Manitoba Hansard — 31 May 1983 (Sitting 78A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-78a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 78A - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 31 MAY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency Party ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) Ste. Rose NOP ANSTETT, Andy Springfield NOP ASHTON, Steve Thompson NOP BANMAN, Robert (Bob) La Verendrye PC BLAKE, David R. (Dave) Minn edosa PC BROWN, Arnold Rhineland PC BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. Gimli NOP CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. Brandon West INO CORRIN, Brian Ellice NOP COWAN, Hon. Jay Churchill NOP .. DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent St. Boniface NOP DODICK, Doreen Riel NOP DOERN, Russell Elmwood NOP DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth Kildonan NOP DOWNEY, James E.

Arthur PC DRIEDGER, Albert Emerson PC ENNS, Harry Lakeside PC EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. Brandon East NOP EYLER, Phil River East NOP FILMON, Gary Tuxedo PC FOX, Peter Concordia NOP GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) Swan River PC GRAHAM, Harry Virden PC HAMMOND, Gerrie Kirkfield Park PC HARAPIAK, Harry M. The Pas NOP HARPER, Elijah Rupertsland NOP HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen Logan NOP HYDE, Lloyd Portage la Prairie PC JOHNSTON, J. Frank Sturgeon Creek PC KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene Seven Oaks NOP KOVNATS, Abe Niakwa PC LECUYER, Gerard Radisson NOP LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling Cha rleswood PC MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al St.

James NOP MALINOW SKI, Donald M. St. Johns NOP MANNESS, Clayton Morris PC McKENZIE, J. Wally Roblin-Russell PC MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) St. Norbert PC NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) Assiniboia PC OLESON, Charlotte Gla dstone PC ORCHARD, Donald Pembina PC PAW LEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. Selkirk NOP PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson Transcona NOP PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland Fort Rouge NOP PHILLIPS, Myrna A. Wolseley NOP PLOHMAN, Hon. John Dauphin NOP RANSOM, A. Brian Turtle Mountain PC SANTOS, Conrad Burrows NOP SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic Rossmere NOP SCOTT, Don lnkster NOP SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) Fort Garry PC SMITH, Hon.

Muriel Osborne NOP STEEN, Warren River Heights PC STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. Flin Flon NOP URUSKI, Hon. Bill Interlake NOP USKIW, Hon. Samuel Lac du Bonnet NOP WALDING, Hon. D. James St. Vital NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 31 May, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PR AYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions Reading and Receiving Petitions . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMI TTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for River •East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speake r, the Comm ittee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Mem ber for Wolseley, that the report of the Com mittee be received. MOTION pres ented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLI NG OF REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speak er, I'd like to make a statement. Mr. Speaker , I would like to annou nce the details of a new program designed both to create new jobs and to help school divisions reduce their expenditur es for energy. On behalf of the Provincial Min ister of Education, and the Federal Mini ster of En ergy , Mi nes and Resou rces, and myself as co-signa tories of the Manitoba Canada Conservation and Renewable Energy Demonstration Agreement, I am pleased to announce today the School Retrofit Program.

Popu lar ly descri bed as "E nerScho ol," this demonstration program will see a total of $1. 3 million spent to retrofit 20 Manitoba schools throughout the province. My colleague, the Min ister of Education has ensured that her department, as well as the Public Schools Finance Board and the Manitoba Association of School Trustees will also participate in the direction of the program. All Manitoba school divisions will be asked to submit retrofit proposals for 18 "m inor" retrofits worth from $1 2,300 to $62,700, depending upon the size of the school, and for two "major" retrofits worth up to $367,500.00.

One of the major retrofits will be in Northern Manitoba and the other will take place in Winnipeg. The Co nserva tion and Renewable Energy Demonstration Agreement or CREDA for short will contribute approxi mately two-thirds of the cost of each retrofit while school divisions will be responsible for the remai nin g porti on. CRE DA, memeber s will remem ber, is cost-shared at 50150 with the Federal Government. An im portant element of EnerSchool will be a series of workshops and seminars to be held in retrofitted schools for trus tees, di vision ad min istrators and maint enance staff from neighboring schools.

There are over 600 schools in Manitoba with energy bills in excess of $18 million annual ly. CREDA officials estima te that minor retrofits of the type proposed could cut these energy costs by 20 percent with simple paybacks of two years or less. The potential savings to school divisions, if all schools were retrofitted, could be as high as $3.6 million annually at current energy costs. Equally significant is the fact that EnerSchool will directly result in the creation of 43 person years of emplo yment. Three other energy conservation programs supported by CREDA are currently at various stages of activity.

Work has started on the $1 million Arena and Recr eat ion Centr e Retrofits Program. Th ese demonstration projects will result in model retrofits for facilities at Lorette, Car man, Stonew all, Neepawa, Roblin, The Pas, Flin Flan, Thompson, Brandon and Winnipeg. Another 35 person years of employment will be gene rated from this program. Cont racts for some of the 120 private homes to be retrofitted un der the Reside ntial Retrofit Program, better known as Energy Demo, have already been signed. This $1.7 million project is expected to create 43 person years of employment.

Work has already strarted on many of the first 50 app roved projects under the Small Scale Energy Demonstration Project and another 40 contracts should be approved within the next week or two. This $1.1 million project is expected to generate another 25 person years of emplo yment and demo nstrate energy conservation through a wide range of technologies, including grain drying, groun dwater heat pumps and impr oved solar greenhouses. Mr.

Speak er, my department will continue to pursue an Activist Conservation and Job Creation Program and, indeed, it is my hope that before long I will be able to announce additional useful and innovative programs in this field. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are pleased to have this announ cement today from the Honourable Min ister of Energy and Mines.

We are encouraged to see the government moving towards demons tration projects in energy conservation, projects that will demo nstrate the economics of the expenditur e of certain funds in conserving energy usage today. Of course, some of the kinds of paybacks that the Minis ter referred to are ones that are well known in private sector and many businesses and individ uals have been moving in this regard, so we feel that it's 3257

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 fitting of course that the government move in this direction to bring public sector usage of build ings into the same kind of frame of reference as private sector people have been doing for a numb er of years. We're interested to see the sort of manpower employment creation activity that is taking place.

I think in the various projects that the Min ister listed there are something approaching 150 person-years of empl oyment, not anywher e close to the kind of empl oyment opportunities that would be available in such things as the Western Electric Grid, which I think last week we had an ind ication of 50,000 person-years of employment. But, nevertheless, any little bit helps, and I'm sure is an encouragement to those 52,000 Manitobans who are currently seeking emplo yment. So we thank the Minister for his announcement today and look forward to continuing announcements. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . .

Introduction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery. We have 30 students of Grade 11 standin g from the Ashern Central School under the direction of Mr. Moroz. The school is located in the constitutency of the Honour able Min ister of Agriculture. There are 53 students of Grade 5 standin g from the Bonnycastle School under the direction of Mrs. Brenner. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Fort Ga rry. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTIONS Abortion Clinic - Dr. Morgentaler MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Ga rry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speak er, I direct a question to the Honourable Min ister of Health and ask him when he expects and when the House might expect the results of the investigation into the alleged illegalities at the Morgentaler Clini c? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speak er, what I did say last week is that the College of Physicians and Surgeons were concerned that this was going against a by-law, and that Dr.

Morgentaler was saying that he did not have to go along with the proposed by-law regulating the fetus, because it wasn't a hospital. They were investigating that, getting legal advice, and I haven't heard from the College since then. MR. L. SHERMAN: Has the Min ister any time frame, Mr. Speaker, on when results o! the police investigation into the allegations may be expected? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Let's make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we understand each other. During the question 3258 period, I did say that to my und erstanding the police were looking to see if they should bring the matter to the courts.

I did not at any time instruct the police to investigate, nor did they tell me that they were. I was talking about the di scussion tha t we ha d - my und erstandin g was that they were looking at it to see if they had sufficient evidence to see if they could bring matters to the court. That is a matter strictly that the police will have to deal with, the question of the laws being something that has been addressed and been answered by the Attorney-General. I have no problem with that at all; I think the Cabinet approves of the action.

My concern is the health care in the clinics or anywhere else in the Province of Manitoba. So all I can say, I cannot at this time say that I know if the police will, for instance, bring complaints, bring the matters to the courts, or if they have a deadline. The information that I try to pass on upon being questioned is that I understood that the police were looking to see if they had sufficient evidence to bring the matter to the courts. I understand that they were looking at that very seriously and asked certain questions. They've asked questions of our department and we furnished the answers. MR. L.

SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speake r, my concern is whether The Manitoba Hospitals Act or any other such Act bearing upon the conduct of health affairs in the province is being violated and my questions of the other day arose out of the allegations having to do with the disposal of human tissue at the clinic. In response to my questions at that time, the Minister left me with the very clear impr ession that a police investigation was being carried out. In fact, he responded to my question by saying, first of all, we have to determine whether or not there are abortions being performed at the clinic.

Is the Min ister now saying that there is not, to his knowledge, a formal and official police investigation of Dr. Morgentaler's claims being carried out? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Sp eak er, I think the honourable member will remember also that I sent him a memo expaining all the details about the question of the abor ted fetuses forced down the drain and so on. I think that should answer it, there's nothing that I can add to this re the dealing of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. We have to wait for that.

At that time, I agreed with the Attorney-General that I doub ted very much that there had been any abortions performed there at all. There was no proof of that and I said that the police were looking at it. As a matter of information, in fact, it appeared in the newspaper, I have no control over that. If we're going to deal with the obeying of the law, then that question should be di rected to the Attorney-General. I want to make sure there is no misunde rstanding. I was given the information that I heard. I made no commitment, I don't have any jurisdiction over the Winnipeg Police at all.

It was my understanding that the Winnipeg Police were looking at it, that they wanted to make sure that their case could be weak and if they didn' t have all the - (I nterjection) - Well, would you mind a minu te, I'll try to give the informa tion. Mr. Speaker, I think the point that I was trying to make is that even the police wanted to make sure that

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 they had sufficient evidence before taking the matter to the court. So at no time had I made a commitment that the police would make an investigation. That is not my responsibil ity, as Min ister of Health, but rather the Attorney-General, and I think he was always very clear on that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: With respect to the specific question, I would advise the House it's now two weeks ago, that, indeed, the police are investigating.

The police have assigned a team on the case, as one would expect the police to do the moment they received a complaint, as I advised the House that they would do. They are following up every lead they have. They have a very experienced team who will know at what time and state they have sufficient evidence to place before a Crown prosecutor, and that will be done. There has never been a moment's hesitation about the course that will be taken.

I advised the House some time ago that I had received, well in advance of the opening of the clinic, an opinion from the Director of Prosecution as to what the normal course is in such cases, and I want to assure the House, and the people of Manitoba, that the normal cou rse is being follo wed by experienc ed pol ice personnel.

Th ey kno w if th ey were to act preci pitous ly, particularly at this time, instead of having been a case, indeed, if there are illegal activities taking place within that facility, they could destroy a case; and to pressure the police to act, when the police feel they are not ready to act, in terms of the execution of a search warrant or anything of that kind, would be to try to tell the police how to do their job on a detailed basis, and indeed, amount to something I don't thing anybody in this House wants, that is, political interference with the running of the day-to-day investigative facilities and tasks by the police.

MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speake r, I want to assure the Honourable Attorney-General and the Mini ster of Health that I appreciate the difference in departmental responsibil ities and Min isterial responsibil ities. The reason my question was put to the Min ister of Health was because it arose out of the exchange of a few days ago, over the question of whether The Hospital Act was being violated.

I will now redir ect my opening question of this afternoon then, Sir , to the Honourable Attorney-General, and ask him when does he expect results of the police investigation into alleged illegalities at the Morgentaler Clinic? HON. R. PENNER: When the police have results. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speak er, that seems a somewhat glib response, in view of the fact that a wide sector of the communit y, if not indeed the whole communit y, is interested, depending on the perspective they take on the subject in this particular issue.

The media is obviously interested and it's clear to the Attorney-General that the House is interested. Would the Attorney-General, who demons trated th at he attempts to stay au courant and abreast of other items when it pleases him, not inform himself, as to what he thinks the time frame is on a police investigation into an im portant social question of this kind? HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I have been kept advised by the Director of Prosecution virtually on a daily basis. I kno w my function, the Dir ector of Prosecution knows his, and the police know theirs.

I can advise the House that the police are investigating; that the police are following up every lead they have; and to say more would be to jeopardize the police investigation. If the House wants to jeopardize the police investigation, then they can persist in the course that is being taken. I simply assure the members of the House and the public that the police indeed are investigating and I'm assured that when the police have sufficient results to lay before a Crown Attorney, it will be done without delay.

No more can, indeed, no more should be said, without endangering very difficult police work in a very difficult situation. Cross lake Arena si te MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Turtle Mounta.in. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Spea ker, my question is to the Minis ter of Northern Affairs. Hydro officials informed the Stan din g Commi ttee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources this morning that the preparation of the site for the Cross Lake Arena cost approxima tely $438,000 out of the total estima ted cost of $3.5 million.

Can the Min ister of Northern Affairs advise the House whether his department selected the site? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: I would have to provide more specific detail to the Member for Turtle Mountain, after having reviewed his specific question with staff.

But I can tell him at this time that the community council, the band of Cross Lake, Hydro, the Federal Government and my department, the Provincial Government, through my department, were all involved in consideration of the construction of the arena and for that reason were all involved in the development of a site, in the choosing of a specific area for a site. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Spea ker, as one of the Mini sters responsible for the Northern Flood Agreement and for paying the cost of this arena, I'd like to ask the Mi nister of Northern Affairs if he is satisfied that a $438,000 cost for site preparation was a reasonable cost? HON. J. COWAN: Again, I would have to confirm the exact figures before I indicated whether or not we were perfectly satisfied with that cost.

I am advised and therefore satisfied that the site preparation that has been undertaken was necessary to prevent future occurrences of methane gas originating out of that site and for that reason the costs may have been more than they would have been otherwise. However, I'm also satisfied that that action was taken in good faith 3259

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 and that action would prevent the government from having to spend exorbitant amounts of money at a later date to correct a situation which has already been corrected. We are only too aware of recreation facilities and other facilities that have been built in close proximity to areas where disposal of solid wastes have taken place, and we have had recurrent problems that have been costly to us in the future as a result of that sort of activity. We have that experience from which to learn.

I believe we have learned from it, and I believe that the department has taken the appropria te action in working with the other parties to ensure that whatever site was chosen, and however that site was chosen, the work which went into the preparation of that site was done to serve the facility in the community for a long period of time. For that reason, they undertook the remedial work at this stage rather than having to go back many years later and undertake the same remedial work in response to problems which could have been anticipated. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, a further suppleme ntary to the Minister of Northern Affairs. Was a garbage dump the only possible place in the whole of the community of Cross Lake upon which an arena could have been constructed? Was there not some other site that could have been used for a cost of some thing lower than $438,000.00? HON. J. COWAN: I'm not certain that there were no other sites available, but I can assure the member that this was the site that was chosen as being the most appropriate site for that facility.

If the members opposite were more conversant with the area and the lim itations of land use in the area and the extreme costs of developing any new infrastructure in the area, they would be, I believe, more tolerant of the extreme costs which go into prepari ng sites for cons truction in Northern Manitoba.

I'm not suggesting that the figures which the member provides are figures to which I would subscribe, I will certainly check that out, but I am suggesting th at - (Interjection) - The mem bers opposite speak of horror stories, and I think that their involvement in the Northern Flood Agreement to date was just such a story. What we are trying to do as a government is to try to work with the commun ities, work with the affected parties, work with Manitoba Hydro, to ensure that the oblig ations which they subscribe to as signatories to the Northern Flood Agreement are being lived up to in an appropria te fashion.

That is going to demand of them tolerance, something which they are not wont to give when it comes to ma tters concerning Northern Manitoba or communities such as Cross Lake. However, I would ask their patience in this regard for me to be able to review the figures which they have put on the table tod ay, and to return to them with a fuller answer as to exactly what site work was done and what the cost of that site work was. I have given that commitment to provide them with that informa tion; I will.

If they want at that time to suggest that there is still a horror story involved, then I'm certain they will do so, but at least they'll be doing so on the basis of a mo re informed under stan ding of the situati on, something which they shy away from far too often. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm shocked that the Mini ster of Northern Affairs is not even aware of the cost. That figure was provided to the commit tee this morning by Manitoba Hydro officials. Mr.

Speaker, my question to the Min ister of Northern Affairs, in view of the very reasonable directive by the arbitrator to provide an arena for the commun ity for the people of Cross Lake, can the Mi nister of Northern Affa irs advise the Ho us e who is responsible for controlling the costs of carrying out that directive of the arbitrator? HON. J. COWAN: We have been through this before, but I don't mind covering the same ground if it helps the members opposite better understand the situation. HON. R. PENNER: It might. HON. J. CO WAN: There are four

partie s to an agreement. They were signatories in the first instance on behalf of the Provincial Government after they assumed office in 19 77; it was a Cons ervativ e adminis tration which was a signatory to that agreement. So I'm operating on the assumption, perhaps it is unwise to do so, that they do know that in fact the agreement was an agreement between four parties. The agreement was in fact designed to provide for some relief from the adverse effects of Hydro activity in the area. The agreement was set up in such a manner . MR. R. BANMAN: Who's responsible? HON. J.

COWAN: . . . so as to -and they signed the agreement and they should know who is responsible -allow for arbitration . . . MR. R. BANMAN: Well, tell us. HON. J. COWAN: . . . on matters by an arbitrator where the four parties could not come to agreement on specific items. That is by way ot history for them, so that they may better und erstand the process. In respect to the Cross Lake Arena, it is Manitoba Hydro which is acting as a primary party, or that party which would be most responsible in constructing that arena.

Th erefo re, th ey would assume the mo st responsibility for ensuring that the costs of that arena are costs which are acceptable to all of the four parties. Now, in defence of Manitoba Hydro -and they don't need my defence at all times -but in this instance I think I must correct the record and ind icate that they are doing so in such a way as to allo w for meaningful input and the sharing of decision-making by the other parties involved in the agreement.

I think that is fair; I believe that is appropriate; and I certainly commend them for undertaking that sort of an approach to the construction of this particular facility. So while they have the primary responsibility for making certain that the construction is appropriate, that the costs are acceptable, they also have to act in concert with th ree other parties who are actively involving themselves at different levels and in different ways to ensure that this facility serves the greatest possible use and provi des therefore the greatest possible benefit to the recipients of the service. 3260

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speake r, a question to the First Minister. In view of the alarming fact that it is going to cost over $3 .5 million to buil d an arena at Cross Lake, wh ich could ha ve been built in any other community for less than a million dollars, will the First Min ister advise whether there is at least one Min ister within this government who will stand up and take responsibility for what is happening in this case? Is there one member of this go vernment who is answerable for this outrageous development? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Energy and Min es. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, in the commit tee in the Legislature this morning - (Interjection) - well, we've been asked a question, and I certainly wanted to provide an an swer. In the commit tee this morning, Hydro und ertook to provide a detailed answer, if that is within the legal bounds, if they legally can do so and according to business practices, with respect to tenders that were received for the construction of that facility.

They also took under consideration to provide answers to the Member for Turtle Mountain, a very long list of detailed questions which they und ertook to provide; I undertook to provide that by next Monda y. We are not trying to hide anything. We, in fact, want to provide that information, all of us. When we say all of us, I believe all the people are concerned to ensure that we do provide good value for mone y in trying to meet an agreement that is a very difficult type of agreement to live with in Northern conditions which are often are very difficult to do so.

I believe that the Federal Government is trying to act responsibly; I believe that the local commun ity, and the Northern Flood Commi ttee, Northern Affairs and Manitoba Hydro are trying to do so. When the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain says that one could provide this type of communi ty in southern Manitoba for X amount of dollars and, therefore, one can provide that type of facility in the North for the same amount of mone y, I think, it's incum bent on Manitoba Hydro to provide the detailed explanation as to why those cost differences are there.

We have said that we will be providing that information; I think it's imp ortant for the member to allow that information to be provided. If he has questions, after that, certainly we would deal with those types of questions. We are, in fact, using the legislative process and the commit tee process as it should be, Mr. Speaker. We aren't trying to draw any pre-emptive conclusions before the material is all heard. I would ask the member to do so in this respect, because he did that this morning, Mr .

Sp eak er, when we di scussed this ma tter in comm ittee, and I would expect that I would meet my commitment and provide the information to him by Monda y. If he has questions after that, certainly we will answer them. We won't be like the Conservative Government was with respect to a whole set of Hydro questions that the New Democratic Par ty opposition asked in com mittee two years ago and three years ago, Mr. Speaker, where we couldn't get the information from the Conservative Government in power at that time. We will be different; we will provide the information, because we do believe in open government. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I did not want to leave the impr ession, by my failing to rise to answer the questions of the Mem ber for Turtle Mountain, that I do not, as well, share some responsibil ity, and assume some responsibility for the effective im plementation of the Northern Flood Agreement.

It is an objective to which we strive as a government; it is an objective which we are finding somewhat difficult because of the record, and the lack of activity which a previous adminis tration left to us in regard to the Northern Flood Agreement, but we are trying to, as much as possible, deal with the results of their inactivity, as well as try to provide for a positive thrust for that particular agreement. So I do assume some responsibility. It is a difficult agreement, but it is one which we feel is impor tant and should be worked out the best way possible.

Part of that responsibil ity, as Minister of Northern Affairs, is to rise to my feet to attempt to clear up any misconceptions or mi sinformation that the members opposite would attempt to put on the record, by inference or otherwise. I think it should be made clear th en that the construction of arenas . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. J. COWAN: . . . that the construction of arenas in Northern Manitoba are expensive.

The arena which was constructed in Lynn Lake in 1980 was constructed at the cost of $1 million; and it is not an arena which has some of the advantages of the arena at Cross Lake, because those advantages are available to the public in that community through other means; that was in 1980 the cost of $1 million. The arena in Leaf Rapids was constructed at a cost of $2 million in 1974, and yet that arena is serving a community of about the same size population as is Cross Lake.

So, if one provides the most rudi mentary analysis to those figures, and builds in inflation factors and also builds in the cost of the arena construction in a remote communit y, one will find that the amount of money which we are talking about, although a significant sum, is not that far out of line with what has happened in other communities in the North. Ma nitoba Cattle Produ cers Association - contracts MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. Mr.

Spea ker, I wonder can the Honourable Min ister of Agriculture advise the House and the beef producers of the province why he wouldn't allow the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association to have a plebiscite on the determination of the compulsory checkoffs. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Agriculture. 3261

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that when legislation is provided to this House all members will have a chance to debate it. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speake r, they were just telling us a few moments ago what an open government we have here in the province. Mr. Sp eaker, there's a classic example how open it is. Mr.

Speaker, can the Min ister advise the House if the '83-84 producers applied, I think, for refunds in the amount of some $9,500, the beef producers, as I understand it, is the Mini ster satisfied that this is a just reason for the termination of the compulsory checkoff in the proposed changes that he intends to bring to the Cattle Producers Association? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that when a plebiscite, in effect, will be held and will be held with any measure that was compu lsory at checkoff before, when that compulsory aspect is removed a plebiscite, in effect, will be held every time a producer decides to participate in the volu ntary check off, Sir . In sofar as the amoun t - (I nterjection) - Mr. Speake r, the honourable members don't like the answer but they are receiving one, that in effect a plebiscite will be held.

When the legislation will be presented to this Chamber all honourable members certainly will have an opportunity to come and state their position vis-a-vis this checkoff. Insofar as many members, who have or have not requested their refunds, the honourable member should be aware that there have been many representations made to myself, and he knows to other mem bers, that farmers in general are not supportive of the way that the levy has been funded up until now. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speak er, in light of the fact that some 44 producers are all that asked for their money back last year, a total of about $9,500; I wonder can the Mini ster advise the House if he, and his government, is prepared to assist the Manitoba Cattle Producers to promo te western beef and the sale of western beef if his check-out legislation find them short at all, or his cutting off of the compul sory. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, I am always prepared to consider representations made. Mr. Speaker, the honourable members opposite have continually said that this organization is supported by 15 ,000 producers.

Certainly they shouldn't be wary that now, all of a sudden, prod ucers will flock to get out of this organization and will not support it. I am supportive of any farm organization by which producers voluntarily want to participate financially in. If produc ers will continue and will want to support this organization, Mr. Spea ker, we certainly support such an organization. MR. W. McKENZIE: A final question to the honourable Minister, Mr. Speak er, related to the checkoff vote that's rejected.

I wonder, can the Min ister advise the House why he and his party have no problems in accepting compuls ory provisions contained in marketing boards, Mr. Speak er, or the deductions of union membership or the government automobile insurance compulsion and that. Does it not give the Mini ster any problem when he deals with those matters and the different matters treating the beef producers? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that when this organization was set up there was a vote held in 1974 in which the majority of produc ers in Manitoba voted agai nst such an organization.

When their admin istration was elected, Mr. Spea ker, they brought in a piece of legislation over and against the will of the majority of producers who voted in 1974. There is no doubt when it comes to the aspect of marketing, Sir , that marketing boards have the authority vested by this Assembly to a producer organiz ation which is accou ntable through this Legislature to changes that can be made in this House. This group, as well, Mr. Speaker, is not accountable in terms of the regulations, the powers or regulations, that they have in the present law. Translation of statut es MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for ln kster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a qu estion for the Ho nourable Att orne y-General. Yesterday, as all of us in this House and many across the province are well aware, the Quebec Superior Courts have turned down and declared illegal

an Act passed in the Province of Quebec forcing civil servants and teachers back to work and also rolling back their wages because the Act was enacted illegal ly, that is in one language only. I would like the Attorney-General to indicate to us how this relates to the case that was going before the courts in Manitoba, the Bilodeau case, and also in relation to Manitoba's new agreement towards our constitutional requirement of translating our Acts, both the new Acts that are coming into force and the Acts �hat have previously been passed illegally in this province unilin gually in English? MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B. RANSOM: On a point of order, Mr. Spea ker, I believe that question is out of order on two counts:

(1) I believe he's asking the Attorney-General for a legal opinion; (2) the Attorney-General's Estim ates are before the House, and he could have the opportunity to question the Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: To the same point of order, the Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: To that point of order, the fact that someone's Estima tes are before the House has never, to my knowledge, been a ground for ruling a question out of order. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. 3262

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 HON. Ft PENNER: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, there are thr ee lang uages spoken in this provi nce: French, English and raucous. It's becoming increasingly difficult to ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: ... ha ve qu est ion period cond ucted in an orderly and de corous way. It's beginning to sound like a jungle in here from time to time, and this question period has been an example of the kind of ill-suited behaviour that the members opposite seem wont to use from time to time. I'm raising on a point of order.

I ought to be heard on the point of order, and I'm saying that with respect, it is not a point of order . . . SOME HONOURAB LE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: . . . that it is not a point of order that goes to the suitability of a question in question period that that matter may be discussed in Estimates. It may or may not be discussed in Estimates depending on questions which are asked during the course of Estimates.

With respect to the other matter that was raised as a point of order, it doesn't call for me to give a legal opinion on a matter that is before the courts in this province. MR. SP EAKER: Orde r please. In listening to the question, I wasn't aware that it was asking for a legal opinion, and neither am I aware that the House has been of the practice to rule out of order any questions which could come up at Estimates around the same time.

I was somewhat concerned about the length of the honourable member's question, and the fact that it was so open-ended as to invite a possible lengthy reply that would be out of order. I will allow the question and ask the Honourable Attorney-General to keep his remarks brief as we are reaching the end of question period. The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speak er, I will be brief. The

section of the Constitution of Canada which was in consideration in the case in Quebec,

Section 133, is word for word the same as

Section 23 of the Manitoba Act, therefore, there is an exact parallel between the two cases. This is the first instance in which a superior court has held in effect that the failure, in this case the failure of the Province of Quebec, to use both official languages, amounts to an invalid ity. The legislation which ordered back to work some 30,000 workers and led to 30,000 charges under the Act was tabled in the French language only, contrary to the provisions of

Section 133 of the Constitution of Canada and a superior court for the first time held that that made the Act invalid. The only additi onal comment I would ma ke in answering the question is that this demons trates the risk that would have been run when the Bilodeau case went to the Supreme Court when it was our concern that the Supreme Court could come to the same conclusion. There is now a precedent for a court coming to that conclusion and dem onstrates the fact that the cautionary approach was the correct approach to take. Fis hing co-ops - grant MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Swan River. MR. D.

GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week, the Minister of Northern Affairs took as notice a question that I directed to him with respect to a possible grant being paid to the Big Black and Norway House fishing co-ops for the purchase of a cargo vessel. I wonder if the Mi nister could reply to that question today. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: No, I can't. I apologize to the member for not having the information available to him today.

Staff are presently reviewing that, and I hope that they will have information to me that I can present to him tomo rrow or the day after. I've had some indi cation that they will have that information available at that time. Translation of stat utes MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, following upon the question from the Member for lnkster. Recognizing that the decision in the Province of Quebec is of a Trial Cour t Judge sitting alone, I believe, Mr. Spea ker, would the Attorney-General be prepared to withhold the proposed amendment to

Section 3, of The Manitoba Act until that case in Quebec has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and the court has made a decision? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. Sewage - emissi on of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Min ister of Economic Development.

In view of the fact that emphasis have been put on the unemplo yment problems in this province, and that there has been a difficulty in obtaining a lot of indu stry; and in view of the fact that an environmental hearing is being held and there are impositions being made on the City of Brandon to make some specific changes dealing with the emission of their sewage, and there is pressure now being put on Ayerst Laboratories, who have some 30 emplo yees, generates some $14 million into the local economy , and some 15 0 ho rse produc ers and agricultural people are now being put in jeopardy 3263

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 because of this imposition on them; will the Min ister of Economic Dev elopment me et with the City of Brandon, meet the Mayor and the people involved in that industry and back off their request to imp ose such restrictive limi tations on that industry that could close them, would she now get involved to assure the producers that they'll be able to stay in business another year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speak er, as with past situations where, on the one hand, we ha ve conc erns of environmental and health safety and, on the other, the economic concerns of a company that may be affected with an environment hearing, my colleague and I, the Minister of Environmental Affairs, have been in the habit of discussing the issue and I have full confidence in his environmental group to carry on a dialogue with such a company to work out the most acceptable compromise or solution to the problem.

I think it's been comple tely clear that this government does not feel that environmental issues should be sacrificed 100 percent to economic well-being, the question is of finding the fairest and best mix. If necessary, some environmental orders can be phased in over a longer period of time, thereby, giving a company time to adjust and still remain fully viable. So I think any further questions could appropria tely be add ressed to the Mini ster of Environment. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speak er, in view of the fact that the Province of Manitoba are spending taxpayers' money to create jobs that they've been saying through some of the programs, would she consider paying taxpayers' money into the upgrading of the emission of sewage so that companies that are already employing people, that are already buying a commodity from farmers and ge nera ting an economy in weste rn Manitoba, would she consider that alternative rather than have that company shut down and lose some $14 million to that western provincial economy? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speake r, my und erstanding of companies in Manitoba is that they want to be good corporate citizens; that they're as interested as we are in conducting their business affairs so that the health of the environment and of workers is not jeopardized. So I have full confidence that they will be co-operative and th at we can work out a mutually accepti ble agreement. But, Mr. Speaker, I think it's been clear from the very beginning that we do not believe that the health of the environment, and health of workers should be traded on any kind of simp listic block in order to increase the profit of a com pany.

What we want is the workable balance between the two concerns. As I said before, I have confidence that the Min ister of Environmental Affairs is as cognizant as I am of those joint concerns and will do everyt hing he can to work with the companies to see that there's a mutually satisfactory solution. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, can the Min ister of Economic Environment tell us why then her government is discrimi nating against a city, such as Brandon, when in fact there is very little concern when it comes to the City of Winnipeg? In fact, they have very little control over what is happening there.

But it appears that they are overanxious to see the kind of clean environment take place in the western region of the province when they have very little concern for the City of Winnipeg environment. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I find that an absolutely shameful accusation. I see no evidence whatsoever that that is true. If the member opposite has any evidence that sort of bias exists, it behooves him to lay it on the table and give evidence. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY HANSARD CORRECTION MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Muni cipal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a correction in Hansard. On Thur sday, May 26th, on Page 31 10, left-hand column, fifth paragraph from the bottom, the statement reads: "MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Chairman, could I ask what legislation would the honourable member want us to pass?" That is a statement that I made, and not the Member for Emerson. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for that correction. The Honour able Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Community Services and Correction, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. MOTION presented and carried and the Ho us e resolved itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be gr anted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Mem ber for River East in the Chair for the Department of Communi ty Services and Corrections; and the Mem ber for Burr ows in the Chair for the Department of the Attorney-General. CONCURRENT COM MITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ATTORNEY-GENERAL MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santos: Comm ittee, please come to order.

Before we start Item No. 3.(a)(1) and (2), Manitoba Law Reform Commission, Salaries and Other Expenditures, the Attorney-General wants to read some documents. HON. R. PENNER: The Mem ber for St. Norbert raised a question about the incident of imp aired driving and mentioned our policy with respect to laying a -what is called the second charge within two years -if a second 3264

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 offence occurs within two years of the date of the first offence. I have some statistics, which I will give the Member for St. Norbert, which are really not susceptible of analysis, I think, at this early date.

They do indi cate that in the period from the time the pol icy was anno un ced , ther e was a consid erable increase in the numb er of such charges laid, but the statistics also indicate that in the subsequent period of time from January 1, 1983, to the present, there has been a decline in the numb er of charges laid, which arguably might ind icate that the policy is working, but I don't think statistics of that kind can be relied upon for mor e than tentative conclusions. So, Mr . Chair person, I'll file that group of statistics. Secondly, the Member for St.

Norbert asked for some information with respect to statutes to be translated and I will file a document prepared by Legislative Counsel and I will not read it all. It speaks for itself, but what the Legislative Counsel has done, has gone through the statutes, pre-1970, and then from 1970 to date, and there's an ind ication, in fact, there's a figure that there's approximately a total of 3,800 statutes that do not appear in the continuing consolidation and which arguab ly, but for the agreement might have had to be translated, 3,8 00 statutes and the references are contained in the document;

whereas in the continuing consolidation there are only 383 Acts. So in the continuing consolidation, which we're now obliged to translate, and always were, there are 383 Acts. The numb er of Acts that we now do not have to translate, is approxima tely 3,800. Now some of these by the agreement, will have to be translated, a few dozen Acts, and we'll have a list of those. It's true, as pointed out, that that figure may be misleading because some of the Acts in the continuing consolidation occupy many pages.

Many, many of these 3,800 are single page Acts or two pages, so that the numb er itself - I don't want to suggest anything by it - a calculation will have to be done.

Legislative Counsel advises that many of these Acts are one page or three or four pages, but if one sought to strike something of an average, I su pp ose th at we'r e tal king about 14 ,000 page s, approxima tely, 14,000 to 16,000 pages that will not have to be translated and the cost -depending on who does it -if it's done on a contract basis, the average cost, I'm advised, would be about $10 0 per page, so you're talking about $10 0 times 16,0 00, so you have a 1.5 million or 1. 6 million. If it's done in-house it is less, so that I don' t want to do more than provide the information.

I think that each one of us will probably want to study this material, which was just put into my hands about an hour -and-a-half ago, and do what calculations one can. I think all one can say, and I'll conclude with this, is that, there are an enormous numb er -far more than I realized - of these Acts, that are not ordinarily carried forward in the continuing consolidation, which we do not have to translate. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(a)(1); 3.(a)(2) -the Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, on the Law Reform Commission, could the Min ister perhaps give a brief statement, as to the current activities of the Law Reform Commission? HON. R. PENNER: The Annual Report for the year ending March 31, 1983 is filed in the Legislature and ind icates a number of comp leted projects, some of which, of course, are already represented by bills tabled in the House.

The report deals with The Survivorship Act, which is in the House; amalgamation of the Court of Queen's Bench and the County Court of Manitoba, which is in the House; the law of domocile, which has resulted in a statute or a bill, which has not yet been distributed in the House but will be shortly. It indicates the report on small claims, and I indicated yesterday that although I have the report on small claims, we are presently not acting on that report. Work in progress in the report deals with a very impor tant project on admin istrative law. I think, as the Memb er for St.

Norbert knows, there's an increasing amount, a numb er of our rights and obligations that are dealt with by admin istrative tribunals and there are literally hundr eds of these adminis trative tribunals, licence suspension, appeal board, mining board, if you want to get ... mining claim, adjudic ated, the bulk of the Public Util ities Boards. There are virtually hundr eds of them and each one is admin istered by the terms of its particular statute.

There tends to be some uniformity in these statutes and in the regulations with respect to procedures but, arguab ly, many of the procedures do not meet the kind of high standard that the former Chief Justice of Ontario, Mr. Justice McRuer, called for when he reported on adminis trative law in Ontario some 18 years ago. His report led to a comprehensive piece of legislation on statutory tribunals of one kind or another, and the Law Reform Commission here is working on the whole question of adminis trative bodies and judic ial review. I should just point out that one of the amendments that we asked for to

Section 96 of The Constitution Act was one which would make it clear that when boards and tribunals acting in a quasi-judicial way within provincial legislation rule in terms of statutory powers that it does not constitute a violation of

Section 96; that is, they are not carrying out the functions of a superior court judge. Of course, only the Federal Government can appoint a superior court judge. The Mini ster of Justice Canada was very sympathetic to the point advocated on behalf of all of the provinces that

Section 96 should be so amended that these adminis trative tribunals, their decisions are protected, but that they would have to be in the same statute subject to jud icial review. I believe that will be proceeded with some time in the next year. Without going on at any greater length, I should just simply point out the other work in progress includes The Dower Act. We did not include this in the family legislation to be tabled in this Session. It's been worked on by the Law Reform Commission; we are waiting the results of that.

A very imp ortant question that is being dealt with in medical privilege, the question of what are called structured settlements, a matter that is of key social imp ortance dealing with the sterilization of mino rs and the mentally disabled persons. There we are waiting for a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in a case called the Eve Case to know what direction the Supreme Court thinks the law might take. Ther e was and is a pro ject in itia ted by the Comm ission on landlord and tenant law. That is being reviewed by a research officer. 3265

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 Legal representation of children, priority of liens, those are the main projects presently being worked on by the Law Reform Commission. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(aX 1)-pass; 3.(aX2)-pass; 3.(bX 1l -the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the Attorney-General to introduce a new Hum an Rights Act or significant amendments to the Act at this Session of the Legislature? HON. R. PENNER: Not at this Session of the Legislature. It was forecast in the Throne Speech; I'm not sure of the precise language used in the Throne Speech.

The Hum an Rights Commission carried out public hearings, received many many representations and has been working on a submission to be subm itted to me which would then be looked at very carefully at the departmental level before we begin considering changes to The Human Rights Act or a revision of The Hum an Rights Act. I have not received that report to this date. I met with the Chair person of the Hu man Rights Commission a week ago and made it clear to him that it was now far too late in the Session to consider introducing major legislation of that kind which we didn' t even have an opportunity to deal with.

So a short answer is, no, will not be introduced in this Session. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gla dstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was just wondering, from the Attorney-General, the Annual Report of the Hum an Rights Comm ission lists staffing, are there any staffing changes as to num bers now as opposed to last year. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, there is proposed in these Estim ates the addition of one person, an education officer. No, we added that education officer last year. What we haven't added for the education officer is any money for education materials.

That's the complaint I get from the Commission. MRS. C. OLESON: That was going to be one of my questions. I see by the report that an education officer has been appointed, and I'm just wondering what direction or focus that education officer intends to take and what will his duties be. HON. R.

PENNER: The duties of the education officer are, in fact, community education, to ma::e widely known through the commun ity, first of all, what the provisions of The Hum an Rig hts Act are, what they mean, how persons who feel they are aggrieved with respect to the various forms of prohi bited discrimination may use the machinery of the Human Rights Commission, the enforcement apparatus provided in The Human Rights Act.

Beyond that the task of the education officer is to acquaint community groups, but particularly targeting younger people, childr en in schools, working with the various school comm ittees that are in existence -there is one in the City of Winnipeg -and bringing some materials on racial stereotypes, the mean ing and consequence of discrimination, this kind of a human rights message to selected groups at an age when they can learn some of the things which unite.

I'll use a stereotype because it's Robert Burns, "Man to Man, the World O'r." I guess we'd say today, person to person, the world over, only it wouldn't scan as poetry. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you. I'm glad to hear that this education is taking place partly in the schools because it has always been my contention that you cannot legislate this type of feeling comple tely. People have to be educated to treat one another fairly, and of course the best day of all will be when we don't need any Hum an Rights Commissions, but we have to face reality, of course, and realize that would be a long time in coming.

A point I was wanting to ask about, during the past year or so. in cases that we have read about in the media and heard on TV concerning the Human Rig hts Commission, I'm wondering if the Commis sioners themselves are taking on a different role from what they used to have and are they actually investigating cases, or is this still being left entirely up to the staff. HON. R. PENNER: The Comm i!'\sioner s are not investigating cases, it's are left entirely to the staff.

I think that's very imp ortant because, upon investigation, a report is file d with the Commi ssion and the Commission must then make an independent decision as to how to proceed. There are a number of options available under - of course, the member herself was a member of the Commission and is familiar with that. But there are a numb er of options, whether to proceed or not to proceed, whether to attempt to mediate, whether to prosecute. If the Commission were involved in an investigative role, then legally, I think, it would rule itself out of the picture. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you.

I just raised the point because it appeared that was what was taking place, and I agree with you, it would create some very great difficulties. On Page 8 of the Annual Report, there is a headline about "High er Public Profile." I'm wondering if this present Commi ssion holds any regular meetings outside of their Winnipeg office. At one time, that was the practice and, from a public relations point of view, the Commission at that time felt that it was money well spent, shall we say. HON. R. PENNER: To date, the Commission has not held regular meetings outside of Winnipeg.

It is its intention to do so, but it is operating on a very very tight budget and a considerable portion of its budget in fiscal '82-83 was expended in the public hearings which were held. Some or them were held outside of Winnipeg to invite public submi ssions on any proposed changes to The Hum an Rig hts Act. I think that was a good exercise in reaching the public and involving the public in the work of the Commission, but it did mean that in terms of any money available for the option of having the Commission itself meet outside of Winnipeg, there was none. MRS. C.

OLESON: I also read and, of course, heard about those public hearings. I wanted to know what 3266

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 the suppleme ntary budget that had to be authorized, how much that was for these public hearings? And is the report on those public hearings available at this time? HON. R. PENNER: There was an overexpenditure which req ui red Sp ecial Warrant for the Hu man Rig hts Commission dealing with adjud ications. Adjud ications are something that one can only predict at the beginning of a fiscal year, and one puts in a targeted amount and hopes for the best. The total expended for adjudica tions in fi scal '8 2-83 was 64,540.00. The amount which had been bud geted was 12, 000, far too little.

So that there was an overexpenditure in that area of $52,000, and that was Special Warranted. MRS. C. OLESON: Yes, on Page 9 of the Annual Report, I'm quoting: "The expense of publi c hearings requi red a suppl ement to the Comm issi on's alr eady overextended Budget." So that told me that for this specific purpose there had to be a supplemen tary. HON. FI. PENNER : Thank you, you're right. The question you asked relates not to the boards . . . MRS. C. OLESON: Tile overall Budge t, it's th at particular item. HON. FI.

PENNER: That particular item for tile hearings, not tile Boards of Adjudication, but for the public hearings. The budg eted amount, tile amount contained in the Estima tes for tile year ending Marcil 31, 1983, the total for the Commission was $683,000.00. Tile actual expe nditure was $7 45,000, approxi ma tely $1 07,000 more; of that, $52,000 relates to Boards of Adjudication, so there's approxima tely another $50,000 -$55,000 over Budget, not accounted for by Boards of Adjudication, some of which relates to the public hearings.

I will try to get a figure for tile Member for Gladstone as to how much of that $55,000 relates to the publi c hearings. As soon as I have a specific figure on that, I'll supply it. MRS. C. OLESON: I asked about the report about of the public hearings also. HON. R. PENNER: Oh, yes. The report of the publi c hearings, I will receive it; I have not yet received it, but it will be contained in an overall report that will tell me, and government, and the Legislature, about the public hearings, and then make its recommendations for changes in the legislation. MRS. C.

OLESON: I realize that it may be difficult for you to answer, since you haven't got your hands on that report, but was the feeling of those hearings that there should be offices in any other parts of the province? I know statistics don't warrant it but, of course, in this type of thin g we can't always work on statistics. But I know there has been for some time the talk of a need of an office in Brandon, and there was some talk at one time of moving the office from The Pas to Thompson, were there discussions at these hearings of that type of thing? HON. R.

PENNER: The Commission, it self, has recommended to me that it be granted funds for opening an office in Brandon, and secondly, in terms of priority, in Thompson. Regrettably, there were not funds available in this fiscal year to do that. Whether or not there were recommendations made in the public hearings, I'm not sure. There were apparently some representations and we'll have more detail on that when the report is received. MRS. C. OLESON: I think my last question will be - I neglected to ask this when I was talking about the education officer.

You did mention that there was going to be more money allocated in these Estimates for an education officer; how much was that? HON. R. PENNER: The figure is $20,000.00. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(b)(1)-the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister advise as to the present rate of remuneration for the Chairman? HON. R. PENNER: It's the same as it has been for the last few years. I don't know if that helps you. If it doesn't I'll get a specific figure in a moment. It hasn't changed. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, I think, Mr.

Chairman, then it's in the area of 10,000, 11 ,000, 12 ,000, I believe. HON. R. PENNER: It's a per diem I think. About $14 0 per diem. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, perhaps, Mr. Chairman, for next year the Mi ni ster might ha ve avai labl e the information then as to the amount paid out during the fiscal year 1982-83, and 1983-84 for the Chairman on the per diem basis. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I'll supply that information. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, can the Attorney General advise whether the Human Rights Commission investigated a judge who said that custody of certain children should go to the mother? HON. R.

PENNER: Not to my knowledge. I'm advised that the Commis sion has received a complaint but has not yet acted on that complaint, is just considering what position to take. MR. G. MERCIER: Has there been an investigation then? HON. R. PENNER: I believe as a result of the complaint having been received, counsel in the case have been talked to by a member of the Commission and it may be the case that as of this date a standard complaint form has been served on the judge in question for his attention. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, while maintaining confidentiality could the Attorney-General amplif y on the circums tances of the complaint? 3267

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 HON. R. PENNER: The circums tances of the complaint appear to be as follows: That at the time the -kind of ironic in a way -at the time that the statement alleged to be discrimina tory was made by the judge in question there was a Hum an Rights Conference taking place in the City of Winnipeg. A human rights official from another province complained about the remark in a formal fashion . Once the Commission receives a formal complaint it must act on it to a certain point and then the Commission itself decides whether it will proceed beyond the prelimi naries. But it hasn't reached that stage.

MR. G. MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General advise as to what the alleged remark was? Was it more than what I referred to? HON. R. PENNER: I have no knowledge at present to the extent that it's any more than you have paraphrased in general. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Attorney General advise whether this is a provincially-appointed judge or a Superior Court Judge? HON. R. PENNER: Federally-appointed judge at the Superior Court level. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr. Chairman, then that raises, I think, an issue in which I would like to receive the opinion of the Attorney-General.

The Human Rights Commission has already made a report with respect to certain comments by now Ch ief Justice Monnin. In their response they called it, dated December 7, 1982, on the first page they noted firstly that federally-appointed judges are appointed by the Federal Government, not the Provincial Government. This means that the formal investigation of complaints agains t such judg es ma y fall within the exclusiv e constitutional ju risdiction of federal rat her than provincial authorities. If so, the Hu man Righ ts Commission would lack jurisdiction.

In any event since we under stand that a complaint has been made to the Canadian Judicial Council which clearly has authority to deal with it, we feel it would be inappr opriate for the Manitoba Comm ission to attempt to exercise its formal powers of investigation. Then despite that remark, on Page 2 they point out that some of the facts are uncertain and were unable to resolve these uncertainties. Then despite that they continue to go on to make their response, and their concerns, and their conclusions known.

I suggest to the Attorney-General that where in these instances if there are complaints about a judge's conduct, or remarks, there is a specific body that has jurisdic tion to deal with it, in this case with federally appointed judges, the Canadian Judic ial Council. If it were a provincial judge it would be the Provincial Judicial Council. What we have had in the case of now Ch ief Justice Monnin is a report without, as they acknowledge, un de rt aking an in vestigation and pointing out uncertainties as to facts but going on to make their own comments.

In those type of circumstances and forgetting about the person who is involved in this instance, in these type of situations what the Hum an Righ ts Commission appears to do in itself is to ignore the rights of the person against whom a complaint has been made. There is no interview, no indication to the person about what is going on, no right would appear of response or to comment on the concerns of the Human Rights Commission.

Now I would like to know from the Attorney-General -well now it would appear that there has been a_ complaint made about another federally-appointed judge about a remark made with respect to a custody issue and I don't know the details of it at all.

But if there's a complaint should those type of complaints not be dealt with by the appropriate judicial council, where the right of the respondent, or the right of the person against whom the complaint has been made has an opportunity to defend himself, or herself, does the Mini ster support this type of action by the Human Righ ts Commission which appears to ignore the rights of the person against whom the complaint is being made to respond and defend themselves and at the same time they appear to be without jurisdiction.

The proper jurisdiction in the case of judges should be with the appropria te judicial council. HON. R. PENNER: Let me deal with both questions. First of all, the jurisdictional question. Coincidently enough that question came before the Saskatchewan courts just a few weeks ago in a parallel case in which there was a complaint filed against officers of the RCMP.

A jurisdictional question was argued in which it said -well, you can't do that because the RCMP are not within the jurisdiction of the province and the Putnam and Cramer case was cited, a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, and that there is an appropriate mechanism for dealing with allegations of wrongdoing against RCMP officers.

The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal held, no, there is parallel jurisdiction that where -true, with respect to police discipline that is a matter , as held by tha Supreme Court, that is within the sole jurisdiction of the Federal Government and its agencies that are established for police discipline, but where the conduct complained of amount ed to an infraction of The Human Rights Act that it, on jurisdictional grounds, could be legally the subject of a complaint before the Hu man Ri ghts Commission or its equ ivalent in Saskatchewan.

Now, in the case here, it's true that complaints about judicial conduct where its federally-appointed judge may be referred to the Canadian Judicial Council, the fact that those complaints can be referred to the Canadian Judicial Council would not appear to oust the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Commission to deal with the conduct of someone who, albeit a judge, arguably may have infringed provincial legislation dealing with human rights.

I wouldn't want to press that too far, because where the conduct complained of arises in the context of carrying out the judicial function, it may be arguable that indeed the jurisdiction is solely federal. I wouldn't want to say more than that in the event that this kind of case was ever brought before the courts of Manitoba for ultima te decision. I simply say that there is a question that has yet to be resolved. Finally, there is another very impor tant question raised by the Mem ber for St. Norbert. At what point in those 3268

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 circumstances, where a complaint has been made through any complaint mechanism, is it required so to speak to give the person, who is accused of some wrongdoing, give that person -may I use the cliche his or her rights -when an information is sworn alleging criminal conduct, then of course there is not a pre hearing prior to the swearing of an informa tion. An information starts the proceedings.

The police then investigate and during the course of the investigation, if it happens that the investigation has to include a discussion with the person accused of an offence, that person has to be advised now of that person's rights. There is machinery in place with respect to The Hum an Rights Act. Where a complaint is made in first instance, the Commission has to decide whether or not indeed it has some jurisdiction to proceed.

If it decides that it has jurisdiction to proceed, then go through fairly well-established investigatory preliminary steps which includes the serving of a complaint form on the respondent. It is at that stage where the question will arise as to what are the rights of the person named as a respondent in a complaint. Certainly in the kind of case that we are discussing that is a very complex issue as to what would be the rights of any person, including a judge, at the point where a complaint form is filed or served on the would-be respondent. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I'm glad that the Attorney-General does see a problem here in the actions of the Human Rights Commi ssion. No doubt the motives are sincere and well-intentioned, but does the Attorney General intend to provide some guidelines to the Human Rights Commission with respect to this type of report where they indicate they may lack the authority to initiate or entertain a formal complaint but they're going to comment on it anyway?

Does he see the Huma n Rights Commission having some sort of overall power or authority in this province to pick out ind ividuals, make a repor t on the appropria teness or not of their comments without in any way giving those persons full opportunities to defend thems elves? Perhaps the Attorney-General would agree that it is contrary to some fundamental principles of justice to have a Commission acting in this manner without, I think, properly taking into consideration the rights of the persons against whom the complaints have been made. HON. FI. PENNER: I thank the Mem ber for St.

Norbert for raising the question. I will be happy to refer the general question to the Commi ssion almost like a stated question to the extent of, what does the Commission see as its jurisdiction with respect to complaints filed or lodged with it concerning conduct of a judicial officer, whether provincial or federal, made in the course of the actions of that person acting as a judge, and what relationship they see between its powers and the powers of the respective judicial councils?

I'll be glad to refer that question and the subsequent question of whether or not the ordina ry procedures of the Commisson, in investigation and reporting, reach a stage where a report may be made public without the resondent having an opportunity to meet the case. Both those questions will be directed by me to the Commission and I will be pleased to supply its reply when received. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(bX 1)-p ass; 3.(bX2)- pass; 3.(c) -the Member for St. Nor bert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, has the Attorney General given any further consideration to a type of an amendment that I had introduced with respect to this Criminal Injuries Compensation Act that would allow for comp ensation for pain and suffering to victims of crime? While I referred to rape victims, no doubt it would apply to all victims. I have received a copy of a letter - I believe it was sent to the Attorney-General from the Provincial Council of Women endorsing support for that principle -and I would ask the Attorney-General ii he and/or the Board are giving consideration to that. HON. R. PENNER: Not presently.

As I ind icated, it is a di ffi cult ques tion. When one establi she s a com pensation scheme, and I use the parallel of the Workers Compensation scheme, one has to decide initially what are the limi ts or parameters within which com pensa tion will be awa rded. The Workers Comp ensation scheme was designed to provide compensation for lost income. The Crime Compensation scheme, which is parallel legislation in a way, was also designed to provide comp ensation for lost income.

Even operating within those limi ted boundaries, the cost has escalated from an original $10 0,000 or $200,000 a year to something approximating $1 million. In fiscal '8 2-83 we'r e projecting $877,000, so it's getting up there. The reason why it's getting up there incidentally, as the Member for St. Nor bert knows, is that you have people who are permanently injured and therefore permanently on compensation. So you have a growing residual group, and the new cases are tacked on, some of them are permanent injuries, some of them are not.

To expand that to a compensation for pain and injur y, pain and suffering would be undoub tedly to escalate the cost monume ntally. This is a cost-sharing scheme. Unfortunately like so many cost-sharing schemes that we get into with the benign assistance of the Federal Government, they in effect for all practical purposes, opt out at a point which suits them, and we're paid 10 cents per capita as the contribution. That was the contribution to begin with and that is the contribution to this date. We're now 8-10 years into the program. It did start out at 5 cents.

It was a jitney ride, as they say, and then went to 10 cents and has stopped there, so we've received $10 0,000 on a program which is now close to $900,000.00. There is another parallel, of course, in the Autopac situation where, to a considerable extent, the heart of the legislation compensation is based on lost income and out-of-pocket expenses. If one wants to sue for pain and suffering you sue in the ordina ry courts. MR. G. MERCIER: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I do want to make the point, and I'm sure the Attorney-General would agree however, though, that there is, I think, certainly within society a growing concern about victims of crime, more so than the perpetrators of crime and if put to the test I'm sure this type of program would receive unqualified public support. So I would urge the Attorney-General to continue to study the suggestion I had made in the Private Members' Bill. 3269

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 Last year, when we discussed this

section of the Estimates, I believe I referred to the fact there was a la ck of publicit y about the Cr im in al Inj uries Compe nsation Board, and I bel ieve the Attorney General concurred with that sentiment and ind icated that perhaps some further steps would be taken by the Board to public ize the availability of the Board and the type of compensation that victims of crime might receive. I wonder if the Attorney-General could ind icate what, if any, action in that regard has been taken. HON. R. PENNER: I agree with the Mem ber for St. Nor bert tha t the program should be more widely pub licized.

There was a comment made at the recent meeting of admin istrative officials deal ing with crim e compensation from across Canada - the meeting was here -and it was pointed out at that time, that the demands on the scheme were the lowest in Manitoba indicating, as was suggested then, a lack of knowledge on the part of the public of the availability of this comp ensation scheme. So certainly that corroborates the point being made by the member of the need for better publ icity. One of the matters that will be placed on the plate, a list of tasks of Mr .

Phill ips, the de partmen tal commu nication officer, is to expand our Information Services in tha t area to consult with people, Mr. Thor valdson and others admin istering our crime compensation scheme. I should add that we began a little more than a year ago, I guess it's about 14-18 months ago, a Victim Witness Assistance Project - I think it was already begun at the time the Mem ber for St. Norbert was Attorney General with some federal fundin g - and one of the tasks that the Victim Witness Assistance Project has, one of its prime tasks, is to alert people to the possibility of their obtaining compensation.

The difficulty there is, that cannot be by any means, and apparently it isn't 10 0 percent means of identification, because many victims do not get involved in the process. They're the victims of the crime and they make a complaint; the ma tter is investigated; an arrest may be made; the person pleads guilty; there is no hearing; the person isn't involved in the process and, therefore, would not ordinarily become counselled through the Victim Witness Assistance Project, and it may be that that's a loophole that will have to be looked at. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, the Min ister has introduced an amendment to the Act in the House for which he has not yet given Second Reading. It would appear from the bill that this might, Mr. Chairman -if you're concerned about discussing this -might expedite the bill through the House. In fact, I'm sure it will. The intent of the bill seems to be to give authority to the Board to deduct, from compensation for crime, the amount of any social assistance that the victim has received. Is that a fair comment on the intention of the bill? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, that is a fair comment.

The reason why the bill hasn't been introduc ed for Second Read ing debate is that I will be bringing in a technical amendment because the wording that is before the House doesn't accurately express the intention. The

section of The Crime Compensation Act to which the amendment refers provides in effect for deductions of things like Unemplo yment Insurance or Workers Compensation, because it is strictly a compensation scheme for lost income, therefore, it's only to the extent that income is lost as a result of the criminal injury that compensation kicks in. If a person is in receipt of social assistance, let's say at the time of the crime, in every instance but one the amount of social assistance will exceed the amount that is available under The Criminal Compensation Injuries Act.

The person will continue to receive from the public purse the social allowance which provides them with income support at a greater and higher level than the criminal injuries, but will not receive both; in the same way that a person does not receive criminal injur ies compensation and Unemplo yment Insurance, does not receive both criminal injuries compensation and workers compensati on. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister explain what appears to me to be, with respect to this bill, a contradiction in NOP philosophy?

Over the 1970s, for example, when the property tax credit systems were introduced, there were attempts made, certainly at the municipal level, to deduct the amount of the credit from the social assistance a person migh t be receiving -this appears to be an action in reverse -and the NOP position on that position was, fine, they may be getting social assistance, but this is another government program and they should be and will be entitled to receive the property tax credit benefit, or a cost of living tax credit benefit, the income part of the benefit.

This appears to be a contradiction to that position, in that the NOP are going to deduct this other income compensation that a person would have been entitled to un der The Criminal Injuries Comp ensation Act from social assistance that a person was receiving. HON. R. PENNER: I heard a friendly voice to my right, opposite the Member for St. Norbert, the Member for Concordia, pointing out that the one program was a universal program, and this program is not a universal program and ther efore one is comparing apples and oranges to that extent.

There is such a variety of compensation programs of one kind or another or, I should say, social assistance programs, to use the generic term, and they proceed on a different basis and with different criteria. The Crim inal Injurie s Comp ensation Program is strictly a program and has been from its inception a program to com pensate for lost income and that is why right from the beginning it had these particular deductions: un emplo yment in suranc e, worker s compensation. There are one or two others that are mentioned in the Act.

There are other matters that I would like to deal with, in terms of the question raised, but will do so when we debate that bill in the House. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(c)- pass; 3.(d)( 1), 3.(d) (2) -the Member for St. Norbert. 3270

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Attorney General ind icate he may not have this information available -the num ber of appeals that the Manitoba Police Commi ssion has heard from the City of Winnipeg Police Commission? HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice. I believe in fiscal 1982-83 the appeals that have been heard by the Commission relate to Brandon, Winkler -is that Winkler or Stei nbach? I just received the report, I should remember which one it is, but I can't recall how many , if any, appeals were heard from the Winnipeg Police Commission.

If you'll just bear with me for a moment. In 1982, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the Commission only heard one appeal and that arose from Brandon. In 1983 to date, the one appeal that I'm aware of the Commission having heard arose from Winkler -Winkler or Steinbach. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Attorney General is correct on that. As he developed The Law Enforcement Review Act, did he consider why there were, I believe, very few, if any, appeals from the Winnipeg Police Commission to the Manitoba Police Commission? HON. R.

PENNER: There are arguably two problems which relate to the question. One has to do with the threshold question of whether or not all of those who have been the victims of wrongdoing on the part of police officers complain at all. The only data which is available on that now is a few years old.

It's data which comes from a stu dy conduc ted nationally by the Canadian Civil Liber ties Association in a numb er of cities, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal, which studies seem to indicate that the num ber of persons who actually complained in the first instance rep resented only a fract ion of th ose who ha d complaints. Now, whether those complaints were bona tide, of course, cannot be determined until they're actually received, investigated and adjudic ated.

The argument that was advanced at that time in the study - I forget, it was a department of the Federal Gover nment which funded the study was that many of those who migh t have had complaints and didn 't file them had two concerns. One is that, you know, the old "you can't fight City Hall" kind of thing, that if you take your complaint to the very body that emplo ys the person against whom you're compla ining, then what chance do you have for the matter being dealt with justly or equitably?

There was also expressed the fear -and whether it's baseless or not is not the question, it's a genuine fear -that to complain again to the same body that emplo ys the person about whom you're complaining might well invoke retribution on the street. Now, I make no comment on whether or not those fears were justified, but it was those fears that arguably prevented a whole numb er of people who perhaps ought to ha ve complained from complaining in the first instance.

So the primary argument for the Law Enforcement Review Agency is not that of the numb er of appeals which come from a Commission to the Manitoba Police Commission, or have been coming, but whether or not · the threshold mechanism is adequate. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Attorney General in his introductory remarks noted that two people who had been on the staff of the Polic e Comm ission ha ve been trans ferred within the department. Will he see the role of the Manitoba Police Commission, in the event that The Law Enforcement Review Act passes, as merely an appellate body? HON. R.

PENNER: No, far from it. It will be an appellate body, first of all, for those matters dealt with by the local Police Commissions that do not involve third parties, that do not involve citizen complaints. It also will have a function under The Law Enforcement Review Act where the complaint has been dismis sed at first instance by the Comm issioners, as being frivolous and vexatious, that can be appealed by the complainant to the Manitoba Police Commission.

But beyond that it will have a continuing function with respect to crime prevention and particularly citizen's involvement in crime prevention and to police training and standards. Indeed, it was the desire of the Commission for some time to expand its work in these areas, and I believe it will now be able to do so. There has been a considerable and good growth in crime prevention programs. Some of them are funded by the Solicitor General; some of them are funded in other ways.

A particularly good example of that was the work started by the Mani toba Institute of Crimino logy carried out under the direction of Dr. John Bock in involving all kinds of agencies and public bodies that resulted in Crime Prevention Month in Novemb er. That body is now expanding its work, has a new grant from the Department of the Soli citor-General. There are other bod ies funded through the Riverborne Community Development Corporation in Fort Rouge.

One of the things th at th e Mani toba Police Commission will be doing is trying to co-ordinate, to provide a resource function to various crime prevention programs, and to expand th ose crime prev ention programs into the communi ties throughout the province so that they are not just concentrated in the City of Winnipeg. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Attorney General indicated that the Information Officer had been tra nsferred to within the Att orne y-General 's department. What was the other person's position who was transferred to this department? HON. R. PENNER: One secretary position. MR.

CHAIRMAN: 3.(d)( 1)- pass; 3.(d)(2)-pass; 3.(e)( 1) -the Member for St. Norbert. llll R. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, can the Min ister ind icate the numb er of persons under the jurisdiction of the Board compared to the end of last year, March 31, 1982 to March 31, 1983? HON. R.

PENNER: It's a little bit difficult to provide figures on a year-by-year basis because of course once they become under the jurisdiction of the Board of Review, they continue under the jurisdiction of the Board of Review until such time as the person either dies in cus tody or is rel eased under the warrant of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. 3271

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 As of March 7, 1983, there are 19 males and one female under review. Sixteen of those were charged with murder in the first instance; one with manslaugher; one with unlawful assault; two with attempted murd er. Of those 20, five had been found unfit to stand trial to begin with. Fifteen had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Those are the only figures which I have available at the moment. I will try to get comparative figures of the numb er of people under review as of March 31, 1982. I don't have them at present. MR. G.

MERCIER: The Attorney-General then couldn't indicate the numb er that were released into society then during the past year? HON. R. PENNER: I believe one, maximum two. I can recall one, because they have to be released by Order in-Council. I can recall one Order-in-Council relating to a person released in the Interlake District, and I can't recall any other Order-in-Council. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister ind icate who are presently the members of the Board of Review. I think there was a change during the last year. HON. R. PENNER: Yes.

The Chairperson of the Board of Review is Caroline Cramer . Members of the Board of Review, I'll provide their names this evening. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(e)(1)-p ass; 3.(e)(2)- pass. Resolution 19 -Resolve that there be granted to Her Ma jesty a sum not exceeding $2,21 4,4 00 for the Attorney-General for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 1984- pass. 4.(a) -the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe last year the Attorney-General continued re-surveys in 24 areas at a cost of some $200,000.00. Is th at program continuing this year? If so, in what amount? HON. R.

PENNER: The program is continuing. I believe the amount has been reduced from 200,000 to either 100,000 or 150,000. 100,000.00. MR. G. MERCIER: I take it then, Mr. Chairman, the Min ister will be shortly ind icating where the special surveys will take place in this year. HON. R. PENNER: There was a program with respect to the special surveys that was designed some years ago. We are simply carrying on with that program. There have been no changes in the program at all. There'll be no redirection.

Almo st all of the special surv ey is in southern Manitoba where the oldest surveys are and where there has been the greatest deterioration of the su rvey markers and bench marks. MR. G. MERCIER: There is no change in the manner of awarding those contracts. HON. R. PENNER: None whatsoever. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a)- pass; 4.(b)-pa ss. Resolution 20 -Resolve that there be granted to Her Ma jesty a sum not exceeding $4,327,200 for the Attorney-General for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1984-p ass. 5.(a)( 1), 5.(a)(2) ... MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the . MR.

CHAIRMAN: 5.( a)(1)-pass; 5.(a)(2)- pass; 5.(b)(1), 5.(b)(2) -the Member for St. Norb ert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I take it that we will at this Session of the Legislature, in view of the introductory comments of the Attorney-General, be dealing with a bill with respect to the amalgamation of the Cour t of Queen's Bench and Family Court. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Mini ster in his introd uctory comments referred to, I think, the fact that there would be created in Manitoba one judicial district with a numb er of offices throughout the province.

He did not mention whether or not resident judges will be maintained in those cities where they are presently located. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, they will. There is a clause in the proposed legislation, a

section in the proposed legislation which deals specifically with that so that the resident judges in Portage, Brandon and Dauphin who are presently judges of the County Court will become judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, but will continue to reside in those centres. MR. G. MERCIER: Pardon me, I was distracted there. Will the resident judges be maintained in Brandon, Portage and Dauphin? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: Will the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission be followed as they are ind icated in the report referring, for example, to the - "5.

That no judge of the new court once appointed shall be required to change residence without the judge's consent." HON. R. PENNER: Yes. MR. G. MERCIER: The Minis ter, I believe, ind icated that all of the recommendations would be followed? HON. R. PENNER: No. I can't say that all of the recommendations will be followed. That is a little bit too general of a question for me.

I should ind icate again as I did yesterday, and I believe these flow from the recommendations but might not be the same as the recommendations, that the admin istration of the combined Court of Queen's Bench will be provided through 16 locations. Presently, the Court of Queen's Bench is adminis tered through five locations. Assize hearings will be expanded from five locations to six, Thompson being added to Winnipeg, Portage, Brandon, 3272

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 Dauphin and The Pas; that the hearings of civil and other matters will be expanded from five locations to 12, so that added to Winnipeg, Portage, Brandon, Dauphin and The Pas for the hearing of civil and other ma tters will be Sel kirk, St. Bon iface, Mo rden, Minn edosa, Swan River, Flin Flon and Thompson. Having said that I should point out that I'm really provi ding the member qu ite properly with some adminis trative details which will not be carved into the Statute.

The Statute provides -well it's still in draft and it should be before the House shortly but the Statute is intended to provide that the locations for adminis trative offices and hearings will be the subject of Orders-in-Council after consultation with the Ch ief Justice. MR. G. MERCIER: Has there already been a reduction in the numb er of areas where the County Court Judg es sit? HON. Ft PENNER: No, there has not been. The County Court Judges presently sit in 16 locations. MR. G. MERCIER: Is it pr oposed that un der amalgamation that the judges will no longer sit in Virden, Russell and Killa rney? HON. R.

PENNER: It's anticipated that there will no longer be regular sittings of the Superior Court, which will be the style of the Court of Queen's Bench, in Virden, Russell and Kill arney. However, there can be trials in those centres on occasion as circums tances warrant. Those centres of course will still be maintained as locations, where documents can be filed and where of course the Provincial Court will continue to sit. l\ll FI. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, are there any other locations where there will be no sittings, where there are now sittings by a County Court Judge? HON. R. PENNER: Beausejour. MR. G.

MERCIER: Beausejour. So there'll be four towns that will be affected. What is the effect on Min nedosa? HON. R. PENNER: Minn edosa continues and although Min nedosa arguably had not any more cases heard on a year-by-year basis than Ru ssell to maintain accessibility, you in effect will be combining what was heard in Russell with Minn edosa, to be heard in Mi nnedosa. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I think as the Attorney-General would appreciate, any time you take away a service from a commun ity, particularly a smaller community like these towns, there is a great deal of concern expressed.

I wonder if, for the record, the Attorney-General could indicate the reasons why judges will not be sitting in these four areas that he's referred to. HON. R. PENNER: We are trying to make do with the limi ted resou rces th at we ha ve. The cost of the admin istration of justice continues to escalate, as I suppose it will, and we're trying to do the best job possible with limi ted dolla rs. There was a study conducted by the Ch ief Judge of the County Court, now a member of the Court of Appeal, Judge Philp in 1977, and he did a careful study of the volume of business in the County Court in all of the lo cations.

At th at time in 19 77 Ju dg e Philp recommended that the centres to which I have referred, be closed as centres for the hearing of County Court cases. In the statistics obtained by me that are updated, there have been no significant changes in the relatively low volumn of cases. For example, in Russell, in the Statement of Claims issued in Russell in 1981 there was just a total of 46, slightly more than one a month, one-and-a-half a month, and that of course is the only Statement of Claims issued that doesn't relate to a num ber of cases actually heard in the County Court in Russell.

In Beausejour the numb er of statement of claims issued in 19 81 was 25; in Killarney for the year 1981 it was 81; in Virden for 1981 it 38. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5.(b )( 1) -the Member for St. Norbert. The Member for Roblin -Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, what I am wondering was, this is news that I was not familiar with about the County Court cases in Russell being now heard in, is it Minn edosa I understand it? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. That is the intention, that it will take effect after July 1, 1984. MR. W.

McKENZIE: Just in looking at the area then could the Honourable Min ister advise me, those people that live all along the Saskatchewan border then in that whole general area will be all directed to the court in Mi nnedosa, which is what, about 100 mi les? HON. R. PENNER: Only with respect to those matters which would ordinarily come before a Superior Court. With respect to matters tha t are heard before a Provincial Court or a Small Claims, they will still have their cases heard in the local courthouse.

Again I should point out that of the Statements of Claim filed, the num ber heard is only a small fraction of claims filed. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Chairman, could the Mi nister give me an idea like Russell -he mentioned what, 46 Statements of Claim in the last year, Beausejour 25, Kil larney 81, Virden 38, is that correct? HON. R. PENNER: The figures, I'll give them again; Beausejour 25. Those are Statements of Claim issued; Russell 46, Kill arney 81, Virden 38. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What would be a reasonable amount of Statements of Claim of that nature?

Well if Kill arney is 81, so it's got to be high er than 81 to make it economically feasible for the court to continue there. HON. R. PENNER: It will still be possible under the proposed new set-up for people in Russell to file Statements of Claim in the Russell courthouse. But when something goes on to actually be contested in court the hearing will be in Minnedosa. 3273

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, has the Western Bar Association com mented on this proposal or have they been informed? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. I've heard representations from the Western Bar and from the Virden Bar, who have raised questions about the proposal and I've explained.

I had a meeting with representatives from the Town of Virden including a member from the Virden Bar, that by no means meant the closing of the courthouse; that the courthouse would continue; that the provincial judges would still sit, that small claims could still be filed and heard; that it just meant those matters which would formerly have been heard at County Court level, now Queen's Bench, will be heard, as far as those people who are in Virden and in Brandon, by the resident CUPE judge in Brandon. MR. G. MERCIER: And what, Mr.

Chairman, has been the response of the Bar Associations concerned; are they objecting to this plan and this proposal? HON. R. PENNER: Are you talking about in the specific areas, or overall? MR. G. MERCIER: Overall. HON. R. PENNER: Overall, very favourable. MR. G. MERCIER: What about the specific areas? HON. R. PENNER: Well, in specific areas where they thought this meant the closing down of the little old court house, ivy covered and all that, once they've been assured that it doesn't, there have been no further concerns expressed. That is not to say there aren't further concerns, but there haven't been any. MR.

G. MERCIER: Are there any proposed closings of any court houses? HON. R. PENNER: No, in fact, we're trying to upgrade cour t ho uses. We'r e trying to find the means of improving the court house facility in Virden, and certainly in Flin Flon, where we have begun a project for a new provincial building which will finally take the so-called court house out of a second floor office that you only could access by a dangerous set of stairs, a judge's cham bers which , I think, doubled as a washroom; you know, finally we'll have suitable facilities. MR. G. MERCIER: Will any existing County Court offices be closed? HON.

R. PENNER: No, they'll become CUPE offices. MR. CHAIRMAN: The hour being 4:30, we are interrupting the proceedings of this commit tee for the Private Members' Hour. We, hopefully, will return here at 8:00 p.m. SUPPLY - CO MMU NIT Y SERVICES AND CORRECTIONS MR. CHAI RMAN, R Eyler: Order please. We are considering the Estima tes of the Department of Community Services and Corrections. I believe it was agreed last night that at the beginning of this sitting we would revert to Item 2.(b)( 1) Personnel Management Services, Salaries -Mr. Minis ter. HON. L. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the question of the Honourable Member for Fort Gar ry, which was, what is meant by the paragraph which was contained in our last Annual Report, and I'll just quote. "Following reorganization in 1981, the branch has focused on upgrading the quality of management information systems to establish stream lined operating practices and procedures and to develop a data base for human resources planning." Firstly, Mr. Chairman, regarding upgrading the quality of management information services.

I can advise the Leg isl atu re tha t, as of April 1st, our Perso nnel Management Services developed and introduced a new format for their monthly staff vacancy report. The new format is more definitive and provides the current status and classification of each position in the department by appropriation and location. It is intended to provide more comprehens ive status information to divisional and director level management for better utilization of positions.

It is presently a manual system maintained by the personnel staff, however, it is planned that in the future an autom ated process will assist in this task once the bugs are worked out. Regarding the second item contained in that sentence of the report, "the establis hm ent of stream lin ed opera ting practices and proced ur es"; this mo stly applies to development and installation of a number of internal procedures and systems related to new personnel guideli nes and procedures and to ensure a more effi ci1mt oper at ion with in the branch. The processes affected are (

a) standardization of form letters within the branch; (

b) a monitoring system to ensure that all personnel transactions are not mis sed internally or by the Civil Service Commission; (

c) a revised statistically reporting procedure for all classification and hir ing activitie s. These systems are being slowly im plemented as time permits. The third element in the report that the member referred to was to develop a data base for Hum an Resource Planning.

Working with the departmental computer services group, the Civil Service Commission, and the Department of Finance, it is proposed to expand the present empl oyee information data base in-House so we may extract reports on a regular basis for succession planning, for fcrecasting of potential retirees, for affirmative action planning, and for analysis of male and female participation by occupational categories for equal opportunity planning. This is currently in the early stage of feasibility and planning. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Fort Ga rry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the Min ister for that information. Will the data base, and the resources in that data base, as it is built 3274

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 up and as they are built up, be reserved entirely for the department and, indeed, for this particular branch, Personnel Management Services, or is it intended to use the base for other purposes, to study and evaluate the possibility of introducing new programs; or is there in formation that will of value to planne rs in the department for additional programming in the future? HON. L. EVANS: No, it is not related to planning of programs.

It is strictly related to personnel matters, that is, a replacement of people who may be on the verge of retiring, or who indicate that they're leaving for whatever reason. It's meant for assisting in decision making with regard to affirmative acti on, and so on. It is related essentially to planning, the admin istration, the organization of the department for personnel, not for programs. MR. L. SHERMAN: Okay. HON. L.

EVANS: The informa tion, because it's on a comput er, and because obviously it's of interest to the Civil Service Commission, and also to the Department of Finance, I would presume will be -well I can advise -will be shar ed with tho se de partments, as is appropriate, or as is necessary. MR. L. SHERMAN: Okay, thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(b) (1) -pass. Resolution No. 31: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3, 196,800 for Commu nity Services and Corrections, Financial and Adminis trative Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31 st day of March, 1984-p ass.

Item 3.(a) ( 1 ), Commu ni ty Social Servic es, Admin istration, Salaries- pass; 3.(a)(2)-pass; 3.(b)(1) , Regional Personal Services, Salaries - the Member for Fort Garry . MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, the list of staff man years and staff changes in the department, which the Min ister provided me with at the beginning of these discussions, indicates that in Regional Personal Services there is a reduction of 5 staff man years in 1983-84 over 1982-83. The Salaries Appropriation obviously ind icates a fairly substantial increase in salaries, and I just wonder if the Min ister can explain that apparent anoma ly.

I would expect there would have to be an increase in salaries, but we're looking at an incr ease of $1 ,300,000 on a 1982-83 printed base of $6 mill ion, so that represents, not far off 25 percent. What would it be? About 22, 23 percent, and yet his list of staff and staff man years, as I said, reflects a decrease of 5.

Could the Min ister advise the commit tee as to the reasons for the salary increases, if purely based on negotiated salaries, either within MGE A units, or with nursing units and, if so, that's und erstandable, but I would like to know what it is and how come it's in the range of 22 or 23 percent, and could he advise of the nature of the reduction of five staff man years in the Regional Personal Services complement? What are the five positions that are being elimi nated?

Are they public health -well, they wouldn't be publi c health nursing positions obviously in Communi ty Services -but are they regional communi ty services counselling positions or professional positions whose loss will imp ede the department's capability for delivering personal services in the field? HON. L. EVANS: To answer the last question first, Mr. Chairman, two of the positions were in Winnipeg and they had been vacant. They were vacant, so they were wiped out.

Three in rural Manitoba were, for whatever reason, not allocated, so it doesn't relate to personnel being utilized in delivering any service in rural Manitoba. So the answer is, no, it should not have any negative im pact on program delivery that exists. In terms of the other item regarding what looks to be an extraordi narily large increase in Salaries, the explanation is of cou rse partly alluded to by the honourable member; that is, there is a percentage increase because of the across the board negotiations with the MGE A, the increase in the salary level, plus increments, of course.

But in addition to that, there is a technical explanation. Last year, there was an insufficient amount allocated in this particular item. There is a technical reason for that; it doesn't relate to any policy change. It has no bearing on pol icies or programs. It's a technic al, adminis trative problem, an accounting problem. As I und erstand it, some of the monies that were allocated last year came from a central pot of mon ey, because I believe the monies voted for the increase were to come out of a special one line, I believe.

They were to be allocated by department and it seems that there was some sh ortf all th ere, so now th at ha s been corrected. So, frankly, it's a technical correction, it doesn't reflect any change in programs or policies. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I would like to ask the Min ister whether in his view the split of the former Department of Health and Communi ty Services into the two separate, exclusive Departments of Health and Commu nity Services with the continuing service of those two departments by one regional field delivery system, a single-unit delivery system, is working out satisfactorily on the basis under which it has been undertaken; that basis being a single-unit environment for the regional service personnel involved, but a division of lines of reporting and responsibil ity, in part to the Deputy Min ister of Communi ty Services and in part to the Deputy Min ister of Health through I believe a single new senior supervisory regional director who is the conduit through which the eight indi vidual regional directors do their reporting, can the Min ister advise the com mittee as to how that new alignment of the two departments and the dual function and dual role of the regional field service component is working out in his view?

HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, I would remind the honourable mem ber, I wouldn't describe it as a new arrangement, because it's been in existence now ever since the split which is -how long, two or three years? Three. MR. L. SHERMAN: About three-and-a-half years. HON. l. EVANS: The information I have from my staff is that from their point of view it seems to be working 3275

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 well. I can attest, I guess, partially to that as well, because I had the opportunity last summer and indeed part of this winter to visit various centres in Manitoba, in the North and rural Manitoba, and I did take the opportunity being there to talk to many of the staff and sort of get a grass-roots feel for field operations, regional operations.

There seemed to be a fairly good co-operative spirit as wel l as a co-operat ive admin istrative arrangement, sharing of offices, sharing of some common services that have to be shared such as a receptionist, for example, some of these more common admin istrative services. Because really what we were doing is maintaining a single delivery unit system that existed prior to the split, the differences being that they report to different program people in their respective departments.

The other point I might make is that we are trying to strengthen as much as we can the com muni cation with the regional staff, not that it's that dramatic, and it's again an admin istrative type of challenge to imp rove and upgrade the communication, the two-way flow of information from Winnipeg, from the capital city, to the regional field office and back from the field office to the head office, so to speak. That's a challenge of organization, a challenge of admi nistration. I have some concern that line of com muni cation be as good as possible.

I'm not suggesting that there are major problems, I'm simply saying that one has to continually work on it and ensure that information is getting out adequately to the field and that we get back from the field the problems that the front-line staff are running into with regard to delivery programs. MR. L. SHERMAN: Could the Min ister just advise me, of the 256.5 staff man years in Regional Personal Services, what are the major components in categorical terms? What are the major categories? HON. L. EVANS: I can give the honourable member a breakdown with half-a-dozen figur es or so.

Child and Family Service workers, this is the current '83-84 staff complement, 97. Just a note on that, as the member knows or I'll remind him, we, in effect, are the Childr en's Aid Society in Northern Manitoba, in Parklands, in Interlake, in portions of Eastman and, indeed, part of Winnipeg, so we do maintain a fairly large delivery service in child and family area. Mental retardation workers -we have 51 field staff. These are the people who go out and help families who have mentally retarded, mentally handicapped children, and they do many other things in the field.

Vocational rehab workers, 26 -they are the people who deal with the occupational activity centres, places such as ARM and so on. Miscellaneous Service Staff, 16. Admin istrative Su pport Staff, 55. There are 11 .5 term positions. That adds up to 256.5. MR. L SHERMAN: Okay, thanks very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(b)(1) -pass; 3.( b)(2)- pass; 3.(

c) General Purpose Grants -the Mem ber for Fort Ga rry. MR. L SHERMAN: Well, on General Purpose Grants, Mr. Chairman, are we talking about the General Purpose Grants to health organizations like the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Canadian Public Health Association or are we talking about the whole field of Ge neral Pur pose Gr ants which covers citi zens' advocacy groups and agencies of that kind? HON. L EVANS: The list isn't that long so I could read it. MR. L. SHERMAN: Yes, I'd like that. HON.

L EVANS: Just quickly, or I could do it slowly if you want to write it down, but it'll be in Hansard anyway. Let's see, there are in total 12 items: Brandon Citizens' Advocacy -the Canadian Council on Social Development. Citizens' Advocacy Manitoba; Social Planning Council of Winnipeg; The Thompson Crisis Centre; Rossbrook House in the City of Winnipeg; Community projects -well, that's a general category and that is a very small amount of money to handle, maybe a new odd request that they may be received.

It's a very small amount, it's $13, 000 out of the total of nearly 1. 4 million; Old Gr ace Hospital loan payment; The Volunteer Centre of Winnipeg; YWCA Osborne House; Indi an and Metis Friendship Centre Grants; and The Childr en's Ho me of Winn ip eg Wife Ab use Prevention Program, that's a special new program. It's really for the Manitoba Comm ittee for the prevention of wife abuse, but the y'r e work ing co-operatively through and with the Children's Home of Winnipeg. The Childr en's Home is providing the space and some of their exrerience and so on.

So, that item, although it's designated payment to Children's Home of Winnipeg, it is for Wife Abuse Prevention Program that is being delivered by this new comm ittee. MR. L. SHERMAN: Would those grants for 1983-84 all reflect increases over the levels that were provided in 1982-83? HON. L. EVANS: In some cases we've held the line. There's no change. For example, the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, to all intents and purposes, it's roughly the same amount of mo ney. In the odd case, there's been a slight reduction and in one or two cases there have been increases.

So what we've done, we've held the line where we could, we've made the odd reduction where we thought we could afford to make a reduction without hurting anyone, for example, the Canadian Council on Social Development offices in Ottawa, it's a national organization, we reduced the grant from 11 ,300 last year down to 5,000 this year. But, in the case of the Thomp son Crisis Centre, there was a need to increase the level of funding so we've raised it from 6,900 last year to 7,500 this year, and that's based on the need that we have identified there in that organization. MR.

L SHERMAN: Where do the Canadian Diabetic Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Canadian Public Health Association appear? 3276

Tuesday, 31 May, 1983 They seem to constitute another category of General Purpose Grants. HON. l. EVANS: Mr. Chairman, those are in the Department of Health. MR. l. SHERMAN: Those are in the Department of Health? HON. l. EVANS: Yes, all the mental health programs are in the Department of Health. We have the mental retardat ion programs and those other agencies the honourable member referred to also would be - I don't know to the extent whether they are funded or not, but if they are, I guess they are -it is with the Min ister of Health. MR. l.

SHERMAN: That's certainly logical, but they appear in a table that is supplied in this department's Annual Report, which was the reason for my confusion and my question on it, Mr. Chairman, but it's logical that they would be in the Department of Health. HON. l. EVANS: I see. There is an explanation for that. Apparently, for whatever reason, the money was voted in this department last year, but was th en transferred over to the Department of Health. MR. L SHERMAN: Thank you. MR. CHAIRMAN: 3.(c)- pass.

Resolution No. 32: Resolved that there be granted to her Majesty a sum not exceeding $9,722,500 for Communi ty Services and Correc tions, Communi ty Social Services for the fiscal year ending the 313t day of March, 1984- pass. Item 4.(

a) Child and Family Services, Salaries -the Member for Fort Gar ry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Chairman, can the Min ister advise me of something, that dou btless I should know, but I either don't know or I now don't re

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-78a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 78a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	3b5a9b0d39ffa868c02c9596b994c5b4dd40899c

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