LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 6 May, 1985. Time - 8:00 p.m. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ATTORNEY GENERA L MA. CHAIRMAN, C. Sentoa: Committee, please come to order. We are still considering Item No. 6.(d)

(1) Land Titles Offices: Salaries; 6.(d)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Member for Turtle Mountain. MA. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At 5:30 we were talking about some alleged savings resulting from the closure of the Boissevain Land Titles Office. The Minister had mentioned one item having to do with a microfilm machine, for lack of a better term, for $8,500.00. Am I correct in assuming that is a one-time purchase, not an ongoing expenditure? MA. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. A. PENNEA: Yes, you are correct . MA. B.

RANSOM: The other item, the Min ister had come back with more specific information concerning the general office expenditur es. He said, I believe, that there would be a saving of $20,435.00.

In light of the fact that information provided to me by the Min ister showed that for the first 10 months of fiscal'84-85, the total operational costs were only $16 ,552, extrapolated over a 12-month period, would seem to be no greater than $20,435.00. 1 wonder if the Minister could give me some detail as to how they could save an amount of money that would be approximately equal to the entir e operational expenditu res for that office. HON. A. PENNEA: I think before the 5:30 break, I gave the Member for Turtle Mountain a figure of $24,900 as the operational savings.

If you take out the $8,500, approximately , the one-time pur chase to which reference is now being made - $8,373 to be exact - then the net ops. savings in'85-86 are $15 ,41 5.00. MA. B. RANSOM: So perhaps I didn't hear correctly earlier then that the saving - let me just run through this then - the first Information that the Minister gave me was that there would be an operational saving of approximately $35,000, then the Minister came back with more specific information broken down into office expendit ures and the microfilm unit.

I thought he had said that combined they came to about $29,000 or $30,000, but I gather from what he says now, that combined, they came to $24,000 and some. So we have a one-time expenditur e of a little less than $8,500 to bring us down then to an ongoing saving of $15 ,415 in the first fiscal year. HON. A. PENNEA: In operations, that's correct. MA. B. RANSOM: That figure still seems a bit high, but I am prepared to accept that for the moment. But the information given in Public Accounts for 1983-84 shows that the total expenditur es that year was only $26,990.35.

So we're still talking about a saving of over half the cost, which see ms a little difficult to understa nd, but maybe the Minister has some of that information broken down into the same detail that Public Accounts provide for previous years? Would that be possible, or is that just a lump sum figure that the staff have provided? HON. A. PENNEA: First of all, we're talking in fiscal'85- 86 of an 11 -month period because the closing date was the 26th of April.

For that period, the opera tional savings have been estimated by staff as follows: reduction of postage 7,400 - that's ongoing; reduction in photocopying machine rentals 5,024 - that's ongoing; the microfilm equipment, one time 8,373; reduced supply cost, 2,500 - ongoing; red uction in legal pub lication purchases 1,600 - ongoing; total 24,897, less the one time, nets the 15,415 .00. MA. B. RANSOM: Just one question there then, why Is there such a large S!lVing on the postage? HON. A. PENNEA: Essential ly, as I understand it and as I indicated earlier in this discussion, Boissevaln was very heavily male oriented;

whereas in Brandon, where there is quite a large conglomerat ion, congregation of lawyers who do across-the-cQunter type of work in the Brandon Land Titles Office, that's part of the reason for the estimated postage saving. MA. B. RANSOM: In 1983-84, the total amount of money for postage, telephones and telegraph was $6, 723. 18. Now the Min ister is telling me that In 11 months in'85-86, they're going to save more than that entire amount on postage alone because lawyers in Brandon are not going to have their documents mailed to them , is that correct? · HON. A.

PENNEA: I did say that was part of the reaso n, yes. MA. B. RANSOM: Wel l, I find that a little hard to accept, Mr. Chairman. If that's the Information the Minister has, that's the Information he has; but when I look at the details in the Public Accounts for fiscal'83-84, then that certainly doesn't seem to add up; it's simply not in proportion. If the Minister says that's the information, I will have to accept his word. HON. A. PENNEA: There's factored-in, as I understand, the postal rate increase. MA. B. RANSOM: How much is that going to be? HON. A.

PENNEA: Wel l, that's not an insignificant amount, that's about 8 percent, is it not? 1621

Monday. 6 May, 1185 MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Chairman, what option did the department look at in terms of reducing staff costs in that office? Did they look at operating without a registrar? HON. R. PENNER: I think that once a basic option was elaborated by the officials, and of course I take, as I must and do take, the ultimate responsi bility, when you begin reducing In an operation of that size, say well instead of eliminating, let's just shrink it a bit, you begin to get below the kind of a critical mass which is necessary to sustain an operation, and you say, well, look, it's simply more viable.

We're going to take a step to save a considerable amount of money, that's both a responsibility and an onerous duty, let's take that step. Why just nibble at it, when the question of justifying the continuation of that office, in that place, at this time, is not there? it's not as if this Is the first closing of a Land Titles Office In the history of Manitoba. As the member knows, there were previous closings, Virden is one, another one in that area, were taken over time. Yes, Carman and Virden are the two.

Now historically the way the Land Titles syste m developed, the member talks about this one being open for 80 years or more, they opened at a time when the whole land system was developing very rapidly, when communications were very very much different than they presently are, when there are other factors warranting, you know, a half dozen offices in close proximity one to the other, those justifications go over time and sooner or later some government has to grasp the nettle, as it were, and make that uncomfortable decision, but those decisions have to be made.

We can't forever run a system that developed with the horse and buggy In the high-tech age. MR. B. RANSOM: How many years did the office operate without a registrar? HON. R. PENNER: I haven't got the figures. As I understand it from Mr. Colquhoun, part of the Second World War there was a period of time when it operated without a D.R., and there were relief D.R.s coming in from Brandon and Morden to help out. I believe Mr. Colquhoun did that himself for a period of time in the '70s. MR. B.

RANSOM: I believe that would have meant that there would have been a staff saving attributed to that office then of, perhaps, half to up to two-thirds of the salary of a registrar which now, I believe, would probably run in total in excess of $55,000-a-year. HON. R. PENNER: The registrar's salary, just to get that figure, is $52,792 current ly. If you operate without a D.R., in part rather than in whole, you save some specific portion of that obviously. MR. B. RANSOM: How much time would Mr. Colquhoun have spent in Boissevain when he was doing it on a part-time basis? HON. R. PENNER: In the 1970s?

I think we're about to test Mr. Colquhoun's memory. Two days a week. MR. B. RANSOM: So we're talking about something in the range of 40 percent of the cost then of a full­ time registrar? HON. R. PENNER: Plus travel expenses. MR. B. RANSOM: lt seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there was a substantial saving to be made by operating that way, that they didn't need a full-time registrar, but it was administratively convenient to have someone assigned there on a full-time basis. lt was also then administratively convenient to close that office down without looking at that as an option.

I suggest, No. 1, that the salary may be a little higher than the Mini ster just gave me. He gave me a figure of 52,792. I see that In Public Accounts for'83-84, the salary of the gentlema n in question was already $53,71 3.80. So two years ago, or a year ago, it was already in excess of that. But there was a substantial saving to be made. What we are looking at, when the Min ister says that they could save 62,000 in salaries, they might well have been able to save 35,000 of that by operating the same way that it was operated before when Mr.

Colquhoun used to go there two days a week, which is going to leave a cost in addition to that of maybe $27,000, salary savings, by combining with Brandon - maybe - and another 16,000 or 17 ,000 in ongoing costs. So we are talking about a little more than $40,000.00.

If it wasn't actually closed right now, I could not believe that there would be such a combination of political insensitivity and a desire for bureaucratic convenience to close an office that provides service In an area in a district, where the business is essentially gene rated in terms of the land base, to close that office and take four full-time positions out of a town the size of Boissevain, and a fifth full-time position who was working there but wasn't living there, plus a salary of a person to look after the building who is doing it not on a full-time basis, but that is a major impact on a town like Boissevain for the sake of alleged savings of something a little better than $40,000 a year.

I would like to know from the Minister what kind of impact assessment was done as to the effect that this would have on users. I know that when I was in government, when I served as a Min ister, I instituted a system in my department that said that the staff couldn't bring forward a recommendation for such a change without doing an assessment, without telling me who else was going to be affected by it, because often the government can find things convenient to do but they are simply off­ loading costs on somebody else.

I would like to know what kind of assessment his department did to know how this was going to affect the people who used the system. Was there anything done? HON. R. PENNER: A couple of observations, and this is something that the member will be aware of, he's served in government for some time.

I believe that for all of the time he was in government as a member of Treasury Bench, he was on Treasury Board, but even if he wasn't in all of that time to be on Cabinet, he will know that every year throughout the system, in the department that the Member for Swan River used to adminis ter, there are staff movements, staff changes, and these in many instances are very difficult for the staff who are involved. There's no doubt about it, and 1622

Monday, 8 Mer, 1885 I said that in the House, that I'm not at all insensitive to the fact that in these decisions there is a human factor that sometimes cannot be fully assessed . There are instances - there may be here, I don't know and 1 won't speculate - where moving from Boissevai n to Brandon or wherever, may be a welcome move. I'm not saying that it is necessarily so, but it's not every move or every transfer that is seen as a major setback for an individual.

So there are those decisions that are made year in and year out by government of every political stripe in which there has to be, when you're running a provincial enterprise through 18 to 20 departments with 17,000 employees, that for a whole variety of reasons there are staff changes and staff transfers, and those changes are not without cost in the human sense. I well appreciate that. The fact remains that when you say, well, you know, here are people who are living in Boisseva ln and they contribute to the Boissevain economy and that is pretty tough for a small town to absorb a loss of that kind, no doubt.

But if you turned that around and say, well, then maybe there Is a justification for putting offices there, whether they're really needed or not, whether you could find an option where you could accommodate some degree of centralization - decentralization on its own as a sort of a public policy option in order to imp rove the economic life of a number of smaller communities to that extent - cannot be justified only in those terms. You still have to look at the overall costs of running the system and how you can run it more efficiently. MR. B.

RANSOM: My question was, did you do any assessment of the Impact on the users? HON. A. PENNER: Yes, an asses sment was done. lt was known that - are you talking about users or the staff? MR. B. RANSOM: Users. HON. A. PENNER: Users, yes. We ll, there were only two res ident law firms In Boissev aln. That's all, two re sident law firms.

We knew - I asked the question and received the reply that 80 percent of the work that was being done was being done by mail; 80 percent of the users operating that system by mail would find no difference in their ability to use the system by mailing a letter that's got a post office address In Brandon instead of Boisseva in. MR. B. RANSOM: The Minister is telling me that the only people that will be affected will be the law offices In Bolssev aln; it will not have any effect on other law offices in the district.

All of these people who wrote the dozens of letters about the quality of the service that they got there, and the fact that they wanted to continue to do it there, that it will have no effect on tho se people. This is simply a figment of their Imagination that they bothered to write and express their concern over it. They've done the assessment, and that's the resu lt. HON. A. PENNER: First of all, I'm not telling the member that something is a figment of people's imagination.

When people were writing those letters they were comparing the known to the unknown; they were comparing what they have, which people are always more comfortable with, to what they thought would be the case after April 26th. I'm not saying that there was a figment of their imagination; there were certain concerns, certain fears, certain insecurities, that's not unnatural. But the reality of the matter Is that -some body down at the end of the table said, Virden, Virden.

People In Virden who are sending a letter to Boissevaln , I reiterate, are in no worse position, indeed, the y might be In a better position, in sending a letter to Brandon. MR. B. RANSOM: How much of the work of the Dauphin Office is done by mall? HON. A. PENNER: Because of the relatively larger number of law firms In Dauphin, it's estimated by the Registrar General that some thing less than 50 percent of the work there would be by mail. MR. B. RANSOM: Have there been any requests for additional space In Brandon, or additional staff In Brandon? HON. A. PENNER: No. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, I would suggest that will be some thing that the Minister will want to watch really carefully. Just a couple of other questions then, is it the basic recomm enda tion of the staff, or at least the assessment of the staff, that all of the functions of the land title system In Manitoba could be more efficiently carried out if it was all located in Winnipeg? HON. A. PENNER: The staff of the Land Titles Offices unde r the Registrar General looked at the operations of the land titles system.

They noted that, for example, in Albe rta the whole system runs out of two offices with a larger population, a larger rural land base, I think, than In Manitoba by a considerable amount, much more scattered because you have your whole Peace River country and so on, and came to the conclusion that, yes, theoretically i n any event, as it laid out on paper, you could run a very very efficient land titles system out of one central location.

I use those terms, rather than one office, because under the one roof you would have to have a Winnipeg, sort of operation, because Winnipeg accounts for 74.­ someth ing, almost 75 percent of the total opera tion, and another rural kind of opera tion. But it seemed to me, when I looked at that and evaluated it, it was some thing that would have to be developed over a number of years, it would have to go in synch with the computeriza tion. I came to the conclusion this would be, Mr .

Ransom, around January, February of'84, perhaps a little earlier , that indeed we ought not to go that way, that we would be overd riving our headlights. That might be somet hing that some government 10 years down the line might want to deal with, but we should basically concent rate on computerization because I've known - I'm sure the member has known - computerization schedules that go awry faster than 1623

Monday, I May, 1885 you can shake a finger at them. I wanted to make sure that we were not overloading the system by trying to do too much too quickly. Secondly, I thought that we could accommodate a little shrinkage outside of Winnipeg by some merger or closure. I left that to be looked at for the subsequent fiscal year, the one we're presently in. MR. B. RANSOM: The Minister says that he made that decision. Was that then the recommendation, the preferred direction of the staff? HON. R. PENNER: We ll, you know, staff are asked to generate options.

They do that and discussions are held with respect to those options, and decisions are made. Staff then doesn't come and say, well gosh that's not our preferred option. I can only say that, in this instance, the staff did not come, once the Boissevain­ Neepawa option was articulated and I said we'll carry that up through Estimates, and say we think you should do more or less. MR. B. RANSOM: Would the Minister be prepared to provide me with a copy of the recommendations that staff have put forward with respect to the land titles system, a copy of the file? · HON. R. PENNER: The year ago one?

You mean, the basic reco mme ndation about centralizing in Winnipeg, or the one that we're talking about now? MR. B. RANSOM: Both, because I think they're tied in. There are reco mmendations respecting the entire system, and there are pieces of that reco mmendation that have been accepted . HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, I'll provide the member with both pieces of information. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: One question, Mr. Chairman, the Revenue Estimates indicate that the Land Titles fees will bring in a revenue this year of $10 million.

In 1981- 82, at the point when the present government took office, the revenue was in the range of, and I discussed this with officials, Mr. Chairman, of 5.9 mill ion. Expenditu res have remained relatively static, so that they were approximately in the range of 4.2 million, 4.3 million in 1981- 82. I ask the Attorney-General what - the Mini ster of Finance is here too and maybe at his discretion - what justification is there for government to charge Land Titles Office users a rate of fees that is more than double the cost of providing the service? Expendi tures this year are $4.3 million.

As I say, they have remained virtually static for the last three or four years but, when the Land Titles Office is taking in reve nue of $10 million, what justification is there to impose upon the users of the system, people who are buying houses, in many cases young people buying houses for the first time? Those fees were virtually doubled just a little over a year ago. They are really paying twice what they should be paying. Surely the Land Titles Office should not be a method of taxing people in Manitoba.

If the government needs additional revenue - surely this government who speaks against user fees, who spe aks about ability to pay, and here they are charging over double what they should actually be paying in fees. I know, Mr. Chairman, and if the Attorney-General is going to throw this back at me, the Land Titles Office has for a long number of years - and cert ainly while I was Attorney-General - raised $1 million or $1. 5 million over and above expenditur es.

But I suggest that we have now reached a very disproportionate Increase In fees versus the costs, when revenue is $10 million and the costs of operation in the Land Titles Office is 4.3. The users are being taxed, and I suggest it's simply not an appropriate way of raising funds. lt's certainly not in keeping with the NDP phi losophy. HON. R. PENNER: Reference was made by the Member for St. Norbert to the Minister of Finance and I've been studying the face of the Minister of Finance and that Isn't an easy job at the best of times.

In fact, I heard him mutter underneath his breat h, you know, these guys are saying, get rid of the health and post-secondary levy, do this and do that and cut the deficit. Now we have the Memb er for St. Norbert saying, you've got $10 million in reve nue, why don't you give up half of that?

I just don't understand. it's not as If we didn't look very care fully at the land titles fees that we charge here in the Province of Manitoba compared to land titles fees charged in some other jurisdictions, Saskatchewan particularly when the last change was made - and we came to the conclusion that on that kind of a com parison we were under charging.

The vast majority of people who use the land titles system will use it on the average of two times in their lifetime, the first starter house, and the second house, and maybe a third time when they are bold enough to get Into a condominium these days - we're talking here about people relatively more in the middle class - and the fees that are payable to the land titles for transfer and mortgage once every 10 or 15 years, are not large. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, just a last questi on.

The Attorney-General is satisfied with this method of raising money for the government, does he consider this to be an appropriate charge by government? HON. R. PENNER: That's a very good question actually, and I don't mean that in any way sarcastically. Gosh, I would really like it if we could develop a fair taxation system in this country pursuant to which all of those loopholes which drain this province of millions and millions and millions of dollars where we could get rid of them.

I think the income tax system could be - I might be a single taxer but not quite in the way that Henry George and Uoyd Axworthy, his modern day disciple, or single taxes - but if we could get everyt hing whomped into the income tax system, take out all of the inequities and no one would be happier than at least two people around here, the Minister of Finance and myself. The Minister of Finance could go and take a fun portfolio like A.G. We wouldn't need a Mini ster of Finance. He could spend his hours thinking about Dr. Morgentaler and so on, instead of about money. 1624

Monday, 8 lhy, 1985 But seriously, no, I think there are a number of fees which can be described as user fees - that's right - in a sense that there are users who pay them. There are users who pay for the park system. I think that park system would be ideal if we could run it.

You just drive through the gates, never mind paying $5 or whatever it is you pay when you drive through the gates; you go up to the golf course in Wasagaming and Clear Lake and just start on Tee No. 1 when your number is called, never mind the fees and ail of that would be wonderf ul, but that day will come when we have a fair income tax system. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Chairman, I'd just like to put on the record that I find that the gove rnment's prostestat ions about fairness and loopholes in the tax system begin to wear a little thin when you see the government entering Into a contract with the chief executive officer of Manfor where they agree to pay money based on after-tax figures. What matter Is it what kind of a tax system you have when the government itself agrees to enter into contracts that pay compensation in after-tax dollars? HON. A. PENNER: I guess we could.

I presume the Member for Turtle Mountain is talking about one element in the contract dealing with the movement expenses which is a - (I nterjection) - well, he's also moving lumber products that are profit, and you know, that will show up. - (Interjection) - The member is right. That contract, which essentially was negotiated, you know - (Interjection) - Well, yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(d)(1 )-pass; 6.(d)(2)- pass. 6.(e)( 1) Personal Property Security Registry: Salaries; 6.)e)

(2) Other Expendi tures - the Mem ber for St . Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Briefly, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make the same point about this area as I did about the Land Titles Office system. I have no complaints about the system, it has operated well, but expenditure is 855,000; re venue is 1.97 million. Again, we have the users of this service paying double what the expendit ures really require as a fee for that service. HON. A. PENNER: Well, the point Is on the record , and I'm on the record, that ultimately I would prefer to see government services at cost and maybe one day the Mem ber for St.

Norbert and I can form our own political party; that will be an interesting one. A MEMBER: Can I watch? HON. A. PENNER: That's what you've been doing. MR. CHAIRMAN: Question? 6.(e)( 1) - pass; 6.(e)(2)­ pass. 6.(

f) Canada-Manitoba Criminal Injuri es: Compensation Board - the Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, on what basis does the board pay the adminis trator's charges to the Workers Compensation Board? HON. A. PENNER: We've changed the system because the system was a formula system that we felt was not fair to the department. We're now paying actual cost. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, what is the charge to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for office space? • HON. A. PENNER: By the Workers Compensation? MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, my understanding is, and perhaps the Min ister could confirm this, has the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board opened a new office on Portage Avenue? HON. A. PENNER: I don't have, tonight, a breakout of the rental cost. We were, when we were located on Maryland in the Workers Compensation Building, being charged at the rate of $6-something a square foot. I still think of rental costs In those terms, I can't get adjusted to metric there. I think it's more now that they've been moved , but I don't have a bre akout of how much more. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, would the Attorney­ General then undertake to obtain those new rental rates and the costs of any additional expenses incurred as a result of moving Into these new premises? Were additional perso ns hired? What was the reason for the move? HON. A. PENNER: For the record , there were no additional persons hired. The reason for the move Is that the board, the Workers Compensation Board, said we need the space. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(f)- pass.

Resolution 21: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $16 ,838,200 for the Attorney-Gener al, Protection of Individual and Property Rights, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1986-p ass. Back to the Minister's Salary. HON. A. PENNER: Well, under Minister's Salary we first discuss the Liquor Control Commission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ye s. The Honourable Min ister. HON. A. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. Let me introduce the staff of the Uquor Control Commission who are with us tonight.

We have Bill Emerson, the General Manager and Chief Executive Officer; AI Ahoff, who is our Assistant General Manager of Finance; lrene Hami lton, Corporate Secretary and Counsel; and Archer Jackson, Director of Licensing. Between them, and with the occasional helping hand from the Commission, and the very occasional helping hand from the Minister, they are bringing into the provincial coffers something In the order of, one way or another, about $14 0 million or $14 2 million per year. Shall we all drink to that? I furnished the Member for St.

Norbert, and all mem bers of the House now, of course, have the 61 st Annual Report. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the latest report from the Commission as of March 31, 1984, referred to a 1625

Monday, 8 May, 1985 decline in the sale of spirits in the amount of 11. 3 perce nt ... HON. A. PENNEA: What page is the member on? MA. G. MEACIEA: Four. HON. A. PENNEA: Okay, thank you. MA. G. MEACIEA: . . . a decline in the sale of wine 5.5 per cent, and an increase In beer of 5.6 percent. The revenue estimates indicate that the Liquor Control Commission is to go from raising $13 0 million in this fiscal year to $14 1 million; could the Attorney-General advise how this increase in reve nues is going to occur in the face of declining sales?

Perhaps he could indicate on what basis is the sum of $141 million estimated to be the rev enue from the Liquor Control Commission in this year? HON. A.

PENNEA: As the member now knows, of course, because the Budget has been tabled and dealt with in the House, there's no increase in reve nue that is being obtained from the Commission by way of taxation and increased pricing, the expectation on the basis of, pretty good market research and I must say the Commission has been kind of dead on, and cert ainly in recent years, is that there will be some modest increase in consumption levels, and we're already witnessing that kind of increase with the sale of spirits. MA. G. MEACIEA: An increase in sales, compared to last year? HON. A. PENNEA: Ye s. MA. G.

MEACIEA: Is that right? HON. A. PENNEA: An additional feature there is that we take our markup, as the member knows, on sort of the gross cost and when the feds, with their indexing on the excise tax, add on a little bit of an impost in Septem ber, we're topping up on that. Well, it's another example of federal-provincial co-operat ion actually. MA. G. MEACIEA: Well, this pricing is just absolutely unbelievable, Mr.

Chairman, particularly when you have visitors here from the United States, when they see the prices that Canadians have, and this almost insidious markup, for example, on spirits of 138 percent, which will take effect a couple of times. Mr. Chairman, the Min ister of Finance is muttering from his seat, perhaps some stage during the discussion the Attorney-General will advise him how much his govern ment has increased the markup percentage since they took office. Mr.

Chairman, as I was saying, this markup will be applied twice yearly now as the federal government applies that excise tax, not that I supp ort that in any way. I wonder, Mr. Emerson has been kind enough in the past to provide the Committee with product price changes over the past year and bring the Committee up -to-date on some items in stock which can be used as a comparison. HON. A. PENNE A: Okay, I can provide some information.

Let's track through a Canadian spirit whiske y and go back to a magical moment in Canadian history, November 17, 1981, when the price was $9.95; May 4, 1982, there was supplier price changes that brought that to $1 0.40; May 30, 1982, there was the Budget and provincial markup increased the price to $11. 20; September 1, 1982, federal tax increased to $12. 10; March 6, 1983, another provincial markup in sales tax increase bringing us to $12.6 5; September 1, 1983 was a blow, federal tax increased and supplier price changes brought it to $14 .10 ; October 1, 1984, federal sales tax increases and some beneficial supplier price changes kept it at $1 4.10.

Taking an imp orted Scotch, and those same dates starting in November 17, 1981, $1 3.95 and jumping ahead, saving the intermediate steps on May 1, 1984, with some supplier price changes brought it to $1 8.25; October 1, 1984, the feds and some suppl ier changes to $18.75; but by May 1, 1985, some price reduction down to $18.35. So there's a little bit of a slide down there.

Just a couple more, there's been far less significant changes, at least in absolute dollar terms, in wine, domestic wine, Andres Hochtaler- November 17, 1981 to 1985 and then a series of changes ends up where In May 1, 1984, it was $4.15 ; October 1, 1984, $4.25; currently the same. And an imported wine of no great quality, Cress man, $3.90 in 1981; $5.65 October 1, 1984; $5.60, a marginal decrease, May 1, 1985. In fact, that wine's tracked down since May 2, 1983, when it reached a top of $5.90 and it's now down to $5.60. Would you like a domestic beer?

November 17, 1981, $5. 70; and some fluctuations, but there the increases have been steadily upwards and we have October 1, 1984, $8.30; April 1, 1985, supplier price changes $8.80. MA. G. MEACIEA: Mr. Chairman, since this gover nment took office, 1981-82, the re venue to the government from the Liquor Control Commission was $90 million. In their fourth year in office it is now $140 million, an increase obviously of $50 million which is consistent with the increases in the price of the products that the Attorney-General referred to.

I ask the Attorney-General, are Manitoba's prices of imported spirits seco nd highest in the country? HON. A. PENNEA: I think we'll have to be a little more selective. If we are talking about spirits, in some instances third, some fourth, and in one instance, and that's Ballantyne Scotch, were the highest in the country. MA. G. MEACIEA: How does the province rank generally with respect to domestic spirits, or is that just the same? HON. A. PENNEA: Domestic spirits, fourth from the top. MA. G. MERCIER: And wine? HON. R. PENNER: Wine, there is where we are mu, h more advantageous.

I am dealing with an im ported wine - Blue Nun Liebfraumilch - does that mean what I think it means? "Love your mother's milk." Is that what Liebfraumilch means, Victor? MA. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. 1626

Monday, 8 May, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: No, no, no, he doesn 't want to answer that question. We are third from the bottom at $5.40; and with domestic wine, Andres Baby Duck - God help us - fourth from the bottom. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Mini ster not confirm, in'8 1-82, Manitoba had the lowest white wine prices in the country with the possible exce ption of Alberta who didn't apply any sales tax? HON. R. PENNER: Ye s.

If you take Alberta out of the picture because of the lack of a sales tax, then in imported wine in the Liebfr aumilch, we are second from the bottom and there is a 30 cents differential between .us and Saskatchewan. But there are some brands in which we are the lowest, if we were to give you a complete listing, but we are pretty close to the bottom. MR. G. MERCIER: What generally about beer prices? HON. R. PENNER: Beer prices, we're about mid-range, I think. I will just get you those figures. There has just been an increase that has brought us to seve nth, exceeded by Saskatchewan and B.C. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Chairman, the Member for St .... after listening to this for an hour, it's very difficult not to. We have had the Conservatives sitting here all even ing, talking about in crea sing our expenditur es. They complain bec ause you've got an effi cient Land Titles Office operation that is saving mone y, and they're suggesting ways of spending more money in the Land Titles Office. Then they turn around and say you're making too much mone y in the Land Titles Office; you should cut down on the money that you make there.

Then when we get to the Personal Property Security Regis try, they talk about us again making too much money; we should cut down. When we get to the Liquor Control Commission, there is this Implied notion of somehow we're gouging people. We're being told about U.S. people coming here and telling us about their alcohol expenditur es down there. We ll, if he wants to talk about the U.S., let him talk about the expenditu res we have as a public body in Canada as compared to what they have in the United States. In the United States, the health care sector has been abandoned to the private sector.

Even though costs of health care in the United States on a per person basis are higher than they are here, they're borne in a different fashion. Here they are borne publ icly. We recognize here that the cost of alcohol overall is considerable in our health care system. Part of the price of alcohol has to go back into that system, a hospital system , wher� In the U.S. basically it's private, over here we're spending. On the other side of the coin, we're hearing their other critic in the other place.

He's been there for four weeks, moaning and groaning and mumbling and crying about lack of this, lack of that, outdated this, not enough staff here, not enough money there and so on. We're spending more than $4,000 per family of four for health care in the province. We don't hear a word about any sugges tions of saving mone y. They just keep talking about spe nding more mone y. They keep talking about us getting less reve nue.

They don't make any connections between the fact that the public has to come up with that $4,000 per family of four and the fact that some alcohol is going to have to cost a little bit of money. They talk about being straightforward with people. Their leader the other day was at a meeting and he was saying people want the truth. Here they are, running around the countryside, telling people we want more highways. They're promising a new hospital over in southeastern Manitoba, double the amount of rooms that are being prepared by the current Min ister of Health.

They're telling us the Health and Education Levy must go, and of course they're saying the deficit is too high. I find this rather about as far away from truthful as you could possibly get. Where is the integrity of an argument that says we should cut down alcohol prices? We should cut down on re venues all over the place, and we should add on to expenditu res all over the place, and we should cut down on other taxes, yet we should have a lower deficit. How does that argument hang together in any rational way? This is again, Mr.

Chairman, the product of a research department that is too busy just looking for votes and parties and fun, the fun party that just plays around with trying to get fast head lines, fast little shots in there. They've got day-old newspapers and anonymous phone tips; that's their whole research department. They spend their re venue in a way that's just obviously not meant to gather any facts or do anything useful.

Here they are, coming back here and telling us that somehow our liquor prices are out of whack, and suggesting I suppose, although they don't dare put it on the record, that if they ever formed a government they would reduce the prices. We know as Manitobans that they would not do so. We know they didn't do so when they were in office. They increased prices just like any other government will increase prices. I'm not going to tell you that we won't increase prices again, but be honest about it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. HON. R. PENNER: And after today, no more Mr. Nice Guy. MR. G.

MERCIER: Sometimes it's nice to hear from the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to ask a question of the Attorney­ General, and ask him If he's given it any considera tion? The Ontario Government back in late 1984 - I don't know whether it's through legislation or by policy through their Liquor Control Board - banned Happy Hours. Is the Attorney-General or the Liquor Control Commission here giving that any consideration? HON. R. PENNER: I believe that the member or someone raised that point last year which doesn't mean that it's not a valid point or a point worth exploring.

I re call when I looked into it then, but I'll look into it again, that we have encountered no Identifiable law or liquor enforcement problem around the Happy Hour 1627

Monday, 8 May, 1985 here. In fact, I believe some places which operate at Happy Hours have found that they really are not particularly happy about the Happy Hour and have gone out of it. Whether or not it's a change in lifestyle or whatever, I don't know, aging population - who knows? lt's not as big a deal as it once was, and there is a gradual trend away from the Happy Hour. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is the Attorney­ General planning any amendments to The Liquor Control Act at this Session of the Legislature? HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, I'm considering some substantially technical amendments. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I'm surprised that Happy Harry wants to get off the Happy Hour here. I wanted to ask a few general questions, maybe a few specific ones first. I attended, like many other Mem bers of the Legislature, the dinner for Her Majesty the Queen last year, both the federal and the provincial dinner . We were served there one of the worst wines I ever drank In my life which was an Ontario wine. I can't remember the name, but it would come back to me if I heard it. A MEMBER: lnniskillin. MR. R. DOERN: Something like that. Enniskillen? lnniskillen?

A MEMBER: lnniskillin. MR. R. DOERN: We ll, I consider it the worst wine I've ever tasted, and it was served at both banquets. 1 don't know what effect it had on some of the people, but it must have been shock for our foreign dignitaries. One of the questions that occurred to me at that time was, well, isn't there some Manitoba wine at this point in time? My impression was - I mean, anything at all in a bottle would have beaten that, anything excluding home brew.

But surely there is something In Manitoba at this point in time, or Is it just that there is one distiller who rebottles and that doesn't qualify as a Manitoba wine? HON. R. PENNER: I'm sure the member won't mind if I correct him slightly; distillers don't bottle wine. They distill spirits, and we have a distiller, Seagram's, up in Gimli. MR. R. DOERN: A winery. HON. R. PENNER: But, no, we have two sort of bottlers, And res in Morris and Brights in Winnipeg, both bringing In Wine by the tank car and putting it either in the casks or in bottles.

But, I would not want to put myself in the position, during Estimates in any event, of comparing those products with the lnskellln product. MR. R. DOERN: I would only say in passing, Mr. Chairman, that I don't know what quality either of those wines are, but they have to be at least as good as the Ontario wine, because that I thought was the worst of all time. it just struck me as peculiar that, if we have a Manitoban banquet and were going to serve wine, if we're not going to serve foreign wines, which probably are the best, without question, then the least we should do is not serve an Inferior Ontario wine.

I'm also looking at these numbers In the Annual Report and I find them quite surprising In terms of Page 8, and then some of these charts In terms of Pages 22 and 23 where it seems quite clear that there has been a falloff In sales. If I look at Page 8, there again, I think this was already mentioned by the Member for St. Norbert, a decline of 11 percent of spirits and wine, 11 percent of spirits and 5.5 percent of wine, and an increase in beer sales. Then, if we look at the charts on Pages 22 and 23, we see further declines. So, I'm simply saying, I don't know what the simple explanation is.

I guess the simplistic explanation is that people are drinking more beer Instead of spirits, and more beer Instead of wine. Now there was a trend that went on for at least the last decade that wine was replacing spirits, or more wine was being consumed, but now we seem to be Into a situation where wine sales are down as well. I wondered what explanation the Commission or the Min ister offers, by way of explanation, for this change in consumption? HON. R. PENNER: There isn't a ready explanation. Some of it, no doubt, is price related.

Some of it, no doubt, Is related to the continuing fairly low level of economic activity with a very continuing large number of unemployed. This is bound to affect the consumption of what has to be discret ionary purchases. There Is no doubt about it. There is also considerable public education which is taking place, and it's bound to take effect and I believe to some extent it has taken effe ct. There are changes In the demographlcs of the population which have some bearing. lt's a little too early to draw anything that could even approach a definitive conclusion.

I would really think that we would want to see a couple of years of the somewhat better times that we've begun to experience under this government, and the relative price stability which I think will have some effe ct, we'll take a look at it. I would predict and then the general manager and chief executive officer , I think, is predicting that we'll see some slight upturn in this year as we enter more fully into the era of the yuppies. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, do we have any comparisons with other provinces or In the United States?

For example, I saw an item on a television show recently in which Sea gram's was trying to advertise in the United States on the networks and their ads were disallowed. What they were trying to convey to the public was, for example - I don't know what ratios they were using, but let's say for example - that an ounce of rye was equivalent to so many ounces of wine and so many ounces or a glass of beer.

They had this ad showing the three glasses, and the man in the ad was saying, in effect, that this product here is equi valent to this which most people wou ld instinctively think, you have more alcohol in a small tumbl er, let's say, than in even a glass of beer, but they were trying to point out that these were all equivalencies. 1628

Monday, 6 May, 1985 Now aside from the ad, I deduced from the ad that Seagram's was either being moralistic or informational, which I don't think they were, but that maybe what they were trying to do is recapture some of the market. Maybe they were having a fall off in sales relative to beer and wine. So my question is: is our experience similar or comparable to other provinces, or are we the exception? HON. R. PENNER: Our experience in sales trends? MR. R. DOERN: Yes. HON. R.

PENNER: Generally at the beginning of the upturn that we see particularly of course with beer, it's better than certainly the other western provinces. MR. R. DOERN: I'm sorry. I didn't hear that last part about the western provinces. lt was the same? HON. R. PENNER: No, in terms of the beginnings of the upturn, we're doing better than the other western provinces. MR. R. DOERN: I don't know whether the Minister has any responsibility here or not, and I certainly intend to discuss this with the Mini ster for the Environment.

But does the Minister have any comment about the relative merits or demerits of bottles and cans of beer, because my Impression is that cans are becoming ever more popular and unfortunately are becoming more popular in terms of litter in our parks and In our cities, etc., and I'm just wondering if you have any information, first of all, about the relative or absolute increase in the use of cans in the beer part of the Indus try. HON. R. PENNER: We've been tracking the sales of canned beer very closely, because there are some concerns.

I can advise the member that the last 12- month average that we have would show that about 10.7 percent of the total volume of beer sales is in the form of canned beer, and that indeed there has been no marked increase. lt's seasonal incidentall y. lt goes up quite sharply in May, June, July, August, and begins tumbling down. You get a low point in December of 5.5 percent.

The reason for that is that the relative portability of canned beer and the fact that it stays colder in the can longer than In the bottle, so that if you're out on a picnic and those are concerns - how long to you have to tote a 24-pack and how cold will lt be an hour or so down the line when you want to have your lunch or your barbecue? Canned beers are a beer of some preference in the summertime. But Manitoba here, unlike Ontario to some extent and unlike some American jurisdictions, has not gone hugely into cans. In terms of the environmental concern, it becomes a matter almost of ind ividual judgment.

I should say that there Is a control feature here. That Is, as the member may know, there is a return policy with respect to cans and while this started off rather weakly, it has gained strength, and we're seeing a greater return factor in cans than when we originally started. But the other factor is this: Cans littering a site are unsightly and not nice. You get that with soft drink cans as well, of course. But bottles, particularly broken bottles quite frankly, personally, I would consider as a person who's spent a lot of time In the country and on lakesides, bottles are an absolute menace.

I mean, when you see cut feet and cut hands and severe gashes from bottles, and they're a problem to deal with In terms of disposal. You might go to the lake after the winter and see what's on the lakeshore from the ice fishermen, and I don't mind gathering on my own little piece of territory the cans and crushing them and putting them Into a bag but, boy, when you have to start toting the bottles and the broken bottles, I guess if I had my druthers, it would be the cans. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is the member finished? MR. R. DOERN: No, Mr. Chairman.

What is the exact amount of a refund or a return on one beer bottle and one can? HON. R. PENNER: 10 and five. MR. R. DOERN: Now one thing that I am totally unaware of is the number of cans that are returned. I mean I don't know where cans are returned; I have never seen anybody return a can; I have never seen anybody collect .cans to be returned. Now maybe that's a unique experience but, for example, where are cans collected and where can they be taken? HON. R. PENNER: The last figure that we have of the percentage returns Is 50 per cent, which is very high.

They are returned through hotels, the brewers' supply bags, the collecting bags that can be used, and I suppose people are returning them substantially to the point of sale, their local point of sale. MR. R. DOERN: Okay. So you are saying 50 percent of cans are returned? HON. R. PENNER: I am not only saying it, that's what I said. MR. R. DOERN: Yes . . . HON. R. PENNER: Yes . . MR. R. DOERN: . .. that's what I said you said. HON. R. PENNER: That's what you said I was saying. MR. R. DOERN: The other question is what percentage of bottles are returned? I would imagine it would be 90 percent or more. HON. R.

PENNER: I would think that's about right; it's certainly a higher percentage but then, of course, you are dealing with a higher percentage of a very much higher volume. So if you have 90 percent of the sales you have, in terms of the number of bottles that are left out there, a greater number than a 50 percent return of 10 percent of sales. MR. R. DOERN: Maybe I missed that figure, but what percentage, approximately, over a year is glass bottles, and what percentage Is cans? 1629

Monday, 8 Mey, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: Okay, the bottle sales - there is some draft in there so we'll take out draft - account for about 80 percent of all sales of beer, and cans about 10 percent. The bottle sales - let us suppose that there is a 90 percent return, okay - then there is 7.2 percent left out there in the field factor; the returns on the 10 percent cans are 50 percent, so there is 5 percent left out there on the field factor. MR. R. DOERN: Now I assume that we, the government, set the price of returns, or is that not the case? Who sets the price of the 10 and 5? HON. R. PENNER: We do. MR. R.

DOERN: Ri.ght, okay. HON. R. PENNER: But this, incidentally - I think this will be of some assistance to the member - you have to look at net cost; this is in the context of a higher price on the canned beer to begin with. MR. R. DOERN: All right, then, the question is: Wha t would prevent us from raising the price of returns?

For example, it would seem to me that if one increased the price of a bottle - at one point I think you got 2 cents for a bottle, and maybe that was okay at one point, and then as the years went by that became laughable so that nowadays we are hearing reports on the media that the dollar bill may be biting the dust and that they are now seriously considering using a coin in Canada. Now we will see about that, but the dollar isn't what it used to be. The question is: What would prevent us from significantly increasing the cost on returns?

Because I am one of those who believe that if you do so you will get a significantly higher percentage return and, therefore, less litter in the parks, on the streets and in our provincial parks, in particular. So I am sa ying, what would happen to the industry if we (

a) raised the price of cans to 10 cents; or (

b) raised the price of bottles and cans both to 25 cents, or some much larger amount of money. In what way would that harm the industry, or affect the industry, because it certainly helped the environment? HON. R. PENNER: Well, we really are spinning our wheels a bit because we go back to the basic question of whether bottles or cans are more harmful to the environment lying around. There is no doubt you could so increase the price of cans that, relative to bottles, the volume of cans sold would go down. But, you see, that's what would happen initia lly.

The members suggest that what you are really raising is the amount of the return. Well, they are not going to raise the amount of the return without raising the price of the product, and the price of the product is already considerably higher in a can than in a bottle. So that if you, in fact, did that what you would really effe ctively be doing is altering the marketplace to the extent where there would be more bottles vended than cans to begin with. I am not so sure that environmentally it's anything more than a Hobson's choice. MR. R. DOERN: I am afraid I don't follow the Minister's argument.

You would add 15 cents to the cost of a bottled drink and 20 cents to the cost of canned drinks, so there would be a marginal difference. But I am sayi ng, is this a decision of the Attorney­ General, as responsible for the Liquor Commission? Is that his direct responsibility compared to the Minister for the Environment? HON. R. PENNER: In the first instance, but I mean we are collegial. This is not a new question for me; I have been discussing it on an ongoing basis for over two years. Representations have beem made to me from conflicting interests.

There are those who would, for reasons of jobs, like to get rid of cans enti rely. A bott ling line emplo ys more workers than a canning line; there's no question about that. But we don't live in a marketing vacuum and, if we were to increase the return on a can, what we would be doing, in the first instance, is vastly increasing the trade and traffic in empty cans being brought in from Ontario and Saskatchewan to take advantage of a windfall kind of profit that can be made on empty cans.

My officials in the Com mission and in the management of the Comm ission and in the indus try feel that we would really be inviting more problems than we could resolve. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Minn edosa. MR. R. DOERN: Wet I, I just had one or two more points and then the Member for Minn edosa has a numb er of questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: What is the return in Saskatchewan and Ontario on bottles and cans? HON. R. PENNER: There are no cans in Saskatchewan, and in Ontario the return is the same as ours. MR. R. DOERN: Yes. And bottles are the same in the three provinces? HON.

R. PENNER: Yes. MR. R. DOERN: Okay. My final question at this point, the Commission, I think, has been fortuna te for a long time in refusing to take bottles back, and I don't know about the relative convenience, but I am just saying is this a policy that has been in effect at the MLCC since Day One, or was there a time where they took beer bottles and then after a certain point in time refused to do so? HON. R. PENNER: To my knowledge, I stand to be corrected, but the Commission never took bottles back. MR. R. DOERN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for Min nedosa. MR. D. SLAKE: Mr.

Chairman, I just have one or two questions. I notice on Page 4 of the report, it mentioned a new inventory control system was introd uced in all liquor 1630

Monday, 8 May, 1985 stores achieving a 21 percent reduction in Inventory volume. The high standard of stock availability on store shelves was maintained. Further on, it mentions merchandising and customer service. In connection with the inventory control, and I only speak for my own area, there are continually reports of stock shortage on certain brands. They are not able to stock enough of the product on their shelves of the lines that move, that they run out.

They also supply a very heavy tourist industry in the Clear Lake area that order from the store and it's very difficult for them to get enough lead time; they are unable to carry enough stock to meet these requirements in many many instances. But I just wondered what discretion the local store managers have ln maintaining a stock. They are the ones who know what moves in a different area. Certain brands move In one area and would move more slowly in another area, and there are continual reports coming to me of the store being out of a certain product.

I just wondered what this new inventory control system had done. lt seems that it's a fairly new complaint that is coming in. HON. R. PENNER: Subject to certain policies that are applicable generally, the vendors have a considerable amount of discretion. We have a system that was designed to prevent unfair competition between the various wholesale vendors of distilled spirits who, if they could effect a monopoly, might be inclined to offer indu cements. You know, you stock only Seagram's and never mind all of this other stuff, and you'll get one free case a year or .. . MR. D.

BLAKE: I couldn't believe that happening. HON. R. PENNER: No, and I don't want you to think, Mr. Slake, that I'm debasing the human spirit, but that kind of thing does happen out there. So the Commission has a policy where within each category, the stores are asked to stock more than one brand. There is a category of bl-spirlts and there is a higher priced category, so that subject to that policy there is a lot of discretion. MR. D. BLAKE: What can be done to elimi nate the shortage occurring weekend after weekend in certain brands?

If a report were to go into the Commission that these are the brands that move more frequently than others on weekends and there is a continual shortage in that particular line, would that be sufficient to enable the store to carry a certain number more of that one product than another one? HON. R. PENNER: I'm sure the Commission would be more than happy to look into that and as long as the system was operating within the overall regulatory scheme, then they would gladly accommodate a vendor. MR. D.

BLAKE: I'm thinking of the overall merchandising and the various other items that are mentioned and the welfare of the customer and the desire to serve the customer well. I should think that would have some preference. Should those complaints be directed to the commissioner? Should they be directed to the local store manager, or just what would be the best route to take on that? Should the Chamber of Com merce take it up and complain to the Commission, or can that be handled without going through some formal system of complaint? HON. R.

PENNER: I think the most effective way would be for the disappointed customer to say to the vendor, look here, what's happening? Would you get hold of the suppli er, that is the MLCC, and ask them to rectify the situation? I don't think you need the involvement of the Chamber. MR. D. BLAKE: They kind of look at their MLA in the rural areas as a Mr. Fixall, you see, so they kind of heap all this on me rather than on Mr. Emerson and HON. R. PENNER: Well, some MLAs know more about this than others. MR. D. BLAKE: You notice I haven't mentioned the lopsided convictions, this year. I noticed they're down.

So we'll let that be sufficient. HON. R. PENNER: I noticed that and we're working on that. MR. D. BLAKE: But that's sufficient of an answer then, Mr. Attorney-General. We'll rectify in the local area and we'll get a letter off to outline some of the areas because there are several brands that are short every weekend out there. 1631 HON. R. PENNER: The Member for Springfield very recently raised a simila r problem with me and I immediately took it up with the Commission and sent a letter to the Member for Springfield - we rarely talk so I send him letters - outlining the whole policy that's involved here.

I'm very happy to do the same. MR. D. BLAKE: When I brought this to the store manager's attention, he ind icated there was a formula they had to work under on the amount of stock they could carry. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, ·but that does allow a lot of discretion. MR. D. BLAKE: Very good. We'll see that it's looked after. With the approaching tourist season, we have to keep the tou rists happy, when we charge them three times as much for their product as they can get. Well, we're tourists all the time. We used to have a ski resort there. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I want to go back to a question that was raised by the Member for St. Norbert earlier which distressed the Minister of Finance and I think all of us who have had the privilege of serving in Cabinet have voted for raising the price of liquor as an easy source of tax revenue. I keep hearing complaints about three particular people I know, who are all professionals, who keep telling me over and over

MondaJ, 8 May, 1985 and over again with great persistence and great force that the price of liquor in Manitoba is too high. HON. R. PENNER: Professional what? MR. R.

DOERN: Professional people, but people who also drink and people who also buy liquor and people who also hold their liquor quite well, and they claim that we've passed the point of no return, and they, of course, always point to the American example and Happy Harry's Bottleshop and the rest. lt just seems to me that as I keep listening to this, I've been listening to them for about two years now, making the same repetitive argument, arguing that it hurts tourism, arguing that it hurts the hospitality indus try, etc.

I guess the first question I have in that regard is, do all provinces use the liquor indust,.Y in the same way as we do, namely as a goose that lays a golden egg? Or are there any provinces that, for example, have sign ificantly lower liquor prices, or perhaps have frozen the price of alcohol in their jurisdictions for a couple of years or made very minimal increases in the last few years? HON. R.

PENNER: lt has been my experience that the provinces without consulting - they don't do that - but tend to budget more or less in the same way so that for the past couple of years, for example, there have not been liquor taxes added in this province, but that's been the same for most of the other provinces.

We all came off a series of tax increases and clearly reached an optimum price where anything more would have been self-defeating and so, in a fiscal sense, all of the provinces sobered up and said, well it's silly to go on adding if you're just going to cut your sales to the point where you've gained noth ing. So there's been absent the federal excise tax which is added every Septem ber, rain or shine, there haven't been these kinds of tax Increases in the provinces at the provincial levels. But all the provinces use sin taxes as a way of raking in so extra money - tobacco, booze. MR. R.

DOERN: I'd have to go to the Minis ter of Tourism, I think to get an answer about the effects on tourism or the hospitality ind ustry. I'm sure that the Hotel Association would have something to say about that. I guess we'll be eating and drinking with them shortly; we might get some direct comment from them somewhere in the next couple of weeks.

But, you know, when I look here again at Page 22, and so on, and I listen to these three people who are, you know, all sort of separate friends and acquainta nces, forcefully arguing that the prices are way too high, etc., etc., and then I look at these numbers on Page 22, one might deduce that there's a direct correlation between price and demand. You know, the other economic question is about elastic and inelastic demand. I mean, what would happen if there were a freezing of liquor prices or a reduction of liquor prices, would there be a direct increase in demand, or is it something difficult to correlate? HON.

R. PENNER: I suppose it is. it could make another argument in this area, and that is, presumably, if you could produce about the same number of dollars as a revenue, while consumption per capita is going down, you've got to pretty well balance social policy. We would all like to see the consumption of alcohol go down to some extent, rather than go up. We're really not in the business of promoting an increase in the per capita consumption of booze.

I have no doubt the three professionals that the member refers to, over the period of time and the period of price increases which have caused them to cry into their Ballantynes, have shown increases In their own Income that far exceed anything that we've done. But you know, sometimes with some people the more they make, the more they cry the blues about how tough their life Is. MR. R. DOERN: The more they have to drink as a result of that. HON. R. PENNER: That's right, it's self-defeating. MR. R.

DOERN: The other question I have there is, and I don't know if the Commission keeps tabs on this, but is there any correlation with declining sales in spirits and wine with the sale of equipment for making your own wine, etc., at home or I don't know if there still are any bootleggers left in Manitoba, but what is happening in those areas where you have sort of extra­ governmental industries in this area? Is there any growth that can be measured? HON. R. PENNER: I have no way of knowing.

I suspect that the home wine-making fad has kind of levelled off, because people always feel that, gosh I make stuff at home that really you couldn't buy in the Commission; to which the rest of us, say, thank God. Given, with respect to wine, the relatively low price of some top-notch wine, I mean really good palatable stuff, why anybody would want to go to the job of spending half the fall trampling on grapes, I don't know. it's a losing game. I have no doubt that there's still Excise Act prosecutions in the province.

They're not run through our department so I don't track them; they're run through the federal justice. There's no doubt if you increase the price significantly from the present levels that you would encourage home wine-making and some upsurge in the lnterlake economy. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairperson.

I just wanted to comment that I don't think that the Attorney-General should apologize in any way for any increases that the Min ister of Finance has put on the price of liquor in our province, considering the massive social costs that we as a society have to bear, both financially and in terms of all kinds of strife in society, both with young people and with family violence, etc., that's directly correlated to alcohol consumption.

I think that any returns that we make in terms of the price of liquor itself only go a small way to pay for the social costs that society has to bear, so I don't think he should apologize at all If a few "professionals" have to pay an extra couple of dollars for their bottle of Scotch every week. MR. CHAIRMAN: Member for St. Norbert. 1632

Monday, 8 Mliy, 1885 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, just a comment for the record. I un derstand Mr. Archer Jackson will be retiring shortly from the Commission. Perhaps it's appropriate to place . . . A MEMBER: He is too young, he certainly looks too young. MR. G. MERCIER: .. . on the record, certainly my appreciation for his advice and services when I occupied the Attorney-General's position. I'm sure the present Attorney-General would concur in those remarks, and I certainly want to take this opportunity to wish him well in his future endeavours and a long summer on the golf course and happy retirement. HON. A.

PENNER: Thank you very for that and it gives me the opportunity to add my thanks on the record for a job very very well done. lt is a loss to the Commission. No doubt, again to Mr. Jackson and his lifestyle and life expectation, but this fad about early retirements, it's catching. Gosh, maybe the Member for St. Norbert will consider early retirement from political life? MR. A. DOERN: Not voluntary. MR. G. MERCIER: Involuntary, I believe. I have no more questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: Back to the Minister's Salary: 1. (a) - the Member for Elmwood. MR. A. DOERN: I have a quite a few questions here.

Maybe I'll ask one or two and then we can adjourn at 10 o'clock. One que stion I wanted to ask the Attorney­ General about is that he has in fact been having meetings with Rick North over the past couple of months, and has been well aware of the hunger strike, etc., but he has also been contacted a number of times In regard to matters before the Hu man Righ ts Commission by Herb Schulz. Mr. Schulz has written to the Attorney-General concerning some complaint that he registered about discrimination. I was just wondering when the Attorney-General will give Mr. Schulz the time of day to discuss this matter. HON. A.

PENNER: Mr. Schulz's case was discus sed at some length here earlier today, and I don't think it would profit us much to rediscuss it. I pointed out that Mr. Schulz's case Is in fact now being actively pursued by the Commission. There was a dela y, partly attributable to the retaining of outside counsel by the Comm ission to get a legal opinion on the basis for the complaint. Now the Commission subsequently directed a numb er of questions to myself who is responding on behalf of the government. I have quite recently, within the last three weeks replied, and I've also replied to Mr.

Schulz and pointed out that he in fact, as the complainant, and I, acting for the government as a respondent, and in those circums tances when the Comm ission which is appointed to look into these matters and must stand completely at arm's length is dealing with it, it would be inappropriate for me to meet with him. So I have declined to do so. With respect to Mr. North, of course, Mr. North was not a complainant In a case presently before the Commission. So there was no lis, as they say, between us. I sat down with Mr.

North on two occasions in that period of time and tried to make clear to him what my position was and my concern about his health and his continuation of the hu nger strike. MR. A. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of questions which will take half-an-hour or an hour, so perhaps if somebody else has questions, they may wish to ask them now. Otherwise, I would suggest we call it 10 o'clock. HON. A. PENNER: No, I'm here till we're concluded. If you want to go on till 12: 00, be my guest. MR. A. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I'm saying to the Minis ter that I would prefer to stop now and continue tomorrow afternoon. HON.

A. PENNER: I wouldn't. MR. A. DOERN: Well, then, we could go on for a little while. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Mini ster some questions about his actions and make some comments about his actions in regard to Dr. Morgentaler. HON. A. PENNER: I only regret the member wasn't here when we had that discussion in committee. MR. A. DOERN: Well, that's all right. This is the Min ister's Salary, and I think I am entitled to speak on it at this point. I guess what I would like to do then is ask a series of questions, and then make some general comments to the Min ister.

I want to go back to the main point which is the contention on the part of the Attorney-General that he was unable to lay certain conditions out before Dr. Morgentaler. lt's my contention that the Attorney­ General had the power and the option of laying out certain conditions before Dr. Morgentaler which would have prevented him from reopening his clinic, and because of a bias on the part of the Attorney-General, that he allowed Dr. Morgentaler to reopen his clinic and to continue to break the existing law, etc.

So I want to ask a couple of specific questions here which might shed some light on that, and again ask the Attorney-General if he would comment on Judge Kroft's remark that it was possible for him to set conditions of bail which would have precluded Dr. Morgentaler from reopening his clinic on a num ber of times after the original charges? HON. A. PENNER: I have already answered that in the House. MR. A. DOERN: Well, this Isn't the House, this Is the committee. HON. A. PENNER: My answer in the House is the answer I would give now. MR. A. DOERN: What is that? 1633

Monday, 8 May, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: That is that a trial judge dealt with that issue, and that was not further appealed. Reasons were given by the trial judge in saying that those conditions of bail were inappropriate in this kind of case. I don't think that Judge Kroft was aware of that fact when he suggested that might be done, so it has been done. At the moment, the question is moot. MR. R. DOERN: I have a copy of some transcripts here, and they would appear to contradict what the Attorney-General is saying. HON. R. PENNER: What is the date of the transcripts? MR. R.

DOERN: The first transcript is July 15, 1983, charge of conspiracy, abortion, remand and application for interim release "proceedings . . HON. R. PENNER: Point of order. MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order has been raised. HON. R. PENNER: The mem ber, first of all, is implying that I'm a liar. The date of the transcript in which this was dealt with is June 26, 1983. If the member doesn't appear to have that, then he doesn't have the right transcript. MR. R. DOERN: The Attorney-General can describe himself in any way that he wishes, but I have a transcript here which I think clearly shows . . . HON. R.

PENNER: You have the wrong transcript. MR. R. DOERN: Well, do you have the right transcript? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. Adjourn for five minutes? MR. R. DOERN: Fine. MR. CHAIRMAN: We adjourn for five minutes. Recess. Recess MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee resume. HON. R. PENNER: I have in my hand the transcript of proce edings taken before. S. Minuk, Esq uir e, Provincial Court Judge, in and for the Province of Manitoba. He was dealing with the clauses of the Criminal Code having to do with conditions under which bail may be granted or denied.

The background to this judgment was that the day before a bail magistrate had attached conditions of the kind referred to by the member and others, and this was an application to bury those bail conditions. Page 2. The next clause is, "any substantial likelihood that the accused will, if released from custody, commit a criminal offence." I read the judges words: "I don't know if they have committed a criminal offence right now. There are allegations that they have committed criminal offences; I don't know whether they have.

They are of the view that they have not; their counsel obviously is of the view that they have not committed a criminal offence and, until the Supreme Court tells me that they have committed a criminal offence, they stand before me inno cent. There is certainly no ind ication they are going to interfere with the administration of justice. So, on the basis of

Section 457(7) of the code, I'm satisfied that it would not be cont rary to the public interest. lt would not be contrary to the protection and safety of the public if these people were to be released." I deal now with the key

section under which the condition was imposed,

Section 457(

f) which reads: "The accused shall comply with such other reasonable conditions specified in the order as the justice considers desirable with due respect to the learned magistrate" - that's the bail magistrate. "I'm of the view that those conditions are not reasonable conditions, and I'm of the view that they ought to be deleted from the bail recognizance and I so order." MR. R. DOERN: Was Dr. Morgentaler present on that occasion? HON. R. PENNER: He was represented by counsel. MR. R. DOERN: Was he present on that occasion? HON. R. PENNER: No, he was not present on that occasion.

That, of course, doesn't make any difference in terms of the legality of the proceedings. MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not a lawyer and I don't pretend to be a lawyer. it's my impression, from discussing this with lawyers, that it is necessary to appear for bail, or it's customary to appear for bail. HON. R. PENNER: lt may be customary, it's not necessary. What was before the judge, in any event, was a bail order which had already been made, and what was before him was an application to vary that bail order. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, the Min ister has his documents, and I have mine. HON. R.

PENNER: With respect , on a point of order. They're not my documents. I have before me a transcript certified to be correct by Beverly A. Barnes, official court reporter. This is not my document; it is a document of record. MR. R. DOERN: Right and, Mr. Chairman, I have a court document by Joan Wakefield, a duly sworn court reporter from Provincial Court of Manitoba. it's a remand, an application for interim release proceedings had and taken before His Honour Judge Newcombe which succeeded or followed that particular trial and I want to ... HON. R. PENNER: lt did not deal with this issue. MR. R.

DOERN: I believe it did. Mr. Chairman, I want to quote a few comments between Mr. Brodsky and the court. Mr. Brodsky, on Page 1, says: "The reason I mention, that is, because there is an outstanding warrant and Your Honour may well appreciate my undertaking was 1634

Monday, 8 Mey, 1985 to present him to the court today. I'm doing that, I'm making application, in case there is any issue, that he be released on the same conditions that pertain to the other accused." He's ref erring to Dr. Morgentaler . And the court says: "What are those conditions?" Miss Lemaire says, "The condition was just "Own recognizance, Your Honour." That's on the second set of charges and the court says: "What's the amount of their own recognizance? Do you know it off the top of your head, Mr. Brodsky?" Mr.

Brodsky says: "I have the reasons." And Miss Lemare says: "$1 ,000." The court says: "Fine, release then, $1 ,000 own recognizance." Now, my unde rstanding is tha t there was no submission from the Crown and that the Crown could have, at this point in time, argued for conditions which were not done; there was no submission from the Crown. As a result of that, Dr. Morgentaler continued to reopen his clinic and, in the opinion of many people, flaunt the law as a result of that. Mr.

Chairman, I also want to refer to another court document which, again, Is between the League for Life and Patricia Sonln and Henry Morgen taler, etc. The affidavit of Saul B. Simons dated March 21, 1985, which says on Page 2: "That on the 27th day of June, 1983, I appeared before His Honour Judge Minuk in Provincial Judges Court and applied for a jud icial interim release of five of Dr.

Morgentaler's eo-accused." And then a couple of paragraphs down says: "That, after argument, His Honour Judge Minuk refused to impose such a condition and specifically considered the public Interest test of the Criminal Code, Including whether there is any substantial likeliho od that the accused will, If released from custody, commit a criminal offence ." Now, it's my understanding that the original eo­ defendants who were on trial with Dr. Morgentaler , Including one doctor, or more, they were given certain conditions of bail and they never did break those conditions of ball, they respected them, but that Dr.

Morgentaler, first of all, did not have any conditions attached by the Crown, other tha n his own recognizance, and that he did, on a number of occasions thereafter, break those conditions; and that at any time that he appeared before the court the Crown could have attached conditions that he not reopen his clinic, and they did not. And that, in the judgment of many people, Including myself, the Attorney-General failed to act and clearly demons trated a bias in not stopping Dr. Morgentaler from rEH>penlng his clinic and breaking the existing law.

Now I'm asking the Attorney-General whether he is saying, because my Information is contrary to his and the documents that I have, according to lawyers that I know, they tell me that the only condition laid on Dr. Morgentaler was his own recognizance and $1 ,000 bond, and that at any time, then or since, the Attorney-General could have prevented him from reopening his clinic and he failed to do so. HON. R. PENNER: In our system of law, judges are the ones who apply bail and bail conditions, not Attorney s-General, No. 1. No. 2, conditions of bail that were granted for Dr.

Morgentaler were clearly on the record, read by the mem ber, those that followed the conditions of bail which were, in fact, granted to Dr. Robert Scott, Barbara Joan Burr, Ethel Lynn Crocker, Lynn-Anne Halliard and Susanne Neuman; that Indeed where the proceedings had before Judge Minuk when he removed the condition of bail having to do with not reopening the clinic and granted bail on a $1 ,000 recognizance; and that when Judge Newcombe dealt with the issue about a month later and was apprised of what had happened before Judge Minuk, he said, well, I am doing the same thing.

So the issue was canvassed by two judges, so the member Is wrong In his int erpretation. I am not saying that he's got the wrong docu ments; he doesn't have a complete set of documents or a complete understanding of the matters that were taken before two Provincial Judges In succession. You have to read all of the documents. You must not be selective and just pick out one document. That way you're apt to fall into error, and I hate to see even the Member for Elmwood fall into error so frequently and so badly. MR. R. DOERN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I will give the Attorney-General these two documents . HON. R.

PENNER: I have them. MR. R. DOERN: . . . If he doesn't have them and perhaps he could give me a copy of his document later. But it Is clearly my Impression, and clearly the opinion of lawyers that I have spoken to, that Dr. Morgentaler did not appear on the occasion from which you are reading, and that when he did appear . . . HON. R. PENNER: I just said he didn't. I never read you the names. I never said that he did appear. MR. R. DOERN: Well, that was my original point, that he was not present. HON. R. PENNER: He was present before Judge Newcombe - you just told me that. MR. R. DOERN: That's right. HON. R.

PENNER: And Judge Newcombe says, I am doing the same that Judge Minuk did. MR. R. DOERN: That's my point. HON. R. PENNER: And that's my point. MR. R. DOERN: My point is the same point, that he was not present In the first instance. He was present before Judge Newcombe, and you have referred many times to the fact that he was present before Judge Minuk and he wasn 't. HON. R. PENNER: I never referred to that once. I never made that statement once. The member . . . MR. R. DOERN: I believe you made that statement many times in the House. HON. R. PENNER: Well . . MR. R.

DOERN: I believe that a look at Hansard will show that you did say that many times. 1835

Monday, 8 May, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: Well, I would invite the member to look at Hansard and he'll find that once more he's fallen into error. The member spent a great deal of time protesting that he is not a lawyer and he spent a great deal of time proving it, and we can move on. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, we'll look at the record because my recollection is that the Attorney-General made repeated comments to the fact tha t Dr. Morgentaler appeared before Judge Minuk and he never did. But we will check that out in the next day or so.

My point Is this, that there were not conditions imposed by the Crown to prevent Dr. Morgentaler from reopening his clinic, and that when he finally did appear HON. R. PENNER: The Crown cannot oppose bail conditions. MR. R. DOERN: When he finally did appear, all that he was asked to do in effect was to, on his own recognizance, put up a bond of $1 ,000.00. At that point in that first instance. the Crown could have asked - the Attorney-General could have asked the court to make it a condition of his bail that he not reopen the clinic.

Now I'm saying that, when we look at this whole case, if you look at this case over the last few months, you see the following state of affairs. You see the Winnip eg Police repeatedly upholdin g the law. You see the Winnip eg Police on a number of occasions going into the clinic and taking evidence.

You see the College of Physicians saying to this doctor that he is not qualif ied to practise medicine in this province, and that he is breaking the law. - (I nterje ction) - Of cou rse, the Member for Wolseley says that's garbage, but of course she is going to reveal her bias in this particular case - (Interjection) - well now we're going to hear the Mem ber for Ellice defend Dr. Morgenta ler, and that's fine and they're entitled to do so. But 1 say, when it comes to upholding the present law that is the duty of the Attorney-General.

Aside from his own personal convictions, which I think are either the same as Dr. Mo rgentaler's or simila r to Dr. Morgentaler's, I think in that particular instance the Attorne y-General is allowing his personal bias to colour his judgment and to colour his actions; and tha t his responsi bilit y is to uphold the law; and that his responsi bility is to lay a condition of bail against Dr.

Morgentaler or anybody else in any other area of the law to preclude them from making a mockery of the law and to preclude them from breaking the law again and again and again, because I think that sends out a very bad message to society; that somebody can, apparently with impun ity, break a law, and the Crown sits idly by. I know, Mr. Chairman, that there are people who are pro choice, who want this case never to come before the courts in Manitoba. I know there are people who say, and the Attorney-General has said, well we'll have to wait for Ontario. Now we have waited two years for Ontario.

This case is now before the courts in Ontario. After the case is decided we're going to have probably an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada and that may take another two years. That means, for all intents and purposes, the justice system in Manitoba is simply spinning wheels, simply waiting for something to happen. That is a charitable account of what is happening. But the people who are pro choice, they of course want this state of affairs. They don't want a prosecution to take place in the Province of Manitoba. Then I guess the pro life position is to put Dr. Morgentaler in jail and to haul him in court.

So there is another position. But I think there is a third position here, and I think that position maybe has greater num bers of adherents than either of the other two, and that is people who want the law enforced, people who respect the law, who think that the law whatever it Is, should be enforced . If at some point in time, a decision is made to change the law, well then that too may occur. In fact , that may be an evolution now, maybe, but it isn't the case. it is not the case. it is the case that Dr. Morgentaler is breaking the law. lt is the case that Dr.

Morgenta ler seems to consider himself above the law. lt is the case that the Attorney-General is clearly giving the impression to people that he sides with Dr. Morgentaler, that he will not take any action to delay or frustrate Dr. Morgentaler in his actions. And I say, Mr. Chairman, that in my opinion as an obse rver, as a person who is neither in the pro life camp or in the pro choice camp, I say that the Attorney­ General is not doing his job. I say that the Attorney­ General could have from the very beginning, two years ago, blocked Dr. Morgentaler from opening his clinic.

The reason that he apparently hasn't is not a failure of will, but it is because of his own bias and as a result, he is allowing his own biases to interfere with the proper carrying out of his responsibilities as Attorney-General. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Ellice. MR. B. CORRIN: I just have a very brief submission to make to the Hono urable Memb er for Elmwood. I want him to know that the Attorney- General, in my opinion and In the subm ission of most people who practise law in this province, has been pressed and put in a very hard position associated with a great deal of tribulation.

There is no question about the fact that the Attorne y-General has retained a completely im partial and un biased approach which befits a professional person of his standing. The easy route would have been, of course, to associate himself with the sort of trivial politics that the Memb er for Elmwood practises. He hasn't done that, to his credit.

With respect to the points the honourable member makes about bail and conditions and all these other things, of cou rse the Member for Elmwood may like to take into consideration the fact that it probably wouldn't be appropriate for a court of law to presume that the activities taking place in the clinic were illegal until the matter was proven in a court of competent jurisdiction somewhere. That certainly hasn't happened in Manitoba and to the best of my knowledge hasn't happened in any other jurisdiction either.

The Member for Elmwood should remember that there have been several acquittals recorded with respect to the activities of this individual accused who is, I 1636

Monday, 6 May, 1985 might also add because it is a matter of personal record of my opinion, a martyr to a great cause in terms of his belief in something, something that the Member for Elmwood will never un dersta nd. MR. R. DOERN: Tell that to the people who are pro life. Tell that to them. Tell them that they don't believe in anything, and that only the pro choice people believe in something. Tell them that to their face. MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the member please address the Chair? The Mem ber for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to add that the suggestion the Member for Elmwood was making tha t Dr. Morgentaler is breaking the law even though he has not yet been proved guilty in the Province of Manitoba and has been acquitted four times in other parts of Canada, I think falls very well into his argument this afternoon that people who are accused of murder or rape, etc., etc., should not even get a legal aid lawyer. MR. R. DOERN: That's a lot of rubbish. Why don't you grow up? MS. M. PHILLIPS: I think it follows the same kind of mentality that the minute the person is charged with something ... MR. R. DOERN: You're retarded .

MS. M. PHILLIPS: . . . that in his brilliant mind they are automa tically guilty and should be treated as such. I think in terms of his complaint about having to wait a couple of years here or there, most reasonable people in the province understand that women have waited centur ies to have this issue resolved in terms of control over our own bodies. I don't think another couple of years are going to make much difference, and that we're quite prepared to wait until this issue is resolved once and for all. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I must, first of all, ignore what the Member for Wolseley says, because it's just total fabrications and rantings. But I have to say to the Member for Ellice, that I believe him when he tells me that there are people who believe in the pro-choice position. I don't find that hard to believe. You know, if he wants to tell me that the Attorney-General and the Mem ber for Wolseley and he sincerely believe in that position, I don't find that hard to believe.

But I have to tell him that if he thinks that the only true believers in their position are on the pro-choice side, then he has never spoken to people who are pro­ lifers. And I don't know if he's ever had that occasion or not, but I have listened to both sides and I have heard what I consider to be very persuasive arguments on both sides of the equation and I don't regard the people who are pro-life as insin cere. Many of them are very religious people who hold very deep convictions and theological positions about life and the nature of life, and the last thing you can say about them is that they are insincere.

I'm telling you that there is, aside from the merits of each position, which I think are very hard to determine, I say that there is a position which maybe em braces all of these positions, and that is the fact that the law appears to be openly flouted on a regular basis by Dr. Morgentaler. He appears to be above the law. He appears to be willing to reopen his clinic every time it's closed. He appears to call the police all kinds of names, the physicians and surgeons all kinds of names. - (I nterjection) - Yes, yes, he's even called the Attorney-General names.

All I can say is that there are I think a majority of people in my judgment who think that he is breaking the law. And that if he is breaking the law, then it is up to the authorities in this province who are charged with maintaining law and order to stop him. I am saying to the Attorney-General that in two years he appears to have failed to prevent Dr.

Morgentaler from reopening his clinic and he appears to be willing to wait another two years, assuming he has that much time, maybe another month or another year whatever the case may be, that during his term in office as Attorney-General he will not lift a finger to stop Dr. Morgentaler from reopening his clinic. Now I say to him that Is the clear message and impression that is about in this province, and I'm saying to that extent the Attorney-General has allowed his well-known position on this issue to interfere with his responsibilities as Attorney -General. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B.

RANSOM: Mr .. Chairman, I have a couple of questions for the Attorney -General. I apologize for not raising them earlier and if the Minister can't answer now, I'll understand that, but it has to do with the giving peace officers status to employees of security agencies. Does the Min ister happen to know what the policy is in that respect? HON. R. PENNER: When an application is made, it's handled by our Director of the Law Enforcement Services, Charlie Hill. I believe a routine check is made through the Data Services as to whether or not there are any criminal records outsta nding against those making application.

The bona fides of the firm applying, If it's corporate, are checked through the normal search In the corporate office and if the Director of Law Enforcement isn't satisfied on the basis of these checks and satisfied that the security service Is required, then under his authority a person may be designated as a peace officer. MR. B. RANSOM: I have before me two or three letters, as a matter of fact, relating to Taskko Agencies Ltd. HON. R. PENNER: Pasco, Tasco? MR. B. RANSOM: "T", you may be familiar with.

In one circumstance, with respect to this company, a woman was given special constable status, but only as it related to one specific job. I'm wondering why, If a person could receive special constable status for one specific job, they would not be given that stat us for any job that they were on as an employee of that particular agency. HON. R. PENNER: I don't know. I'll have to inqu ire, and I'll get the Information for the member. 1837

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a) - the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, you'll be pleased to know I'm not going to prolong the agony here. I simply wish to say for the record, I have in past years moved a reduction in the Attorney -General's Salary. I don't Intend to do that this evening in view of the fact that we're obviously now in the last term of the government. On election, I will leave the judgment as to the Attorney­ General's Salary to the electorate, Mr. Chairman. He brought his two-year-old here in the beginning to help him get his Estimates through, Mr.

Chairman, and 1 certainly don't want to deprive tha t young child of any necessities of life. MR. CHAIRMAN: 1. (a)- pass. Resolution 16 : Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,27 1, 200 for Attorney-General, Admin istration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1986- pass. What Is the pleasure of the committee? HON. R. PENNER: Comm ittee rise. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. SUPPLY - HEAL TH MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: Committee, come to order.

We are considering the Estimates of the Department of Hea lth, Item 7, Manitoba Health Services Commission, Ho spital and Personal Care Home Programs - the Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few questions of the Mi nister and a few comments to make. it's dealing particularly with the personal care facilities, and I have a question to the Minis ter. People of the Hartney community have been for some time now requesting a conversion of their current facility to personal care.

There have been numerous meetings held with the department and with the member of the area, myself, and there is a true desire there by the hospital board to change their hospital facility or to expand it to a personal care unit. I do not see it in the five-year program of the Minis ter. Can the Min ister comment as to whether or not he has any intentions of doing anything with Hartn ey, or whether or not it will be ignored in any future plans? MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Min ister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, it's all a question of priority and timing.

Right now the population doesn't warrant, as per our guideline, a personal care home at this stage. lt probably will In a few years, start functional pla nning. The beds now have been incorporated with Souris at this time. The Commission have been meeting with them, and I would think that should come fairly soon. We're trying to advance in all the regions, and trying to equalize as much as possible. Right now it's not as much of a priority as some that are announced because of the number of beds per the population and counting the region. I'm not talking about Hartne y itself just alone.

I'm talking about the region. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the people of Hartne y, I want to say I think the num bers would be there and the priority would be there if local residents were given the opportu nity to live In their home communit y. He makes the comment about Sourls. Some of the people have moved from the Hartney facility, or that would have been accommodated in the Hartne y facilit y, to both Sourls and Deloraine. it's unfortunate because that further takes away from the statistical information, the statistical data tha t would provide the kind of background support for Hartne y.

I think the people in that communit y have put forward a case. I know that the prior Minister of Health had comm itted to that kind of facility. I was of the Impression that Health Services Commis sion had, in their five-year program, a commitment to Hart ney. I would again like to put the plea forward for that communi ty. The Minister can comment later if he likes, but I do have some other comments I want to make dealing with particularly nursing homes and health care In western Manitoba.

As I unde rstand lt, the Information that I have had provided to me, and it's been provided to this committee, that there Is currently in the Westman region a waiting list of some 243 people In rural Manitoba, in the western region of Manitoba, for personal care.

Today I had provided to me, which I am prepared to table, a document which comes from the Department of Health, as I understand it, where we see insured nursing home beds In Brandon - my colleague from Pembina has done an excellent job in pointing out some of the concerns that he has - but we are now looking at a projection by the Department of Health to 1987, when we see again a further reduction In the numb er of insured nursing home beds In Brandon from 1985 of 586 to 552 in 1987, which is a reduction from 626 in 19 81. Mr.

Chairman, when we have a government that went to the people in 1981, saying that they were going to have a better health service, that they were going to look after the people of Manitoba better, that they were going to provide the kind of services that we all like to see our elderly people have, and then when we see this kind of a document come from the Department of Health, which projects for 1987, 552 insured nursing home beds In Brandon as opposed to 626 in 19 81, when we left office, one has to really point out to the public that they're not very sincere in providing the kind of services that we all would expect; In fact, what was comm itted in the 1981 elect ion.

In fact, Mr. Chairman, I get extremely upset when we haven't seen the Premier of the Province of Manitoba listening or participating in the Health Estimates, but out campaigning for the next elect ion in Brandon, shaking hands with these poor elderly people. What he should have been telling them was this is your last handshake because tomorrow you are going to have to move out Into the streets. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's what he should have been telling them because what he is doing is reducing the services and the accommodations for the elderly people In Brandon by some not quite 100 people, not quite 100 beds.

Then we have to ask the question: how sincere are they in their commitment to health care In the Province of Manitoba? I would suggest that it appears to me that it's totally political posturing. 1638

Monday, I May, 1985 The Min ister earlier today made a comment that the people who are going to leave the beds in Brandon would be able to find accommodation in their own home communities outside the city. I don't know of any personal care unit outside the City of Brandon in the Westman region, Mr. Chairman, that has any ability to handle any people. Again it was pointed out there were 243 people on the waiting list. Where is he going to put these people when he reduces the beds to 552 in 1987? We have an aging population; we have more people that are going to need the accommodation of personal care, Mr.

Chairman. We have an aging population, more people needing the facilities, and this NDP Government reducing the numb ers of beds available to them. The Mi nister hasn't convinced me. Anything that I have read from his Estimates, anything that he has said has totally been opposite to really what is happening. He is trying to leave us with the impression that everything is okay and that all the older people are going to be accommodated. - (In terjection) - Well, the num bers show. The Member for Point Douglas, or wherever it is, says, no, no, that's not the case.

Well, the case is, and I'm prepared to table the document coming from the Department of Health, that in the Brandon area alone in 1981 insured nursing home beds - there were 626, I don't have to list them all - but the projection for 1987 will be reduced to 552. Now the current waiting list for personal care homes In the Westman region is 243. I don't see in his program, and maybe he could tell me in his program for building, where they're going to build enough accommodation to look after the 243 on the waiting list with the reduction in the City of Brandon. Where are these people going to be accommodated?

As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the First Mini ster of this province who was compaigning in Brandon last week should have been giving the golden handshake, and maybe it was, to the residents of the personal care homes in Brandon, rather than saying that he was all in favour of looking after them because he's really not. If I were a senior citizen resident of the homes that the First Minister visited last week as well as the Minister of Technology or whatever it is, McKenzie Seeds, former Min ister responsible for McKenzie Seeds, Len Evans or the Member for Brandon East - I apologize, Mr.

Chairman, the Memb er for Brandon East - were campaigning, trying to lead people to believe that everything was in good order, that they were in good hands. The truth of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that this Minis ter of Health and the First Min ister will be moving those people out of those beds, and where will they be moving them? They have no alternative accommod ation. lt will be either back to their homes or out into the streets, Mr. Chairman. That's the commitment of the New Democratic Party to the people of the Westman region. There are no alternative facilities for them.

They're reducing the beds from 626 in 1981 to 552 in Brandon with a waiting list of 243 in rural Manitoba in the same region; the numbers don't add up, Mr. Chairman. The Min ister hasn't satisfied me or hasn't satisfied any of the people of the Brandon region or the Westman region, who Is going to look after them? This great socialis t government who campaigned on looking after the needs of people have truly failed. They have mis led the people of the province. Yes, Mr. Chairman. How else do you deal with the num bers that are before us?

I will table this document, and I would like a copy of it back as well, please. This is a department document which has been provided to me, pointing at 1987. The reduction of insured nursing home beds will be to 552. I ask the Mi nister of Health to deny that that's not true. If it's not true, let him say so. I am concerned - I'm not only concerned about the workers - I am concerned about those patients in those beds. What are they going to do, Mr. Chairman? Well there is a lot of baf flegab coming from the backbench, but there has been no one stand up and really defend the needy in our society.

The elderly people are going to be put out in the streets. If they're not, Mr. Chairman, I challenge the Minister of Health but more so I challenge the First Min ister who takes great pride in having his picture taken shaking hands with the elderly people, I challenge him to come Into the Health debate and tell us if that's not so. Where is he then? Or does he leave it up to the Minis ter of Health who pretends that he's the Premier of the province? I am concerned, Mr.

Chairman, that In 1987 - and I have provided the document for the Min ister of Health - we're going to be down to 550-some personal care beds In Brandon, from 600-and-some. You know, what happens in the Westman Region? The medical people do a pretty good job of making accommodation available; that people, whether it be from Klllarney, or Melita, or Reston, or Deloraine, or Oak Lake, Boissevain, if there's a bed in the Brandon region and they need it they can make accommodation to get them In.

Very seldom does it ever happen In reverse because there aren't any extra beds In those regions that 1 mentioned, In fact, Deloralne have got a request to expand their facilit y, need expanded facilities. Hartney have desperately wanted a personal care facility In their community which I fully support. No action on behalf of the government. Sourls, accommodation is full with a waiting list. Mr. Chairman, this government have failed the people of Manitoba, they failed the people of Manitoba in one of their more, I would say, political-inspi red areas of commitment.

They led the people of Manitoba to believe in 1981 that if you elected an NDP Government that you wouldn't have to worry about your costs of health care, that you wouldn't have to worry about your old age security and your facilities or your services when you became old. Mr. Chairman, it has turned out to be exactly the opposite, that we have a Minister of Health, and we have a Premier of the province, who are not living up their commitment of 19 81.

The nu mbers that I have just provided prove, particularly in the Westman Region, that their plans are to reduce the nu mbers of personal care beds in the Brandon Region to a point which will not allow everyone who needs the services to have the services. They have not kept up to the demand In the smaller communi ties to provide accommodation for those people who are In their latter years, and it wouldn't be quite so bad, Mr. Chairman, if our society were becoming younger, but our society is aging. There are more people requiring the kind of facilities and the kind of long-term care that we're talking about. 1839

Monday, 8 May, 1985 But what does this First Min ister do? He doesn't come to debate and defend it in the Estimates of the Minis ter of Health, he goes and plays politics with the older people In the Fairview Home and leaves them to believe that everything is fine and they will be secure. Well, if I read, Mr.

Chairman, some of the comments that I have heard my colleague from Pemblna make; If I look at some of the num bers, as an older person who has been presented to this Assembly and to this committee, I would be quite concerned whether I would have a bed and a roof to look after me in my older years. lt's not there, Mr. Chairman, and I'd ask the Mini ster of Health to point out how he's going to justif y cutting back the personal care homes in Brandon to 552, I believe it was, from the 600-and-some that were there in 1981.

How can he justify it and, at the same time sees a waiting list of 243 In rural communi ties, there just Isn't enough accommodation for the people who need it. Now, if he can justify the decisions that his department have made, if he can justif y why the Premier is going out and misleading the constituents of the Brandon area for political purposes, then I'll sit down and let him stand up and do so, but I don't think he can do it. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. J. DOWNEY: No, he's not going to respond. A MEMBER: I guess not. MR. J. DOWNEY: You can't defend yourself. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, the personal care home line Is an interesting line In terms of dealing with the per diem. My colleague has laid out where the First Min ister has been hung up on a hook on some of the election promises he made. Now, Mr.

Chairman, there's another hook the First Minis ter is hung up on in terms of what the Min ister of Health has done to him over the last couple of years. lt was either the Throne Speech or the Budget Speech Debate In 1981 prior to the election, the then Leader of the Opposition, - the now Premier as leader of the New Democratic Party - ind icated that if he were government, that they would not increase the per diems beyond the Inflation rate in the Province of Manitoba, because they believed the

schedule that Bud Sherman, the then Minister of Health from Fort Garry, that the

schedule he was putting out for us was wrong. They argued with it extensively and they indicated that the then Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the New Democratic Party, said then that they would never allow personal care home per diems to go beyond the inflation rate. Well, Mr. Chairman - (I nterject ion) - your leader said that back in 19 81, he wouldn't let per dlems rise above inf lation rate, because he was very worried about the

schedule that the then Minister of Health and our government put out. Well, Mr. Chairman, when this government was elected, the per diem rate was $10 .75. As of May 1st, well the Minis ter of Health brought out a

schedule and he took so much flack from his own colleagues that he changed it around a little bit, but he's back to normal now. But In 19 81, when this government took over it was $10 .75 per day per resident. lt's now $1 5.25 as of May 1st, an increase of $4.50, a 42 percent increase. A MEMBER: Shame. lt's terrible. MR. D. ORCHARD: Now in the period of time that this has happened, the inflation rate, consumer price Index has increased by some 19 percent.

So once again, when this First Minister goes out on the campaign trail, and this next time he goes he might not have the solid guidance of the Minister of Health next time, but he told the people to expect per diem's no higher than the inflation rate, and he doubled them in his first term. So you know, the point that we've been trying to make fairly consistently with this Min ister and his colleagues is that the First Minister has a declining credibility out there for what he says and what he does. And that's but one more example. Now, Mr.

Chairman, I'd like to deaf with one topic that's going to take a little bit of time tonight. Back in December of 1984, the Minister of Health annou nced that he was going to take over the pharmacy business in supplying pharmaceuticals to personal care homes. A MEMBER: A big socialistic move. MR. D. ORCHARD: And In doing that he was going to essentially eliminate six businesses in the City of Winnipeg, and the emplo yment in those businesses. Mr.

Chairman, I posed a question to the Minister a while back about whether they were going ahead, because there was quite a bit of furor over the Min ister's decision on December 7th, and the Min ister backed off for his Implementation date by three months, he moved from April 1st to July 1st and set up a study commit tee where there were 10 people on this study committee from various disciplines within the field from personal care homes, to the suppliers, to the pharmaceutical association, to one from Deer Lodge and two from the Health Services Commission.

Now that group was to study the proposal and to see whether it was, indeed, going to save the kind of money that the Minis ter had first envisioned. Now I posed a question to the Minister a while back in question period about whether they were going ahead with the program because a fairly sizable computer was put into Deer Lodge. The Minister gave me the assurance then that, no, that computer was going to be there anyway and that it had nothing to do with going ahead with the program.

Now this afternoon when we were going through the Estimates, and we went through the year-over-year Estimate for personal care home line, we find that the Min ister is budgeting some .5 million of saving coming from the takeover of the drug business. The Mini ster indicated tonight that the decision hadn't been made. Can I ask the Minister if he will - he set up this 10 person committee to study the situa tion, the supply of pharmaceuticals to the personal care homes. They have reported to him, I believe fast week, or maybe it was the week before, I'm not sure.

Can the Minister indicate whether he will follow the majority recommendation of tha t group? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I can see it's going to be one of these evenings but that's fair enough. 1640

Monday, 8 May, 1915 I think that it's an accepted tradition that, somewhat like the Throne Speech, the people want to be able to show in the Hansard to their constituenc y that they fought for beds, and that's fair enough. The situation MR. D. ORCHARD: No, they want to know what the hell you're doing. HON. L. DESJARDINS: But my honourable friend doesn't have to repeat the same question four, five, six times, we'll try to answer. He wasn't here during the debate, I think he'd understand certain things.

First of all, he produced a document that he said he got from the Department of Health and that was supposed to be a policy of government. Where did he get that idea? I can say that, I've never seen that documen t before. I am told that, yes, it was a working document, and the information that I am getting from that period in'83 to '87, there will be a net reduction of 50 beds. I think we made it clear this afternoon; we said that nobody that is in one of these homes now will be put out of a home, will have to go on the street like was said by my honourable friend.

I said that we guaranteed that they would all have a bed in a personal care home If he wants to understand . . . A MEMBER: Your own home? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, my honou rable friend could read Hansard because he . . . A MEMBER: Are you going to put them in your own home? You got no place in the public domain. HON. L. DESJARDINS: If my honourable friend wants to know he could read Hansard of this afternoon. I don't intend to start all over again.

Let me tell my honourable friend; he talks about socialists, he is supposed to be the biggest free enterprlser, and I have never seen more of a socialist - maybe there are one or two on this side. A MEMBER: That's a personal attack, he can't defend himself from. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Personal attack! What the hell have you been doing? Mr. Chairman, my honourable friend, if we could compile a list of the things that he wants, you know, the free enterprise, the battle of the fittest, and so on. He wants grants for everything; he wants to forget the loans; he wants to reduce the percentage.

And, all of a sudden, you know . . . A MEMBER: We owe the protection of health care. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Eh? A MEMBER: We are talking about health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's right. We talked about health. My honourable friend has a situation in the Westman region that now compares - they have a per 1, 000 population at the end, a year ago was 12.5 per 1641 1, 000 population. The next one is 8.2 in the central region. I can tell him that the situation is that the rest of Manitoba would love to be in that poor position that Brandon is in. I also said that we will review the guidelines.

I kept quiet when you repeated your question. You asked for an answer. I'll give you the answer - (Interjection) - oh, you don't want the answer. I'll understand. I'll sit down, and you can pass your Hansard around. Do you want the answer? Well then keep quiet, and let me answer it. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, ohl HON. L. DESJARDINS: My asking you to let me give an answer, that's an insult. You're hurt, touchy today. Now these things have to be planned. Now I'll tell my honourable friends, because they keep referring to that document.

That document must have really cut real deep, because they'll never forget that document. Why don't you think of the next election? That election is finished. You lost the damn election. Think of the next one. I know, you're trying to discredit this department as much as you can. You'r e trying to dis credit this department, and you've been on every side of every issue. You're telling me that I should be careful. In some moments, the official critic of the party knows exactly what's going on.

He knows that you have to watch what is going on, and that we cannot keep on with the costs that we have now - (Interjection) - well I'm just setting you up for a fall. Mr. Chairman, then they turn around, and they see that the people of Brandon have been agitating which is their right, and they're going to capitalize on that. Now let me tell my honourable friends, they wanted some answers and, what we're doing, we're letting them down. Let me tell you, and we'll compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. I'll give you the beds in personal care homes in the capital program, new and replacement beds.

I'll give you, first of all, when they were first approved. Now July 1973 to November 1977, there were 1, 480 beds approved. Now November of 1977 to October 19 81, in the four years that you were there - and I didn't intend to bring this thing up, but you want to play your game and fair's fair - (Interject ion) - no, well I was ready. You know I'm not like that. You know that. There were 156 beds that you approved in those four years. We approved 1, 480 - (Interjection) - you did