sort of abuse could take place if the gove rnment saw fit to exercise that sort of abuse. Neither the previous admin istrati on to his, or his admin istration, or this admini stration, I wou ld sugg est that risk of prop hecy - which is always some thing one shouldn' t do - that admin istrations to come will not abuse that Act in that particular way.

Then one asked, why bring the change in, what does it accomplish, is it mini mal, is it sign ificant, is it concis e, is it clear, is it marginal? We bring the amendment in to bring that legislation in line, not only with the other amendm ents, but in line with the think ing of the times in which we govern. I think that's im portant but, as wel l, it also is br ough t in in case a specific do mestic has a complaint, and that complain t is brought forward to the Workpl ace Safety and Health Division. As it stands now, we could do little except em pathize, sym pathize, offer advice and sug gest other remedie s.

I think you want to see a Work place Safety and He alth Division that can protect all workers as much as we want to see that happen. In this instance, if a complain t is brought forward it allows .. us the power to act. think tha t's the im por tance of the amendment and that is what we are seek ing by way of this amend ment - the power to act in specific instances where we feel it is warranted.

We 24 Jun e, 1982 3575 will be selective, as any gov ernment will be selective; we will be, I think, protective of the rights and liberties of those individ uals who own homes and emplo y do mestics as much as we are protective of the rights ol do mestics. So I think, having provided that clarification, I should now be able to enjoy the supp ort of the member op posit e which he ind icated was not forth com ing before having had the oppor tunity to provide him with such clarification. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Call Bill No. 63,

An Act to amend the Cr edit Unio ns and Cai sses Populair es Act. Bill NO. 63 -THE CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPU LAI RES ACT HON. A. ADAM presented Bill No. 63,

An Act to Amend the Credit Uni ons and Cais ses Populair es Act, for Second Reading . MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I now introduc e a bill to amend some sections of The Credit Un ions and Cai sses Populair es Act. These amendm ents are being proposed to this Legislatur e to allow recent requests from the leaders of the Credit Uni ons and Caisses Populair es syst ems to be met.

These amend ments help put into effect revised roles and responsi bilities of the Centrals of the Mem ber Deposit Guaran tee Funds and of the Department of Co-operative Deve lopment. I believe my predecessor, as Min ister, may confirm that the Credit Un ion and Cais ses Populair es syste ms would have preferred a comp lete revision and updat ing of this Act. I can inform this Hous e that the dep artment will be working with the system represen tatives toward that objective over the next year.

The amend ments propo sed in this bill are only those that are deemed esse ntial at this time and the system representatives believe should not await the com plete Act revision. These amendmen ts serve two broad purposes. Some Cr edit Un ions and Cai sses Populair es have been merged or dissolved over the past number of years. The existing Act did not provide the authority to the Reg istrar to issue a certificate that would allow the assets to be more easily transferred to the new entity. These amendmen ts correct that defi ciency in the current Act.

The amendme nts provide for the use of a scheme of arrangement which has the advant age of providing full information to affected memb ers while facilitating a merger process for deficit Credit Un ions. I want to stress to honour able mem bers that merger action for nondeficit Credit Unio ns or Caisses Populair es can only be initiated with the approval of the mem bers. In the case of deficit entities, mergers can be initiated upon a recom mendation of the supervisor which in our situation will be the Stabil ization Fund or les fon des de securite. The amend ments proposed to

Sections 14 0, 141, 14 2 and 14 4 provide for a revised method of appointm ent of mem bers to the Boards of the Cred it Un ions Stabilization Fund and les fonde s de securite, the Caisses Pop ulaires. Cu rrently the Act provides that these boards cons ist of one officer from the department and four other mem bers appoi nted by Cabi net from lists provided by the syste ms. Because the Go vernment of Manit oba is assis ting these two funds these boards will now be com posed entirely of memb ers appoi nted by Cabi net.

This will ensure a major ity position of gov ernment appoi ntees until such a time as the provin cial loans to the funds are repaid. Of course, there will be prior consult ation with system leaders and I hope to be in a position to announce the comp osition of the boards shortly. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Vi rden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, I wonde r if the Min is ter would permit a question for clarity only. He menti oned, I believe, the words, "a defi cit entity." Could he explain to the House what a "d eficit entity" is? HON. A.

ADAM: Well, my understanding of that word ing would be a deficit credit union. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for La Veren drye. MR. B. BANMAN: Mr . Speaker, I beg to mo ve, seconded by the Memb er for Min nedosa that deba te be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Go vern ment Hous e Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Speaker, would you please call the adjourned de bates on third readi ngs in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. You want to go with seco nd readi ngs? I thought we had an agreement when I - you want to do seco nd reading? Mr.

Speaker , there see ms to be an agree ment from the opp osite side that we sligh tly change the order annou nced at the beg inning of this Sess ion; I'm happy to do that. Would you please call the adjourned de bate on seco nd reading on Bill No. 30. AD JOURNE D DE BATES ON SECOND RE ADING Bill NO. 30 -T HE LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBl Y MAN AGEMENT COMMISSION ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed mo tion of the Honour able Attorney -General, Bill No. 30. The Honour able Memb er for Springfield. MR. A. AN STETT: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker.

Before I begin, I would like to advis e the Ho use that I have been designa ted by the Premier to speak in this debate under the provisions of Rule 33 (2). 24 June, 1982 Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to co ngratulate the gov ernment for bringing in this bill; not because I have had any special role in it, although that's certainly the case; not because of my special interest in it but, Mr . Speaker, because of what it represents. Mr . Speaker, this bill dimin ishes government power. The Leader of the Opp osition, in his remarks, went at great length on that point and I certainly concede the poi nt.

This is a concess ion by gov ernment of power to the Ass embly. All power that the Ass embly has originally springs fro m the Crown and it accedes some of that power to the Executive Branch of gover nment. This is one of those rare instances in which some of that power is being given back. At no tim e was there any delusions on the part of mem bers of the Execut ive Council on this side tha t shift was not going to occur; that was understood from the beginning.

Certa inly, there's no qu estion that kind of shift is sign ificant, because it is very seldom that gov ernments or Executive Councils, Cabine ts, give up power. In fact, some wou ld say that it's only Cons ervative Go vernments that would tend to dereg ulate, tend to give up power and give power back to the people in the form of the Ass embl y. Mr .

Speaker, I wou ld also define this as a very pro gressive piece of legislation because I believe it pro vide s to the Ass embly power which was the Ass emb ly's historically, but only in the 20th century has gradually been eroded because of the tremendous growth in the Executive Branch of govern ment. So although, Mr. Speaker, I would defi ne this as a some what conservative bill in the sense that it is not repre sentative of what we usually see in terms of the growth of executive power, and also a progressive bill.

Because of the remarks of the Leader of the Op posi tion yest erday, I hesitate to des cribe it as both a pro gressive and a conservative bill in the same phrase. 3576 Mr. Speaker, if we examine the role of govern ment in our society, we definitely see it as having three sepa rate com ponents; the judi ciary, the Executive, and Legisla tive branches. Those divisions are of sub stance, Mr. Speaker, and it's the substance of thos e divisions that causes me to have some di sagreements with the remarks of the Leader of the Op position yes terday, and I'll come to those later. Mr.

Speaker, certainly, in this bill, there are four major thrus ts. The fi rst of those is a very simp le one and the one to which the Op position indicated there was basic agreement, that is, to change the name and the mem bership of the Board of In ternal Economy. The seco nd major point is to provide a division of Executive po wers from Executive powers and to make that line and tha t division very distinct where, in the past, it has been fud ged because of the Executive authority over what many think of as Legislative pre rogative.

As the Memb er for Burrows said in his remarks yesterday, the major thrust of the bill is to make the Legisla ture supreme with respect to its own busi ness. The third major point that exists in the bill before the Hous e is to guarantee the independence of the Offic ers of the Ass embly from executive control by for mally establishing the structure and process of their financial independenc e. When I speak of the officers of the Ass em bly, I use the term in the widest sense to include the Ch ief Electoral Officer, the Provincial

Thursday, 24 June, 1982 Aud itor. the Omb udsman. as well as the Clerk of the Hous e and the Cle rk's Assistants. The fo urth major point that define s the thrust of this bill is that it provi des a vehicle to represent all of the interests that exist in the Ass embly on both side s of the Hou se, when there are only two pol itical parties represented, but also to include a third political party should one return or arise anew. Mr .

Sp eaker, that's imp ortant in terms of the Ass embly providing for the legiti mate needs of memb ers with respect to services that have to be available to them to do their job, both in the Legislativ e Ass embly here and also in their constituency. But the most signi ficant portion of this point is that it will draw an end to the ad hoe arrangements that have existed over the years; ad hoe arrangements which provide d for corridor consu ltations between mem bers and backb enchers and Ca binet Min isters and Leaders of the Opp osition in the past about changes in memb ers' services.

Also, the dependen ce which exis ted on behalf of those memb ers on the whims - and I don't use that in regard to any particular past Min isters - but certainly the whims of Min isters who have been Comm issio ners on the Board of In ternal Economy, because those two memb ers of the Executive Council could block or withhold solely on their own right, without representation through their caucus or with out representation from the Op position, changes that were wanted; changes which were often dependent upon the Min ister of Go vernment Services, the Mi nis ter responsible for MTS or whichever Min ister was respo nsible for providing the services about which the memb ers had some concern.

Mr .

Speaker, those are the four major thrusts but, more im portant than tha t, it has certainly been my intention and I believe the intention of memb ers on both sid es with whom I have discus sed this bill over the last few months , that this be a strictly bipartisan commissio n; that it operate - and I don't rule out the fact that votes could occur from tim e to tim e and they may, hopefully not in the forseea ble future - but they will operate much as the Ru les Comm ittee does, by consensus, because these are im portant matters, not really the subject of political de bate, but matters respecting purely mem bers' services and their ability to do their job.

Mr . Sp eaker, we know fro m experience that we have tended to be rather cons ervative about what we provid e to members. Some wou ld say we've been very stingy in fact for many years. Mr . Sp eaker, I would lik e to pay tribute, in speaking to this bill, to the contributions that have been made by two former Speakers of this Ho use, the Memb er for Vi rden and before him, the Mem ber for Concordia . Those two individ uals over the last almost 10 years have, at various times, drafted proposals for reform of The Board of In ternal Economy Comm ission ers Act.

They have lob bied with their respective govern ments and with mem bers and worked with the officers of the Assembly to propose legislation to two dif ferent gov ernments. The legislation they have proposed took dif ferent forms, but was basically conceived from the same principles which I am describing tonight and which are clearly enunciated in the bill before us. Despite the fact. Mr. Speaker, that both governme nts, I believe, agreed in principle with the principal thrust to change the name and memb ership of the board and make it a bipartisan comm ittee, for some reason it never got off the ground. Mr.

Sp eaker, that's one more reason why I believe that the timing of the bill this Ses sion is very im por tant, because we were able in the first Sess ion of a new govern ment to convi nce that gov ernment that there was reason to give to the mem bers of the Ass embly the power to control their own affairs in terms of servi ces, and also to give to the Ass embly the power to control those agencies of the Ass embly which were not part of government. Mr.

Sp eaker. having said that, I wou ld like to deal mo re directly with the com ments of the Memb er for Ch arleswood, the Honour able the Leader of the Opposition, which were made yesterday afternoon. Mr.

Sp eaker, I am pleased to see that the Mem ber for Charle swood accepts the basic principle that the Board of Internal Economy Commis sioner s should be broadened, and I am quoting, "to include memb ership from the Opposition so as to giv e a totality of repres entation to the board which wou ld represent the full spect rum of opin ion within the Ho use." He goes on to say, "I don't know of anyone on this sid e of the Ho use, or on the gov ernment side, who objects to that princi ple at all." So, Mr.

Speaker, the objec tions of the Memb er for Cha rleswood go on in some detail, but certainly he and I hope all mem bers in the Hous e accept the first principle in this bill. Mr . Speaker, the Member for Char leswood also sug gested that there was a department established in this bill and I have some dis agreeme nts with him on that. It's sugge sted, Mr . Speaker, by the Leader of the Op position, later on in his remarks yesterday, that there already existed a depar tment for which the Sp eaker was respo nsible.

So if there already existed a departm ent. we have some problem, if we're claimed to be creating a new one. Mr. Speaker. I wo uld suggest that ju st the op pos ite is the case; that really we only had a departmental structure provided in the Esti mates for purposes of having an Estimate It em and for purposes of providing for accounting and auditing and other services that are necessary because we're spending public mo ney. 3577 Mr .

Speaker, there has always been, not only a departmental structure. but a fundamental principle of separation of the Executive Branch and ihe Legisla tive Assembly and that principle wou ld be viola ted if we were to create a Department of Legislation or a Department of the Legislative Assem bly. In fact. Mr. Sp eaker, the creation of this comm ission in many ways. divorces the present pseudo-depart ment, which was created with the creation of the Board of In ternal Economy, and which had married in many ways the management of the Legis lativ e Ass embly to the Exec utive Branch.

This commission. because it is repres entiv e and does not have to report directly to the Executive but rather reports to the Assembly, repres ents a di vorce and a proper division between those two branches of gove rnment. So, Mr . Sp eaker. not only is it a department, but the bill will seek to estab lish the independe nce of the Ass embly and espec ially the agencies of the Ass embly from the structure and process of govern ment. Mr . Sp eaker. there was some concern about the exemp tion from the financial admini stration and Civil Service Act. Certa inly those exemptions are there

specifi cally to emp hasize that distinc tion between department and Legisla tiv e Ass embly, department of Executive Go vernment and Legislativ e Assem bly. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition sug gested in his remarks yesterday that we would, "create here a new kind of satellite that is unknown really to the present makeup of our parliamentary system in this prov ince." I suggest, Mr .

Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition imagines all things in gov ernme nt, perhaps with the exception of the jud iciary, in fact I am certain with the exception of the jud iciary, as an extension of executive authority. Just as the Memb er for Cha rleswood sugge sted that I suffer under some liabilities because of my past career I have to, with respect, suggest that he too suffers some liabilities in this regard. He has always, as an elected offi cial, as an elected member of this Hous e, also been a memb er of the Executive Council or been Leader of the Op posi tion.

He has never served a term as what Pierre Tru deau once called, the nobodies in the back bench, the nobodie s in Parliament. I am not sugg esting that the Memb er for Char les wood vie ws backb enchers that way for a min ute, because I kno w of his respect for this instit ution, but I would sug gest to him th at to know the situation in which memb ers who see advantages to this legisla tion are in, requires some service in that role and some perception of that role. So that is his liability. Perhaps it is not as serious as mi ne.

But I think certainly when the old saw, which says the law sharpens the mind by narrowing it is applied to a lawyer, it certainly brings out the point that we have to have breadth and be able to look at the si tua tion of all memb ers in the Ho use before we criticize legislation which is intended to benefit all 57 mem bers and not ju st backben chers and not ju st memb ers of the Executive Council. So, Mr .

Sp eaker, when we talk about all activities in this Ass em bly being under the control of the Execu tive and the Department of Leg islation, which pres ently exis ts as a pseudo-depar tment, as being really an extension of executive power because of the oper ations of the Board of In ternal Economy, we are really deny ing the existence of our very fundam ental parli amentary structure, that division between executive and legis lative authority. Mr.

Speaker , I am not pre pared to deny tha t existence, because I think histori cally and in terms of principles, it runs deeper than anything else in this Ho use and tha t's the way it should be. The Leader of the Op position also sug gested that

Section 6, Powers, under the new bill,

Section 6 deli neates the powers and responsib ilities of the pro posed Comm ission but

Section 6 Resp onsibilit ies are dupl ications of existing services. Mr. Speaker, I' d like to address that argument briefly.

Section 6.(2), provides that the Comm issions shall settle the Est imates of Expe ndit ure and the estab lishment of positions for staff req uired for the proper cond uct of the busi ness operation of the Ass embly , for the Ass embly Offices, for the Prov incial Aud itor, the Chie f Electoral Officer, and the Om budsman and their respective offices. If we accept the principle that the Legisla tive Ass em bly should have independenc e from the Execu tive, both the question of settling estimates and the estab lishment of positions for staff makes sense.

It 's 24 Ju ne, 1982 not a question of taking power away from the Civil Service Com mission, it's a question of power being removed from the Executive Branch of govern ment. the agencies of the Ass embly and the Ass embly itself coming under the direct authority of the Ass embly, and more imp orta ntly the direct delegated authority of the Speaker who is Cha irman of the Commission. Mr .

Speaker, it's worth pointing out that in effect the autho rity of the Speaker is changed in no way with respect to his former authority in the Board of In ternal Economy, although the provisions of the Act may be dif ferent and some would suggest that the Sp eaker has greater powers under this bill, he is Chairman of the management structure for the Asse mbly now and he will be, if and when this new bill meets the approval of the Ass embly. Mr .

Speaker, there's no intention and there has not been, of providing sepa rate staff to admin ister the Legisla tive Ass embly Ma nagement Comm ission or any of its requirements under this bill. The Depart ment of Consumer and Corporate Affa irs has been doing an excellent job of providing that service for many years, certainly the last dozen years and before tha t.

That service was provide d by the Department of the Prov incial Secretary which, when the Leader of the Op position was Atto rney-General was also a port fo lio under his responsibil ity, I'm sure he's fami liar with the services that were provi ded then. But, Mr . Spe aker, not only is it very well-known that they've done a good job but the autho rity to decide who provide s that service has always rested with the Board of Internal Economy, and that could have been changed at any time.

Should the Comm ission decide to seco nd staff from another department of govern ment for the nomi nal accounting and other require ments of the Legisla tive Ass embly and its offices, that could be done. Cert ainly that power exists, but there's no reason to do it. There's certainly no reason to hire additional staff and, Mr . Speaker, not only that, but the provisions for hiring those staff, which I'll come to later, are ju st as onerous on the Comm ission as they are on any Executive Department of Go vernment. 3578 Mr .

Speaker, one of the other sugg estions that was made was that the control of the Legisla tive Building, particularly mem bers accomo dation, facilities and services that was provided for in the Act would be a dup lication of services presently provided by the Department of Go vernment Servic es. Mr . Speaker,

Section 6 (

c) of the bill provide s that the Commission "is responsible for the prov'ision of facilities and servi ces required by the mem bers of the Ass embly, by the caucuses of the various parties to the Ass embly and by the leaders of the parties in opposition including, without limiting the generality of the foreg oi ng, secretarial supp ort and constituency offices." Mr. Speaker, certainly there's no question in that defi nition of the responsi bility that this Comm ission wou ld have control over the whole Legisla tive Build ing.

Now I know Speakers in the past have talked about the Sp eakers Office having control of what is defi ned as the Precincts of Parliament, but certainly there's no control implied, no control stated, and cer tainly the defi nition of Assem bly Offices is clear enoug h to kno w that it is limited to the offices of mem bers of the Ass embly and their caucus rooms. That control does not even extend to the office of the

Thursday, 24 Jun e, 1982 Clerk of the Hous e, let alone other agencies such as the Omb udsman or Ch ief Electoral Officer. Simila rly, Mr. Speaker, I think there's some confu sion op posite with regard to the question of security. There was some concern exp ressed about

Section 6(

e) which provi des that the new Comm ission will be responsible, "for developing in cooperat ion with the gove rnment a proper system of security for the Chamb er and Ass embly offices." Mr . Sp eaker, I would have been qu ite happy to see the bill read, "that the Commis sion will be required to rely on the Depar t ment of Gov ernment Services for security." But, Mr. Speaker, there's a problem with tha t because we already have a dual responsibili ty for security and the Leader of the Opp osition is ju st as aware of that provi sion as I am.

Security in this Chamb er is the responsibil ity of the Sergeant-at -Arms. Security within the Precincts of Parliament traditionally has been the responsi bility of the Sergea nt-at-Arms, and to define it any other way, such that the Comm ission would rely on the Depart ment of Gov ernment Services for security, would be to deny the role of the Sergeant-at-A rms. A traditional role that goes back historically, in fact, Mr. Speaker, long before govern ments had security the Sergeant at-Arms was responsible for the protective staff which protected mem bers in British parliamentary tradition and, Mr.

Speaker , the Leader of the Op position is ju st as aware of that fact as I am. So, Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Op position sug gests that we are usurping, or in some way remov ing the role of the Department of Govern ment Ser vi ces by this pro vision, is igno ring the very specific wording of the provision which requires the Com mis sion to develop its se curity program in co-operat ion with the gove rnment. Mr. Sp eaker, I want to say that I at this time see no change, no need for change in the arrangements that are made.

They could only be changed in co-opera tion with the go vernment and more specifically with the Department of Govern ment Services. If it would make the Leader of the Op position happy I would be happy to sugge st an amendment to provide that the wor ding instead of reading "govern ment" reads "D epartment of Govern ment Services," which is the department responsible.

But to criticize the bill as provi ding a duplication of services because of these types of prov isions which recognize the existing cir cumstance and are desig ned only to recognize that, and if necessary can be so heavily structured if it's the will of the Hous e, to limit the provision of those servi ces to the existi ng arrangements, I find it har d to believe that those are legitimate criticisms of the bill. But, Mr.

Sp eaker. later on ii was sug gested by the Leader of the Op position that the new Commi ssion would have the power transferred to it for making appoi ntment s to the Ombud smans office, and appoi ntments to the Ch ief Electoral office. Mr . Speaker, I said before, the law sharpens the mind by narrowing it, I can't find that authority in the bill. I looked at length for it because when the bill was drafted, provi sion to make those appoint ments was specifically avoi ded because we did not want to take away the powers that presently exist in those offices; and the provi sion for appoi ntments under

Section 8( 1) specific ally provi des that the Comm ission, "shall determine the method of appoin tment of the staff for the Asse mbly and for the Ass embly offices and may use the facilities of the Civil Service Comm ission in the emp loyment of staff for the Ass embly offices. Mr. Speaker, let's look at the defi nition of Ass embly offices jus t in case this isn' t completely clear. "Ass embly offices" in

Section 1 of the Act means, "the office of the Speaker, the office of the Clerk, the offi ces required for the admin istration of the Ass embly , The Legislative Ass embly Act and this Act. The office of the Leader of the Official Op posit ion; the offices of the leaders of other opposition parties; the offices of the caucus of the gov ernment party, the Offi cial Opposition and other opposition parties; the offices of members who are not mem bers of the Executiv e Council, " Mr . Sp eaker, it doesn't include Cabine t Min isters' offices. It only includes the offices of mem bers and the Clerks office. So, Mr .

Speaker, there is no provi sion in this bill whatsoever, although this was sugg ested by the Leader of the Oppo sition, for any appoi ntment power with respect to the office of the Omb udsman, the office of the Pro vincial Audi tor or the office of the Ch ief Electoral Officer. Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Op pos ition also had a very strong concern about the provision in the Act and specifically in

section 8( 1) , which sug gests the word "m ay" ratherthan the word "shall." He said that if the bill proceeds. cer tainly that is one change that is essen tial. No w, Mr. Speaker , I have to ask the Leader of the Opp osition if he would like this Comm ission to be required to use the facilities of the Civil Service Com mission in the em ployment of staff for Ass embly offices which include his office.

That if, when he chooses to hire a secretary, or his caucus, or the gov ernment caucus, choose to hire a secretary, that they will be required to use the full proced ures accorded to the Civil Service and to the public under the Civil Service Commis sion . 3579 Mr. Sp eaker, that was not the intent.

In fact, it was made very clear in initial discussions on this bill that those offices would be exem pted ju st the same as the Leader of the Op position agreed, and I concur, in the exem ption of Ass embly staff in terms of the part-time sessi onal staff and others who are hired for the Assem bly, bei ng exempt from those criteria that apply under The Civil Service Act. So, Mr.

Sp eaker, I have some concerns about the understanding of the intent of the Act, and if part of the fault of that is in the way the Act has been drafted or in the wording, I think certainly if and when the bill receives seco nd reading, ;hat is someth ing that can be looked at if it's a queston of clarifying some of those prov isions. But it certainly was the intention of the govern ment in the introd uction of the bill, that all staff other than those in the Ass embly offices and the staff serving the Ass embly would all be hired using proper Civil Service proced ures in accordance with the Act.

But certainly what we have come to know is political appoi ntments, whether they be the appoi ntment of an Execut ive Assistant in the Minis ter of Natural Res our ces office, the appoi ntment of an usher in the gallery, or the appointment of a sec, etary in a caucus room or Op position office, are appoi ntments solely the res ponsibil ity and within the prerogative of the individu als whom those secretaries serve. Mr. Sp eaker. I don't think anyone in this Cham ber wants to change that.

It's not the intention of the bill to change it. Simil arly, Mr. Speaker , all the other offices that the Leader of the Op position expressed some concern about, presently use the Civil Service Com mission and under this bill wou ld continue to do so. Once again, Mr . Speaker, no change. Mr. Speaker, it's also been sug gested that under

Section 8(2) of the bill there would be a wide open provision, in fact, with regard to the payment of salar ies and the es tablish ment of classifications with respect to civil serva nts. In tact we heard a shor t story about Molly, the very popular secretary, and we didn't want to pay attention to Civil Service pay rates. The leader was sugge sti ng what he claimed was an out landish example and I concur - I don't think it wou ld occur and I know he doesn't believe it wou ld occur - but it's pos si ble in the long run, when we're all gone.

"Well, we don't have to pay any intention to the Civil Service pay rates because the Act do esn't tell us we have to, and dear Molly here that we've appoi nted to do this job, she deserves a salary increase becaus e after all she's got additional responsibil ities at home." Mr. Speaker, there are probably circumstances in which emplo yers think that way, but the

section spe cifically provide s that every perso n so appoi nted shall - and I am reading, "8(2) (

b) be paid a salary or other remuneration as determined by the comm ission in conformity with the pay scales and classifications established under The Civil Service Act." Mr. Sp eaker, there's two factors here. One are the pay scales which are established annually under agreement with the MG EA; and secondly, the whole classific ation process - and, Mr .

Speaker, it was the intent of this provision and certainly I believe it's clear - that the classification process wou ld also have to fo llow the Civil Service Commission guid elines which include a detailed classification manual and all kin ds of other structures and regulations on the classific a tions that are available tor emplo yees. So, Mr . Sp eaker, I believe that rather than giving the Com mission power to deviate,

Section 8(2) su bsec tion (

b) requires the comm ission to pay salaries in conformity with both the pay scales and the classific a tions that exist in the Civil Service. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that provision - and if I am incorrect I would like to see it changed - requires this Comm ission to adhere to the classifica tions tor specific duties in spe cific jobs that are used in the Civil Service at large. If that's not the case, Mr. Speaker, I am willing to accept a sugge stion for a change.

It's certainly not the case as the Leader of the Op position sugg ests, that we would create a mo nster which can creates all its own classi fications and pay whatever it wants. That is exactly not the case and, Mr. Sp eaker, I commend the reading of

Section 8(2) to the Hono urable Leader of the Op posi tion , who still seems to think that what the Act says is not what it means. Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the single most impor tant object ion, I think perhaps to some extent the objec tions I have referred to earlier are minor con cerns that could easily be remedied if they had any basis in fact and I will concede that there may be some basis in fact but it has not yet been demons trated. But if it's there, I think it can be accom modated. Mr. Sp eaker, I think the most imp ortant difference of opin ion regarding thi s bill relates to

Section 9(1 ) , 24 June, 1982 and this goes to the very funda mental question of the removal or excession of executive power by the Exec utive to the Leg islature as proposed in this bill. Mr . Speaker , the remarks of the Leader of the Op position when he talks about this, "Serious eros ion of the power of collective responsi bility of the Executive Council for the mo ney that is spent by govern ment, represents very clearly a failure to recog nize the con stitutional difference between the Legis lative Assem bly and the Executive Council." Mr .

Sp eaker, the argu ment that the Executive Council must at all times control all expenditur es and vote all expenditur es before that mo ney can be expended by either this Com missio n, or by any agency of gov ernment, tails on one very signi fcant point which stands out within the dep artment of legis lation - and I commend you r Estimate Books to those who do not recall that there is a statutory provision in that esti mate - and those sums are not voted, yet they change from year to year.

They increase accord ing to form ulas, pension benefit calculations and other con tributions to the Esti mate process, over which the Ass embly has no control; the Executive Council cer tainly doesn't. 3580 Those Es timates are placed within the Estima tes Book and under the heading of Leg islation, without regard to a particular vote and without regard to the wis hes of the Executive Cou ncil. They are statutory requireme nts. Simil arly, Mr.

Speaker, in recognizing that there are certain peculiarities to the Legis lative Ass embly, which make it di ffere nt from any other dep artment of gov ernment, and ther efore make it really not a depa rtment, we have to recogn ize that historically the power of the Ass em bly, which the Leader of the Op position descri bed as the power to vote supply, has always been twice that. It has been both the power to vote sup ply and the power to ta

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-83b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 83b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	30ac762b9ab0355ef008e56cb063068a72389455

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