Manitoba Hansard — 19 August 1986 (Sitting 70A, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-70a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 19 August, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Present ing Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMM ITTEES The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. Madam Spea ker, I move, seconded by the Member for Lac du Bonnet, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I'd like to table the University of Winnipeg Financial Statements for the year ended March 31, 19 86. MADAM SPEAKER: I'm pleased to table for the House the Annual Report of the Office of the Ombudsman for the year ending 19 85. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Mo tion . . . Introduction of Bills . . ORAL QUESTIONS MTS - judicial inquiry re MTX MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, my question is for the Premier.

Yesterday I asked the Premier in question period, who would be responsible for investigating the matter of the Minister, having been misinformed with respect to the nature of the kickback or the origin of the kickback tha t was admitted to by Mr. Provencher in committee last week, to which he replied Madam Speaker, first, I think it would have to be established that there was misinforming. Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that on Tuesday, August 12 in the morning sitting of the Committee of Natural Resources and Public Utilities, Mr. Provencher was quoted as saying: "I am aware of one payment.

I found that when I was reviewing the accounts of Saudi Arabia Datacom Ltd ., I believe it was about a year ago, 3099 we discussed it at the board and reaffirmed with our partners that unwarranted payments are not allowed and re-emphasized that we do have a code of conduct in MTX Telecom Services and that the joint venture must comply with the MTX code of conduct.

Later that very afternoon in question period the Minister responsible said, I quote: "I was advised in respect to the allegation of kickback in Saudi Arabia that it was a matter that occurred between a Saudi Arabian and his company, a fully-owned company of Sheik Al Bassan, the Al Bassan International. Madam Speaker, accordingly, it wasn't a matter that involved the joint venture, to my knowledge, nor did it involve a matter over which we had jurisdiction." Will the Premier now acknowledge tha t Ministers, the media, and members of the Legislature have been misinformed by MTX officials?

I won't even refer to other matters tha t are on the record about the flogging, the return of the equipment from Saudi Arabia, the employment of Theresa Aysan, all those matters of misinformation. Will he now ack nowledge tha t inde ed all this misinformation took place by MTX officials and tha t now he should call a public inquiry with powers of subpoena to get to the bottom of all of the corporate corruption at MTX and its related companies? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speak er, I appreciate the first part of the question because it does raise matters per taining to a qu estion and an answer in the committee, as well as in the House. I noted those comments in discussion with the Minister this morning. I think, in fairness, and I accept the Minis ter's explanation, the Minister can very properly explain that particular area. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister responsible for MTS. HON. A. MA CKLING: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in response to questions in this matt er, I was advised by Mr.

Provencher at a briefing meeting of an incident involving; an unauth orized payment, an unautho rized payment that did not involve an empl oyee of either MTX or Saudi Arabia Datacom Ltd., or SADL, the joint the venture company. He made that very clear to me. I have re-read his answer given to the committee and that is still consistent. I have received a further report in writing from Mr. Provencher comfirming that what he had told me earlier is still correct, that there was no payment to anyone who was involved in the SADL operation or the MTX operation. That is a matter for the record.

While I have the floor for a moment, Madam Speaker, I would like to table a copy of the terms of reference of the management audit of MTX. I am pleased to an no unce that the firm of Coopers and Lybrand Consulting Group has been appointed. Mr. Geoff McKenzie of that group will be heading the study and I would like to refer briefly to some of the terms of reference, a copy of which I will table right now.

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 The terms of reference, Madam Speaker, include a review and assessment of all relevant operations of MT X in Saudi Arabia and all relevant busi ness interr elations between SADL and Al Bassan International. It will also assess the ability of MTX and SADL to operate in Saudi Arabia in full compliance with human rights legislation and the code of conduct for Manitoba Crown corporations. If the operations are determined to be viable in these circumstances, to recommend measures to strengthen performance.

If the operations are determined not to be viable in these circumstances, to recommend a plan of action for disengagement to minimize financial loss. To review and assess MTX's investment in Cezar Industries to determine the sound ness of this investment and the most appropriate course of action. Review and assess all other MTX joint ventures, investments and contracts. Review and assess the adequa cy and accuracy of management and operations information provided to the Winnipeg headquarters, to the MTX Board, to the MTS Board and to the government.

Review and assess compliance with the stated policy of no cross-subsidization from MTS to MTX, and measures to ensure that such cross-subsidization does not occur. Investigate and record on all non-criminal matters pertinent to the management and performance of MTX raised in the Affidavit of Ian Ferguson of August 7, 1986 and any other relevant matters which may be raised by other interested parties in the course of this review. Cooperate with and assist the RCMP investigation of criminal matters.

Report on any information which may arise in the course of this review related to the provision of inaccurate, incomplete or misleading information to, or the withholding of information from the MTX or MTS Boards or the government. Madam Speaker, I have read from part of the terms of reference. There are other sections that I have not read that members can read at their pleasure. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, with the greatest of respect, it isn't good enough, because that doesn't cover the opportunity for witnesses to be subpoenaed under oath.

We have so many instances on the record. Madam Speak er, tha t was clearly a Min isterial Statement. It was clearly a Min isterial Statement. You allowed it, Madam Speaker, and I believe I should have an opportunity to respond. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speake r, it was a response to an answer . . . MR. G. FILMON: It was not. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Ma y I hear the advice from th e Honour able Government House Leader. The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: If the Leader of the Opposition will reflect upon his own questions yesterday, he will truly remember that he asked several questions as to what would be dealt with by the management study, what would be dealt with by the ACM Police study, and what would not be dealt with by those two. The terms of reference very clearly . . . SOME HONOURAB LE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. Order please. The Honourable Minister. HON. J. COWAN: He will recall that he asked those specific questions . . . MR. G. FILMON: None of them were taken as notice. MADAM SPEAKER: Order.

If the honourable members want to comment on the point of order, they can do so in good time, I now would like to hear this honourable member's comments. HON. J. COWAN: It's interesting, the members opposite through this whole incident have wanted, not only to ask the questions, but to give the answers, and that is not the way this House, this committee or this government operates. MR. D. ORCHARD: What's going on here? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. On the point of order, the Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: Regarding the point of order, the Leader of the Opposition suggests that because the questions were not taken as notice, or because the questions were addressed to the Premier and not to the Minister responsible, that the Minister responsible does not have a responsibility to report back as to the answers of those questions.

The answer which he gave in response to the questions yesterday, and today, clearly identifies the responsibilities of the consultants in the management consultant study, the management consultant audit, and it answers many of the questions which the Leader of the Opposition posed yesterday. If he doesn't want answers to those questions, if he just wants to build strawmen all over the place and tear them down, then perhaps he shouldn't ask the questions in the House; but if he truly wants information and a factual and responsible response ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Now I know the moon is full, but that's no reason that we should be conducting this 3100

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 business in a disorderly fashion. Could I please hear the honourable member and if any other members want to comment on the point of order - it is very difficult to hear whether a member is speaking on the point of order when everyone is hollering. Now, order. The Honourable Minister . HON. J. COWAN: Quite often in this House a member chooses to take a question as notice, or to report back without having taken the question as notice, as to further information in trying to provide an accurate and full response to that question.

I would suggest, Madam Speaker, that is exactly what has happened in this particular instance, and if members opposite don't like the answer, that is their problem, but let them not suggest that the rules in any way have been offended by this side trying to give complete factual, full and prompt answers to the questions whene ver that is possible. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader on the point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Rule 19(4), which provides for Minsterial Statements, Madam Speak er, states that "a Min ister of the Crown may make an annou ncement or statement of government policy at the time in the ordinary daily routine of busin ess appoi nted for mini sterial statements." Madam Speaker, yesterday no questions from the Opposition House Leader, with respect to this matter were taken as notice by either the Premier or the Minister responsible for MTS, and the Minister, I suggest to you, Madam Speak er, has abused the Rules of the House by making such a lengthy answer in response to a question from the Leader of the Opposition.

May I suggest to you that in view of the fact that this discussion arises out of your early calling of order to the Leader of the Opposition, and in view of the lengthy answer given by the Minister, which should have been made under ministerial statements, that you give some latitude to the Leader of the Opposition in making a

preamble to his next question. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights on the point of order. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I don't purport to be an authority on the Rules of the House, however, it seems to me that it has been customary, since I took my seat, that in ministerial statements copies are distributed to the members and also to the media. In this particular case it was certainly distributed to the media and, therefore, I think it had the intention of being a ministerial statement.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader rightfully points out that a Minister may make a state ment under min isterial statements on government policy. It does not say that any statement a Minister makes falls in that category. It's obvious that we are now in Oral Questions and that if the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, or any other mem ber, 3101 objected to the Minister's reading of a statement, or tabling a statement as an answer to a question, a point of order should be raised at the time it happens.

A point of order was not raised while the Minister was tabling his statement in answer to an Oral Question, ther efore, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition does not have an opportunity to reply. He does have an opportunity to have a

preamble to a question; but that particular document was tabled in the manner tha t many other documents are tabled in this House, and was not a ministerial statement. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. J. DOWNEY: Talk about a coverup. A MEMBER: Corruption and coverup. MADAM SPEAKER: I do hope that the Honourable Member for Arthur was not referring to the statement that the Speaker just made to the House. MR. J. DOWNEY: No, I wasn't, Madam Speak er, I was referring to the government and this Premier. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

In view of the fact that the annou nced study and terms of reference just made by the Minister responsible for the Telephone System will not provide for sworn tes ti mony; will not provide for witnesses to be subpoenaed under oath; will not provide the opportunity for employees who have expressed concern to ensure that their careers are not put at risk by having to give information to management consultants withou t immunity; and, Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that we have been misinformed - whether it be the media, whether it be this Minister and previous Ministers - this Premier and members of this Legislature have been misinformed on at least four occasions by senior staff and officials of MTX; will he not now see the great gap that exists within the study of the terms of reference that will not allow all the information and all the facts to come out, and all the testimony that should come out on this MTX issue and call a full, public inquiry with powers of subpoena to get to the bottom of the whole MTX mess.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, what is extremely important, in view of the allegations that have been raised in this Chamber and in committee, some of those allegations pertain to criminal action; some of those allegations rela ting to mana gement or business practice, tha t thos e al legations be dealt with expeditiously and by the proper body.

Insofar as the allegations respecting criminal activity - and the honourable member has made reference in his question to emplo yees not wishing to submit them selves to the giving of evidence - the employees that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition refers

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 to are employees named in the Ferguson Affidavit in relationship to criminal matters, they have a legal obligation to submit, Madam Speaker, their information to the Royal Canadian Moun ted Police, not to a Commission of Inquiry, but to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Secondly, Madam Speaker, in fact, if we are to ensure that those serious charges are dealt with expeditiously, any other route would be counterproductive to the ensuring that those serious allegations are properly investigated and dealt with, if necessary, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police by way of trial.

Madam Speaker, insofar as the . SOME HONOURAB LE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, insofar as the matters relating to management, the best possible route that I could possibly consider is the route that has been properly announced just a few moments ago by the Minister responsible for the Telephone System. What is required is an expeditious management audit, an early report back to this government so if the allegations per taining to bus ines s practices being shod dy, accounting irregularities, etc., are borne out, that appropriate action is taken.

Not, Madam Speaker, action which would be delayed while we proceed through a public inquiry that might takes months and months and months, while at the same time that public inquiry would be in operation we would be paralized insofar as taking appropriate action, insofar as dealing with the problems that may or may not have to be dealt with after there's been a proper determ ination. MTS - immunity for MTS employees re MTX MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , the Premie r conveniently refers only to employees named in the Ferguson Affidavit.

I ask him: what can he do to ensure immuni ty for other empl oyees not na med in the Ferguson Affidavit who have information to share, who are phoning daily to members on this side of the House asking for the opportunity to testify under oath so that they won't be in danger of losing their jobs? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, a commitment that any employee has in regard to cooperating either with the RC MP or the ma na gement aud it, is a commitment of this government, this Premier, the Min ister responsibl e for the Telephone System of immunity.

Madam Speaker, what is expected and what I assume will happen - because I know the employees of the Telephone System are a responsible group that want to cooperate insofar as dealing with thes e allegations, improving this system - Madam Speak er, that is the highest form of protection to any employee in the Province of Manitoba. MTS - judicial inquiry re MTX MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'm afraid that events over the past few weeks don't seem to give much credence to the Premier's word. Madam Speak er, I ask a further question of the Premier.

In view of the fact that on Tuesday, August 12, in a response to a question in this House, the Minister responsible for the Telephone System said: "I was advised that the individual involved was a citizen of Saudi Arabia, that disciplinary action had been taken against the individual. He was no longer employed. He had never been, as I understood it, in the employ of the joint ventur e. He had been a full-time employee of an affiliated company." And I just interrupt to say we are talking about the kickback allegation, the kickback admission by Mr. Provencher.

Further he concluded and said because he was a Saudi Arabian, because he was no longer employed, because he had been working for the Saudi Arabian company: "As such there was no action that we could have taken in Canada in respect to a criminal investigation on that matt er. Therefore, I believe there was no basis for a criminal investigation here, Madam Speaker.

In view of the fact that the Minister of the Telephone System, a former Attorney-General himself, does not believe that a Canadian criminal investigation could investigate and resolve the kickback issue because it involved a Saudi Arabian citizen and took place in Saudi Arabia , does tha t not ind icate that th e RCMP investigation will not be able to open up the whole matter and that the only way of doing it is to have a full and complete public inquiry to get to the bottom of all of this. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, what we are dealing with is a Saudi company.

If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that the RCMP lack any jurisdiction in respect to any of the matters pertaining of criminality, let me advise the honourable member that the RCMP has much more opportunity to get to the bottom of these allegations of criminality than any public inquiry that would have no jurisdiction whatsoever insofar as Saudi Arabia is concerned, or dealing with witnesses in Saudi Arabia, or the obtaining of any documents in Saudi Arabia.

There is no comparison between the ability of the RCMP insofar as those matters pertaining to criminal jurisdiction and getting to the bottom of the allegations, whether they're correct or incorrect - a lot of questions on tha t still, Madam Speaker - and a judicial inquiry or a public inquiry that would have no jurisdiction whatsoever in Saudi Arabia. You don't have to be a former Attorney-General to advise the Leader of the Opposition of that. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, before the Premier enters into a heartfelt rendition of Rose Marie, let me assure him that we believe tha t the RCMP will do their job. My question is: How can he believe tha t they will do the job that he wants them to do when even his own Minister, a former Attorney-General, doubts their ability to enter into a criminal investigation in Saudi Arabia because it was a kickback made by a Saudi Arabian in a Saudi Arabian company? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, let me suggest that Nelson Eddy's voice is cracking a little in that question. 3102

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 Madam Speak er, I have every confidence . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I will recognize the Honourable First Minister when we have order. HON. L. DESJARDINS: ls this the comedy hour or question period? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speake r, I was drawing, for th e Leader of the Oppo sit ion, a very clear comparison insofar as the effectiveness of the RCMP to get to the bottom of the allegations tha t have been raised, the effect iveness of the RCMP, not just dealing with witnesses and documents, etc. within Canada, but also as to their ability. Madam Speak er, obviously when we are dealing with other countries, the re is a question sometimes of ability.

But their ability to deal with the allegations as composed to the public inquiry tha t the Leader of the Opposit ion's proposed, that would have absolutely no jurisdiction, no authority within Saudi Arabia. Manitoba Hydro - hiring practice at Limestone MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Madam Speake r, my quest ion is to the Min ister responsible for Energy and Mines and deals with the hiring practices of Limestone. Could the Mini ster ind icate the numb er or the percentage of young Manitobans that are working on the project at Limestone right now?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Minis ter of Energy and Mines. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Madam Spea ker. The percentage of people who didn't come on directly from Manitoba is approximately 20 percent which is by far the lowest proportion we've ever had on a hydro electric project in Northern Manitoba. MR. A. DRIEDGER: A further question to the same Minister. Could the Minister also maybe indicate the amount of people, the nu mber of people or percentage of non Canadians that are working at Limestone under work permits? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Spea ker, I don't have that num ber.

It would be very, very small and certainly many, many times smaller as a proportion than ever before and certainly than before in the 1960's or 1970's. We have pretty well 80 percent of the people who are Manitobans and we're in the range of approximately 20 percent, most of whom, if not all of whom - not all, there's some from Bechtel and Kumagai and so on - very few people, though. Most of the people there of tha t 20 percent are still from other parts of Canada. 3103 MR. A.

DRIEDGER: To the same Minister then, could the Minister also indicate possibly the positions that are open at Limestone, in the advertising procedure for these positions, that employment offices in Southern Manitoba also have access to th at kind of information? HON. V. SCHROEDER: I thank the honourable member for the question. I think some confusion has arisen with respect to the hiring practices at Limestone and I think tha t is an important quest ion.

To begin with, there has been only one significant change in hiring practices since the original contract was signed in the 196 0's and tha t has to do in accordance with our cons ulting study by WMC Consultan ts, who recommended that we provide a ta rget for Northern Native people to work on that project. We installed th at target project into the procedure. As members probably know, that target is off for right now in most categories because it had been reached as of four months ago. The second category is Northern people.

Following Northern is southern Manitoba and following tha t is anywhere else in the country. As the member knows, it is the federal employment agency, CEIC, who does the reference to the employers, the contractors at Limestone, th at is, the contractor at Limestone says I need, say a carpenter as an example, and if there's a Northern Native or Northern carpenter available, tha t individual or tho se individuals are sent to the site. If th ere are none available within, I believe, 72 hours, then the job order is sent to southern Manitoba where again there's a period of time during which tha t order can be filled.

The member says just Winnipeg and Brandon, I certainly will take tha t as notice. It should not be just Winnipeg and Brandon; it should be across southern Manitoba. But as I pointed out, that is the federal portion of the situation. It is the Federal Government which controls CEIC total ly. We have nothing to do with tha t other than to sit down with th em and discuss how better to deliver when problems like th at are pointed out to us. If th at is a problem, certainly we will bring tha t forward because it should be across southern Manitoba.

But only after we've gone thr ough Northern Manitoba and southern Manitoba do we go to other parts of the country and it's working quite well, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson with a final supplement ary. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have one further question to the Min ister responsible for Energy and Mines. The goals for employment that were established under labourers, operat ing engine ers, carpenters , millwrights, re-bar, pipe fitters; have any of these groups met the goals or objectives of hiring practices tha t were established? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: I thank the member very much for his question. I think it's a good question. First of all, of about 11 categories, 10 were met as of four months ago. Currently, at least five are being exceeded. If we took a look at th at whole project, we're very, very close overall, not in each particular category,

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 but overall, we're very, very close to the original targets for Native employment. As these projects go on, Madam Speak er, we hope to do better. I would certainly hope that the Opposition will change its mind and support our Northern Native hiring preference which is so important for them and for our future. Agriculture Ministers' Conference - major issues MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I understand the Ministers' Conference will be held next week in Victoria.

What does the Minister of Agriculture see as the major issues and what stand does he intend to take on those issues? A MEMBER: That ought to be a nice long answer to that question. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Min ister of Agriculture, briefly. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the kind advice that you're providing.

I want to indicate that the major issue that I see at this conference is the whole issue of farm financing and the crisis situation that agriculture is in and the need of both shor t-term policies and income-support policies to the grain sector, and financial support such as a national operating loan guarantee program to complement provincial programs that have been asked for by all Ministers of Agriculture in this country, including Tory Ministers right across this country, and have been rejected by the Federal Government in the past. MR. C. BAKER: A supplement ary, Madam Speaker.

In view of the fact that the Federal Min ister of Agriculture has made a proposal to remove 15 percent to 20 percent of the farmers off the land, will the Minister of Agriculture be putting this issue on the agenda? - (Int erjection) - HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speak er, the Honourable Member for Arthur says we're moving 20 percent more people onto the land to starve. Ma dam Speak er, agriculture will not be more efficient by removing 20 percent of our farmers. We do not support such a policy, Madam Speaker.

It will be part and parcel of our concerted effort by Manitoba and a number of other provinces not to cooperate with the Federal Government to remove 15 percent to 20 percent of our farmers, as is recommended by the Federal Government, Madam Speaker. We will do whatever we can to advocate and support the farmers of Manitoba and this country to retain their land holdings and to farm with decent incomes, Madam Speaker. That will be our position. MR. C. BAKER: A final supplementa ry.

Will the Minister recommend, in view of the American subsidy, that we perhaps will suspend free trade talks with the United States until we get that ironed out? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. All members of this Legislature have the right to ask questions and also should be able to hear the answers. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, one can't resist the off-ha nded comments of mem bers of the Conservative Party who indicate that we should, in fact, get rid of 20 percent of our farmers because they are in a poverty position now and agriculture will be more efficient if we have 20 percent less farmers. Mem bers opposite have said that. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. the Honourable Member for Virden on a point of order. MR. G. FINDLAY: Yes, Madam Speak er, a point of order. No members on this side have advocated that we remove 20 percent of the farmers from the farm land.

I'd like the Minister to withdraw that statement. MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture, briefly. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to hear at least one member of the Conservative Party not standing with his federal colleagues. Madam Speaker, this government and the Premier of this province have our position very clearly vis-a vis agricultural trade, that in view of the actions taken by th e U. S.

President, we should suspend any discussions on international trade in view of the selling of subsidized grain to the Russians, and suspend the trade talks. Interest Rate Relief Program - written-off loans MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On August 7, I took as notice a couple of questions from the - (Interjection) - MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. A MEMBER: You've got to keep order in this House, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: It would help if there was some cooperation to keep order in this House. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I certainly agree with your sentiments about members opposite. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 3104

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 HON. E. KOSTVRA: On August 7, I took as notice a number of questions from the Honourable Leader of the Opposition with regard to previous information that was provided to him with respect to the Interest Rate Relief Program. He had asked me at that time whether or not there was any legal recourse to collecting from the companies that were still in operation.

I point out to him that there was a very extensive process of dealing with the loans that were outstan ding with respect to the Interest Rate Relief Program, a very extensive program through the Department of Business Development and Tourism. Failing a satisfactory resolution there, there was referral to the Attorney General's Department, which then contacted the client and attempted to effect payment. If, as a result of that, there were still un satisfactory results, they went into various legal recourses such as statement of claim or other mechanisms.

I would point out, as a matter of information, that since more than 85 percent of the businesses that were involved in that program have continued and have recovered as a result of that program, overall it's quite obvious that program was a success in terms of assisting small business during the very difficult time of high interest rates back in 1981-82. Since the collection procedure is quite detailed, and I've just given a very quick overview of that process, Madam Spea ker, I will table a detailed response to the question for the Leader of the Opposition. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my further question that the Minister took as notice was why they did not require personal gurantees on those loans. HON. E. KOSTVRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. That question also was answered. It was not deemed to be appropriate under the program because that program was to assist small businesses during a very difficult time of high interest rates. The program was set up in such a way that that was not a requirement of the program at that time. Limestone - Native hiring MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Hydro. In Ma y, Ma nitoba Hyd ro suspende d its Na tive Employment Preferential Clause because the Min ister bragged, and he did so again today, that they had achieved the 35 percent Native employment rate, despite the fact tha t rate had been achieved in an overall period of low employment. Will the Minister explain why, today, Native hiring is standing at about 22 percent on the Limestone project in this, what is now a very high period of employment? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Energy and Mines. HON. V.

SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, it would be nice if the member understood the collective agreement. A collective agreement was entered into between the trade unions involved and the contractors, the Allied Hydro Council, and it set out for the first time in history a target proposal which had to be met for Northern Native hiring. In about 10 of 11 categories, that target had been met approximately four months ago.

The contract - and not the government - the contract ·specifically stated that at the point when the targets had been met, and it's reviewed every four months, at tha t point wherever a target had been met, the preference would be removed although Northern Natives would still be within the first preference of hiri.ng because they are still Northerners, Madam Speaker. That is exactly what happened four months ago. There was nothing that the government did other than we set up that contract, and we're very proud of tha t fact.

We now have more than four times as many Natives working on Limestone, as a proportion, than we've ever had before in history in a Northern Manitoba hydro electric project and we're proud of that fact. We have said that's still not good enough and we will attempt to do better. We want to provide fair shares for Northern Natives. The four months is now up. There is a new review of tho se particular target areas and in accordance with the collective agreement, there will be further categories established.

We will continue and we will evaluate that work over the winter and try to make sure tha t we do better next year. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Mada m Sp eake r, a supplementary question to the same Minister. Will the Minister require Hydro to reinstitute its Native hiring provisions and to maintain those Native hiring preferential clauses even in times of high employment? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Madam Speaker, there is a contract in place, a contract that we do not have the right to unilaterally alter.

We will attempt to do our best to ensure Native Manitoba, Northern Manitoba and Southern Manitoba employment: Manitoba Hydro - hiring practices at Limestone HON. V. SCHROEDER: Just further to a question asked by the Member for Emerson earlier on today, he asked how many people from outside of Canada are working at Limestone.

I'm pleased to tell him that there are 7 people out of scope; 4 that is out of the union scope of employment, 4 at Bechtel-Kumagai Ma nagement, 3 others - and yes, the Member for Springfield, brilliant as usual, said how many in scope, how many union people; zero, Madam Speaker, zero from outside of Canada. Brandon General Hospital - cutbacks MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Health.

The government has refused to increase the operating budget for Brandon General Hospital, Madam Speaker, and that will result in the closing, the cutback of 31 3105

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 beds. That's a complete about-face from election promises made five months ago. Madam Spea ker, in view of the priority of this government to use tax dollars for Socialist adventures at ManOil and to finance questionable MTX activities in Saudi Arabia, will the Minister urge the government to reorder its priorities, to get its act together so that sick people in Westman will not have to face further cuts at the Brandon General Hospital in the future? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Min ister of Health. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I can assure the member that at no time were there any promises that we would encourage people to go over their budget. At no time was there in any election that they should go over their budget. My honourable friend is talking ab out reinstituting priorities; that's exactly what we're doing. We're trying to give a service that is affordable to the people of Manitoba and we're trying to give the same service to all the people of Manitoba, not just one area. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, there are 900 people waiting for elective surgery at the Brandon General Hospital and with this cutback, that list will certainly grow. Does the Minister suggest that people go to the United States or to other jurisdictions for their elective surgery now? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, there is no cutback at all. There is no cutback; it's additional funds that have been requested. There's no cutback and the decision was made by the board of the hospital.

Madam Speaker, if we can clean up the act out there and we can have a bidding plan that is comparable to the rest of the hospitals in Manitoba, we won't have such a waiting list. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Min ister of Employment Services and Economic Security - a Minister who gave the people of Brandon many assurances at election time, including assurances of protection and enhancement of our health care system. I wonder if the Min ister stood up for Brandon when this decision was made, Madam Speak er. Does he have any influence in this Cabinet left at all?

We're finding out, Madam Speak er, just what that . . . scanner is costing ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please! Order please! The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: The member knows full well that it is improper to ask questions of a Minister that do not fall within his responsibility.

The member also knows full well, as do the citizens of Brandon and the residents of this province, that they have had a strong capable vocal voice in this government for many years and will continue to do so as long as the Member for Brandon (sic) sits in this House and that he has stood up their behalf on every occasion and at every opportunit y. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: First of all, as the Honourable Member for Brandon West well knows, he cannot ask a question of a Minister that does not fall within his administrative responsibility and secondly, the time tor Oral Questions has expired.

MR. J. McCRAE: I would ask that, with leave, the question period be extended a few minutes to allow honourable members an opportunity to ask questions which were prevented by lengthy questions and even more lengthy answers given by Ministers opposite. MADAM SPEAKER: Obviously the honourable member does not have leave for his request. SOME HONOUR ABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please! MR. J. McCRAE: I hear honourable members opposite saying "Leave," Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Leave has to be unanimous, as the honourable member well knows and leave is not unanimous. Order please! Order please!

Is it the will of honourable members to continue with the business of the House? For the edification of all honourable members, I have operated un der th e ass ump tion tha t ho nourable members of the opposition determine in their own caucus how they allocate the time for question period. Order please. If members are not satisfied with the length of question period at 40 minutes, they know the proper procedure for amending the rules. The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, may I respectfully point out to you that it is not only the content of your remarks that offends members of the opposition, but the tone of your voice. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: I'm certain that the Honourable Opposition House Leader has every right to express his opinion; however, one is born with the tone of voice that they happen to have. The Honourable Government House Leader. ORDERS OF THE DAY HON. J.

COWAN: I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour, tha t Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider the supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, also as well to indic ate tha t it is my un ders tanding th at there's inclination on the part of all members to forego Private Memb ers' Hour toda y and conti nue with th e consideration of the Estimates until 5:30 p.m. and then continue again at 8:00 p.m. 3106

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 MOTION presented. MATTER OF GRIEVANCE MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speake r, I wish to use this opportunity to use my grievance for this Session and in doing so I firstly wish to indicate that I was astounded by the remark of the Honourable Minister of Health who had the nerve at the end of question period to suggest to the Member for Brandon West that the Brandon Hospital Board clean up its act in Brandon.

We have on that side of the House, Madam Speaker, in the short period of five months since the last election, the most incompetent administration that has ever governed in the Province of Manitoba. It's incompeten t, second only to their previous term in office, though I would point out, Madam Speaker, but in the short period of five months - and this is my grievance, Madam Speaker - there is a litany of mismanagement and incompetence and disaster after disaster from that side of the House. We have the current crisis, the MTS-MTX and the refusal of members opposite to appoint a public inquiry.

Madam Speaker, I submit that they're afraid to appoint a public inquiry because the allegations so far only skim the tip of the surface of the operations of MTS and MTX in Saudi Arabia and on the North American continent. That's the real reason they're afraid to appoint a public inqu iry. They are following once again the Cabinet decision of September 1983, where they resolved at that time, after two years at that time of disaster after disaster, to hide everything, not to make any decisions, and that's what they're embarking upon again. Keep the public misinformed.

If we do the job as well as we did the last two terms of our last government, we'll fleece them once again in the next election. So don't call a public inquiry because even though we're not too sure of what's going on, we don't want the public to know what's going on. So they're refusing day after day after day to appoint a public inquiry because they're afraid that the public will learn what's really happening, Madam Speake r, and they're afraid because the allegations so far have only skimmed the surface of what is happening.

Let's go back for a moment, Madam Speak er, and examine the disa sters that have occurred since the Ma rch election. It started off by the government withholding, and then finally after the election, revealing the Third Quarterly Financial Report which indicated a deficit higher by $55 million than had previously been estimated, information they didn't want the public to know. They are following that with MTS and MTX, and they did it at that time also. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos in the Chair) And here we are, again, Mr. Deputy Speak er, nearly four months after the year-end.

Where is the First Quarterly Financial Report? Those reports should be available within 90 days after the end of a financial quarter. But I suspect what's going on, it's hide the report until the Legislative Session is over, and then we'll release it because then there'll be no opportunity 3107 to debate and discuss what's contained in the First Quarterly Financial Report for this year. It's their old trick, just trying to fool the people of Manitoba once again. Then we had the announcement, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, of the Flyer sale after the election when we had a commitment last year at the last Session that there would be a sale and public information by the end of 1985. That sale was deferred until after the election. Why? Because what was in that sale, because this govern ment, thr ough its mismana gement and incompetence of Flyer had to pay to get rid of Flyer, and pay dearly. And what happ ened when the union raised a concern about the terms of the first sale that they negotiated?

They renegotiated and guaranteed a further th ree-quarters of a million dollars in the event that a sale of buses is not completed. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the public of Manitoba paid dearly for their incompetence during their last term in office for their mismanagement of Flyer; it delayed the sale until after the election; they renegotiate when a union indicates concern; and a further three-quarters of a million dollars is guarant eed to the purchasers, and the public of Manitoba are paying dearly with respect to that matter. What did they do with Manf or, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

They changed the year-end so that the Annual Report did not have to come out during the election period revealing a $30 million deficit. Again, the public of Manitoba was manipulated and this Legislature was manip ul at ed, by changing tha t year-end and by withholding that information in such a way that it would not come out until after the last election. But it has come out and now we have layoffs, which I am sure the Premier and the Minister responsible did not tell the union workers about in The Pas prior to the election. Then we had a Budget, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that contains another half a billion dollar deficit, the fifth in a row, for the New Democratic Party since they've been in office since 1981, and a third loss in credit rating. This is the third loss in credit rating for this province in 5 years. Five years of $500 million deficits, and a third loss in credit rating. What was the next item that appeared on the agenda, Mr. Deputy Speaker? It was the emergency debate that we had in this Chamber on child abuse with respect to allegations that I had raised for a number of years.

And finally, members opposite, after the election was over, after the Minister refused to debate the issue publicly before the election in March, even members opposite agreed with the concerns that we had raised and we, in a precedent-setting discussion of that day on issues that were all raised prior to the election, but now which the Min ister after the election finally agrees with, finally agrees to a review of the child abuse problems that exist in this province. Then we had, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the University of Brandon and the settlement with Dr. Perkins.

This board containing a majority of political appointments from this government who fired Dr. Perkins previously, two or three years ago, finally has to account for the error in their ways by means of a $1 million settlement of public taxpayers' money. That settlement is worth $1 million, despite the objections of the Mini ster for Education because Dr. Perkins asked to be paid that salary for a period of 10 years, as well as the new

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 president of Brandon University has to be paid. That's $1 million cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba. We have, in addition, a provincial audit in Natural Resources on a matter raised by my colleague, the Member for Emerson, issues which he had been putting to the Minister and putting to the government for a number of days and a number of weeks. The Auditor must be the most overworked civil servant in the Province of Manitoba. Never has he been so busy, engaged in special and emergency audits with respect to mismanagement under this government. Then we have, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, the firing of the President of MP IC, Manitoba Public Insura nce Corporation, one of the great, certainly in the eyes of the government, one of the great corporat ions and institutions in this province, having to fire the President of the Manitoba Public Insur ance Corporation, under their management, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, we have the silly situation of the Children's Hospital not yet fully open to provide health care for the children of this province, in a project that was app roved in 1981 by our party when we were in government, and we still have daily problems relating to that. As late as yesterday, I was advised of a concern by a parent, because they don't have air conditioning yet in the operating room, extremely concerned about a problem that had occurred with one of her children as a result of the lack of air conditioning. In this particular heat, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the operating room.

That's the kind of mismanagement that is taking place under this government. We have what became evident on Friday. A government who stops testing for Western Equine Encephalitis, such a small matter, and a Min ister who refuses to allow the City of Winn ipeg to do the testing at the Cadham Lab, and my advice is that the testing costs approximately $1.75 for two. That's the kind of money we're talking about, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, but because the government feels embarrassed because the city has gone on and done what the province should be doing, they don't allow testing at the Cadham Lab, and require the city to go to Toronto to have this important testing done. It is important to parents, particularly of children, or to relatives of older people to know that there is a threat of Western Equine Encephalitis, so that special precautions can be taken. We have, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the suspension of the Chief Executive Officer of the Workers Compensation Board, and a whole review of that particular operation.

Public hearings for which, interest ingly enough, were postponed until after the election. And day after day, while the review committee met and heard public submissions, we read day after day about concerns expressed by people on all sides of the issue.

We have read day after day and year after year about 20 percent increases annually, year after year, in the operation of the Workers Compensation Board, and I could take you back a numb er of years th rough the mismanagement and incompetence that has taken place under this government on that particular side of the operation of the Workers Compensation Board to a point now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, where they have to suspend the Chief Executive Officer. One thing we know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are all their people. Because they fired everybody of any senior management ability who was there previously.

They're all paying them retirement bonuses, severance pay. - (I nterjec tion) - They are. The Min ister responsible is saying, not true. But all of those people received severance pay and special pension arrangements, of course, one of the conditions being, Mr. Deputy Speak er, tha t they make no pu blic statement. They make no public statement. That's one thing that this government does. In every one of these severances, as with Dr.

Perkins, as with the people at the Workers Compensation Board, they make it a condition of the agreement that the terms of the settlement will be at an end, should the other party make a public statement. That's their commitment to public discussion, to open government, to public inquiries, Mr. Deputy Speak er. And do we yet have The Freedom of Information Act? The Freedom of In formation Act tha t the Honourable Attorney-General said, over a year ago, about 14 months ago, that the act would be proclaimed at the latest, last fall. And here it is, the end of August of 1986 and the act is not proclaimed.

An act that was promised in 1982, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but do you really think that they're going to proclaim that act before this Session of the Legislature is over? I don't think so. Their whole record indicates a lack of commitment to that freedom of information, to public discussion of these issues. But the most outstanding thing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you look through this list of only 12 that I have been able, in a short period of time, to make a note of, these 12 instances of incompetence. Or failing incompetence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a deliberate attempt to withhold information to manipulate the public.

Isn't it interesting, Mr. Deputy Speak er, how all of that public advertising that we had last fall and in the early part of Janu ary, is nowhere to be seen on the television channels now. What was so important during 1985 when we spent millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money on advertising of this government? All of a sudden, it's quit. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I raised the issue with the Min ister of Labour in hi s Estimates because his communications area was reduced significantly, the expenditures.

I asked the Minister of Labour, I said, "Isn't it odd that in the year after the election, the communic ations budg et ha s been reduced so substantially?" I said, "Can we expect that in the year leading up to the next election that this area will be bolstered again?" And he said, "Excellent idea." Of course. Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is the kind of cynical attitude that this government displayed throughout its first term, is displaying throughout this term, where it wants to withhold information from the public, such as a public inquiry into MTS and MTX. The other thing, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that becomes obvious, is tha t we have a clear case of sheer incompetence and mismanagement for the previous four years and throughout these first five months. What a honeymoon period for a new government. If this is their honeymoon period, I hate to see what the next three-and-a-half years will bring for the people of Manitoba. But just look at the sheer incompetence in operating Flyer, where millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' money have been wasted. This is the party who wants to stand up for Manitobans; who wants 3108

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 to stand up for the ordinary Manitoban. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is the ordinary Manitobans who are paying for the sheer incompetence of this government, day after day. Millions and millions of dollars in Flyer; millions and millions of dollars in Ma nfor, with people now being laid off; for this half-a- billion dollar deficit, ordinary Manitobans are going to pay millions and millions of dollars in interest charges.

For the third reduction in their credit rating, ordinary Manitobans are going to pay and pay through the nose to borrow money for this province, to lend money for this province, it's going to cost their ordinary Manitobans millions and millions of dollars. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this government has exhibited pure mismanagement in that whole area of child abuse that is being discussed in the Legislature. They were warned and warned in advance, not only by myself, but professional people, privately, and they mismanaged that whole area, so that we have to now add a whole review of that process.

They are responsible for the million dollar settlement with Dr. Perkins, it is ordinary Manitobans who are going to have to pay for that costly settlement. It is ordinary Manitobans who are going to have to pay for mismanagement in Na tural Resources. It is ordinary Manitobans who are going to have to pay for what has taken place in MP IC. It is ordinary Manitobans who are paying for the incom petence in the Health Department with respect to the Children's Hospital. It is ordinary Manitobans, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, who are going to pay for what is taking place in MTS and MTX, and that's why it's so important that there be a public inquiry into that whole area. That's the only appropriate way to deal with the extremely serious allegations that have been made and with the great concern that there is much more under the surface that has not been yet touched, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, and that is why our concern is that is the real reason why the government does not want to appoint a public or judicial inquiry. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) Ordinary Manitobans, in one way or the other, Madam Speak er, are going to pay for the incompetence that is being ex hibi ted and displa yed at the Workers Compensation Board.

So, Madam Speaker, when the Premier had the nerve to say he wanted to say to the electorate just a short five months ago, "Stand up for Manitoba and vote NOP," it's time somebody did stand up for Manitoba, and we're trying to do that on this side of the House - stand up for Manitoba and resign - because that's the best thing they could do. This government with this horrible record, never in my life anywhere in Canada have I ever seen a record like this of a government in the first five months after an election.

It is absolutely horrendous and the public is absolutely appalled at the kind of government that they are receiving from the New Democratic Party. It is absolutely mind boggling in fact, Madam Speak er, to see error after err or, disaster after disaster , incompetence after incompetence coming to the public light. People pick up their paper day after day and they say, "What more can go wrong?" And there's always something more. Day after day, week after week, there is another disaster after disaster.

When a government with a record like that refuses to appoint a public inquiry after all of their disasters, the public are very, very suspicious.

It would be one thing if they came into this House with a clear record up until now with nothing having gone wrong, with a demons trated record of competence, but for the Premier to come to this House with this kind of a record of incompetence and mismanagement and to say they are not going to appoint a public inquiry, people are very, very suspicious and the people of Manitoba, Madam Speaker, want a public inquiry because they don't trust this government for one second.

If this government has any hope of achieving electoral success in the future, they better call a public inquiry, face the facts, let it all come out, deal with it honestly. Perhaps, through luck or through retaining somebody with some ability outside of their caucus and their Cabinet, they might be able to resolve the matter. But with this record it is absolutely incomprehensible, Madam Speaker, that they would fail to appoint a public inquiry of the serious allegations. Their record demands that a public inquiry be appointed.

Madam Speaker, I don't wish to use my full 40 minutes; I simply wish to go on the record that in five short months since the last elec tion this government has demonstrated a degree of incompetence that is simply un seen in any other jurisdiction in the world. For this honeymoon period, to have this litany of things go wrong, is absolutely incomprehensible. It is because of that record that so much else that has gone wrong, it is absolutely essential that this goverment appoint a public inquiry into the allegations that have been made with respect to the Manitoba Telephone System and MTX.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. QUE STION put, MOTION carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Su ppl y to be granted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Natural Resources; and the Honourable Mem ber for Kildonan in the Chair for the Department of the Attorney-General. CONCURRENT COMMIT TEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ATTORNEY-GENERAL MR. CHAIRMAN, M. Dolin: The committee will come to order. We are reconvening the review of the Estimates of the Department of the Attorney- General, on Page 18, 3. Legal Services, Resolution 18.

Prior to that, the Attorney-General has some information that was requested. The Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: First of all, to confirm a response I made to the Member for St. Norbert having to do with the request, as I have it, from Rhineland, but it was also from Morris-Macdonald, dealing with penalities associated with violating the "Don't Pass" law for school buses. Up on receiv ing the com munica tion from the Rhineland School Division and receiving a memo to the same effect from the Minister of Education, I referred it to the Minister of Highways, as I indicated yesterday. 3109

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 I have advised Mr. Jake Sawatsky, the board chairman of Rhineland, on May 7, 1986 to that effect. I diarized this to discuss it further with the Minister of Highways and we'll be doing so. So that's in response to that. I'm confirming that we advised Mr. Roy Harriott on that issue involving the question of cruelty to animals. On February 17, 1986, I noted that we had decided not to appeal the decision of Judge Rubin. Our lawyers advise they do not agree with the ruling, however, they will not be appealing this particular case.

Please be assured that Judge Rubin's comments on dismissing this case tor evidential reasons does not affect the enforcement of provisions in the Criminal Code which prohibit individuals from killing animals. So that advice went out.

Thirdly, there were some questions yesterday about the Crime Prevention Centre and I have available for distribution and would now ask that they be distributed to those members who are here, just a very brief report noting that we are, in tact, in order to develop an appropriate model tor the Crime Prevention Centre in Manitoba, the Department of Community Services and the Attorney-General have engaged in a process of consultation. That has included the Federal Department of Solicitor-General, who have also announ ced a national Crime Prevention centre and are interested in developing a cross-Canada network.

So we're trying to mesh with that. There's some material attached which gives sort of an update about where we are in the development of crime prevention initiatives. So I'm providing that as additional information to members of the House. Finally, because I think the question will come up in Legal Services, the item that we're about to deal with, I'll distribute now in advance a brief

summary I've had prepared which is a

summary of departmental activities on the validation of Manitoba's laws dealing with the translation project. So I would ask tha t this be distributed to members here. That document can be before ... MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, while we're trying to absorb the information that is being distributed to us, with respect to this, we're on Item 3.(a), which does show an additional seven staff years for regulations, review and spent statutes review. Could the Attorney General indicate how many lawyers are involved in that? HON. R.

PENNER: In this particular item, which is the regul ation review and the review of the private, unconsolidated laws, with respect to the regulation review, there are three lawyers and a secretary. With respect to the review of the private, unconsolidated laws, there are two lawyers and a secretary making a total of seven SY's. MR. G. MERCIER: Were thos e hi red by open competition? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, they were. MR. G. MERCIER: This is the regulations review? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: It's the translation that's being done on contract, not the . . . HON. R.

PENNER: Translation tha t is done under contract, there we get bids. There are a limited num ber of major legal translating firms located in the Ottawa Valley district, Quebec City and Montreal. When we have a project ready for translation that we can't handle internal ly, then we ask the two or three or four firms to submit bids and we take the lowest of the bids. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could deal with this area of translation, etc., and the validation of the statutes now, although some money is obviously included in Legislative Counsel.

Are we up-to-date with the program of translation that was approved in the Supreme Court order? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. In fact, we're ahead and I hope we remain that way. We expect, on the basis of current progress, that we should have a fully valid continuing consolidation. That's, of course, as the member knows, the principle of public laws, in 1987-88. That's a full year-and-a-half ahead of schedule.

We've added, in this fiscal year, an additional drafter, a legal transla tor, general tr anslator, and secretary, to cope with the demand of keeping current as we go through a Session of the Legislature and making sure we can complete the CCM project. MR. G. MERCIER: Under that court order, is there not supposed to be a public report filed in the Legislature? HON. R. PENNER: I don't believe so, but I have filed a report here during my Estimates and if the member would like a more formal report filed in the Legislature, I certainly have no objection to doing that. MR. G.

MERCIER: I just want to see the Attorney General do what the Supreme Court, I believe, asked him to do and perhaps he could check that. HON. R. PENNER: I don't have a copy of the order immediately to hand although it may be in one of the briefing books, so we'll find it in a few minutes. I'm inclined to think ... if you'll bear with me a moment. No, there's no requirement in the order that a report be tabled in the House. There's a requirement in the order, or at least there's a permissory

section that any of the parties may appear before the Supreme Court in case of necessity to try to modify the order, but there doesn't appear to be any necessity. MR. G. MERCIER: I note in the report you have tabled with us, you indicate you received support from the Federal Government in the order of $400,000 last year and you anticipate a similar amount this year. Is there an agreement between the Provincial Government and the Federal Government to cover their cost sharing in this project of translation? HON. R. PENNER: No, there is no formal agreement. There is a commitment that had been made by the 3110

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 previous Secretary of State, which I understand is not a problem with the current Secretary of State, that a portion of the funds that they have generally available for this kind of work, translation of statutes, will be made available to the Province of Manitoba. What we want to do is increase the amount available to the Province of Manitoba and the Deputy Attorney-General will be meeting with officials both in Justice and Secretary of State sometime in September-October to see if we can up the amount of the federal contribution. MR. G.

MERCIER: As it stands now, during this five year period, you expect to receive, at least as of now, $400,000 per year and hopefully that will be increased? HON. R. PENNER: That is right. MR. G. MERCIER: The total cost is anticipated to be as stated in the report, $10,000.00? HON. R. PENNER: Ten million. MR. G. MERCIER: Ten million dollars? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. That's down from what we originally estimated, and I'd like here to commend the people who are working on the project.

I really feel that one of the best jobs in Canada is being done by our legal staff, both in the Department of Legal Services in the Constitutional Law Branch and in the Translation Branch in narrowing the scope of what has to be done by cleaning out a lot of the old regulations, by looking at a lot of the old laws that need not be translated and weeding them out, and also the increased efficiency of the translation unit itself which, as we anticipated, is able to now move from two or three pages a day to a considerably higher number - I'm not sure of the exact num ber of pages per day - and still cope with the ongoing business of the House.

The other thing that we've been able to add, and that was noted when we were looking at our computer expenditur es, is a lot of technology which has facilitated this work. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I too would commend them. Obviously, they're doing a good job but, when you see a final figure of $10 million compared to the suggestions that were made previously that the cost was going to be $20 million, $30 million, $40 million, $50 million, one wonders where those people who made those comments got those figures. HON. R.

PENNER: First of all, it should be noted that I'm not aware of anybody having made, at least any member of government having made a statement that it was going to be $25 - 30 - 35 million, but you have to bear the following in mind. No. 1, estimates that were made during the course of the debate on the resolution and subsequently on Bill 115 were estimates on the best estimates basis at the time. Secondly, the figure that I've given with respect to translations does not include the printing costs, which have to be factored in to get the total cost.

Thirdly, the $10 million is an incremental cost and, whether or not the figures that were given were incremental only or assumed the ongoing cost that we were bearing in any event is not quite clear. 3111 It's true that a number of figures were used. I think everybody was, at that time, dealing with something very, very new, trying to do their best under the circumstances to get a handle on the costs. I think the member may recall that, when we finally got the order of the Supreme Court, and I was asked on one or two, perhaps more occasions by the Member for St.

Norbert as to my then estimate, I believe I put it in the order of from $10 million to $15 million altogeth er, something of that kind, because at that time we were beginning to have a better handle on what the cost was. Indeed, the cost is at the lower end of that scale, and I'm pleased about that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I think, if you examined the record, it would indicate that the Premier used figures like $50 million for translation. Could the Attor ney-General confirm that? HON. R. PENNER: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question. MR. G. MERCIER: As I recollect, Mr.

Chairman, the Premier used figures like $50 million for translation in some of his statements. HON. R. PENNER: To the best of my knowledge, the Premier did not make that estimate in the House or in response to a question in the House or, for that matter, anywhere else. I can't confirm it, I can't deny it, I just have no recollection of that kind of estimate being made by the Premier at any time. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, on another subject. During April, the government announ ced a settlement of the CFI matter for a $3 million settlement with Arthur D.

Little; does the Attorney-General have a final financial accounting with respect to this whole matter? From time to time and from Estimates to Estimates, the department had prepared a statement of fees paid for legal services, and certainly there was a $9 million civil settlement with Mr. Kassar, before the Attorney-General was in office. Now we have a final settlement of this matter . HON. R.

PENNER: In response to the question, and if possible we'll try to get it right down to the last dollar and cent by this evening, the total recovery would be in the order of $13 million - 9 million plus change at the outset; 1 million fine on the criminal; and 3 million on the A. D. Little. The total expenditures for the Commission of Inqu iry, the legal costs associated with the criminal prosecution, and the legal costs associated with the civil prosecutions, or civil matters, would be somewhat under 5 million. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, we'll get the final figures later on I take it.

In this review of regulations, we have this Rule in the House Rules about the committee that is supposed to meet to deal with regulations that has met some eight years ago, I think, eight or nine years ago. Does the Attor ney-General have any - and I'm not particularly adv ocating it - but is he plann ing on using that committee?

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 HON. R. PENNER: I'd certainly be prepared on request to table - we will be tabling the Regulation Report when it's complete in the House because I think that the House should have that as a formal report. So I undertake to table it in the House and if the House is so minded to have the committee meet to review what has been done in the regulation project in detail, I'd certainly have no objection to that at all. MR. G. MERCIER: Well I raise it because something should be done about that existing committee. It's in the rules and it's supposed to meet regularly to review regulations.

It hasn't for a long, long time because everything was backed up so far when we last tried to do it eight or nine years ago, and either the committee is going to be asked to do a job, and maybe it's more a matter for the House to decide but it would be, I think, guided a great deal by the Attorney-General's ability to do the work on an annual basis for the committee. Perhaps the Attorney-General just might consider that existing committee and what he would recommend be done with what it's supposed to be doing. HON. R.

PENNER: One of the tasks undertaken by the Regulation Review group is in fact - and I don't know if it's referenced in the report that was circulated; I was looking for a fuller report. But in any event, one of the tasks undertaken is - I think I have it here now - to look at the whole question of the way in fact in which the regulation process takes place. One of the group, Val Perry, is working on possible revisions to The Regulations Act so that we can, in the House, look at what we want to do with the regulation process as far as the House function is concerned.

So yes, we will be looking at that and in due course, something will be brought forward to the House for its consideration. MR. G. MERCIER: Sometime ago, the Attorney-General indicated that he would have all legislation reviewed from the point of view of Charter compliance. Is that done in civil legal services or in legislative counsel or is it being done? HON. R. PENNER: It's being done in a number of ways. We've made small grants to, first, the Charter of Rights Coalition, a broadly-based women's group doing an audit of provincial statutes insofar as compliance with

Section 15 is concerned and we've had one report and I think there's a subsequent report that will conclude that audit; made a relatively small grant to the League for the Physically Hand icapped for the same purpose. So we're getting as much external input in that way as we can.

In addition, the Law Reform Commission undertook a study of all the family law that deals with prop erty questions, devolutions of estate, dower and so on, both with respect to modernizing these laws and, in the process of so doing, to try to bring them in line with what the Law Reform Commission conceived to be the requirements of the Charter.

We now have a member of our staff who is charged with the responsibility of working with the head of the Family Law Department, Robin Diamond, to try and mesh the recomme ndations of the Law Reform Commission and of the Charter of Rights coalition so that a major revision of family law statutes, particularly with respect to property, might be undertaken to bring them in line with the Charter. That, basically, is the way in which the work is taking place. Another member of staff has an ongoing assignment to review statutes with respect to compliance with

Section 8 of the Charter, and the member will recall that we have now brought in two bills for

Section 8 compliance, and I anticipate there will be at least two more before we have been able to deal with all of the provincial statutes insofar as

Section 8 is concerned. MR. G. MERCIER: Who examines the existing bills before they're presented to the House? HON. R. PENNER: We have a Legislation Review Committee headed by myself. There's a requirement that when a Minister submits a proposal for legislation, and that's subm itted in th e first ins tance to the Leg islation Review Comm ittee, tha t submis sion addresses the question not only of resources and resource implications but Charter compliance. That's the beginning.

If, in a quick review of the submission, it's thought that even though the submission may not have identified a Charter problem there might be, we then refer it to a member of either the Constitutional Law Branch or to another member of the legal staff of the department to see if, in fact, there is a Charter problem. MR. G. MERCIER: Did the Attorney-General then review the Minister of Health's bill, I think it's No. 53, with respect to compulsory payment of MM A dues? HON. R.

PENNER: That came up late in the Session, I must say, but it was my view, and I haven't, quite frankly, checked it out with my own staff, but the Min ister's staff may have checked it out - I'll look into it - but it was my view that there was no Charter problem at least on the surface. MR. G. MERCIER: Would the Attorney-General undertake to review it with staff, then, within the next few days and advise whether or not he believes there is a Charter problem? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: We're prepared to pass this item. MR.

CHAI RMAN: 3.( a)( 1)- pass ; 3.(a )(2)- pass; 3.(b)(1)- pass. 3.(b)(2) - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I raise I think a comment with respect to this particular

section not out of any concern for the quality of work that's being done by Legislative Couns el or by any member of his department but perhaps even more out of a concern as the Opposition House Leader and having heard concerns expressed by many in our caucus as to the availability of Legislative Counsel during the Session since they have moved out of the building. I know a num ber of my colleagues, particularly more so in the past, it always seems that the demand for 3112

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 the Legislative Counsel's services is more in the last half of the Session than the first half, although I guess things are proceeding at a more leisurely pace at the beginning of a Session and members are prepared to communicate by mail or telephone, etc. with regard to perhaps preparation of private members' bills or suggested amendments. But as the last half of the Session is on, there are more and more concerns and needs by particularly members of the Opposition to meet with Legislative Counsel to discuss certain issues.

I've had a num ber of concerns expressed to me by members of our caucus tha t the y ha ve fou nd it very, very difficult to communicate with Legislative Counsel. The Attorney-General had indicated in December of 1984 that Legislative Counsel would retain an office in the building so that he could be available to all members of the House, particularly during the Session. I raise the matter again because it is a real concern and perhaps there should be some sort of

schedule or bulletin or memo to all MLA's, and I speak particularly for members of the Opposition so that the y know when someone is in the office, if the office still exists in the building, and when they can contact Legislative Counsel. I know the Legislative Counsel sometimes may feel that they may be there and th ere may not be any calls from private members, but surely they can bring work with them that has to be done. As I say, particularly during the last half of the Session, I think it's important that they be more available than the y have been so far.

I know that obviously they've been busy and that's why they've been difficult to reach. We certainly don't want to inter fere with that, but if they're her e so a member could drop into the office and speak to them about a problem that they might have, I think the service is going to have to be improved in that area. HON. A. PENNER: The member raises a very good point, and he is right, that we did give an un dertaking that we would try to retain an office for Legislative Counsel, that we would retain an office for Legislative Counsel in the building.

What has happened is that with Legislative Counsel moving over to the ICG Building, that particular suite of offices which occupies, as the member will recall, what could be a ministerial suite, is being redone, it's und er construction; but we presently have under consideration a plan that is looking at the development of the whole of this building to make sure that it meets the needs of members and departments. In the course of doing that, I will make every effort to ensure that th ere is an office for Legislative Counsel. That's one approach that is under consideration.

There is another approach under consideration which the member and the member's caucus might want to consider, and that is the possibility, if funds can be found, of having someone appointed as counsel to the House so that there's someone who, in fact, is not a government counsel because the re is a conflict, in a sense, between a person being Chief Legislative Counsel, who is actually part of the Department of the Attorne y-General, and yet ha ving to respond to members of the House and wear the hat of independent counsel.

We think that this is a legitimate concern and 3113 we want to look at that, in which case the person may not have to be a full-time person and would be required for when the House is in Session, but certainly would have to be located somewhere in this building. We're also looking at technology which might help us in establishing better communications between the IGC Building and here. So the concern is a good one, properly raised, we are looking at it, and I would like to assure the member and other members that it will not be left unaddressed. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(b)(2)- pass. 3.(c)(1). MA. G. MERCIER: On (c), Mr.

Chairman, the Attorne y General had ind icated that there was a typographical error here because he has been suggesting that through the amendments to The Law Society Act, creating the Law Foundation, that the Law Reform Commission, with a grant of $50,000 from the Law Foundation, would have $50,000 more than they had last year. But if you look at the numbers, they're down $50,000 in the Estimates. So if they're getting $50,000 from the Law Reform Commission, they're simply back where they were last year.

It's always been my view that the Law Reform Commission has provided a very valuable service to the people of Manitoba at a very inexpensive cost. It's worked that, as we've just discussed with respect to Legislative Counsel, certainly, with their num bers, they no longer have the time to engage in this law reform area. This is done quite independently of government and I think the people get very good value for their money. I would be concerned that the Law Reform Commission would be left at the same expendit ures.

Well, it's the total because when you look at Other Expenditures, too, there's a $50,000 drop, so it's a $100,000 drop from last year. Now before going furth er, perhaps the Attorne y General could explain what he said was a typographical error. HON. A. PENNER: What in fact happened and has now been rectified, and I'll explain how, is that in looking at the mechanics of bringing the Law Foundation and its processes on line, there was a misunderstanding of how that was to be reflected in this particular appropriation.

So the Treasury Board has in fact passed formal approval of an additional 100,000 that is to be found on that line, so it would, in fact, read 336,500 and, in addition, has directed and we are able to transfer $40,000 from within that appropriation to the Law Reform Commission. The net result will be that the Law Reform Commission will be $50,000 to the good. MR. G. MERCIER: As compared to last year? HON. A. PENNER: As compared to last year. MR. G. MERCIER: That's with the grant from the Law Foundation? HON. A.

PENNER: What will happen is that from Consolidated an additional $100,000 will go the re, bringing it to 336,500.00. From within the appropriation,

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 another 40,000 will go, bringing it to 376,500.00. That's the $50,000 more that it will have. Then the $100,000 from the Founda tion will be paid directly int o Consolidated. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, J. Maloway: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: They will get 376,000, and the 100,000 from the Law Foundation goes into general revenue? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it's a circuitous route for the $100,000 from the Law Foundation, but there is no other sort of legal way to do it this year until the Foundation is legally constituted.

Just look at it this way, $100,000, although this may not be the exact sequence, will come from the Foundation, paid to Consolidated for that grant. We will have made the grant - in fact, it's been authorized by Treasury Board - to the Law Reform Commission so that it has its spending authority right from the beginning of the fiscal year. That's already been done by Treasury Board. In addition, from within our own funds an additional $40,000 is being put on that line. MR. G. MERCIER: Then what will happen in the next year?

There will be a grant directly to the Law Reform Commission and their budgetary figure will be reduced. HON. R. PENNER: We are just now working out the mechanics. We have to make sure that whatever we do is within the line of The Financial Administration Act and the General Manual of Admin istration. It's a bit of a peculiarity of having in this particular instance a grant made from an outside agency to a government agency. We want to make sure that we do it properly. So I can't tell you the exact mechanics of it in the next fiscal year.

What we're looking at is that we may have to amend The Law Reform Act to give it the authority to receive funds and administer it directly. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the work of the Law Reform Commission should be of sufficient importance to be a priority of government and that its continued ability to be able to do that job should not be dependent upon receiving a grant from an outside organization even where the Attorney General has the majority of the board and appoints the chairman because that may not last.

But I can see an independent Law Foundation making a grant to a body like the Manitoba Law Reform Commission to do a particular piece of work that an independent board of directors of the Law Foundation, representing a num ber of groups in society and lay people, I think is important enough to justify that type of a grant, but it seems to me what the Attorney-General is doing to a certain extent, perhaps in a limited way, is making the ongoing work of the Law Reform Commission subject to receiving a grant from an outside organization.

It would be my view that their work is of sufficient importance and priority that the government should continue to fund the Law Reform Commission on an ongoing basis in an amount sufficient to carry on its work in an ordinary way. HON. R. PENNER: I concur with that and I'm advised the Law Reform Commission has expressed the same concerns in writing that the government's commitment to the Law Reform Commission remains firm.

I suppose one thing that might be considered if it became necessary is, given the unique nature of the Law Reform Commission, embodying a core grant to it from the Foundation in legislation, but underlying all of that should be the government commitment to continue to fund the Law Reform Commission at an acceptable level. Certainly that is our intention. MR. G. MERCIER: Who is presently on the Law Reform Commission? There has been one change lately. HON. R.

PENNER: The chairperson is Cliff Edwards and the current members are Lee Gibson, Knox Foster, Gerry Jewers (Judge Jewers), and one other member - I'll just get it from my briefing book - and Professor John Irvine from the Faculty of Law. So we have Cliff Edwards, Judge Jewers, Knox Foster, John Urban and Lee Gibson. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Attorney-General could indicate when Dean Edwards' contract runs out how much longer will we have the benefit of having him on the Law Reform Commission? It seems to me there was an agreement with the university. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, but just fortuitously had confirmed. He had an indication from Dean Edwards that he wanted to resign his position as head of the Law Reform Commission effective December 31, and that has now been confirmed and I've accepted tha t resignation with regret, and we'll be presently looking around for a replacement. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, did his contract run out? HON. R. PENNER: His contract, I think, would have another year. Yes, expires June 30, '87.

One of the reasons, as I understand it, for the earlier retirement as he was asked by Dean Trevor Anderson of the Law School because of some health problems tha t another member of faculty has to teach an additional course in the second term of this academic year, to take over the teach ing of the trust courses it happens. So looking to the expiry of his term in any event on June 30, '87, and anxious to get back to his teaching responsibilities, Dean Edwards has resigned effective January 1 when he will be resuming his additional teaching duties. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I think it certainly would want to go on the record as indicating, I believe, that Dean Edwards did an excellent job at the Law Reform Commission, and I'm sure the Attorney-General will have a great deal of difficulty in replacing him with someone with the same degree of ability. HON. R. PENNER: I concur heartily. It will be difficult to replace him. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I had one further comment to make, if one looks at the Annual Report 3114

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 of the Law Reform Commission, and particularly at Page 23, the commission has outlined its recommendations from its first report through to its 13th report. It seems when you look at Page 23, that they have made a number of reports since 1983-84-85, but there has been, as opposed to the previous number of pages, little follow-up or legislative activity by the government and very few of those reports have been implemented.

I wonder if the - a number of which are dealing with, for example, I could think of The Dower Act Report and a number of other matters that are fairly important - could the Attorney-General indicate why there has been what appears to be so little follow-up to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission in the last few years? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, in general, I should point out that Manitoba still remains the jurisdiction in the whole Commonwealth which has fulfilled more of its law reform recommendations than any other.

When one compares what we've done here - and under both governments in terms of followi ng its recommendations with the national Law Reform Commission with respect to which you can't point to one single enactment after 12, 13, 14 years the record is good, but nevertheless we can't rest on our laurels. As I indicated in response to a question just a few moments ago, some major recommendations that have been made currently with respect to The Dower Act, The Married Womens' Property Act are now under active consideration.

We want to mesh them with some of the proposals, or at least analyze them in light of some of the proposals we've received from the Charter of Rights coalition, and one can anticipate a fairly major family law piece in the next Session. So, too, we're looking - and I've discussed this briefly with the Member for Morris - at its recommendations apropos The Human Tissue Act. I would think that once we've crossed the hurdle with respect to prejudgment interest, I'd now want to look at structured settlements. So I can assure the member that we are not losing sight of the recommendations. MR.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN: 3.(cX1)- pass; 3.(cX2) pass. 3.(

d) MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Ma nitoba Advisory Council on the Status of Women submitted a report to the government in early 1986 which indicated that separated women suffer a lower standard of living than men, routinely have their maintenance payments cut when a former hu sband remarries, et c., recommended a num ber of changes in The Family Ma intenance Act. Is that a public report that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women made? I believe the report went to the Attorney-Genera l. HON. R. PENNER: It wasn't a formal report.

It was almost in the nature of a letter, but certainly not private and I think it was copied to members of the Opposition, but if the member doesn't have it, we are quite willing to let him have a copy. 3115 MR. G. MERCIER: Is there any research going on into those suggestions on whether or not there should be changes to the act? HON. R.

PENNER: One of the things - not presently at this moment, but in terms of what I said tha t would be our consideration of family law legislation, for I hope the coming Session of the Legislature, there are in addition to tho se changes dealing with property questions to bring them into conformity with

Section 15 of the Charter particularly, two areas that we want to look at. One is this question of the undoubted disadvantaged position that separated women are in economically - I'll come back to that in a moment - and the other is the question about which there's been a lot of discussion recently, a lot of new findings of joint custody. Just on that latt er, the member may recall that the Carr Report recommended joint custody.

At the time when we received the Carr Report, it was submitted to 20, 30, 40 different community groups and the overwhelming majority of the groups responding on that issue cautioned against joint custody. I think there's a lot more evidence in that I suggest we ought to have another look at joint custody. I personally think that there's a lot to be said for joint custody, so that is one thing. With respect to the other - that is the question of the undou bted fact tha t women end up in a disadvantaged position following a separation - it's a little more complex but nevertheless I think something has to be done.

It's a little more complex because one has to leave, I think, a certain element of discretion to the judge in arriving at a just settlement of that particular issue in separation or divorce. At the same time if the area of discretion is too wide, it seems on the basis of evidence now available, that discretion for whatever reason - and I say, it seems - tends to operate against women. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think their concerns are not unique to Manitoba. There have been a number of studies in other jurisdictions that indicate the same point.

Frankly, it's a matter that should be looked at and should be dealt with because it's something that shouldn't be allowed to happen. In that area of Family Law, could the Attorney-General indicate if he has received many complaints about legal costs in family matters? HON. R. PENNER: No, not many, from time to time, but it's usually contained in a general complaint about the outcome of the particular matter.

The aggrieved party who complains is generally one who feels, rightly or wrongly, that he or she has come out on the wrong end of a judgement, the wrong end of the process, and complains about that, complains about the quality of justice, complains about the costs. I'm not saying, incidental ly, that these are just the complaints of losers; I don't want to be misunderstood, but that's generally when I hear about those complaints.

There are, I understand from the current annual report of the Law Society, a number of complaints that are made directly to the Law Society about tees and the Law Society has a mechanism to deal with such

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 complaints. Whether or not it's fully satisfactory, I can't say, but they do at least have a mechanism in place for dealing with such complaints. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, may I say to the Attorney-General that I have received - and I don't do that particular kind of work, so that's not why I received the complaints but in discussing with people - people have been receiving enormous legal bills in Family Law matters.

They're simply astounding; not that perhaps the bill isn't justified because the time has to be spent if the parties want to argue over every little matter and not come to a sett lement, but in the light of - and certainly many of these have come to the attention of the public through the media, through complaints made to the Law Society - has there been or is there consideration being given to reviewing the whole settlement process of these Famil y Law disputes because for the kinds of costs that we're talking about in many of these cases where the lawyers can justify $1 5,000, $20,000 bills, the assets of the average people caught in this situation are simply eaten totally up.

Surely there has to be in the light of those kinds of costs to settle in many cases fairly average matters, I would think tha t some consideration should be given to reviewing that whole process in dete rmining whether or not there is a more expeditious way of resolving all these matters. HON. R. PENNER: I agree and let me indicate the following.

Firstly, with the establishment of the Family Division, and now with the experience that it's had, particularly with respect to pretrial conferences and mediation where, if I'm not mistaken, as little as 10 percent of the cases that start as formal statements of claim or petitions and responses, end up in actual trial. What we're getting as a result of the Family Division, the unified Family Court, is expeditious settlement. That of course is being reflected in lower total fees on the whole.

In fact I think that in response to the member's question, it would be useful - and I'm going to accept that as a suggestion - to have our Research and Evaluation

section do a bit of a longtitudinal study to see exactly what is happening as a result of this division. The member may recall we were looking at, through the Research and Evaluation section, exte nding the jur isdiction of the Family Division thr oughout the province; that's the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench. Secondly, as a partial response, looking at the lower end of the income spectrum we have, as I indicated in my opening remarks, raised the eligibility guidelines for Legal Aid so that we're somewhat higher up the ladder of those in need and their legal services are provided free.

In that connection, we've amended the domestic tariff to provide a somewhat more satisfactory remuneration to Legal Aid practitioners taking a Legal Aid Certificate in a family matt er.

Finally, a matter that I'm interested in personally, but at the moment is not a direct departmental interest, in meeting the needs of those who are faced with the cataclysmic legal event of a separation - and nothing could be more cataclysmic in all of its connotations - and faced often, if they're not eligible for Legal Aid, are faced with what can be formidable costs if indeed the matter is not resolved early in settlement, the development of legal assistance plans in the private sector.

As you kno w, the Un ited Automobile Workers pioneered a plan in Windsor - the Prepaid Legal Plans is the term I was looking for - I was a member of the national board on the Prepaid Legal Plans that worked out of the University of Windsor, the Faculty of Law, and was in on some of the early developments of that particular plan.

It was at first resisted by the Law Society of Upper Canada, who have now come to terms with the fact that that indeed is a way of meeting the problems of what are called "the new legal indigents", those who really can't afford this cataclysmic event and yet are not eligible for Legal Aid. I would hope and I would like here in response to the question, make a plea to the Bar and to the Law Society, to itself take the initiative because some law societies are recognizing their own responsibility to help develop such plans. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I would be very supportive because many people get caught in this situation. They're faced with an absolutely enormous expense to resolve a matter and I would encourage that type. In fact I could remember looking at that when we were in government, just in a preliminary sort of way, because I think it's the kind of thing we ought to develop in Manitoba. On another Family Law matter, Mr. Chairman, a few years ago the Attorney-General put thr ough an amendment to allow someone outside of the husband or wife to apply for custody of a child.

At the time, I expressed a concern that has been expressed to me by a num ber of people, that I could see the validity of a grandparent having the right to apply for access where a grandparent had been, let's say the father's parents, had over a fair period of time had seen the grandchild on a regular basis and developed a real relationship with the child. Then you sometimes have the situation where the mother and father separate, the mother might get custody of the child and not allow the father's parents, the paternal grandparents, to see the child.

And it, regrettably, has happened, and I could see the validity of an amendment to allow a grandparent like that having the right to apply for access to the child. But we have seen what appears to be some bizarre cases over the last few years with former boyfriends, not even the father of the child, having gone out with the mother for some limited period of time, applying for access to the child and certainly throwing the mother's situation into turmoil for a period of time until the matter was resolved. I don't think that's what was, in any way, intended by the changes that the Attorne y-General made.

I'm wondering if, as a result of these cases that have occurred over the last few years, whether the Attorney General would consider an amendment to that act. Perhaps, we should be just dealing with the right of grandpa rents. I don't think the public generally would object to that. Generally , I don't think the parents of the child involved should object to that. But it seems to go further than that, is becoming a very direct 3116

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 interference with parental rights. I'm wondering if the Attorney -General, as a result of these cases, is considering any amendments to the legislation. HON. R. PENNER: First of all, I think we have to distinguish between custody and access. MR. G. MERCIER: I'm talking about access. HON. R. PENNER: It's the access question. I am only aware of the one case, and I certainly agree with the characterization by the Member for St. Norbert, that the outcome at the trial level was bizarre, and one has to assume that not all of the facts were before the learned trial judge.

But in any event, fortunately it was set right by the Court of Appeal, and one must sympathize with the turmoil that the mother was in at the time that the order was made. I am certainly prepared to discuss with the Minister of Community Services, who also has a concern with respect to the child custody legislation. We'll have a look at the section.

I think that the member himself agreed that there are circumstances in which it would be contrary to the best interests of the child, which must always be the overriding concern and in a sense a bit inhuman in terms of excluding grandparents to not afford some opportunity for grandparents to have visiting rights. I guess, in some ways, they're the ones who are often hurt the most.

No one is, I think, in a sense more devoted to young children than grandparents, and they get all the love lavished upon them without any of the duties and res ponsibilities of getting up in the middle of the night. - (Interjection) - It won't be that long. Yet, through no fault of the grandparents, separation takes place and custody is given to, let's say, the maternal grandparents, and the paternal grandparents are cut out from any access.

But at the same time we want to make sure that a provision like that is not the gateway to inappropriate people having a legal right to subject the custodial parent to unwanted and potentially hazardous visiting arrangements. I concur, we'll look at it. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to find the reference - here it is - the reference to expansion of maintenance enforcement to outside the city. HON. R. PENNER: It's partly in the suppl ementary material at Page 31, where two of the 6.26 positions are found, and another 4.26 are found under Court Services. MR. G.

MERCIER: One of the questions I wanted to ask is: Have the federal amendments that certainly we, as a province, have been requesting in essence for a long time, have they helped very much, or is there enough experience yet to indicate how much assistance that has been giving in the enforcement of maintenance orders? HON. R. PENNER: There ha sn 't been enough experience. I believe they were proclaimed effect ive July 1. It may be September 1. But obviously, even if July 1, there's not enough time to evaluate the result.

We're confident that these provisions will assist greatly in maintenance enforcement by helping both to track wandering spouses who are seeking perhaps to escape their responsibility under a maintenance order and to assist in the maintenance function by identifying income that might be attached for purposes of satisfying the maintenance order. I think it's a good piece of legislation, and our own Family Law Department played a very significant role in its shaping. We'll be able to report more fully on its effect at the next Estimate go-round. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for River Heights. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of the Family Law movement, I was very pleased to hear that the Minister is in fact willing to relock and rethink the whole concept of joint custody. I think much of the legislation that we have introduced, and it's been very good legislation, has been there and necessarily there to protect the women, but I still don't see enough movement in fact in place to protect the children. Certainly, the most recent literature that I have read indicates that the joint custody arrangements that are evolving are, in fact, providing better parenting to the children as a result.

One also wonders if, in fact, there may not be less difficulty in collecting maintenance in the cases where there's more participation in the decision-making with regard to the children and their schooling, their medical care and other issues. One of the concerns I have though at the present time and with our present legislation is with regard to the mediation process. In your opening remarks I got the impression that you felt that it was less than satisfactory. I wonder if it is less than satisfactory because it is not compulsory. HON. R.

PENNER: There are two parts to the intervention and I'll respond to both of them. With respect to the second one, yes, there was a recommendation by Associate Chief Justice Hamilton, who headed the division at the time that we were shaping the legislation, that we consider making mediation compulsory. It was felt there was almost a contradiction in terms tha t med iation, which is compulsory, will not really result in true mediation. What has in fact developed is, as I mentioned earlier, the notion of the pre-trial conferences, which are compulsory. That is working very, very well.

So the combination of mediation and the pre-trial conferences are in fact producing these settlements. I didn't want to infer, and if my language was careless enough to infer, then I want to modify it now, that mediation was unsati sfactory. What I really wanted to say is that mediation often does not lead to a settlement and we have the backup of the pre-trial conference.

We prefer to have a go at mediation first and would hope that the parties both recognize that a mediated settlement is going to be one which eliminates the winner-loser syndrome and is one with which both parties can live muc h better than an enforced sett lement, i.e. an order. Where mediation works, I think the results are good. If it doesn't, if we think that there 3117

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 may be a misunderstanding or that a little bit of judicial pressure - and I mean a little bit of judicial pressure - would cause a recalcitrant or unduly stubborn party to realize that in terms of the law as explained by the judge, they're apt to end up with the kind of order that's being suggested through mediation in any event and maybe it would be better to agree on it.

The other thing I wanted to mention, which is related to the joint custody, one of the complaints that has been made by fathers' groups - now there are two fathers' groups with slightly different names - it in effect says, hey, you talk about equality rights; you've got this whole elaborate system for enforcing maintenance orders, most of which are directed against men, what about some mechanism for enforcing access orders? I think that's a legitimate request.

We have under way a pilot project, headed by the head of the Family Law Department, looking at what would be the implications of some assistance by the state in the enforcement of access orders, where no legislative changes are required at this time but it's a question of some data analysis and the data analysis has taken place and a report is being written at this time. We'll be looking at that. MAS. S. CAASTAIAS: I'm glad, in fact, that the Minister of Education is here, because he can listen.

I've had a number of complaints, for example, from fathers and mothers who have not had custody, the fact that they cannot get access to their children's report cards, even though they are a parent who is, indeed , paying maintenance. They still can't get that kind of information about Johnny or Mary. I would like that kind of access to be studied as well because I think access to their medical records, access to their school records is certainly the right of a parent. HON. A.

PENNER: In fact, we amended the legislation two Sessions ago and tha t is now a statutory requirement, that the non-custodial parent does have the legal right to school records, medical records, and some other records mentioned in the statute, so that any non-custodial parent denied access can get a court order. MRS. S. CAASTAIAS: I was aware of those changes. The point is that having that right in law is the same as having the right to access to your child in law; it doesn't always mean you do get access to your child, nor access to the records, without the necessity of further court action. HON. A.

PENNER: Although it's less likely to be frustrated than access because there it's a demand on a third party who isn't emotionally involved and is more likely to be responsive to the terms of a court order. As we all know, access orders are often - if a parent simply doesn't want the non-custodial parent to come around, there's a thousand and one ways to frustrate them. That sometimes leads to very, very bad situations. It sometimes leads to violence. MRS. S. CAASTAIRS: One final question.

In terms of the mediation route, is there some means by which mediation can be achieved without going through lawyers and incurring that kind of expense? I mention that because even in making phone calls myself, I was told it would be better and you could get it faster if you went through a lawyer. Somehow or other, I think that if a couple wants mediation and can settle this with a limited legal bill, they should be afforded that opportun ity. HON. R. PENNER: The point is well taken.

Although, te chni cal ly, legally it is possible for a person to undertake legal proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench under the aegis of the mediation unit, it's difficult. One of the things we're looking at in our evaluation of the expansion of the Family Division is the way to allow more people to access the mediation unit without having to go through the formalities of actually filing the paper in court and being there. There are, also, groups under the auspices, for example, of the Mennonite Central Committee.

There's another group, Mediation Services, and we're doing an evaluation of Mediation Services - I'll find the records - but there is actually an evaluation of outside mediation services presently under way. Project 32 out of 39 or 42 - we have a lot going - out of about 60 projects: Mennonite Central Commit tee Mediation Services. We're doing an evaluation of this kind of private sector, if you will, mediation service to see how we might use such services. MA. CHAIRMAN: 3.(d)(1)-pass; 3.(d)(2)-pa ss. 3.(

e) Constitutional Law - the Member for St. Norbert. MA. G. MERCIER: There was a press report in the past few weeks describing a meeting between the Catholic Schools Trustees, Mr. Brock, etc. , and the Attorney-General and the Premier, an indication and the quotation that the Attorney-General said he did not have a legal opinion on the validity of the claim that is being made by the Catholic Schools Association. A number of months ago, there were reports that the Attorney-General had a legal opinion at that time as to the validity of the claim that is being made.

Could the Attorney-General indicate which account that he is reported to have given is correct? HON. A. PENNER: No, I have never said that I don't have a legal opinion. In fact, I have a legal opinion and I was asked to release that legal opinion by the solicitor for the Catholic School Trustees Association. I said, well, I'll consider it if you let me have yours. He wrote back and he said, well, I think we had better have our opinion privileged. I said I think I would prefer to treat the opinion we have as privileged. However, I can tell you what the gist of it is.

The gist of the opinion was that since that particular

section of

Section 33 of The Manitoba act - or 22 of The Manitoba Act. I believe, it's 33. It seems, in effect, to say that the funding which the state, the province, has to provide the Catholic minority is the same as was provided just before the coming into Confederation. There is conflicting historical data. One set of historical data seems to suggest that there may have been the equivalent of state funding through the Hudson's Bay Company or the Council of Assiniboia prior to July 1, 1870. Another set of data says that is not so. 3118

Tuesday, 19 August, 1986 So it's really more almost a matter of historical research than of constitutional interpretat ion, it seems to me. In any event, that's the gist of the material that I presently have. In any event, what we've said and it wasn't only to the Catholic School Trustees Association but the representatives of the Federation of Inde pendent Schools, is that we haven't closed our minds on the issue. We want to look at what we can do within the resources available to us, and I have to leave it at that. That's where it is.

My own hope is that the matter can be resolved without the intervention of the Governor-General-in Council, because you'd get to a peculiar kind of a constit utiona l situation in which, if the Governor General-in-Council was so minded, it could direct a remedial order. But if the Province of Manitoba said, whoever might be the Governor, we're not going to follow that remedial order, then the Parliament of Canada would have to pass a bill directing the province to fulfil! the remed ial order.

The thought of the Parliament of Canada tying itself up in knots, directing the Province of Manitoba to fulfil! a remedial order passed by the Governor-General-in-Council boggles the mind at what that would do in terms of national consensus. I would hate to see anyone take us down that road, quite frankly. Yet at the same time, we've got some problems that we have to look at in resourcing the whole of the school system. It has been said - and no one would deny, certainly not the Minister of Education, who's timely departure from this committee should be noted. - (Interject ion) - That's unparliamenta ry.

I withdraw the remark. As mu ch as we may be doing for the universities, it's not enough, for example. You're looking at one particular pot labelled education; ther e are a lot of demands on that pot. So I ho pe we can work somet hing out th at is satisfacto ry. The claim of the independent schools is not on the same basis. It doesn't have the constitutional basis, but I would hope that we can find an approach that doesn't differentiate between one claim and the other. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, has the Attor ney General or his department made representations to the Secretary of State?

As I understand it from the press, the Catholic schools either have or are attempting to have their petition delivered to the Secretary of State. HON. R. PENNER: At the meeting which was referenced by the member, it was reported that the association had not yet had an opportunity to meet with the Secretary of State, and presumably still hasn't had the opportunity to do so to see what the Secretary of State and the Governor-General-in-Council proposes to do, if anything. So we're at a very preliminary stage on that road. MR. G. MERCIER: That's right. There are no rules of procedure in this kind of a matter.

What is the intention of the Attorney-Gener al, assuming and I would regret that it would not be the case, that with respect to this matter th ere will be a polit ical resolve to it and compromise? Does the Attorney-General int end to make representations to the Secretary of State· after the Catholic School Trustees have delivered the petition and met with the Secretary of State? HON. R.

PENNER: If we reach the stage where we were unable to come to a resolve, a resolution, and we were then advised by the Secretary of State that they had formally accepted the petition and that it was all in order and that it would be reviewed by the Governor-General-in-Council or, as I think is permitted, the Governor-General-in-Council would set up some way of hearing the argument for and against the petition, yes, we would I think be duty-bound as the government of the province to make representations. Now, what those representations would be, I really am not in a position to state at this time.

That's not because I'm being coy - coyness is not one of my att ribut es - but because tha t would have to be developed together with the Constitutional Law Branch very fully and in a very detailed way. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, what is the status of the se matters? The Attorney-General talks about if there is no resolve there is no agreement with the Catholic Trustees or the Inde pendent School Association. Well, as of now, there is no agreement with them. Certainly from what we, as members of the public, see there is no possibility of

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-70a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 70a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	35354536855e030e0d02d1642782a582d3a9675a

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