LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 29 April, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Ph illips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Present ing Reports by Standing and Sp ecia l Committees . . . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TA BLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to table the Sup pleme ntary In formation for the 19 87-8 8 Estimates debate. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co­ op Development. HON. J.

COWAN: Yes, Madam Speaker , I'd like to table Return to Order No. 7, on the motion of the Member for Emerson, dated June 9, 19 86. MADAM SPEAKER: Noti ces of Motion ... Introduction of Bills . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before I move into Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members first to the galler y, where we have 60 students from Grade 9 from the Mennonite Brethren Collegiate, under the direction of Mr. Bill Enns. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Elmwood. We have 26 students from Grade 9 from the Pierre Radisson School.

The students are under the direction of Mrs. Alice Pelletier, and the school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. May I also direct the attention of honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have visiting with us Mr. James H. Bilton, who was a member of this Legislative Assembly for 15 years, and a former Speaker of this Assembly. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you back to Manitoba, Mr. Bilton.

ORAL QUESTIONS Gunn, N.D.- contractor re Limestone Training Program MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Minnedosa. 1453 MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Limestone training project. I wonder if he could confirm to the House whether N.D . Gunn Ltd. or Mr. N.D. Gunn has a contract with the Limestone Training Program. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: N.D. Gunn has not, to my knowledge, been a contractor. I think that the Limestone training agency rented one or two pieces of equipment from him.

I can indicate that N.D. Gunn tendered for a project to install water and sewer services in the Sund ance Community Centre. They were the lowest tenderer by some $19 7,000, and they were awarded the job and they comple ted the job satisfactori ly. They also had a subcont ract with ATCO Limited, and that was negotiated between themselves and ATCO. My understanding was that the work that they did under that subcontract was com pleted satisfactori ly. MR. D.

BLAKE: A supp lementary question, I wonder if the Minister might provide us with some more details on the contract that he has with the Limestone Trajning Program, the number of pieces of equipment and the rental that's being paid on this particular equipment. HON. W. PARASIUK: Yes, Madam Speak er, I'll take that as notice and get the information as soon as possible. Gunn, N.D.- loan from Communities Economic Development Fund MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speak er, I have a question for the Acting Premier, in view of the fact that the Premier is not in question period.

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member knows he's not to refer to the presence or absence of any mem ber. MR. J. DOWNEY: I apologize, Madam Speake r. To the Acting First Minister of the province, Madam Speak er, when did the Premier and Cabinet approve the loan to Mr. N.D. Gunn through the Communities Economic Devel opment Fund, and what Cabi net document was used for that approval? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Minister of Community Services.

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 HON. M. SMITH: I'll take the specifics as notice, Ma dam Speaker, but I think the preliminary comment could be that any approvals were done in the normal fashion for CEDF approvals. MR. J. DOWNEY: Madam Speaker , in view of the fact that Mr.

Gunn, first of all, did not qua lify under the act because of the residence or the place of his business, not being in a remote or isolated commun ity, being in Winnipeg at 41 Higgins Avenue; in view of the fact that same individual was being sued for non-pa yment by three other companies and, as well, by the Manitoba Labour Board in 1985 for non-payment of wages, why would the government proceed to approve the loan for $350,000 in April of 198 6, or when the Communities Economic Development flowed the loan in April of 19 86? Why would they app rove such a loan? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Sp eaker, I think tha t's a question more appropri ately dealt with in committee. Textbook material - complaints about MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Education. I know that the Minister has received complaints regarding the inapp ropriateness of textbook material, and the complaints have attacked both the reading level and the content of this mater ial. To date, the Minister has failed to act.

Would the Minister explain to this House why a science text used in Grade 9 and Grade 10 , and primarily used in Gr ade 10 , title d "Packaging Passengers" has a reading level on four reading tests of Grades 6, 5, 7 and 7.5. MA DAM SPEA KER: The Honourabl e Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I think the Member for River Heights is aware that the process that is in place for the development of curriculum and curriculum materials in the province is a very extensive process.

It is reviewed by a committee of members which includes teachers, members of the Faculty of Education, science special ists, parents, a tremendous array of people with a lot of talent. The information that the member refers to is only part of an extensive set of materials that are available for teachers to use and, of course, the reading levels in various materials produced by various sources is different. Madam Speak er, I und erstand that the average newspaper contains a reading level, or is prepared at a reading level of app roximately Grade 6.

That doesn't mean that the information that it passes on isn't both appr opriate and accurate, or hopefully , Madam Speaker. So, the reading level really is not the issue, certainly not necessarily the issue. The question is: Is the information good? Is it appropriate for the grade level? Is the information that the students need in terms of the whol e scope and sequence of the scienc e curriculum? Those are the question that needs to be asked. Textbook material - computer program to assess readability level MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A supple mentary question to the same Minister.

Could the Minister explain why, when a computer program is available at the Department of Education to measure readabilit y, it is not used in this process of choosing textbooks, thereby leading to a poor learning environment and wasted money? HON. J. STORIE: I think the member has demonstrated some intellectual gymnastics in that question, Madam Speaker, jumping as she did from her

preamble to her conclusion. Ma dam Speak er, the Member for River Heights should know tha t individual teachers, schools and school divisions make the choices with respect to the textbooks that are used, the supple mental material that they choose, from a wide variety of appro ved material. So, Madam Speaker, the fact tha t the depar tment has the capabili ty of assessing the readability of textbooks is not a determinant of the final selection of materials in our school system. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A final sup plementary to the same Minister.

Will the Minister assure the House that all textbook material appr oved by the Department of Education will in the future be evaluated for reading levels, and that this information be passed on to teachers so that they can make a well- evaluated choice on the textbooks for their school childr en, so that $6.5 million now spent on textbooks will not be used ineffectively? HON. J. STORIE: I can accept the recommendation, the suggestion made by the Member for River Heights. I think it has some merit. I think I should indicate that assessing the readability level of any set of materials is not an exact science.

Readabil ity, of course, has as its set of norms, preco nditions which may or may not hold for a given school. While I think that there is some merit in the suggestion that materials, where possible, be provided with a readability level for the information of teachers, I would certainly want to review how expensive and how effective that might be. Communities Economic Development Fund - policy re loans to Winnipeg companies MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mada m Speak er. My question is to the Minister responsible for CEDF.

It has to do with a $350,000 loan made by CEDF to N.D. Gunn, that loan which will not likely be recovered by the Province of Manitoba, to a contractor who operated and who obviously was in financial difficulty, and the loan having been made unde r some questionable circumstances. My question to the Minister is: When did the policy of CEDF change toward awarding loans to Winnipeg 1454

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 residences and Winnipeg companies, given that on Thursd ay, May 3, 19 84 the general manager, Mr. Hugh Jones, of CEDF said, in response to a question about that very topic: "We certainly never have made loans in Winnipeg, I couldn't foresee the day when we would"? And given that Mr. Gunn was and is a resident of Winnipeg and operates here, why was that loan made and when did the policy change to allow him to be given that loan? MADAM SPEAKER : The Hono urable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. E.

HARPER: Madam Speaker, the person in question was a resident of Norway House, and he's got a business addre ss in Norway House. I might indicate also that, in terms of the process, how the applicant received a process, approach was made to CEDF in early Augus t 19 85 and Gunn had been awarded a contract at Sundance. The appl icant had thought the necessary working capital and financing would have been made available through the credit union. On an urgent basis, the proposal was analyzed in the normal way, CEDF staff and a board submission was prepared.

On August 13, 19 85, the board of directors met and, because of the contract revenue, recommended the Minister a loan guarantee of $1 50,000, and a loan of $1 02,0 00 was recommended to the Min ister. The purpo se was to acquire equipment and to finance a contract. The proposal was then sub mitted to Cabinet on August 28, 19 85, and app roved. A formal letter of offer was issued and normal security taken. In early 19 86, the applicant reapproached the fund for increased working capital to accomodate the needs of a further contract at Limestone to generate a net of $25,000 per month.

On April 23, 1986, the board of directors appro ved a revised financing package consisting of a guarantee of $200,000 and a loan of $1 50,000.00. The board of directors, when they met in Winnipeg on May 7 ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Is the Honourable Minister making a ministerial statement? Ma y I remind Honourable Ministers that answers to questions should be as brief as possible. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Minister can indicate what is the current total exposure of the province through its Crown agencies for Mr.

Gunn and the money that has been put into that company? HON. E. HARPER: Yes, I was getting to the response to that area. CEDF responded to this company's application which was ratified by the board on Ma y 7, 19 86, and this restructured assistance was appr oved in Cabinet on April 30, 19 86.

Based on the clear evidence of sufficient revenue, and having received all normal information the funds seeks - it should be noted that while there has been no formal bankruptcy action taken, the fund has taken all steps to it under its security documentation - and the end result of the whole exercise is expected to conclude with virtual total recovery of the investment of taxpayers' money in this company. It might also be noted that, when the restructuring took place, the fund was reassured by appoint ment of the shadow manager through the assistance of the Federal Business Development Bank.

Gunn, N.D.- length of residency at Norway House MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Minister can indicate how long Mr. Gunn had been a resident of Norway House when he made this appl ication. HON. E. HARPER: Mr. Gunn was born there, and also he has a business address there and, based on the information that was provided to CEDF, the board of directors recommended that this loan be approved. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, can the Minister ind icate whether Mr. Gunn had act ually been in residence in Winnipeg for at least the past decade? HON. E.

HARPER: I don't know whether I could answer that because it is a personal thing, and also at the same time I would have to check as to whether Mr. Gunn has resided in Winnipeg here off and on. McKenzie Seeds - potential loss MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds. The statement that was tabled yesterday with respect to McK enzie Seeds does not reflect the cost of interest on the money that was borrowed for the $12 million refinancing of McKenzie done in 19 83, 19 84 and 19 85.

How much would the loss have been if the province had not taken this $1 2-million debt off McKenzie Seeds' balance sheet? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister responsible for McKenzie Seeds. HON. W. PARASIUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can take that specific question as notice, but the company in the last year paid some hundr eds of thousands of dollars to the Manitoba Development Corporation, in addition to the profits it shows.

It's true that there was a conversion of some debt to capital in terms of preferred shares several years ago but of course, if we hadn't been operating the company this year , we wouldn 't have gotten those hundr eds of thousands of dollars back; we wouldn't have had the $300,000 profit. We would have had hundr eds of Brandon residents unemplo yed; we would not have had the kind of tax income -(Int erjection)- Well, the Member for Morris mentions sug ar.

Then he would well know that we know wherein our government books show the interest on the money we paid to the sugar farmers in 19 85, nor does the Opposition ever demand that we show tha t on our books, so be fair. McKenzie Seeds - cost to province to operate MR. G. FILMON: Ma dam Speaker, when the Minister doesn't know the information, he decides to shout, so that's his normal tactic in this House. 1455

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 Madam Speaker, given that information that has been provided to me by the President of McKenzie Seeds indicates that the borrowing cost on that $12 million would be $1. 26 million this year alone, will the Minister now acknowledge that, given the profit of $303,000, in fact it has cost the province over $900,000 to have Mc Kenzie Seeds operating this past year? MA DAM SPEA KER: The Honour able Minister of Ind ustry, Trade and Technolo gy. HON. V. SCHROEDER: No, Madam Speak er, it does not mean that at all.

What it does mean is that, had we shut the place down in 19 85, when we converted it we would have lost that money. If the Leader of the Opposition understood financial statements, he would unde rstand that the depreciated value, the book value of this operation, is less than $3 million. Had we shut it down then, we would have lost that $12 million.

It would have been gone forever, plus we would not have received the $300,000 we received this year, plus we would not have received the several hundr ed thousand dollars the MDC received back, plus we would not have received the income taxes paid by the hundreds of employees, plus we would not have had that operation in Brandon. It is simply not true at all that we lost $900,000 because we're in operation this year. In fact, because we're in operation this year, we gained over half a million dollars directly, and far more than that again in taxes.

I would challenge the Leader of the Opposition to prove anything otherwise. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, no one is suggesting that McKenzie Seeds ought to be shut down. We're suggesting that the Minister ought to be truthful. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Question period is a time for asking questions, not delivering information. McKenzie Seeds - interest on divide nd payments MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister could indicate whether or not McKenzie Seeds paid anything to the province, either in interest or dividends on the $12 million of preferred shares that it holds in the company this past year. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, I'm sure that the Leader of the Opposition can either read the statement or hire someone who could read it for him. However, the Leader of the Opposition stated very clearly in his second-la st question that it cost $900,000 to the province to operate McKenzie Seeds last year. That is absolutely incorrect.

Had we not been operating it, had we sold it in 1985, was it still running, we still would have lost that $900,000 if he wanted to add that on and on and on, forever and ever, Madam Speaker. It is simply not true that we lost $900,000 in running McKenzie Seeds, and he can use those numbers, whether it is in the private sector or in the public sector. Anyone who is an accountant knows full well the balderdash that the Leader of the Opposition is attempting to foist on the people of Manitoba, and that I think is why even the Member for Brandon West is quiet on this issue toda y.

McKenzie Seeds - reason for refinancing MR. G. FILMON: I'm gl ad tha t the Min ister has acknowledged that McKenzie didn't pay any interest or dividends on those preferred shares this past year. My further question to the Minister is: Would he tell us whether one of the reasons for the McKenzie refinancing was merely to improve the appearance of McK enzie's balance sheet, and to promote the image of a healthy corporation rising from the ashes of financial distress? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, people in Manitoba, outside of the Conservative Party in this Chamber , und erstand full well that when losses have 1 been maintained over a period of two decades, including Tory years when we acquired this operation back in the Sixties and the Lyon Government in the Seventies and others, when you add on those deficits year after year after year, and then attempt to charge them back to the operations now and say that if we don't pay back on all of that, on the basis of this year's operations, that somehow we're doing something wrong, they understand that's nonsense.

They understand that we shouldn't show the $3 million of payments we made to the sugar beet farmers in 1985, and try to collect the interest, or on hogs , or on dairy, or on the many stabilization programs we run. That doesn't make any economic sense for Manitoba, and that's why they're on that side. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, will the Minister indicate whether or not one of the reasons for the refinancing was merely to improve the appearance of McK enzie's balance sheet? Is that why it was done by this government? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That question is repetitious. The Honourable Member for Rhineland.

MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is to the Minister of Community Services. SOME HONOURA BLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Does the Honourable Member for Brandon West have anything to put on the record? MR. J. McCRAE: Thank you for the opportunity, Madam Speak er. It is true that the Chair does not take the responsibility for the fact that Ministers opposite don't answer questions. 1456 MADAM SPEAKER: And I do hope that was no reflection on the Chair.

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 MR. J. McCRAE: . . . (inaudible) . . . Madam Speaker, but it certai nly was a reflection on the answers given to us by members opposite. Sogi, John - whereabouts of MA DAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Community Services. Can the Minister say where the retardate - and I bel ieve his name was John Sogi, who was with Mitch Gowler when he met his death - is at the present time? MA DAM SPEA KER : The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speake r, he's living in the residence that's operated by DASCH.

Mentally handicapp ed - criteria for placement in group homes MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. Can the Minister say who does the selection for placement of retardates into group homes and what criteria is used, and what information about the placements is shared with group homes and the community that the retardates are pla ced in? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Spea ker, the process of identifying people for pla cement in homes will vary, depending on whether they're moving from an institution or from a family home.

In the case of movement from the institution, the Provincial Steering Committee would be one group that would have access to the information and would originally have ap proved the criteria. The regional implementation teams who have representation of staff from the mental retardation and vocational rehabili tation program side of the Community Services Department, and the volunt eer group representatives on that committee, along with family members if they are still involved with the individual, would be so involved.

Again, the criteria for placement is whether the needs of the individual can be appr opriately met in the commun ity, and they have what they call a 24-hour planning process that meets all the basic requirements of the individual for care, for supervision, for day program ming, for recreation and so on. Mentally handi capped - number placed in community MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. How many more severely retarded and potentially dang erous retardates have been placed in the communit y, and have the communities been made aware of the potentially dangerous situation? HON. M.

SMITH: Madam Sp eaker, the assumptions that are being made that for retardates to live in the community is dan gerous to the community and to themselves is so misleading and so unfair to the individuals and their families. At the same time, Madam Speaker, none of us can deny tha t there are always some risks with any living arrangement, whether it's in the family home, whether it's in an institution, or whether it's in a commun ity.

There are some small number of retarded persons who can, on occasion, pose some threat to other people, but to generalize and deny all retarded persons the right to live in a more supportive and nurturing environment in the community, based on the assumptions expressed by the member opposite, I think is just a great disservice to the disabled and to their families. Mentally handica pp ed - prevention of risk MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland with a final sup plemen tary. MR. A. BROWN: Madam Speaker, my question is to the same Minister.

Does she mean to tell me that she has done absolutely nothing to prevent another occurrence such as what we have just seen? Has she done absolutely nothing to prevent another Mitch Gowler epis ode from occurring? HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, the only 10 0 percent safe place for a human being is to be in the grave. I don't even know if there is a place during life where you could be 10 0 percent secure, even in a prison, in an institution, in a hospital bed, in a community home, in the family home. There are always some risks.

What we can do as families and as communities and as gove rnment, people respo nsible for care of the retarded, is to do everything we can to minimize risks and to optimize their opportun ity for a decent life. Madam Speaker, if the member opposite has specific recommendations or questions that he would like to raise or make with me, I would appreciate it, because I think the goal of all of us working in this very difficult field is to get as much sup port and opportunity for the retarded people as we possibly can.

But to generalize from one really tragic unfortunate incident to the total system for care of the retarded, Madam Spea ker, is a travesty of what debate in this House is sup posed to be all about. Farms - federal farm credit foreclosure - Man. Gov't position MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Spe aker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Recently the Federal Minister of Agriculture has ann ounced tha t they are li fting the farm credit foreclosure. It seems to me, Mada m Speake r, this couldn't come at a more inopportune time.

I was wondering if the Minister of Agriculture could state his position on this untimely act. MADAM SPEAKER: Could the honourable member please rephra se his question so it's definitely within 1457

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 the jurisdiction of the Honourable Minister, not his personal opinion? MR. C. BAKER: What is the Manitoba Government's position on this untimely act, Madam Speaker? MA DAM SPEA KER: The Hon ourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Madam Speake r. I wish to indicate that the Province of Manitoba has had an implicit foreclosure on its own lending through MACC, and in fact has had a policy that has developed into a long-term lease option for its clients.

We are, in the case of the recently announced FCC for lifting of the moratorium, Madam Speaker , very concerned that lifting, in fact, will place into jeopardy hundr eds of farm families who could be offered lease­ back provisions, even though they have been indica ted it's a possibility, because we believe that the review process certainly is unnecessary for those farmers on whose farms a moratorium has been put into place.

What is required, Mada m Speaker, is a long-term lease-back pol icy to maintain as many farmers as we can, because it appears the signal that's coming out of Ottawa is that we'll use the review process to basically get people off the land and not keep them on the land, Madam Speaker . Farms - number of foreclosures MR. C. BAKER: A supple mentary question, Ma dam Spea ker. Firstly, I'd like to repeat the question that was asked by the Member for Arthur . How many foreclosures have we had on Manitoba farms, in Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, in the last six years since I have been Minister, there have been less than 10 foreclosu res in the corp oratio n . I bel ieve it's something like half a dozen, but it's less than 10 in six years. Farms - request for federal support program MR. C. BAKER: A final supple mentar y, Ma da m Spea ker. Can the Minister tell us if he is taking any action to ask the Federal Government to put in place a farm support progra m so tha t farmers can have at least some idea that they are going to receive fair income for the crop that they're putting in right now? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate that I'm very pleased that there is and has been an all-night deba te in the House of Commons dealing with the crisis in agriculture, sponsored by the Hon. Stan Hovdebo from the Province of Saskatchewan, raising these concerns in the House of Commons.

Madam Speaker, I have asked my staff to, at this time, send a telex to the Honourable Minister John Wise, indicating that there should be a national farm strategy putting into place three components, using the debt review process to mediate arguments between farmers and creditors, and establishing a fund for the fed eral board to be used to facilitate thes e arrangements, a fund similar to tha t in pl ace in Manitoba.

And as well, Madam Speaker, an annou ncement of a policy of leasebacks to FCC farmers signing quitclaims to enable the farmer to continue farming; and third ly, a supple mentary national operating loan guarantee program to ensure the availability of operating funds. This strategy, Ma dam Speaker, can be put into place, along with the moratorium being continued. As well, Madam Speaker, we have asked that . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Is the Honourable Minister making a ministerial statement? HON . B.

URUSKI: No, Madam Speaker, all I'm doing MA DAM SPEA KER: Ma y I remind Ho nourable Ministers that answers to questions should be brief. HON. B. URUSKI: Yes, Madam Speaker. We are making one more point in the telex that we're sending, and I would be pleased to table it for my honourable friends. That is an early announc ement to the farm incomes of grain farmers be announced because of the decline of 50 percent in their incomes forecast for next year. School busing - policy change re contract buses MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Spea ker.

I have several neighbours who will be surprised to learn that after they gave up their titles to MACC that they didn't need to have done so. My question is to the Minister of Education, Madam Speaker. Does the Minister intend on enforcing the recent pol icy changes made within his department that are made regarding the contract buses, and particularly contract buses that are below a certain designated size? MA DAM SPE AKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speak er, I'm going to take that question as notice.

Unless perhaps the member can offer some additional detail, I will have to take it as notice. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Well, Madam Speaker, it appears that departmental policy this summer will be that small contract buses will not be allowed to be used for the transportation of students. Does the Minister intend to enforce the regulation that buses must be of a certain size, even though they will be travelling on roads that cannot handle turnaround 1458

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 space, and handle the un becoming situation that is developing in some of the LGD's on the roads? Is it his intention to enforce a regulation to put larger vehicles in an area where they're really not needed? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker , I'd like to thank the member for that clarification. The fact is that there remains something like 20 buses, I bel ieve, Madam Speaker, which do not conform to the regulations that have been put in place to ensure student safety as we transport our students the many hundr eds of thousands of miles across the province.

Madam Speak er, some exceptions have been made, and some changes have been recommended, to ensure that all buses conform to the appropria te safety st andards. I recog nize tha t th ere are some circumstances where that is going to create some prob lems and I have asked staff to review those circumstances and see whether, in fact, exemptions or exceptions should be made, but I want to indicate to the member that the prime concern is the safety of our students as we are transporting them. We, in Manitoba, Madam Speak er, have an enviable record, and I would not want the Member for Ste.

Rose to be put in the position of jeopardizing a student in his area because of some concern over a few dollars cost, a few dollars of modification, that might be necessary to meet the standards. School busing - safety regulations MR. G. CUMMINGS: A new question to the Minister. It is precisely because of the safety concerns that I rise to question the implementation of this policy because, Madam Speaker, I want to know if he intends to allow the transportation of children on vehicles that (

a) are not licensed by the department because, where parents are gi ven money to transport in lieu of transportation, they will not be transporting those students on licensed and inspected vehicles; and (

b) does he intend to allow the transportation of students by drivers who have not passed specifications for school bus operation, which is now required by regular school buses? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speak er, I think the Member for Ste. Rose raises some interesting questions. Clearly , the school divisions are responsible, along with the department, for ensuring that there are safe operation of vehicles transporting students. To the extent that parents , others, ha ve transported students, the standards obviously have not been imposed.

The standards have been imposed on those vehicles and drivers who operate for the division and on behalf of the division. Whether we would want to get into requiring special ized equ ipment, additional expens e for individuals who transport their own students, their own childr en, is something that may be worth considering. Credit Union Stabilization Fund - tabling of credit union amounts MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Ma da m Sp eaker.

We hear constantly from the government side that banks are ripping off the public, so my question is to the Minister of Co-operative Development. The Province of Manitoba and the people of Manitoba have subsidi zed the credit un ion and the caisse populaire, through the Stabi lization Fund, to the amount of $17 million in five years. My question would be: Would the Minister tell this House how many credit unions and caisses populai res have received financial assistance from the $17 million over the past five years? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co­ op Development. HON. J.

COWAN: Yes, just so I don't misinterpret the

preamble to the question, I hope the Member for La Verendrye is not grouping the credit unions and caisses populai res into the same group with the banks when he talks about the ripping off of the general public. I'm certain he's not, but I want to make it very clear that they are two different types of institutions, and the credit unions and the caisses populaires in this province play a very vital and important role in the economic development of Manitoba. I don't think there's been anyone who suggested that they were ripping off the public or doing a disservice to their province.

Exactly the opposite is, in fact, the case and true. In respect to the specific question about the provision of assistance, that is done th rough the 19 82 loan agreement. I would be pleased to provide the detailed information to the member, either in a subsequent question period on my feet or in writing, as it will be fairly lengthy . Also, I know we'll have, during the Estimates, an opportunity to discuss that in detail as well.

But if he wanted that information previous to the Estimates being conducted, I'd be more than happy to provide that information, which can be made public to him in writing or, if he requires, on my feet in question period. Credit Unions - number seeking assistance and amounts MR. H. PANKRATZ: Madam Speak er, to the same Minister. It's the banks that are paying 14.5 percent, the debe nture of the loan, which the Credit Un ion Stabi lization Fund is realizing the interest, which amounts to $17 million. So my question is: How many credit unions and caisses populaires were in financial trouble in 19 82? HON. J.

COWAN: There were a significant number of credit unions and caisses populai res, and let us be very clear about what we're talking about when we talk about credit unions and caisses populaires. We're talking about 330,000 Manitobans, who are members of those organizations and have invested billions of Ma nitobans savings and dollars in their province through those organizations. Any financing . . . SOME HONOURA BLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: I hear the Member for the Royal Bank getting quite agitated about the credit un ions and caisses populaires. 1459

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order , order please. As the honourable member well knows, we only refer to honourable members by their constituencies. The Honourable Minister. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Sp eaker, I apologize to the honourable member if I referred to him by his constituents, rather than his constituenc y. MADAM SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Minister please withdr aw any inference that he's just made with regard to the honourable member. The Honourable Minister of Co-op Development. HON. J. COWAN: Yes.

If the honourable member is offended by my comment on his relationship with the Royal Bank, I withdraw it entirely; I withdraw any inferences, any imputations, or anything that would make him the least bit sensitive about that relationship, categorically and unequ ivocal ly. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Yes, on a point of order. I am not disturbed about any reference he makes to me about my connection with the Royal Bank whatsoever. I was merely referring in my remarks across the floor.

We hear from members so often from opposite sides about the Federal Government bailed out the banks; they didn't bail out the banks that went broke, they bailed out the . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order , order please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Co-op Development. HON. J. COWAN: That's exactly the point I was trying to make. When we provide assistance to the credit unions and the caisses populaires, it goes back to the people, the membership of the province.

When the Federal Government provides assistance to the banks, it is the shareholders of those banks who receive that assistance. There were a number of credit unions and caisses populaires, Madam Speaker , that required assistance. I can get the detail for the member and provide it to him at a later date. MADAM SPEAKER: Order , order please. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye with a final supple mentary. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Spea ker. Yes, my final supple mentary, it has cost the Province of Manitoba $17 million in five years, and I believe it has bailed out 10 credit unions, Madam Speaker .

I wish that the Minister of Co-operative Development would table that information, which credit unions and the amounts each credit union has received. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, firstly, let the record be cle ar, there were proble ms in 1982. We had to provide assistance to the credit union system general ly, which was then provided to specific credit unions tha t needed assistance. As a result of that assistance, we have one of the healthiest and strongest credit union and caisse populaire systems in the entire country in Manitoba today.

We're proud of that assistance, and we're proud of the success they've been able to make as a result of us being able to help them and help 330,000 Manitobans and their families in 19 82. The specific information which he requires, Mada m Sp eaker, can be provided to him with the caveat that it is public information general ly, and there are some restrictions which have been discussed before and agreed to before between the Opposition and myself in Estimates. We can provide the detail to him, but let there be no misinterpretation of the situation today.

We have a stronger and healthier credit un ion-caisse populaire system because of that assistance. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MA DAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Madam Speak er, I've discussed briefly with the Opposition House Leader a request tha t we'd ask for leave for the Premier to make a statement regarding his trip tomorrow, based on the questions that were asked by the Leader of the Opposition.

I would ask then tha t we revert to Min isterial Statements so tha t the Premie r can make his comments, and the Leader of the Opposition can make his response. MADAM SPEAKER: Is is the will of the House to revert to Ministerial Statements? (Agreed) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TA BLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I have a statement on tomorrow's First Mini sters' mee ting on the Constitution.

The Prime Minister has requested a meeting with the Provincial Premiers to assess progress over the last several months in informal discussions among Ministers and officials. Those discussions have largely been of an exploratory nature aimed at identifying and clarif ying options which could lead to an agreement to bring Quebec back into full partnership within the Canadian Confederation. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister made a major statement about the background and purpose of tomorrow's meeting.

These are some of the Prime Minister's words: "With the Constitution Act, 1982, we now have a supreme law of the land, a social contract, that binds Quebec without the consent of its National Assembly. 1460

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 "It is unacceptable that the wounds of the recent past not be healed . Quebec, whose distinct society enriches the very nature of Canada , must rejoin the constitutional family. "To do so will require us to find a balance between the princ iple of the equality of all the provinces, and the need to protect and enhance the distinctiveness Quebec brings to Canada ." "I have now come to the conclusion that preliminary discussions on whether to begin formal negotiations on Quebec's proposals have gone as far as possib le without further consideration by First Ministers .

"So I've invited the Premiers to a meeting at Meech Lake on April 30 to take stock and to consider the next steps. "We must find out whether or not there is sufficient political will to bring Quebec in to justify the undertaking of formal nego tiation s, or whether it would be better to close the book s and wait for a more favourable moment ." In an effort to move the process along , the Federal Government recently put forward some general proposals and principles to serve as a focus for our discussion tomorrow .

While we have serious reservatons about certain of those proposals in their present form, I want to commend the Prime Minister and his colleagues for their effort s to build a consensus . I believe the step-by-step approach which has been taken by the Government of Canada , by the Government of Quebec , and by all the other Provincial Governments up to now, have been the correct approach. A divisive constitutional debate based on hardened positions is not what Canada needs at a time when regional tensions are already growing , and when regional disparities are getting wider.

If, at tomorrow 's meeting, an agreement appears to be within reach, then by all means we should move forward. But, if the political will is clearly not there, the discussions should be adjourned . We should get on with the urgent national priorities tha t can and must be dealt with: agriculture, we ste rn economic diversification, tax reform, day care, and many other priorities.

Because the federal proposals had been put forward in general terms and in confidence - and because some of them may be modified by the time of tomorrow 's meeting - it would not be appropriate for me to comment on them in detail at this moment. It would be somewh at premature, as well, since to my knowledge none of the proposa ls has been yet put into formal draft. I will, however, outline Manitoba 's basic position going into the conference and to advise the House of our overall thinking on the conditions th at Quebec has set.

First and most important, our primary responsibility is to protect and advance the interests of the citizens of this province . Fully consistent with that responsibility is our duty, as Canadians, to do all we can to help strengthen and to unite Canada. Sure ly every member of this House would be in full agreement with that. That is why we have participated in the informal discussions which have been held over the past several months, and why we are hopeful that a constitutional accord with the Government of Quebec can be reached.

The key to achieving such an accord, I believe , will be to find terms which, while responding positively to Quebec's legitimate con ce rns, also reflect in a constructive way other current Canadian reali ties and the equally legitimate aspirations of provinces and regions outside of Central Canada, including smaller provinces such as our own . Quebec has indicated that it would like to see, in the Constitution, the recognition of its unique nature.

Such recognition should be possible, although there are considerable difficulties, and preparation of a satisfactory legal draft appears likely to require far more consul tation than has been possible up to now. Quebec also seeks somewhat greater autho rit y w ith respect to immigration policy, to secure and to protect it s culture, its language heritage, consistent with protection of minority language rights in other provinces. That, too , should be possible without seriously affecting the Federal Government's overall responsibilities .

Changes to ensure that other province s have greater input into national immigration policy -making could be possible at the same time. Quebec seeks confirmation of the existing practice, whereby at least three of the nine Supreme Court Judges, are appointed from the Quebec Bar because of their expertise in the Quebec Civil Code. That kind of change should be possible as well and, in fact, cou ld bring with it a more satisfactory system of federal­ provincial consultations on all federal judicial appoi nt ments to ensure fair representation across Canada.

Quebec also seeks stronger protection , through the constitutional amending prov isions , against initiatives which Parliament might undertake to undercut its authority in the future. This is the so-called "veto " condition and it will be one of the major issues that will be dealt with tomorrow.

I do not believe agreement is possible on the basis of the current federal proposals , nor do I see much prospect of an agreement that does not recognize, to use the Prime Minister's own words, " The principle of the equality of all the provinces ." However, if a method could be found to afford Quebec greater protection for certain vital areas such as language and culture, then progress may be possible here too, but that remains to be seen. 1461 We also have concerns about a related issue, the possibility of a significant extension of the opting-out arrangements.

As many others have argued before, an opting-out clause that could be used on a regular basis could balkanize the country still further and regrettably, Madam Speaker, it is the smaller provinces who would be most vulnerable if that should occur. As others have pointed out, changes to the amending formula require unanimity, the support of the Federal Government and of all provinces. Quebec is also seeking to limit the Federal Government's ability to introduce new initiatives in areas of provincial jurisdiction. For our government, this condition raises the most serious immediate concerns to us.

The ability of the Federal Government to introduce new measures to achieve greater social and economic progress within Canada, to seek greater equality, I believe, Madam Speaker, is at the very heart of what Canada is all about. There is no doubt the Federal Government , both past and present , have misused their spending power from

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 time to time, acting to introduce new programs without adequate consultation or to un ilaterally change or withdraw from existing agreements. But, in spit e of thos e pr oble ms, the Federal Government's authority to initiate new programs has given Canada a set of national programs, Medic are and equalization that are superior to those which exists in other nations. Twenty years ago, if the Canadian economy had placed constraints on the Federal Government's ability to use its spending power, it is highly doubtful we would have a Medicare program in place in Canada today.

It is highly doubtful, far from cl ear, that we would have federal supp ort for post-secondary education, or for provincial social services, or even for a national equalization program. It is also extremely unlikely that we would have seen the passage of the Canadian Health Act a few years ago, federal legislation which helped prevent the spread of extra billing and user fees. Now today, we are looking forward to new federal proposals for a national day care program. We don't want to see these proposals doomed before they are even released.

The same concern would apply to any federal plan to support local infrastructure development as well as a wide range of other initiatives in the future. For a smaller province such as Manitoba, this is a special concern. We rely heavily on national programs and national standards to ensure that our citizens will share fairly in the benefits of Canadian citizenship. We would accept, we would support some provisions to ensure that federal program proposals for new initiatives or for withdr awals or cutbacks would require more formal review and debate than what is guaranteed now.

But we could not support a constitutional change that would give the largest provinces the abil ity to dictate the terms of new programs or to prevent the Government of Canada from introducing new measures aimed at assisting other regions where needs and priorities may differ from the needs and priorities of Quebec and Ontario. A year ago, when the Government of Quebec first set out its thinking on the federal spending power, it appeared to recognize some of the concerns that I have just expressed.

In fact, it suggested specifically that the current equali zation and regional development provisions in the Constitution should be strengthened, to require the Federal Government to live up to its commitments. In our view, that suggestion offers some promising opportunities for further discussions, and we will be pursuing that issue both tomorrow and in the future. Madam Speaker , it is also likely that First Ministers will have some discussion tomorrow about other potential constitutional changes, including revisions to the Senate.

As I have said elsewhere, our government continues to believe that the most appropr iate reform for the Senate would be to abolish it. A MEMBER: Hear , Hear. HON. H. PAWLEY: However, I have also said that we are prepared to examine other alternat ives carefully . We would support what could be termed a Triple A approach. A MEMBER: Is that like Triple E? HON. H. PAWLEY: Not Triple E; Triple A approach. "A" is better than "E." A MEMBER: Be patient. HON. L. DESJARDINS: We'll build that stadium after all. HON. H.

PAWLEY: A full review of the options, ranging from abolition to the kinds of accou ntable, action­ oriented alternatives which have been suggested in the past, such as a house of the provinces. A house of the Federation, a Council of First Min isters, or other institutional reform. I think that those who have thrown their sup port behind some of the recent "quick fix" solutions should reflect much more carefully about what the y are advoca ting.

Would it really be in the interests of Canada - and especially of smaller provinces and regions of Canada - to superimpose a new Senate on top of the House of Commons, with each Chamber having similar powers? Who then would be responsible for national priorities? Who would be accountable? Would that kind of change lead to a positive action, or would it be just, would it bring yet more weight to the existing status quo, giving a national government a new excuse for inaction?

These are the questions which Triple E proponents would address and must addr ess in a convincing manner to demonstrate that their proposal would really help Western Canada. They should, they ought to look at the Australian model, where some major problems have occurred in a similar process in Australia as what is being recommended by the proponents of Triple E in Western Canada. Earlier , I noted that the Prime Minister has spoken about the importance of political will in determining the outcome of tomorrow's meeting.

A month ago, the lack of political will on the part of some First Ministers prevented amendments to secure self-government for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Tomorrow, Native leaders will not be at the conference table, but it is imperative tha t their concerns - they were so eloquently voiced at the First Ministers' Conference only last month - remain high on the national agenda. Madam Speak er, it is clear that there has not been an opportunity for an adequate public deba te in Canada on the kinds of constitutional options which are under review.

If, tomorrow, there is consensus to move forward to a formal negotiation stage, there will be ample opportunity for a full deba te in Ottawa and in all provinces, as there ought to be. In Manitoba, of course, our own rules with respect to the constitutional amendments provide for greater public hearings which I believe is unique anywhere in Canada and which, Madam Speaker, is sup ported on both sides of this Cha mber. Ma dam Speaker, following tomorrow's conference, I will be pleased to give members a report on the outcome. I hope I can report progress at that time.

But as I said earli er, Madam Speak er, regardless of the outcome, it is essential that Canada get on with 1462

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 the critical priorities that are confronting this land of ours; the de spe rate situation tha t exists in the agricultural economy; the need for action on western diversification; the need to move forward on genuine tax reform in Canada; and the pressing need to establish a National Day Care Program for all Canadians. Nothing should block those legitimate proposals and programs from being dealt with now. Thank you, Madam, Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Spea ker.

A month ago after the Premier returned from the NDP National Convention in Montreal, I expressed concern that he demonstrated neither the courage nor the integrity to stand up and speak on the resolutions tha t were being propo sed by the Na tional NDP Government, with respect to special concessions for Quebec entering the Constitution. Madam Speaker , I asked this First Minister at least three times in the past month what his position was with respect to Quebec entering the Constitution and the concessions that he was willing to give Quebec in order to induce them to enter the Constitution.

Toda y, Madam Speaker , after listening to the lengthy and rambling dissertation that he has given with respect to his intentions to go to that meeting, I have even more concern that he's not prepared to stand up for Manitobans, and do the very thing that he said he would do during the last election, and that is to protect the interests of Manitobans with respect to all issues that put Manitoba in a national context.

Madam Speaker , here we have the results of a First Minister, who is obviously under heavy influence from his national par ty, who at the moment from the information he has put forward in this dissertation, appears to be prepared to sacrifice the interests of the West, to sacrifice the legitimate interests of Manitoba, in order to obtain federal seats for the NDP party in Quebec. Madam Spea ker, he talks glowingly about the position that we have in Manitoba whereby we have, by necessity, public hearings on constitutional amendments.

I can recall, during the French language issue, when he and his colleague from Fort Rouge fought tooth and nail to avoid those public hearings, fought tooth and nail to avoid the opportunity for the public to be heard, when they were bringing forward the amendments with respect to French. Now, Madam Speaker, he's suggesting that somehow it's as a result of his government's action that we have a manda tory requi rement for public hearings on constitutional reform in Manitoba. Only because they were forced, cowering into a corner by the Opposition, do we have that requirement in Manitoba today.

While we expect statesm anship out of this First Minister when he represents . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G. FILMON: . . . Madam Speaker, I believe members on this side showed the cour tesy to the Premier to at least listen to him for the 20 minutes while he spoke on this statement. Madam Speaker, would ask that I be given the same courtesy by members opposite, the rabble-rousing group over there who don't want to listen to a response from our side.

Mada m Speak er, while we would expect states manship from the First Minister when he represents Manitoba in these constitutional discussions, while we would expect a sincere desire to arrive at a united country and a country that includes all provinces in its Constitution, while we would expect that they would attempt to represent and acknowledge the varied and diverse interests that operate within the framework of Confederation in our free and democratic society, I think we would also expect that he would accept the responsibility to ensure that Manit oba's interests are fully protected by his presence at the table in Meech Lake.

Madam Speaker, we would expect as well tha t this First Minister would ensure that we are not asked to pay too high a price in order to incorporate Quebec into the Confederation of Canada.

We would expect to ensure, Madam Speaker, that we would have a strong statement by this First Minister saying that, not talking around and around and around the issue, suggesting that there are many things that ought to be considered and not suggesting that he is prepared to ensure that the amending formula exists today and is not changed, so that any province, neither Quebec nor Ontario nor anyone else, has a veto over future constitutional changes in Canada. Madam Speaker, we did not hear that from this First Minister. He heard him say that he has concerns.

We didn' t hear him tell us that he is going to go and protect those interests and make sure that veto does not occur. Madam Speaker, we would like to ensure that this First Mi nister goes to Meech Lake repres enting Manitoba, prepared to bargain in a reasonable manner on everything, not carrying with him his doctrinaire views on the Senate, saying that first and foremost it must be abolished, regardless of whether it's against the interests of Western Canada to abolish the Senate and not work towards a reformed Senate that includes equal representation from the provinces and not work towards that.

Madam Speak er, instead he says abolish the Senate, give up any hope of the West having some greater voice in the affairs of this countr y, but he says that, out of his doctrinaire views that are established in him as a result of his companionship with Ed Broadbent in the federal New Democratic Party who set the agenda for him, he ought not to be agreeing with any particular politician. He ought to be representing the best interests of Manitoba. Madam Speaker, I'm somewhat amused at this First Minister who talks about his concern about regional tensions that are growing.

This is the individual who has spent most of the last year or more flaming up regional tensions across the countr y.- (l nterjection)­ Exactly , exactly , Mada m Speaker, speaking about things such as equalization and going across the country and talking about how equal ization is a regional concern that allo ws him to bash Ottawa about, going on the CF-18 issue and then turning around and saying that we should not infla me regional tensions. This is the First Minister who talks out of both sides of his mouth on every issue.

Madam Speaker , the fact of the matter is that we recognize that there are regional concerns and we say 1463

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 to the people of Manitoba that we're going to have to address those regional concerns and that the Triple E Senate is a way in which we can acknowledge those regional concerns and see that Manitoba, along with other western provinces, gets equal representation and gets a greater share of the power in this country in order to address them. But he doesn't want that equaliz ation of power; he doesn't want that greater representation from the West; he wants to be able to abolish the Senate and continue to simply bash Ottawa. That's all he wants, Madam Spea ker, when he gets the opportunity.

Well, Ma dam Speak er, we believe that this First Minister has spoken all around the topic and out of both sides of his mouth. We believe that this First Minister is going to Ottawa, Madam Speake r, with only Ed Broadbent's agenda in mind, not the people of Man itoba's agenda in mind. And, Ma dam Speak er, he talks about the fact that Triple Ei s a quick fix and he's not interested in a quick fix. Well, we've seen that over the past number of years that he's been in government. He neither fixes anything, and he's not quick ab out addressing any of the problems and concerns that affect Manitobans today.

So, Madam Speak er, we're not so impressed with the position tha t's been put forward by this Minister. In fact, we're not sure what the position that is being put forward by this First Minister. Madam Spea ker, we believe that this First Minister ought to go to Ottawa and to Meech Lake as a statesman.

We hope that he'll change his mind and open his mind to the views of Triple E Senate, and we hope that he'll go there saying that he will not give a veto to Quebec or Ontario or any other province, and he will not allow for an amendment to the Constitution that will gi ve away his rig ht to bl ock th ose future constitutional amendments. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. SOME HONOURA BLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. J. COWAN: Ma dam Speaker, it is hard to redeem the composure of the House after the Leader of the Opposition's response, but perhaps we should attem pt. Can you please call . . . MR. J.

McCRAE: I'd be speechless if I were you too, Jay. HON. J. COWAN: The Member for Brandon West suggests that he'd be speechless if he were me too. We're all speechless after the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker. If ever there was something ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Spea ker, on a point of order, if the House Leader is making a ministerial statement, he has to have leave, and we haven't given leave for a ministerial statement. If he is making one, then we want to make one too.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: I wouldn't want to have to go through another one of their responses, so would you please call, Mada m Sp eak er, on Second Read ing - (Int erjection)- I'll explain it to you later. Would you please call, Ma dam Speaker, on Second Read ing, Bills No. 20, 21 and 22, as num bered on page 3 of the Order Paper; and following that, will you please call the Patent Drug Act motion standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. SECOND REA DING BILL NO. 20 -THE CRIME PREVENTION FOUNDATION ACT HON. R.

PENNER presented Bill No. 20, The Crime Prevention Foundation Act;

Loi sur la Fondation de prevention du crime, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speake r, I'm proud to introduce the Crime Prevention Foundation Bill to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba this afternoon. Through this bill, Madam Speak er, it is hoped that community crime prevention will become recognized as one of the most important ways in which Manitobans can improve the quality of their lives.

This bill is an important way for the members of the Legislative Assembly to salute the valuable and selfless efforts of many Manitobans to make their communities a safer and better place to live. Madam Speak er, make no mistake about it that with certain crimes, the crimes that affect most people, the property crimes, the break and enters, there are great difficulties with respect to policing and bringing people to justice who ought to be brought to justice.

Everyt hing in that regard should be done but clearly, more and more, the answer has to be crime prevention and the responsibility of government is to do everything possible to enhance crime prevention. Crime prevention, Madam Speaker, is an issue tha t is often overlooked in the stampede to public ize sensational crime stories.

There is no one to report about the crime that was not committed, or the innocent person who was not victimized simply because of a Neigh bourhood Watch or a Block Parent sign on a do or, because of a household item marked with identi fication num bers, because of concerned neighbours participating in range patrols, because someone installed a dead-bolt lock or automat ically timed lights, or because their neighbour checked the house when they were away, shovelled the walk or picked up the mail and the paper. These are not reported.

Wha t's reported - and one can understand why, because news these days is entertainment - are the failures rather than the successes. 1464

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 These examples are the kind of simple but important steps that everyone can take to prevent crime. The people who promote th ese activities are to be congratula ted . What we are saying is that more has to be done than those occurrences once a year. November is Crime Prevention Month and then we have Crime Prevention Day when the Solicitor-General comes down - and that's good - and presents certain awards, that's fine; a thousand people attend a community breakfast and that's good.

Then these organizations are left to go on throughout the rest of the year essentially on their own initiative and on their own hook. I don't, in saying that, by any means want to denig rate from the very fine work that organizations such as the RCMP, the Winnipeg Police Dep artment, through its parti cipa tion in Neigbourhood Watch, play. They do that, but more is clearly needed. Government can help commu nity-based crim e prevention programs become better known, better established, function better.

The Crime Prevention Foundation bill proposes tha t a foundation be created to promote crime prevention activities. The foundation should be self-directing, to reflect the community-based nature of crime prevention and to encourage private and corporate contributions to this important cause. The foundation should not attempt to replace in any way community programs but to assist them to become more successful, and that's the key. This can be accomplished by assisting with support services. Someone says this is more bureaucra cy.

In fact, pains have been taken in creating the foundation in this way that it's not the government itself seeking to deliver crime prevention programs and to replace the tremendous involvement, and Manitoba has the best record of any province in that way with bureaucracies and with government-directed programs. It's to lend support to crime prevention programs. So the foundation should not attempt to replace community programs but to assist them to become more successful.

This can be accomplished by assisting with support services, collecting and sharing information about crime prevention, promoting research into crime prevention, coordinating activities of current crime prevention programs of the different crime prevention groups , bringing different groups and pr ogra ms together with one voice, and by giving grants to groups, programs and research as the foundation considers appropriate.

So that's the key, not for the government itself to attempt to expend money on the front lines of crime prevention - it does that in a whole number of institutional ways already - but to provide some funding support for new initiatives for support programs. Although crime prevention is a question of awareness and help within communities and between neighbours, the government has a role to pla y. It does provide, as I say, some institutional programs that deal with crime, crime detection enforcement, it provides some deg ree of deterrence.

However, crime has many causes and effects and occurs in countless different ways and places and one app roach is not enough. It must be a broad community approach. We have been actively pur suing a progra m of improvement in the way we respond as a government to crime and persons affected by crime, but we must find a better mix between the conventional institutional response and the community-based responses.

A recent experience, for example, has shown that in some areas with first offenders in property crimes, mediation, alternative measures for young people, restitution orders, community work orders, fine options, are effective alternatives to some of the more traditional institutional responses. And we, as a province, have also, Madam Speaker, been a leader with respect to promoting victim services, and members will recall the Justice for Victims of Crime legislation.

The Crime Prevention Foundation Bill is part of a continuing commitment to improve the security and well-being of Manitobans, to improve the quality of life of Manitobans. It represents a continuation of efforts which must be made by all levels of government. It recognizes the contributions that private citizens have made and encourages them to continue their work with the suppo rt of government.

The bill, Mada m Speaker, creates a Crime Prevention Foundation to be administered by a board, at least eight of whom - the significant majority of whom shall be from the Crime Prevention Organizations already in existence, Big Brother, Operation Watch, Range Patrols, all of these from every part of the province - and I had occasion to meet with and discuss this initiative with people in The Pas yesterday, and they're very enthusia stic about it and ab out their own participation in a direct way with the foundation. So that's a central feature of the bill.

The foundation will be responsible for establishing a Crime Prevention Centre that will be the head office of the foundation, a meeting place for Crime Prevention organizations and a central location for resource material. It is hoped that they will be able to find a central location with high public visibility. But here too, let me note, we are very anxious that as little money as possible be spent on a place. I think that we need a place. It can be very small and very simply established.

We want most of the money that will be available - we'll speak about that in detail during my Estimates - to be allo cated to assist the groups out there in the field. This bill, Ma dam Speaker, creates as I say a foundation, not a government agency. The foundation itself will own and control its own property, set its own priorities and make its own decisions on providing grants from its funds.

In other words, once through the Estimates process and the Supply bill a decision has been made on funding - and the normal course, October 1st is the time that we're setting for the operation of the foundation to begin - it will have money that will hold in trust and its own arrangements, subject only to the supervision of the Provincial Aud itor, and it will not have to clear grants through the normal Treasury Board-Cabinet process. We're satisfied that the overview of the Provincial Auditor is sufficient. We want to empha size again and again that we want this to be as much arm's length as possible.

This bill is the first of its kind in Canada; it fulfills a promise that we'd made during the last provincial election, will be discussed with my colleagues, other Attorneys-General, the Minister of Justice at the end of May. We think that we will have gotten the ball rolling in this area as we did with The Justice for Victims of Crime bill. I consider this bill to be an important addition to the effective administration of law and justice in Manitoba. 1465

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 Society can use all the help it can to reduce crime, and crime prevention groups can use all the help they can get. The mutual benefits of legislation that promotes community crime prevention are enormous, Madam Speaker , and I commend this bill to members of the Legislature. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur , that deba te be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 21 -THE FAMILY LAW AMENDMENT ACT HON. R.

PENNER presented Bill No. 21, The Family Law Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le droit de la famille, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I hope to be equally brief in introducing this bill. My department has recently released a policy paper with respect to major changes in Family Law legislation, which will be dealt with at the next Session of the Legislature. A MEMBER: Are you going to give us a copy of that? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, sure.

In fact, it was annou nced in the Throne Speech that a White Paper will be tabled by the government in the House prior to the end of the Session. But there is a discussion paper that's out now, but we'll let you have the discussion paper. The discussion paper will lead to a White Paper . The amendments contained in this Family Law Amendment Bill, which is being introduced today are relatively minor in nature, and are therefore being dealt with at this Session, and not waiting on, nor are they dependant on the major initiative.

Very briefly, Ma dam Speaker , the amendments deal with the following: First of all, relatively standard protection for officers of the Court of Queen's Bench from liabilit y. It is proposed to amend The Queen's Bench Act, to protect officers of the Court of Queen's Bench from a liabi lity from any act done by them in the execution of their du ty, un less the act was done maliciously and without reasonable and probable cause. This is when they fulfill their quasi-judicial functions, as they do as hearing officers in a num ber of cases.

This provision is consistent with The Provincial Court Act, which gives provincial judges, magistrates and justices of the peace protection from liabilit y. Penalty provisions - the penalty provisions found in The Child Custody Enforcement Act and found in The Family Mai ntenance Act are to be am ended. It's proposed to amend them by increasing the term of imprisonment from 30 days to 6 months and bringing the fine up to the provisions consistent with The

Summary Convictions Act. It's expected that these will add some muscle to our enforcement program. Fortuna tely, because of the efficiency with which those programs operate - and here again I'm always glad to give credit to my learned friend opposite, the Member for St. Norb ert, who took some initiative in the introduction of this program. But times have changed and the level of fines and limits of incarceration of those few, fortunately few, who don't live up to a maintenance order is insufficient to act as a deterrent to make sure they pay the amounts that they should pay. So we want to bring the maximum up.

We hope it doesn't have to be used. Now, here's a big one that I hope will not be misunderstood by anybody , it's jactitation of marriage. Now, I know the Member for Brandon West has been dying to ask for some time, what is jactitation of marriage?

Jactitation of marriage was and I quote: "A proceeding taken before" - Madam Speak er, you'll want to know about this, too - "the ecclesiastical courts to enjoin the defendant to desist from continuing to boast or give out that he or she was married to the petitioner, thereby creating a reputation of marriage or giving rise to the petitioner, thereby creating a reputation of marriage or giving rise to the possibility of such a reputation arising." -(Interjection)- Tha t's about it, you know.

But I just qu oted the Law Reform Commission, and the Law Reform Commission would not be the Law Reform Commission if they said things too simply. There are no reported cases in Canada dealing with this action and this amendment to The Equality of Status Act aboli shes the right to bring an action for jactitation of marriage and is in accordance - I know again the Member for St. Norbert would be interested to know, with the recom mendations of the Law Reform Commission.

A breach of promise to marry - I sometimes think I may have been the last lawyer to take an action for breach of promise of marriage before the Court of Queen's Bench, and it's virtually an action which has withered on the vine. The Law Reform Commission has recommended that the common-law right to bring an action for breach of promise to marry be abolished. These amendments to The Equality of Status Act would implement this recommendation by abolishing the right to bring an action for breach of promise to marry or for any damages resulting. A new

section of The Equality of Status Act provides, however, than an action for deceit may be brought whether it has been a bigamous or a sham marriage, and the plainti ff was led to believe tha t the marriage was valid. So that base will be covered.

The Equality of Status Act will provide that where a person makes a gift to another in contemplation of or conditional upon their marriage to each other and the marriage fails, or that is fails to take place or is abandoned, the question of whether or not the failure or abandonment was caused by or was the fault of the donor, the person who gave the gift, should not be considered in determining the right of the donor to recover the gift. In other words, if a gift is given in contemplation of marriage and the marriage doesn't take pla ce, the gift 1466

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 is to be given back, simple as that. You don't say, well it was your fault; no, it was my fault. Your mother told me that the wedding would be in this hall and now you want it to be in that hall, and I printed all the invitations. You know, you've heard this story time and again. If gifts were given in contemplation of marriage, and the marriage does not take place or was abandoned on a no-fault principle, the gift should be given back, so we don't have these horrendous and ridiculous court actions looking for fault. Th ere is a consequential amendment, Ma da m Speak er, to The Manitoba Evidence Act, which deals with a certain

section of that act which requir es corroboration in an action for breach of promise to marry. Affidavits and Transcripts - again, a timel y amendment to amend The Family Maintenance Act to allo w, in certain cases, for the filing of affidavits, depositions or transcripts of evidence taken in any court in proceedings under The Family Maintenance Act, similar to a provision fou nd incidental ly, Mada m Speaker, in The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders Act. It's necessa ry, incidentally , to deal with certain problems the court has run into in this case.

Separation agreements - at the present time The Family Maintenance Act of Manitoba only allo ws for enforcement of orders of support and not supp ort pro visions containe d in separation agreements. Provinces such as Ontario and Alberta have passed legislation which allo ws for the enforcement of maintenance provisions contained in agreements as well as orders. The new Federal Family Orders and Ag reements Enforcement Assistance Act also provides for the enforcement of orders and agreements.

The amendments to The Family Maintenance Act would allow for the enforcement of support provisions contained in separation agreements, where both parties to the agreement have consented to its filing in writing in a form satisfactory to the desig nated officer, or the separation agreement contains a provision allowing for enforcement. I think this is very important because we do want to encourage as many settlements of marital disputes by agreement as possible, and parties shouldn't have to go to court to get an order because that's the only way they can thereafter have it enforced.

If they want to have a separation agreement and it's satisfactory in form - that is not ambigious - it can be filed and therea fter , if the need arise, the maintenance provisions in that separation agreement can be enforced just as if it were a court order. And this is part of our general trend to try and take things away from the formalities and sometimes difficulties of formal court processes.

Some provisions in the bill that will deal with the exchange of information between jurisdic tions, when attempts are being made to locate a defaulting spouse, this provision is taken from uniform family legislation and is timely, in light of the fact that there are other maintenance enforcement programs that are developing federally and in the other provinces. Appeal to a judge, a further amendment to The Family Mai ntenance Act, simply clarifies the time period during which an appeal from an order of the master should be taken.

And with those few brief remarks, Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. 1467 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 22 -THE WATER RESOURCES ADMINISTRATION ACT AND THE REAL PROPERTY ACT HON. L. HARAPIAK presented Bill No. 22,

An Act to amend The Water Resources Administration Act and The Real Property Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. L. HARAPIAK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I will be speaking only briefly to this particular amendment. The amendment I think will be well­ received by those who are affected, in that it will make provisions for property owners within a designated flood area, to build under conditions, perhaps which they could not build presently.

I want to speak briefly to the purpose of the act and then addr ess briefly the minor amendment that is contained therein. The Water Resources Administration Act provides for the framework for the management and adminis tration of all matters in regard to the construction and operation for water control works in the province, regardless of whether such works are directly for the purpose of the province, a local author ity, or built under the agreement between, say, the province and the Federal Government.

It provides for the designation of any water control work, natural channel or lake as a provincial waterway, which then relieves the lo cal government of the res ponsi bili ty for the mai ntenance. But more important ly, in terms of the curr ent proposed amendment, it provides for the designation of an area adjacent to our reservoir as a designated reservoir area, and for the designation of any area of the province subject to flooding from natural causes as a designated flood area to preclude development in high risk flood areas.

Regulation of buildings within the designa ted reservoir and designa ted flood area is then achieved through this act. Now under the act, as it stands, we feel tha t there is need, and it is desirable to have a minor amendment of

section 16. 1(1) to enhance the flood-pr oofing provisions of the act. The proposed amendm ent will provide for any new structures constructed within a designated flood area, unable to meet the normal flood­ proofing criteria to be adequa tely flood-p roofed in accordance with a ministerial variance permit, so as to reduce the potential for flood damages. Under the present act, any person wishing to build in a designated flood area requires a permit from the Minister, and any violations of the permit were only documented and no further actions unde rtaken. The amendment will give the Minister the power to vary the

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 flood-p roofing criteria in instances where it is virtually impossible to comply with the flood-pr oofing criteria without imposing undue hardships on the individuals. Under such circum stances, the Director of Water Resources Branch will be authorized to register a notice in the Land Titles Office against the land in those cases where a variance to the flood-proofing criteria has been authorized, and also where there is non-compliance with the permit.

In those cases where a variance to the flood-proofing criteria has been authorized, or where there has been non-compliance with the permit, future flood assistance could be withheld, and it is important to note that there is presently one designa ted flood area and it covers the Red River Valley, from Emerson to Winnipeg. This area was de sig nated after the 1979 flood . New regulations will be developed after the amendment to The Water Resources Administration Act has been proclaimed. The Real Property Act is also being amended to ensure that any orders or notices filed in a Land Titles Office under

section 16 .2 of the amended Water Resources Administration Act remain as conditions of the title to the land. So, in closing, Madam Speaker , I think we just want to convey that what we are doing is making provision in that area, the designated flood area, for a variance procedure and it should be pointed out is currently the condition within the City of Winnipeg under the amended City of Winnipeg Act. There is provision for seeking a variance to the permit and that is registered in the Land Titles Office.

So I think most members would be pleased, but I think those living in the designated flood areas will be pleased that there will be a provision for a variance order where the conditions of flood-proofing are difficult to meet.

It is also important to note that it is in the interest of any subsequent purcha sers of those properties that this will now be registered with the titles so any subsequent purcha sers will be well aware that their variance order has been given for that particular site, or in fact there may be non-compli ance with the permit that was issued so it would protect the interest of subsequent purchasers of that property.

I noticed in making my introductory comments that, when I made reference to the fact that the flood compensation could be withheld if these criteria were not met, it caught the attention of the Member for Emerson.

Madam Speaker , I think it is reasonable that where individuals seek permission to build in a designa ted flood area and do not comply with a permit or seek variance from a permit, if there is damage from flooding subsequent ly, I think it is reasonable that the Province of Manitoba and all taxpayers, and indeed those who share in this through the Federal Government, would not be held responsible for that damage. So with that, Ma dam Spea ker, I conclude my comments on this amendment. MA DAM SPEA KER : The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Gladstone, that the deba te be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON MOTION THE PATENT ACT MADAM SPEAKER: Debate on the motion of the Honourable First Minister, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mada m Speak er. Madam Speak er, you are probably aware that the bill has been standing in my name for some time, and it can only have been because I was studying the resolution very extensively.

Madam Speak er, initially I had no intention to even speak to the bill. I found it somewhat surprising when the resolution was brought forward and I found it interesting enough that it seemed to be coming forward with a certain sense of urgency because the government couldn't wait until the Premier himself could introduce the resolution. It was done by the Member for St. James. It was seemingly a bit of a hype there at that particular time, and so the Member for St. James had to bring forward the resolution.

Madam Speaker , since that time there has been a lot of deba te taking place on it, and I find it interesting that the Premier himself, in whose name the resolution is, still hasn't spoken to the resolution. Obviously , I suppose what is even more interesting, Madam Speaker, is that should the resolution pass today or tomorrow or Friday, it is possible that the Premier himself, whose name the resolution is in, won't have even spoken to it, and I just find it sort of interesting.

Still, Madam Speak er, in the little discussions and comments that fly back and forth across the House from time to time and just in some of the conversa tions with the Government House Leader, I have felt that there is a sense of urgency to move with this. And obviously it has something to do with the fact that the Federal Government will be dealing with this issue short ly, and that is why I say I find it sort of strange that the Premier, in whose name it is, has not had a chance to really express his views.

And in going through, I'm looking at the debate that has taken place over a period of time, Madam Speaker , it's interesting to note, you know, we have a difference of opinion obviously on this matter and some of our members have indicated quite strongly how they feel about it. I would suspect that this resolution was brought forward strictly for political purposes. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) I think that from the time that the Federal Leader, Mr. Broadbent, became aware of this - when the Leader of the Federal NOP Party, Mr.

Broadbent, came out swinging against this change in The Patent Act, I guess the government side felt this is an issue that we're going to run with. When we look at the whole situation and look at the resolution, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's in keeping with the government's approach over the years that I have been in this House and realize how th ey operate, because I look at the various aspects of it and the one that caught my eye - well, a few of the WH ER EASes caught my eye - but "WH EREAS increased costs will be borne directly by consumers, 1468

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 both at the counter and through increased costs to our Ph armacare Program will especially affect the elderly and those who require continuous medication . . . "and then it goes on. It reminds me, Mr. Deputy Speaker , of the time of the '77 election. It reminds me of the time of the'81 election, when the government in their campaign program went on scare tactics with the elderly , trying to promote the idea that if the Conservatives were elected we would take and cut off health care, we would kick them out of nursing homes. That kind of impression was left at that time and, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, I believe that this is probably the same kind of context that we're in right now, because when we consider how - I would like some of the government's side to explain - will this cost affect our elder ly, because we have a Ph armacare Program right now, and it used to be $50, the first $50 is paid by an individual, and after that you apply and you get a rebate from the government on that. I would like to have somebody explain to me how - you know, incidental ly, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, that has been raised to $75 now. Would somebody please explain � · to me, Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, how will it cost our senior citizens more money now than it did before, because anything after this $75 they can get a rebate back on? So I would only suspect that the government is playing politics with this and that's why the urge ncy. They want to try and give the impression we've fought against increased drug prices -(I nterjection)- A MEMBER: It's the only game they know. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: It is this kind of mentality that showed again this afternoon when the First Minister was trying to make a big score with his anno unc ement of what he was going to say to the Federal Government when he got there tomorrow, a lot of wind and rabbit tracks, creating a mirage to some degree, and very little substance in there. We have the same thing in this resolution, or fearmongering to some degree. And like I say, I'm not surpr ised at that.

That has been a common thing especially when we get to an election, vicious, vicious, fearmonge ring, especially with people who don't unde rstand exactly what is always going on, and very often that affects our elderly , and it's happened so many times. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'm sure that you have gone through this resolution extensively and know all the full implications of it. I'm also sure, Mr. Deputy Speak er, that you have read the bill and unde rstand what that whole bill is supposed to be doing; I'm confident of that. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , I'm not sure that everybody in this House has an understanding and a full grasp of what that legislation is supposed to be doing, because I've read both sides of this story, the reason why the government is bringing it forward, the intent of it. Then I've heard some speeches from members opposite indicating that this is done because the multinationals have been lobbying the government. How stupid, how stupid, with any government. This government, the Federal Government, would they take and bring forward leg islation to accommodate mult ina tionals?

No government is that stupid, but we're trying to give that impression, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, we're trying to give that impression that is the intent of this legislation. When we consider statements made in the Premier's resolution, "WHER EAS these generic substitutions resulted in a saving in hospital, ph armacare , prescription costs for Manitobans amounting to over 14 million dollars in 1986," and it goes on through all the various things.

"WHEREAS the drug reimbursement paid out by the Provincial Government through its universal pharmacare program has risen from $4.3 million in 1975 to $28 million in 19 86," and it continues on. What I find interesting here, "WHEREAS the cost to Ma nit obans of the dela yed entry of new generic substitutions will be over 2 million dollars in the first year after the changes, and could total 44 million dollars by 19 95." Based on what information? I would like to know, based on what information. You see, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what happens is people read this kind of stuff and they get influenced and feel that that is all factual. That is not factual. A lot of this is speculative. A lot of this is again geared to play politics ... MR. J. McCRAE: Fearmongering again. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Fearmongering again, and the fact that if this resolution passes or doesn't pass, the government, I can see, I can envision by the time we run our next election, which could be soon I hope, that they will again be running around saying, look what the Federal Government did, the Conservatives did. They are jacking up your prices of drugs.

But in my area, the users of drugs, they pay their first $75 and get the balance of it back under the Pha rmacare Program. Where is the big panic button? But nobody has yet been able to indicate properly and convince me that the costs of drugs are going to go up dramatical ly, but we have had some great speeches on our side, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of members who have gone into this to quite an extent and indicated the benefits that could accrue from this kind of legislation.

For th ose people , and many of my col leagues ill ustrated example after example of the benefits of what could happen if we have new drugs, with the major drug companies, the multinationals - call them what you like. It's very much like an emplo yer in a small commun ity. If the individual has some money to invest and wants to start a business and employ people, he doesn't do tha t for char ity, Mr. Deputy Speaker. He does that because he feels he can make more profit with that money than having it sit in a straight bank or something like that.

That is why people invest, to make some money, and the impression that we have here that this is all channelled one way to help the multinationals make more money, and that we would indirectly or directly somehow get a benefit boggles my mind. But that is based on the context of the speeches made by members opposite; that is the kind of thing that they were trying to garn er. Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, the reason I didn't speak for some time on this bill was basically to get a bit of an impression, and what has happened is exactly my conclusion has been that this is again a fearmongering type of situation that they have, in the terms of a long­ range plan, to try and get people hysterical without knowing what it is all about. As I indicated before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, many members here, I don't think really understand totally 1469

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 what the impact of this is going to be.- (l nterjection)­ There should be a resolution dealing with that kind of thing possibly instead of something like this, because tha t - you kn ow, dealing with pornograp hy. We understand much better than we do the drug industry, most of us here, with the exception of yourself of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'm sure you have a good grasp on that - no insult meant, Sir. Mr.

Deputy Spea ker, we have gathered all kinds of information, the potential pros and cons, and I would have liked to have an Honourable Premier of the province come forward with tha t kind of a thing indicating both sides of the story. Then, in fairness, all members could deba te a resolution of this nature fairly. If he was concerned about it at all, he should have put some good sides and some bad sides forward and let us then deba te it. Instead, they come forward with a very biased resolution and, like I say, that to me indicates it is meant to scare many of our elder ly, because there was - Mr.

Deputy Speaker, remember when this came forward, the activity that was being promoted, you know, by all the people saying, it's going to cost more, our senior citizens are going to pay more. The element of fearmongering was already there. Mind you, it sort of stabilized a little bit, I think the fact tha t we've had some deba te on it. But, Mr. Deputy Speak er, why would the Premier not put down maybe some positives and some negatives. Then we can take that information - and he's got lots of staff to get the information, much more so than possibly most of us have.

Then we could have properly debated both sides of the issue, unde rstanding why the government promoted their side of it and why there should be some concern. There should maybe be some concern because nobody - Mr. Deputy Spea ker, I certainly am not promoting an increase in the price of drugs for anybody , most certainly not, and I dare say there isn't an individual here who would be promoting the increase of price for drugs for anybody , not even for the members of the Legislature, not even for those on your side. So that is why I say, this is not a fair resolution.

This resolution is strictl y to play politics. It is for that reason why the Government House Leader has to sort of try to give a sense of urgenc y. You know, his colleagues are pushing, let's get this through. We can make good poli tical hay with this. I do n't thin k tha t is good leadership. I don't think that is a good example for government to come forward with this kind of a resolution. We've been at it pretty steadily on this resolution. As far as I'm concerned, if one felt strong ly, I really don't think it is that important.

I don't think that resolution carries that much weight, aside from whatever political gain they feel they can get out of it. If it was a real impo rtant issue, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, this resolution would not go anywhere because we would debate it and debate it and we've shown the example of what can be done if an Opposition really opposes something. You saw that in the year of the French language deba te in this House. If it is bad enough, it will not pass. But I don't think it is that important. I think we're dealing basically with playing little political games. This arena is made for that.

This arena is made for the game of politics, understandably so, but the fact that it affects people outside of this House who do not under stand the games that go on here from time to time is what creates the problem. And that is where the fearmongering aspect comes in because they give the impression, or try to give the impression that this is very, very bad legislation, that it is going to be hard on senior citizens. These are the kind of things that bother me about this kind of a resol ution, because of the public perception that is out that is being left. That is, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , in my mind, why the government is pushing to try and get this bill through. I think, Mr . Deputy Spe aker, it's an ina dequa te resolution; it's poorly thought-out. It's based on the First Minister, in my mind, trying to play politics, just like he did earlier this afternoon. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I'd like to amend this resolution.

I move that all the words after the first "WHERE AS" clause be deleted and the following substituted therefor: WHERE AS Bill 'C-22' proposes that the Drug Prices Review Board may revoke the period of exclusivity in cases of non-compliance; WHE REAS drug prices may be monitored by the Drug Prices Review Board;

WHEREAS there will be a federal cabinet review after 4 years; WH ER EAS should the indus try not meet its commitments by 1990, the Federal Government may reduce or revoke the period of exclusivity; BE IT THEREFORE RESOL VED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Federal Government to monitor carefully the Patent Act to ensure a healthy pharmaceutical industry in Canada and protect drug consumers. I move, seconded by the Member for Brandon West. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Indus try, Trade and Technol ogy. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

I'd like to rise to speak against the pitiful amendment of the Op position and agains t what the Federal Government is doing and in support of the Premier's original motion. And I do so speaking beyond, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, the members in the Chamber here and rather to the people of my constituenc y, to the seniors who are concerned about these kinds of issues, to the people who will be affected in my constituency and in my province. I've heard some of the comments of people on the other side. I'd like to make a few remarks about the real concerns we have.

They kn ow, as do my constituents, that just as an example there's currently a tranqui lizer which is widely used by them, by Manitobans, by Canadians for which the payment now is $2.31 per 1, 000 tablets. The same drug in the United States under the kind of regime they want us to enter into is now costing $349.93. The same kind of thing can happen with new drugs, of course not with the existing ones, but with new drugs discovered after this time for them. Now the Opposition says, but we have Phar macare. My constituents know that they have to pay, first of all, to get the drugs out of the drugstore.

They also 1470

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 know that the cost of Pharmacare comes out of their pockets as well. There is no free lunch. That money comes from Manitoba taxpayers and there they are. They somehow think that, because there's a provincial program, those people won't pay. They will pay and my constituents can see through that kind of nonsense. They say that we will have somehow the multinational ph armaceutical companies coming to Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it's again back to the future, they're wanting to go back to the 19 50's.

They want to go back to before we had the progressive law the NOP got the Liberals to pass in the first place. Tha t's what they want to do. What kind of pha rmaceutical companies did we have here in the 195 0's? What kind of employment was here under the good old days that the Member for Tuxedo wants to bring back now? Did we have anything? No. Do we have more emplo yment in the ph armaceutical industry in Canada now than before that terrible law was passed? Yes. Do we have a bigger increase in employment on a per capita basis than the U.S. during that period of time? Yes. So where is the argument?

There will not be extra jobs certainly in this province. Canadian drug manufacturers, in fact, are opposing this. Members opposite don't want to talk about that. They want to talk about those people from Switzerland, from Ita ly, from the United States. They don't want to talk about their own people right here in Canada who are saying something different. Mr. Deputy Speake r, I believe that we got snookered into this in the first place at a time when we had a brand new Federal Government which didn't realize the ramifications of what it was getting into. I want to quote from the Toronto Star.

It has an interesting caption with a senior, who has an injury to a leg, carrying a crutch, heading towards the pensioner's ph armacy , and there is a multinational drug company - with a leather jacket and a switchblade, and somebody who looks like a fellow with a long chin, with a drug patent bill in his hand, looking ready to mug this poor little old lady as she comes around the corner to the dr ugstore. The

article says, "The gove rnment mistakenly sees Bill 22 as a Catch-22. If it does the right thing for Canada by withdrawing the bill, it may think that voters will see this as lack of resolve or as losing face. But Canadians can understand that, as soon as the new government was elected, some novice negotiators were flattened by a lobbying steam-roller. Only later were the facts on Canada's interest made available by the Eastman Commission, and at that point Canadians were Bush-whacked by the U.S. Vice­ President. This is powerful pressure." It goes on with a number of other comments about it.

They were Bush­ whacked by the Vice-President and they appe ared to have been Reaganned by the President during the wonderful St. Patrick's Day meeting in Quebec City a few years ago. The

article goes on to point out, "Three things are clear. Canada's existing system respects patents and provides rewards higher than those allowed under the profit control methods and the restrictive drug reimbursement lists used in Europe. Okay, so we're providing a better assistance to the drug companies than is happening in Europe today. Second, the length of a patent is a matter of expediency, and this particular

article says ". . . a 1471 shorter period is prefera ble." We can live with that. I believe the Eastman Commission suggested something like four or six years, that's something to discuss. Third, the ideal system for Canada is a combination of shorter period of monopoly prices and higher royalties. That would be fair to the multinationals, to the science community and to consumers. What is needed is an approach which looks after Canada's interests in the two areas at issue, prices and research. The Eastman Commission has concluded that, on the price front, Canada's law in use since 19 69 is optimal.

We've got the best price, we've got the best system in place on price, and here we are, we have the Member for Tuxedo and his bunch wanting to change that, just because their friends in Ottawa got hoodwinked by their friends from the south. They were Bush-whacked and Reaganned, when they started out, and they don't have the guts to get out of it. There are people on that side who think, or try to present this issue on the basis that everybody is for it, just the NOP is against it. What patent, absolute balderdash, and one can go through a numb er of articles. I've got one here from The Citizen, Dr.

Robert Curtain, who is chairman of the Economic Issues Committee of the Consumers' Association of Canada, who also happens to be an economics professor at the University of Waterloo. He starts off : "It is perplexing that many Conservatives are backing a new drug price review bureau cracy proposed in Bill 22. The NOP favours the current market-based polic y. Canadian scientists and consumers are left out entirely whil e foreign shareholders are guaranteed the right to hundr eds of millions of extra profits by the very people charged with standing up for Canada." Where is the member for Tuxedo on that?

Where is he? He's standing up, not for Canada; he's standing up for the multinationals. The

article goes on still: "The Canadian Drug Manu facturers' Association, for one, made the very impo rtant point tha t a regime tha t protects the multinationals by offering strong patent protection is not the norm, even though it is the American way. It is true we are heading toward the American way, although people in the U.S. are beginning to see the benefits of the Canadian way and are suggesting that rather than us Americanizing.

They would like to Canadian ize their law, so they could have the kinds of savings for their people that our laws brought to us by a previous Federal Government, urged on by the NOP, brought to us." I go on, "France, Spain, Britain, Holland and Japan intervene strongly in the marketplace, either to promote a domestic drug industry or to control drug prices, or both. The countries missing from this list: Italy, Germany , Switzerland, are the gia nts in the drug industry.

In short, under pressure from the U.S. industry, the government here is going the free-enterprise, hands­ off way, when it could well make the case tha t a more interventionist regime is the norm. Whether we would be able to operate in a Canada -U.S. free trade regime with such intervention as patent laws remains to be seen." There's the rub, Mr. Deputy Speake r. As our Prime Minister talked to the President, he said to him, I'm sure, we want a free trade deal, even though he'd said to the Canadian people in 1984 that there's no way

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 we're going to have free trade with the Americans. That's what he said before the election; afterwards, he wanted a deal. The President said to him, we need something on drugs, and he said, well, that's no problem. That's why we're in the mess we're in right now. The Ottawa Citizen, Monda y, July 7, 19 86: "Drug Law, Bitter Bill to Swallow," - this is their editorial. "The Federal Government has finally screwed up its courage and published its bill to raise drug prices. If passed, this pernicious measure will hur t the sick and mock the government's claim to free market principles.

"The Mulr oney Cabinet dithered for months over this and no wonder the Patent Act amendments have delighted the international brand-name drug firms, and no wonder the Patent Act amendments have delighted the international brand name drug firms and pla cated an impatient White House, but the bill would raise the price of prescription medicine to eventually add $10 0 million to the cost of provincial health insurance plans." No mention about that from this bunch that talks about fiscal conservatism on one day and talks about mor e spending on the next, never realizing any contradiction in what they're doing.

The particular editorial goes on, it says, "The bill is irreparably bad." It goes further, it says, "The bill is un necessar y"; and finally it says, "By opening the drug business to generic competition, Canada has enjoyed some of the lowest drug prices in the world, prices far lower than in the U.S. Now the Conservatives plan to buckle to a powerful lobby and its Reagan admin istration friends. They would do better to summon up their nerve once more and give this bill a summer burial." Mr. Deputy Spea ker, amen, that is what they should do, give it a burial.

Free Press, March 12 , 19 87, Joan Cohen mentions that it's unfortunate that it will only take a short period of time to deal with this bill, "For 15 days of hearings by a Commons Comm ittee ha ve confirme d tha t Canadians have every reason to be concerned about what is going to happen to drug prices under the new legislation. The Mulr oney Government has served up a flawed and inadequate bill" - a flawed and inadequa te bill. And yet I predict, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that the Member for Tuxedo will rise this afternoon to support that bill; to say, yes, it's in our interest to have the international drug companies raise prices on the backs of Manitobans; yes, it's in the interests of the Americans to raise this; yes, it's in the interests of Brian Mulroney and his free trade deal. Is it in the interests of the constituents for Tuxedo? I say not, certainly not for Rossmere and Fort Rouge and Kildonan and so on. We know what side we're on. We're on the side of the consumers, on the side of the Eastman Commission, on the side - in fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, talk about the side, because occasionally there's a suggestion that we're all out alone there, and all these wonderful people in Canada who have been looking at it are supporting Brian Mulr oney on this issue. I've got a list here of Manitobans against patent protection, Ma nitobans for Howard Pawley's bill.

Manitobans against the Member for Tuxedo and his crew's amendment: the Consumers' Association, the Society of Seniors, the Un iversity of Winn ipeg Administration and Students' Association, Manitoba Organization of Nurses Association, Brandon University Students' Association, University of Winnipeg Faculty Association, Social Planning Council of Winnipeg , University of Mani toba Admi nistra tion, Ma nitob a Teachers' Society, Manitoba Council of Health Care Unions, Manitoba Anti-poverty Organization, United Church of Canada, Winnipeg Presbytery, Manitoba Home and School Association, University of Brandon Admin istrati on, Red River Communit y Coll ege, Manitoba Home Economics Association, and on and on and on, University Women's Club, Royal Canadian Legion, people whom one would think those people would listen to a bit.

But it's somehow that Reagan and Bush-whack seem to have gotten the better of them back when the Mulr oney Government started out. That seems to have been what required them to move. They're following that star, regardless of how illogical it is.

One can go on with national organizations, many strong national organizations, including the Canadian Union of Public Emplo yees; the Angl ican Church; the Co-operative Un ion of Canada; Canad ian Cancer Society; Canadian Teachers' Federation; Ontario Health Coalition; Na tiona l Federation of Nurs es Union; Canadian Labour Congress; Auto Workers; Federation of University Women, and on and on and on. Those people are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Federal Government is wrong in what it's doing, it should stop, it should get out of what it's doing. This is an expensive bill tha t will not work.

Everybody's telling them that. The taxpayers of Canada have spent thousands of dolla rs on comm issions studying the issue and finally , Mr. Deputy Speaker, if we were to do this in order to get a free trade deal with the U.S., because I believe that's the bottom line, then this is the dum best time to do it. It is putting something on the table the Americans badly want without getting anything back on the negotiating table. It's handing in one of your aces and saying, well, we won't count that in the card game. We'll just put that aside and we'll keep on negotiating for all the other things.

That's one of the things we've lost, just like transportation. We're in the middle of giving up transportation without getting anything back in return. What a negotiating stance. Simon Reisman must be pulling his hair out, saying to himself, what is this bunch doing, this bunch of incompetents? When we mention the Autopac, Simon Reisman was saying, ssh, don't talk about it, as though the Americans don't know it's there. Here we are, we're giving this up without getting anything back and there they are at the same time, at the same table, and my constituents understand that.

They're following this issue and they're saying to themselves, this makes no sense, every time you turn around these people are giving something up. What is it that we've gotten back? Have we gotten some kind of protection against arbitrary actions on the part of the President of the United States, as he did from his ranch one weekend when he did the shakes and shingles shimmy last summer? Are we going to get away from the kind of improper activities in the way the Community of Carlsbad is acting towards Saskatchewan on potash?

They have all these little gimmicks through which they can come at us and we're saying, let's have it through one way, but we're getting nothing on that, no concessions there whil e we're giving up on food processing, while we're giving up on drugs, while we're 1472

Wednesday, 29 April, 1987 giving up on transportation, a lot of the things we're giving up on without even having anything back. That is very clear, and in the black and white. So, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, I have to say I strongly support the resolution of the Premier, strongly disagree with the Member for Tuxedo and his group's amendment which would require my constituents to increase the cost of their drugs for absolutely no benefits whatsoever to them or to Manitobans or, overall, to Canadians at large. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My comments will be brief, but firstly I must take issue with a few of the statements made by the Mem ber for Rossmere. That is, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I feel badly that the Minister saw fit not to address the amendment as put forward by my colleague, the Member for Emerson. Mr. Dep uty Sp eaker, em bodied within th at amendment was the area of protection. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Federal Government is talking about a brave new step and there are some uncertainties. I think we'll lay that on the record, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

We don't know for absolutely sure, we're not absolutely certain tha t this dir ection in which the Federal Government is headed indeed, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, is going to provide all the things that we say. And the protection and support of that, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, was embodied in the amendment as provided by the Member for Emerson. That was the strong protection. But let me say that my comments on this whole issue, Mr. Deputy Spea ker, are going to be based upon some experiences within the farm agricultural chemic al industry. Members will say that has nothing to do about it. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, there are some strong analogies in pla ce except within the area of drugs and pha rmaceutical supplies. The members opposite can bring in the element of consumer protection, and of cou rse the element, as inde ed ind icated by my colleague, the Member for Emerson, that allo ws them to go out and make this a sensational political issue. Mr. Deputy Speak er, I share some of the concerns, and I'll be quite honest - I share some of the concerns of members opposite, particularly in one area. That is, the development of a Canadian manufacturing industry within the drug area.

I know some of the claims that have been made by the Federal Government as to the number of jobs that'll be created. I also know that there would be a fond hope and desire by all of us to see a fully Canadian industry within that area. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it takes me back some 10 or 12 years ago when I remember the same claims being made in support of a Canadian agricultural chemical industry, when we then put into place import controls which caused, of course, those chemicals that we were importing to increase significantly in price so as to protect the new industry. But, Mr.

Deputy Spe aker, through that attempt to foster the development of a new industry, I can say some 12 years into it later we really , in my view, haven't come to a point where we've done much to foster a Canadian industry. So I share 1473 some of the sentiments with members opposite when they say, well, are you sure a whole new industry is going to be fo