Manitoba Hansard — 14 June 1983 (Sitting 87A, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-87a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 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. 87A - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 14 JUNE, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT , Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURL AY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP IND NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP ND P PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 14 June, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M. B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Your Committee met on Tuesday , June 14, 1983 to consider the Financial Statements of Flyer Industries Ltd. Mr. Hugh J. Jones, Chairman, Mr.

Douglas McKay, former President and Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Barry Oliver, Acting Chief Executive Officer, provided such information as was required by members of the Committee with respect to Flyer Industries Ltd. Your Committee examined the Financial Statements of Flyer Industries Ltd. as at December 31, 1982, and adopted the same as presented. HON. M. B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Johns, that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture.

HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to announce an initiative taken by our government through the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation to reduce the financial burden on Manitoba farmers who have borrowed money at high interest rates. In recent months, the Department of Agriculture has been looking at ways to reduce interest rates on MAGG loans. Howe ver, the money was borrowed by the province at higher interest rates, and, anxious as we are to assist farmers, we wish also to avoid losses to the Provincial Treasury.

In the meantime, some farmers have refinanced their loans and paid them off at no penal ty, and they will continue to have that privilege. However, we are concerned that there will be a trading of clients between MACC and its federal counterpart, FCC. In other words, clients who borrowed at MACC at the higher interest rates, are now going to FCC to borrow at current rates in order to pay off their loans. Similarly , FCC clients are coming to MAGG to refinance their high interest rate loans.

The consequence is that during the tough times for farmers, capital of both the provincial and federal farm lending agencies is being used up without an expansion of the number of clients being assisted . In addition, some farmers are in such a precarious financial situation that they can't get refinancing anywhere and are forced to pay high interest rates. So, the ones who need help most are the least likely to get it. At the same time, both MAGG and FCC will be left with the so-called higher risk clients.

To deal with these problems we are introducing a program which permits MACC clients to buy down their interest rates at approximately 13 percent, using the same concept that is used in commercial mortgage financing. It is estimated the net savings on 1, 151 farm loans - these are the loans that were taken out during the period of higher interest rates - thay saving will be approximately $26 million over the remaining terms of the loans, if all elect to buy down their interest rates on current loans from MACC. The buy down program can effect substantial savings to farmers.

For example, the buy down price of $10,500, a farmer can reduce his annual payment on a 30-year $150,000 loan by $5,000.00. Total savings over the term of the loan will be over $160,000.00. The government should be able to assist farmers through this program at no cost to the Provincial Treasury. The buy down sums invested at current interest rates will offset the losses which result from reducing interest rates from 17 percent to 13 percent. The buy down program, Mr. Speaker, is but one more example of the concern of this government for the well being of agriculture - our basic industry. Thank you . MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the Minister for making one of the few announcements that he makes, dealing with policy in the Legislature . They're normally made at press conferences prior to the sitting of the House. The announcement to day, Mr. Speak er, is an endorsement that NDP times are tough times in Manitoba.

The Minister of Agriculture is today standing and telling the farm community that he is still continuing to pay high commercial interest rates or interest rates that are equal to those commercial rates of any other business, unlike the Interest Rate Relief Program or the interest policies that we had in place, which reduced the interest rate by some 4 percent under what the commercial rate would be for farmers, beginning farmers, to help them in the farm industry. So, I can see very little assistance, Mr. Speaker , in this announcement. The buy down proposal, Mr.

Speaker, will again ask the produc er, that young farmer who's trying to make 3646

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 a go of it under extremely difficult times, to come forward with some up-front money to, in fact, buy his way out of it, as I understand it, Mr. Speaker. However, I will give the Minister a little bit of credit for having tried to deal with the situation, but if we remember the 1981 election promise that no one would lose their farm or home or their business because of high interest rates, they still have not lived up to that promise, Mr. Speaker, and we want to remind the people of Manitoba of that particular promise. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ...

ORAL QUES TIONS Beef Stabilization Program - layoffs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina . MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Economic Development. Since the Minister of Agriculture has refused to develop and participate in a Beef Stabilization Program for beef feedlot operators in the Province of Manitoba, could the Minister of Economic Development indicate how many jobs will be lost in the beef packing industry in the Province of Manitoba as a result of that inaction and wrong decision by the Minister of Agriculture? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think the member opposite must have been examining a different plan than the one I think my honourable colleague has presented.

As I understand the Beef Stabilization Program, it is an integrated program designed to encourage farmers here in the province to carry on the full scale of cattle development here so that they are, in fact, available in the province for delivery to packinghouses and that the program is designed to increase the number of jobs and the value-added that stays in the province unless the member opposite can clarify his question somewhat or perhaps my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture would care to explain once again the design and purpose of the Beef Stabilization Program. I really can't answer the question. MR.

D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, since the Cabinet communication has not reached the Minister of Economic Development that the Beef Stabilization Plan deleted and left off the support program, the feedlot operators in Manitoba who finished the beef to be packed in Winnipeg packinghouses, I would ask the Minister of Economic Development if she is now confirming that she did not instruct her department to make enquiries with the beef packing industry in the Province of Manitoba to determine the impact of having the feedlot operators left out of the program, and furthermore what impact the loss of some 50,000 feeder cattle last year that went out of the province to be fed and slaughtered and processed out of the province creating jobs out of the province and not in the Province of Manitoba?

I ask the Minister did she not have her department do a study to determine the employment impact of that kind of loss in the beef feeding industry and packing industry in the Province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, the Honourable Member for Pembina's questions and suppositions are totally inaccurate. The beef program does include the finishing of cattle, and does include the feedlot industry. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the feedlot industry was involved in a number of meetings with the Beef Commission, which were held across rural Manitoba, encouraging many of the farmers to put their cattle into finishing in the feedlots in Manitoba. Sir, what has been requested by the feedlot operators is a support of an investment support price on the basis of dollar amount of insurance on finishing of cattle, which is far beyond the support that has been provided to the rest of the beef industry.

In fact, some of the calculations that have been provided, which were indicated to us were rt!quired to stabilize the feedlot industry, were supports of $95 a cwt, which in their analysis required premiums of almost 20 percent. Mr. Speaker, in the submission it was a 50-50 proposition which the Province of Manitoba is already putting in millions of dollars in the beef industry. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the question relating to the numbers of slaughter animals leaving the provin ce. Mr. Speaker, that has been an annual event, a historical event. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the numbers of slaughter animals, we hope, will increase as a result of the stability in the industry. But to say that the impact on the packing industry as a result of four years of do nothing and the killing of a stabilization program by their administration did have a great impact on the loss of the packing industry in the Province of Manitoba by Swifts Corporation, Sir. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that the Minister of Agriculture has confirmed that he is not offering any assistance to the feedlot operators finishing beef in this province, could the Minister of Economic Development now kindly answer the question I posed to her some minutes ago? Did she have her department do any economic analysis as to the employment loss and the potential loss of more packing capacity and employment in the Province of Manitoba, because 50,000 beef animals left this province last year to be fed in Ontario and Alberta, to be slaughtered and packed, and employ workers in Alberta and Ontario and not Manitoba?

Has she, in view of the fact that her Minister is claiming his program solves all the problems, done that analysis to provide him advice so that he might bring forward a program to include the beef feedlot industry in the Province of Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, what really astounds me is that a member who can proclaim that the farmer wants the virtues of complete freedom, individuality 3647 I

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 and free enterprise, the moment the market starts to move against him, sings out and screams out for an immediate program from the government. It's a foolish contradiction, Mr. Speaker. What we are trying to put in place (Interjection) - We inherited this problem that had been left there by the inaction and the patchwork programs.

What my colleague has put in place is a long-term, sound program for ensuring that the full range of beef development occurs in the province, and I can assure the members opposite, as well, we are working together on the problems raised by retaining the changing scene in the packinghouse industry and doing our utmost to see (1), that there are beef and hogs available for those packinghouses; and (2), to ensure that we keep our share of that vital industry here in Manitoba. MR. D.

ORCHARD: The Minister of Economic Development is astounding us in her logic in a party that treats everyone equitably that they would have deliberately left out one segment of the beef industry. That's hardly equitable treatment by the New Democratic Party. Can the Minister of Economic Development indicate whether she can assure Manitobans that there will be no further packinghouse layoffs or shut-downs in the Province of Manitoba, since her government and her Minister of Agriculture has refused to assist the beef feedlot industry? HON. M. SMITH: You know, Mr.

Speaker, the concept of equity that is being voiced on the other side of the House is that you treat everyone precisely equally, assuming that they are all in identical economic circumstances. Mr. Speaker, people are not, and a concept of equity that we support on this side is to encourage people to stand on their own feet. It's only those people who, because of the economic system or because of misfortune, find themselves incapable of managing to stand on their own feet, that we believe in giving them programs to assist them to a position where they can be self-reliant. It astounds me, Mr.

Speaker, that the concept of equity on the other side is just to give out exactly equal amounts of assistance to everyone, regardless of what the problems underlying the difficulty are. With regard to the packing house industry there is more to that industry, as the members opposite well know, than sharing a supply of beef and hogs. There is a continental restructuring of that industry where the well-being of the Manitoban's share of the industry has to be studied with (Interjection) Mr. Speaker, it's an industry that requires a great deal of understanding. It's rapidly changing.

Our goal is to retain our fair market share, and we are doing what is within our resources, Mr. Speaker, to ensure that. To give a guarantee that we can't stop that kind of change completely, Mr. Speaker, that would be irresponsible and beyond, not only our means, but those of the members opposite. But we can assure you we are doing what is within our means to preserve all phases of the industry. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now that we realize the closing of Swifts was an intercontinental rationalization of the meat packing industry and not the fault of the Progressive Conservative Government when it happened, would the Minister of Economic Development give us the assurance, given the statements, the pronouncements by the Minister of Agriculture as to the grandeur and greatness of his Beef Income Stabilization Plan, that there will be no further layoffs in the meat packing industry in the Province of Manitoba? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I really marvel at the flipping back and forth of the thinking of the member opposite.

One moment he's saying, government keep out. Don't touch us. Don't interfere, while the profit is being made by the private sector. The minute there is some problem !hat comes about from the market or technological change or supply-demand shifts, then he's immediately saying, government step in and solve all the problems. Now, Mr. Speaker, neither extreme position makes sense. MR. B. RANSOM: Is your word worth anything? HON. 1111. SMITH: You know, Mr. Speaker, I c an't help but think that I am listening to a kindergarten class that says, you have to be black or white. Mr.

Speaker, there are many shades and colours between extremes. These kind of economic problems do not admit of easy simplistic solutions. We're doing what we can, working with both private and public sector to maintain the economic integrity here in Manitoba, and we absolutely reject any notion that you must go either to complete premarket on the one hand or complete government jumping-in on any and every problem on the other. White factory closure - implements MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. You might say it will be interesting research as to what the Premier said when he was in Opposition and what the Minister said just now, but my question is to the Minister. The closure of the White factory, or it went into receivership as we all know yesterday in Eastern Canada, will the Minister be doing some research with implement dealers that are involved with the White factory franchises here in Manitoba as to the effect of the employment or the unemployment that this closure in Ontario may cause? HON. M.

SMITH: I'd be happy to take that under advisement, Mr. Speaker. Co-op Implements - reports MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'd follow up with that question. Because of the obvious problems the implement business is in, because of the closure of White, is the Minister going to be in close touch with Co-op Implements in Manitoba and requesting them to give her annual reports - or very quickly - monthly reports as my colleague says, as to the position of that 3648

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 company in Manitoba at the present time because of the situation the implement business is in? HON. M. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, we do get regular reports from Co-op Implements and, as you know, the total implement industry is somewhat dependent on the vitality of the agriculture sector. Although the agriculture sector has done relatively well in Manitoba in past years, I think that everyone recognizes that they are having cash flow problems. They've not been in the market for heavy purchase of farm implements.

On the international scene, where there are potentially markets, many of the countries who require these implements are not in a financial position to make big purchases. Now as this industry develops over time, there is opportunity in the future, but it has to seek out what is an optimum level. I think what probably happened was that during the upswing there was a great expansion in capacity to develop this machinery that wasn't matched on the other side by ability of customers to purchase.

Now, we will do what we can within our jurisdiction to help even out some of those ups and downs, but it just seems patently obvious to me and I think to most of the members that we cannot control the broader scene. What we can do is understand it and attempt to develop a strong stategy to help our company survive, as many as possible survive, within that context. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, my further question is to the Minister.

Seeing that this is confession day, confessions that the previous government wasn't responsible for everything that went wrong, I would ask the Minister if she has had representation from Co-op Implements in Manitoba for more financing if the agricultural situation in Manitoba is such that this farm implement company is in trouble? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of any recent approach of that sort. I would hope that the restructuring that was done before went along with a strength in management capacity to develop strategies to deal both with upturn and downturn in the market.

I think one of the great difficulties with many companies is they lived with an expanding market for so long that they thought that was going to be an attractive life. Instead, there must be a skill to plan for up and down, and then an ability to move quickly depending on how things work out. Now if, Mr. Speaker, that type of thinking is considered unrealistic or deceitful by the members opposite, then I think they're in a.much worse condition than I had previously thought. Flyer Indu stries Limited MR. F. JOHNSTON: One more further question to the Minister of Economic Development, Mr.

Spea ker, because this is confession day and honesty day. Today, in the committee meeting of Flyer, the Minister indicated that this government would be interested in a joint venture with Flyer and some other international company. I would say, is that a change of policy from the First Minister who criticized us whenever we thought of it before? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether or not the member opposite arrived late or whether he is guilty of selective hearing.

What I said was that we were open to all the options for Flyer, continuing to operate it publicly, entering into joint venture or sale; that what we are willing to do is to consider the well being of the company, of the economy of Manitoba and to examine options as they come in that light. Now, Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite think that kind of open-ended problem solving and businesslike approach to the management of Flyer and the economy of Manitoba is somehow remiss or not well based, then I think they had better reflect.

Seriously, I think to be clear, where our economic approach differs from theirs is their assumption is, Mr. Speaker, that only the private sector can operate things in an efficient way. What we are saying is in some cases it makes more sense to go that route, in others it makes more sense to go joint venture, and in another it makes more sense to go public. What is important are the relevant factors relating to a particular sector or particular business. Government policy - joint ventures MR. F. JOHNSTON: One more 'urther question, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Minister if this is her policy or the Premier's, but would she familiarize herself with the statements and policies of the Premier when he was in Opposition regarding joint ventures between government companies and private industry, because there seems to be a very great difference at the present time and the people of Manitoba really have to know what their policy is? HON. 1111. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, I think what the members opposite fail to recognize is an open-ended approach to solving problems.

They are so used to thinking that there is a yes, no, or black-white that they cannot hear when someone says they're going to weigh the costs and benefits. What we want is a sounder economy in Manitoba, and we're prepared to use a whole range of approaches in order to achieve that. CPR - taxes MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERlll: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Urban Affairs concerning the free ride that the CPR has had in this province for the past 100 years.

He gave them a deadline of May 1st in which to respond and I would like to ask the Minister whether he has prepared legislation to be introduced this Session? ll/IR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm awaiting a further meeting with the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg and the Regional Vice President for the CPR, Mr. Pike. I'd be in a better position to make comment after that meeting takes place. 3649

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 Licensed Practical Nurses - morale MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Minister of Health. I would ask him whether he can confirm a statement by the Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses to the effect that if the association has been unsuccessful in meeting with the Minister to discuss the very serious problem affecting the morale of LPNs in Winnipeg and Brandon relative to the continuation of their jobs and their professional category on hospital nursing staffs? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I very categorically deny that this is the case. I might say that I met with the LPNs and other groups earlier in our stage, since we took over the government. They have been having discussions with Dr. Johnson and Manpower. They've requested a meeting with me, that's true. I had a meeting slated and it had to be cancelled while I was in the hospital. There is another meeting that is slated for next Monday. Now, the problem with Brandon, I was never informed by them directly.

I received a copy of a letter that they wrote Brandon and my honourable friend's question here in the House was actually the first time I heard anything about that. The letter, as my honourable friend will know the procedure, the copy of the letter came in automatically as it is the instruction to my staff. They were checking into that while my honourable friend asked the question. I thought it was important enough to make an official Ministerial Statement the day following or two days after. I did state at the time that I would organize a meeting and I did state the policy of the government and I stand by that.

I definitely deny the situation that they've been trying to get a meeting with me and weren't able to do it. MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister whether he is aware that, notwithstanding the statement that he made in this House on the subject subsequent to the original questions that I asked, that LPN s in Manitoba, particularly in Brandon and Winnipeg, are badly concerned, badly worried, and troubled at the present time because of situations that appear to be developing administratively with respect to nursing staffs in those two cities in particular, and that the morale of the LPN profession and category is suffering, notwithstanding the Minister's statement, and whether he does not think that a stronger commitment to the preservation of the category of LPN is called for at this time?

HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, Mr. Speaker, this is again discussed today only because of some of the writeups that appeared in the newspaper. If you go back to my statement of June 6th, in the conclusion this is what I stated and I quote directly from the statement, "It is the position of this government that LPNs will continue in a major role in the health care field.

I have asked the Manitoba Health Service Commission to review the role of the LPNs in health institutions and I will be meeting with the LPNs shortly to discuss this concern." Now, as I stated today there is a meeting for 12:00 on Monday next, in my office. I add again, going back to the statement, "This particular incident at Brandon is unfortunate in that it transpired, but the outcome may be positive. The Commission will work with the Board to further clarify any innuendo, conflicting statements, and misunderstandings.

The Brandon LPNs and their Association have indicated their concern is for the future, and this will be clarified by the process requested by the Brandon Board." Then they presented a statement to me. My honourable friend has a copy of it, because that's where they stated that they had not been successful to meet with me. The meeting in fact was arranged, it was tried to be arranged immediately before receiving this, and I'm going to meet with them. They requested this meeting to present their views and I don't think it would be right to comment too much any more before I have a chance to discuss it with them.

MR. L. SHERMAN: Well, Mr. Speaker , one final supplementary. In acknowledging the Minister's statement of June 6th, I refer him to the situation today, which is June 14th, where there are concerns still being expressed, reported in the media over the weekend, and still arriving in my office in the mail. Therefore, I suggest to him that his statement has not allayed the fears of people in the profession who feel that LPNs and nursing positions are being manipulated by administrations in Brandon and Winnipeg hospitals to gradually phase out that category.

I ask him whether he does not think a much stronger statement suggesting that this government will not tolerate reduction or decline overall in LPN nursing category in Manitoba is called for at this time. HON. L. DESJARDINS: This might be the way that my honourable friend would like to operate or would operate; that's his choice. I've stated just a week or so ago that I would want to meet them. I made a very strong statement and I'm certainly not going to panic before I meet with these people and discuss the situation with them and see. There's always two sides to a story also.

The Brandon people are telling us that this is not the case. Now it's possible that they are and we'll get to the bottom of it, but I'm not going to react to a statement because there was a statement in the Press. What would it serve? I think whatever policy has to be well thought out and we'd have to make sure that we can stand behind the policy. I made a statement. I will meet with them on Monday. It's not going to be the end of the world between now and Monday and they will have a statement and a strong statement. MACC buy downs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I've listened with a great 3650

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 deal of interest to the statement that he made in the House today with respect to MACC buy downs. What I've got from that statement that the farmers that are reasonably solvent can trade back and forth between FCC and MACC because they have a net worth. The purpose of this announcement is to say that the farmers that aren't that solvent can't switch their loans over, so these farmers are therefore obliged, to use the example in this statement, to pay a $10,500 bonus so they're in an equal position to the other farmers. Mr.

Speaker, would the Minister of Agriculture confirm that it's penalizing the poorer farmers to take advantage of this plan? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Don't you pay your debts? Do you get your debts free? That's ridiculous! SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, first of all, no, I do not agree that it is . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, no, I do not agree that it is penalizing a farmer and I'll give the honourable member an example of what options are available to the farmer.

In fact, if you take that $150,000 loan at say 15 percent - (Interjection) - Well, Mr. Speaker, I will give the honourable member an example of the $150,000 example, an actual loan of $150,850 at 17 percent over 30 years - the present payment is $25,877. 49 - Mr. Speaker, the annual payment on the reduction to 13 percent will be $20, 125.05, for an annual saving of over $5,000 .00 . The buy down cost is $10, 454.89. Over the term of the mortgage, Sir , there is a saving of $162, 118.41. There are three options, Mr.

Speaker, in which the farmer can choose, he can make the payment as a cash payment immediately; or he can make the payment with his next payment which would include at the year end; or he can finance that money on a three-year or five-year period. As he takes the longer period there will be a diminishing saving in that amount. But even if he takes that same payment over a five-year period, the net saving to that farmer over the 30 years is still $158,997.75, Sir. MR. H. CARROLL: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Agriculture, the farmer that's solvent doesn't have to take any of those three choices, does he? HON.

B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should remember that farmers opted for a program which only MACC and FCC were offering . It was long term stable borrowing, Mr. Speaker. None of the private financial institutions were offering those kinds of loans, Mr. Speaker, so that they were committed in terms of the borrowing for a long period of time.

As a result of 3651 that what has been happening is, there has been a trading of paper and it's been basically creating a workload that is really ineffective, because a year or two down the road many of those farmers would be coming back to MACC and saying, can we borrow again for 30 years now that we're through this period and we've got lower interest rates. We are offering it and making it a blanket offer to all the farmers who are in this situation, and we are hoping as well that the Farm Credit Corporation and the Federal Government do likewise. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On that point, could the Minister tell us definitively that the individual that has some equity does not have to put up money, and then can he tell us where the person who wants to buy down this program, where in fact he attains the money to do so? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should know that there will be a saving to farmers of $26 million. The far;T,&. has the option.

The farmer who has had a 30-year mortage has th'9 options that I have outlined, either an immediate payment which will result in a reduction in his annual payment immediately in the case that I've outlined, of over $5,000 in his annual payment, Sir, which will be a net reduction of $5,000 immediately in his annual payment even on the basis of a $10,000 cash payment, Sir.

What can be done if he does not wish to take it on an immediate payment or a first-year payment, he has the option of taking it on a three-year or five-year term which will reduce his benefits, but the benefits will still be very substantial, Sir. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Agriculture tell us why he's leading us astray here because indeed, as we understand it, there was a five year clause at which time the interest rates were reviewed automatically?

Why does he use in his example 30-year examples, and make the saving appear like it's a term over 30 years which was not available under the plan? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, he should ask his colleague, the member who was Minister of Agricultu re. Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should be aware that the change occurred when they were in office. There was no longer the review. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, there is no longer a review. Mr. Speaker, the terms that are in here are 30-year terms in mortgages that were taken out and changes that were made when they were in office, Sir.

Prince Rupert Grain Terminal - consortiums MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a different series of questions. It appears that a group of companies, the consortiums building the Prince Rupert grain terminal, are concerned about the future viability of the new terminal. I'm wondering if the Minister of Agriculture supports the I

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 consortium's request of Ag Canada that the tariff for terminal handling be increased to prairie farmers so that the return on investment to the Pools and to the Cargills are part of that, can be guaranteed at 16 percent. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I will take the specific question as notice. I can tell the honourable member that there were overtures made from Manitoba Pool Elevators to the province asking us whether we would not argue against or at least not be opposed to their request of their members for a levy to pay for their portion of the investment in the Prince Rupert terminal.

We have indicated to the Pool, that in terms of their investment, if they wish to put it in we would not actively oppose them, but it would have to be their members' decision that would make that. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, it's obvious that the government has reached a conclusion or reached some determination on this particular point.

I'm wondering if they then support a 20-percent return on investment for all grain companies - as indeed one Ted Turner of SaskPool says is essential for their business - if they support 20-percent returns on investment in grain handling and whether they would support it also in some other activities of grain handling, mainly by the railways. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker. that question in terms of the grain companies and their farm organizations will have to be decided.

I don't believe that farmers of those organizations - and it will depend on their discussions with the farmers - at least those organizations have the authority at the grassroots level to make that decision, as to whether or not they want their parent firm with that kind of return on investment; or they have the option, Sir, of lowering the elevator charges on the basis of cost of production or the basis of their actual cost and no return. They have that option, because it is a farmer-owned corporation. The Pools are farmer-owned.

They have that choice, either to have a good balanced statement or a very positive balance statement, or run it at cost as a true co-operative and lower the costs to their members. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, is the Minister then indicating that the government will not hold hearings for the $2 a tonne increase that's going to be levied on those of us that ship grain to Western Canada; that he will not hold hearings and this government will not spend $150,000 on advertising to tell us, as farmers, that we should not be spending this amount of money towards building a better system in the future, $2 a tonne which, Sir, is equivalent to 5 cents a bushel which is the same amount the Crow rate will increase over the next two years? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I know now that the Conservative Party has changed their position; that they are now standing foursquare with the railways, Mr. Speaker, that's what is evident from the honourable member. The honourable member in committee and the Conservative caucus in committee supported a firm position in opposition to the changes of the Federal Government. Now he says, let us support the contention that the railway should get a 20-percent return on investment, Sir. Mr. Speaker, there is one big difference.

The fact of the matter is, if the farmers who own their elevator company wish to go along with it, they will have the say. They do not have to go along with it. They can tell their executive, by vote, that they have two choices. They either want a large return on their investment and have a good balance sheet, or they can provide that service at cost, at no increased cost. It really depends on the producers themselves because they have control of that corporation and not as it is in the Crow rate where, Mr. Speaker, the funds will be leaving the Province of Manitoba and placing a great hardship on our farmers.

Crown land allocation - appeals MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthu r. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, the process of appealing a Crown land allocation is one where the Minister has to approve - or in my time as the Minister had to approve - that reallocation of Crown land. Is that still the case? Does the Minister of Agriculture have to approve the reallocation of land after an appeal process? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the process, in terms of signing the appeals, the verification of the appeals that are handled by the advisory committee have not changed. They're the same as they were in the past. MR. J.

DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture provide that document to this House and to the Opposition, so we are aware of the decisions made by the appeal board and why the decisions are made? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the decisions that are made by the appeal board are communicated to both applicants in terms of their decision. I will take that question as notice to find out whether or not there has been a practice of providing those decisions to the House.

But certainly those decisions are communicated to both parties who appeal by the advisory board, because as I understand it - or there may be more than two parties appealing an original allocation - and that decision is communicated to all parties and they have the opportunity of appearing before the appeal board. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, when the Minister is checking into that, would he be prepared to review the Crown land appeal hearings that took place in The Pas on April 20th to make sure that the decision of the Crown Land Appeal Board was made on fact that was presented to them from the farmers who were appealing, not on the person who was applying or appealing the Crown allocation, not on a political affiliation with the New Democratic Party and the NDP Board that was appointed by him? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the decisions that have been made by the Crown Lands Appeal Board are their 3652

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 decisions and they have been handled in that manner. Mr. Speaker. unless there is evidence that there is some decision-making and that evidence should be presented, I would want to investigate those allegations. Deer Lodge Hospital - unions MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Member for Fort Garry asked a question for which I indicated I would get a response. I have some information for him today; this is in regard to the unions at Deer Lodge, the current certified unions.

The question had to do with whether the members of the union were in fact paying union dues, or I believe that was the intent of the question. Members of three unions are still on checkoff at Deer Lodge. Those unions are the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the Professional Institute of Public Service of Canada and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. All union dues are being deducted on a regular checkoff basis and paid to these unions. There is an application before the Labour Board for certification and that is going to be heard during the week of July 26th of this year.

There are a couple of other unions who have also applied for certification of some of these workers, which the member is probably aware of, those two being the Operating Engineers and MONA. I assume that this information will suffice for the member. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honourable Minister for that information, but then that raises the question that I put to her at the time.

Since April 1st, the Public Service Alliance of Canada has not been certified to represent those workers at Deer Lodge Hospital - the provincial takeover took effect on that date - why would the hospital be collecting union dues and turning them over to an uncertified union? Why are those dues not being held in escrow or trust for proper application in the future? HON. M.B.

DOLIN: My understanding of the agreement at the time that the province took over Deer Lodge Hospital from the Federal Government was that the unions that had been certified would carry·on until new certification hearings were held and that they would, of course, have the right to apply for continuing certification. To not have a break in the agreement, all systems were go until certification would be heard before the Labour Board, which is in July.

This also allows the opportunity for other unions to request certification of certain numbers of the workers, if they choose to do so and as I've indicated, two have indicated that they do' wish some certification of some of the workers. But the unions that were there are continuing until such certification takes place. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, would you please call the second readings on Bills 89, 90 and 91, and following the introduction of those bills it will be my intention to move Supply: Jobs Fund in the House, and Legislation in Committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I'm just enquiring of the House Leader about the procedure that he has outlined, namely, Jobs Fund in here and Legislation outside. Legislation, of course, comes under the First Ministe r. I presume that the First Minister can't be in two places at one time.

It had been our assumption, I suppose, not understanding that the First Minister would attend to his responsibilties in here with respect to Legislation, which in the ordinary course of events shouldn't take too long and then cc.· tld move on to the Jobs Fund afterward. Is the House Leader telling us that the First Minister is not attending to his responsibilities for Legislation? HON. R. PENNER: The First Minister is always attending to all of his responsibilities and doing so very well. Last year - (Interjection) - Well, you needn't put that phony sting in it.

If you put in a phony sting, you'll get a phony response. Mr. Speaker, last year the practice was - and we'd understood this being the practise before - that basically questions pertaining to Estimates on Legislation were answered by one or other of the Ministers on the Board of Internal Economy . We are following last year's practice. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, is the First Minister the Minister responsible for Legislation or not? HON. R. PENNER: The government, Sir, will order its business as it sees fit within the rules and the precedents. I have answered the . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: . . . Leader of the Opposition. I have advised him, as I advised his House Leader earlier, that Legislation would be called in Committee as it was always planned that it would be called; and the Jobs Fund, here; and that there will be a Minister or Ministers in Legislation prepared to answer questi ons. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Speaker, we're well aware of the indifference of this House Leader to the traditions of the House or, indeed, to the traditions of the country.

I am saying to him, is it not the case that under The Executive Departments Act, or whatever the proper name is, is Legislation, as an item, not assigned to the First Minister? If it's assigned to some other Ministe r, fine. But if it's assigned to the First Minister I suggest, 3653

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 with respect, Sir, that he is the Minister who should be answering for it, unless of course he's away from the House, out of the House on other business. Nobody is trying to be glib or smart, except my honourable friend across the way, who little understands what the practices of this House have been and who would do well to keep his tongue to himself until he learns more about the House. MR. SPEAKER: On the introduction of bills for second reading ... HON. S. LYON: No, Mr. Speaker, we want to find out what the practice is going to be with respect to Supply. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: As Government House Leader, I call government business as the government caucus decides; and I have called government business. I have made it known to you, Sir, in the House. There is nothing more to be said. HON. S. LYON: We'll see about that. SE COND READING - GOVERNMENT BILLS Bill 89 - THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT HON. JERRY STORIE presented Bill 89,

An Act to amend The Landlord and Tenant Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My comments will be brief. Most of the amendments to this Act are of a housekeeping or administrative nature. The amendments to Subsection 103(4) and 103(5) are, I would suggest, the most substantive in nature. Subsection 103(4) currently provides the tenant with a general right of continued occupancy except in certain cases where the tenant is not in default of his or her obligations and had not intended to vacate.

The necessity to move can be expensive and socially disrupting. The amendment that's being presented here would require the payment or forgiveness of an amount equal to two months rent as reasonable compensation to the tenant who must give possession of the rental unit to the landlord. I should indicate, Mr. Speak er, that I have had representations from the Manitoba Landlords Association giving me some suggestions on amendments to this legislation and included in the exceptions where the tenant would be required to vacate are amendments that meet the requirements of the Manitoba Landlords' brief to myself.

The amendments suggested in Subsection 103(9) and 103(11) and to Subsections 121 and 122 bring back into the Act . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. Debate on Second Reading is debate on the bill, in principle, the honourable member should not refer to individual sections or clauses. The Honourable Minister. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will not refer to the specific sections. Generally, the provisions which are being suggested to be brought back are those which deal with the powers of the Rentalsman to arbitrate.

Those sections were deleted by amendments by members opposite at the time that the mediation arbitration provisions were dealing with rent increases were placed into the Act. The number of other amendments are merely to clarify certain sections that had previously dealt with the arbitration mediation powers previously provided. Basically, Mr. Speaker, the amendments are of a minor nature, except the one I mentioned concerning the right of tenants where they are required to vacate under certain sections of The Landlord and Tenant Act.

Therefore, I would recommend this bill to honourable members for their consideration and adoption. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill NO. 90 - THE CATTLE PRODUCERS ASSO CIATION ACT HON. B. URUSKI presented Bill No. 90,

An Act to amend The Cattle Producers Association Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. B. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to introduce for Second Reading Bill No. 90,

An Act to amend The Cattle Producers Association Act. The purpose of the amendments is to transform the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association into a voluntary organization which is financed only by those producers who wish to do so. Bill No. 90 is founded under the principle of freedom of choice, Mr. Speaker. This legislation supports the right of cattle producers to establish and maintain an association which meets their needs.

It supports the right of individual producers to decide whether or not to finance this association, and it supports the right of individual producers to decide whether or not to disclose to the association information pertaining to the production and marketing of his cattle. Mr. Speaker, I'm confident that those members who truly believe in the principle of freedom of choice will endorse the proposed amendments. Members will recall, Sir, when The Cattle Producers Association Act was passed in 1978, the New Democratic Party 3654

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 disagreed strongly with many of the provisions of the Act including the imposition of a compulsory checkoff on all beef producers marketing cattle in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, beef producers stated clearly in 1974, in 197 7, and more recently that they favour an association which is financed by voluntary contributions. We, on this of the House, respect their position on this issue. A central provision of the existing Cattle Producers Association Act is the compulsory checkoff.

Sections 7 and 10 of the present Act authorize the association to impose a compulsory fee on producers marketing cattle and to increase that fee from time to time by regulation. You will recall during the debate in 1978, Sir, the Conservatives insisted that the Act would establish a voluntary organization. They really attempted to create an illusion that the compulsory checkoff was not compulsory by repeating over and over again that it was a voluntary checkoff. Sir, by the endless repetition of a statement really does not make it fact. Now, what is the definition of voluntary, Sir?

Webster's Dictionary defines it as "proceeding from the will or from one's own choice or consent, or acting, or done, of one's own free will without valuable consideration or legal obligat ion." In contrast, compulsory means "mandatory or enforced . " The Manitoba Cattle Producers Association checkoff, as it now stands, is not made by the choice or consent of the cattle producer. Th checkoff is made mandatory by law and can be enforced by the courts. Even if a producer secures a refund, he is obligated by law to provide the association with the use of his checkoff monies for an entire year.

He has no choice in the matter. He is compelled to turn over his money to the association. At this point, Conservative logic takes some curious twists and turns. According to Conservative logic, the largely theoretical provision to obtain a refund turns a compulsory checkoff into a voluntary checkoff. However, Sir, it's not that simple.

The refund system set up by the MCPA has resulted in applications for refunds from basically two categories of producers, those who are strongly opposed to the Association in principle and will go to considerable effort to ensure they do not fund the Association; and those larger producers who are indifferent to the Association but who can secure substantial financial benefit by recovering the checkoff deduction. Now let's look at the procedure for refunds that supposedly turns a compulsory checkoff into a voluntary checkoff.

One might expect that you could telephone or write to the Association, give your name and address and producer number and your money would be sent to you. This was, in fact, the way that the proponents of the Association indicated refunds would be handled when the Act was passed in 1978, but really that's not the way it is. First, you have to send a registered letter to the Association at its head office in Winnipeg applying for a refund. This letter has to be sent annually before June 30th of each year. If you miss the deadline, you're out of luck.

You cannot get a refund of fees paid in June if you do not get around to applying until July. When the Association receives the producer's letter, it does not issue a refund . It mails out a form to the producer. The producer not only has to complete the form, but he has to make photocopies of all his sales receipts that show where the deduction . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: Your act isn't very clean on your Beef Commission payouts. I've got one for you there too. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member will have his opportunity.

The producer not only has to complete the form, he has to make photocopies of all his sales receipts that show where the deduction for the MCPA was made and send them in with the form . Now, Mr . Speaker, not every producer has a photocopier on his home, so he's got to find some place to get his copying done. He will then get his refund, provided of course that he gets the form in the mail by July 15th . If he misses the July 15th deadline, too bad. After all, 15 days is plenty of time to exercise his free will. This procedure, Sir, just applies to the administration checkoff.

That was 25 cents per head, but was increased to 50 cents per head on January 1, 1983. Last July, on July 1, 1982, the Association imposed, by regulation, another check off deduction, a promotion checkoff of 50 cents per head. Now if you want to recover this deduction, vou must write a second letter to the Association applying for a refund. Again the Association will mail you a form. The producer needs a second copy of his sales receipts showing where the promotion deduction was made and this must be mailed back to the Association, together with the completed form.

What happens, Sir, if a father is helping his son get started in farming? The son is still living at home but has a few cattle and sells some in his own name. Can they request two refund forms? No, Sir, they can't. The son must write his own letter and request his own form. The Association will provide forms one at a time on individual written requests only. The son must make his own application to request and receive a form. Sir, some Conservatives, no doubt, will point to the fact that only 46 producers requested a refund of fees for the 1981-82 fiscal year.

The fact that such a small number of producers received their refund may be touted by them as evidence of widespread support for the Association. However, when you consider the complicated refund procedure I have just outlined and take into account the average number of cattle marketed by most producers, you can readily understand the real nature of the MCPA checkoff. It is in fact, Sir, a nuisance tax imposed on the majority of producers. According to the 1981 census, Sir, there were 10,840 farmers who had less than 77 head of cattle on their farms.

It's estimated that of these, 10,840 farmers marketed approximately 96,700 head in '81. That works out to an average of nine head per producer. At 25 cents per head, they've had an average of $2. 25 each deducted from their cattle sales. For the amount of money involved and the hassle to get it back, only the producers who adamantly oppose the Association will go to the trouble of obtaining a refund; and this was when the checkoff was only 25 cents a head. When it was increased to $1 per head, they required two applications to get it back just in case a few more small producers would find the trouble worthwhile.

In fact, Sir, a simple calculation will show who does get the refunds. The 46 producers who received refunds 3655 I

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 for 1981-82 fiscal year of the Association were refunded $9,569, or an average of $208 each. To obtain a $208 refund, each producer would have had to market an average of 832 cattle, Mr. Speaker. In 1980-81, 41 producers marketed 828 cattle each and received refunds of $207.00. Mr. Speaker, this is a far cry from the nine head each marketed by the 10,840 smallest producers. What about the claim, Sir, that the majority of producers are in favour of compulsory checkoff to finance MCPA?

I remind members that the referendum that was held in 1974 on a similar proposal - (Interjection) - it was a similar proposal, a checkoff, Sir, in 1974. I remind members that the referendum was held then and it was rejected by 57 percent of those voting. It should be noted that only 5,747 producers voted in the referendum. You know, one can only speculate, Sir, how large the no vote would have been if all the small producers had been registered for the vote.

I'm sure it would have been larger, Sir, because those campaigning in support of the proposal certainly would have had all their supporters signed up for the vote. When the Member for Arthur was introducing The Cattle Producers Association Act in '78 he claimed, Sir, that he had approximately 4,000 letters from producers in support of the proposed Act. Sir, what did he have? He had 4,000 letters that had been solicited from the so-called Freedom Campaign in 1977 relating to the referendum on the Beef Marketing Board, Sir. Which letter was it, Mr. Speaker?

Here's the letter that he had, a petition for an alternative to a Beef Marketing Board. Mr. Speak er, that's the kind of nonsense that he perpetrated on this Legislature. In that form, Sir, what was in that form? No. 3, "A cattle producer organization to be funded by a voluntary checkoff . . . " and voluntary checkoff underlined, Sir, " ... and run by elected directors to do the following without government regulation." That's what was in the letter, Mr. Speaker.

Only Conservative logic, Sir, can turn such a letter calling for a voluntary checkoff without government regulation into support for a compulsory checkoff by government regulation, Sir, that's the only logic one can deduce from that. But, Mr. Speak er, many Conservatives will go on and say, marketing boards have been established without a vote and have compulsory levy powers, so why can't the MCPA? Or will they say, what about unions? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Arthur on a point of order. MR. J. DOWNEY: Well, Mr.

Speak er, I wonder if the Minister would table that letter that he referred to, so that we could all see . . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'll be glad to table it at the finishing of my remarks, so that a copy can be made for the honourable member. He'll know what he's talking about. That's the letter that he quoted that he said he had 4,000 copies in support of his legislation, which was nonsense. We asked him to table, Sir, those 4,000 letters. Do you think he ever did? We had to ask the department to see what was on file, Sir.

That's what was found, there were no letters. It was phony, Sir, it was totally phony. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Virden on a point of order. MR. H. GRAHAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think our Rules are very clear that if a member quotes from a letter in this House, he must table it now, and I would ask the Minister to table that letter now, Mr. Speaker. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to use the letter and I'll be pleased to table it for the honourable members, they can have a copy of it. Mr.

Speaker, the honourable members can have the copy of the letter, I have no difficulty. He had 4,000 of them that he wasn't prepared to table in this House, Sir. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs to the same point. HON. A. ADAM: On a point of order, because I object to the Member for Arthur requesting that that letter be tabled, because he had 4,000 of those letters on his desk while he was sitting right in this chair, I believe, this seat. I requested that those letters be tabled and he refused to do it, Mr. Speaker.

I find it very odd that he would come in here now and ask that they be tabled. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur to the same point. MR. J. DOWNEY: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to thank the Member for Ste. Rose, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, for confirming the fact that I had 4,000 of those letters, something the Minister of Agriculture just said that I didn't have. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I'm satisfied that the Honourable Minister of Agriculture will indeed table the letter referred to. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member should be aware, and as I've indicated that it was not in support of his legislation, it was in support of a voluntary checkoff, which they made compulsory , Sir. But, Mr. Speaker, as I said, Conservatives will say marketing boards have been established without a vote and they have compulsory fees; I know the Honourable Member for Morris will appreciate the comments. And what about unions? What about union deductions? Mr.

Speaker, before I answer those questions I'd like to observe that many people who ask these questions actually oppose the establishment of marketing boards and unions, but let's deal with the issue at hand. How does a union attain the right to collect union dues? Was the United Food and Commercial Workers Union legislated into existence to bargain with the meat 3656

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 packers in Canada, Sir? Of course not, they weren't. A group of employees has to start a union of their own. Nobody has to participate or contribute. But, Sir, before they can act, they must get a majority voting for them and to be certified by the Manitoba Labour Board. They then have to bargain with the employer to get a collective agreement, which can include a provision for the deduction of union dues from the wages paid and the remission of the money to the union.

Even when a contract is in place, the employees can form a new union, Sir, they can form a new union and by majority vote get the first union decertified. Then the new union is certified in its place. That's what can happen to unions, Sir. Unions are permitted, Sir, by legislation, but any further comparison between unions and MCPA is like comparing clearly apples and oranges, Sir. What about the comparison of marketing boards and the MCPA? Sir, I should point out that a number of boards, in contrast to the MCPA, have been established with the consent of the majority of producers.

For example, you know, the Turkey Board, the Chicken Board, Egg Producers Board, but some Conservatives however note the exceptions. They cite, for example, the establishment of the Hog Producers Marketing Board, which was not subject to a producer vote. The comparison between the formation of the Hog Board and the MCPA, Sir, is highly questionable for a number of reasons: 1) The establishment of the Hog Board did not result in the initiation of a compulsory levy.

The compulsory levy had already been put into place by a commission instituted by the Conservatives in the early 19 60's. 2) There is every reason to believe that a substantial majority of hog producers favoured the establishment of a board. A substantial majority of producers marketing 60 percent of Manitobas hogs were already selling through the teletype system.

So when a marketing board was put into place, nothing changed for them except for the fact a government-appointed commission was replaced by a producer-elected board. 3) The formation of the board both enhanced the economic power of producers and allowed for democratization of decision-making with respect to the marketing of hogs. Members should be aware, Sir, that the MCPA's economic powers are almost nonexistent, because the association is precluded by law from selling or processing cattle.

So the Hog Board and the MCP A are two completely different organizations with completely different objectives and with . completely different histories. Furthermore, on the subject of contrast between boards and the MCPA, one should note that there is a provision in the regulations for marketing boards whereby producers can seek to have a plan revoked and a board wound up. All it takes is a petition signed by 10 percent of the registered producers to set the process in motion.

By contrast, Sir, the Cattle Producers Association Act has no provision which would allow dissatisfied producers to find out whether or not producers support the association. There's also, Sir, a fundamental difference between the type of activities engaged in by unions and marketing boards on behalf of their members and the activities of the MCP A on behalf of cattle producers. Marketing boards and unions are formed to give power 3657 to their members to advance their economic interests.

It has been proven time and time again that individual farmers and individual workers often cannot get a fair deal from large processors or employers. And if participation in marketing plans or unions is not universal, they break down as the processors and the employers follow in what could be known as a divide and conquer policy. The MCP A objectives are as different from the objectives of marketing boards as the day is from night. In fact, Sir, as I have stated the MCPA is prevented by the Act from exercising economic power on behalf of cattle producers, an obvious denial of freedom of choice, Sir.

The MCPA's objectives are really to promote the industry, sponsor research, encourage education. In short, Sir, it is a lobby group on behalf of cattle producers. Sir, these are !audible objectives, nothing wrong with them, but they certainly are no different than those supported by other organizations in Mantoba. These are voluntary organizations, Sir, funded by voluntary contributions, not a compulsory checkoff under a special Act of this legislature. HON. S. LYON: We'll remember this speech when we come to the election . . . HON. B.

URUSKI: Sir, it is interesting to note the experience of another producer group that is funded by a voluntary checkoff. - (Interjection) - The Honourable Member for Virden says, "Such as." The Manitoba Milk Producers Co-op Incorporated is financed by contributions, which are strictly voluntary. In order to fund the Co-op every member has signed a form authorizing a deduction from the proceeds of the sale of this milk. MR. H. GRAHAM: Is it voluntary? HON. B.

URUSKI: Sir, the wording on the authorization - and I have a copy here - and for the honourable members who wanted a copy of the previous letter, here are some copies, Sir. I have - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, no they don't have to do it yearly, but they were forced to do that. MR. H. GRAHAM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Virden on a point of order. MR. H. GRAHAM: On a point of order. I believe that the Minister has said he is tabling a copy.

He is supposed to table the original, and I would request him to table the original and not a copy of a letter he was quoting from. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, if he wants the highlighted one, I will give him the highlighted one; it's the same copy as I have. Mr. Speaker, it would take a Conservative to come up with an idea like that, Sir. Mr. Speaker, the wording on the authorization form - and I will table this one as well - I hereby authorize

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 the Manitoba Milk Producers Marketing Board to deduct and remit to the Manitoba Milk Producers Co op Incorporated, for my account, the sum of 0.20 percent of my gross milk proceeds each month. This authorization to be in effect until further notice in writing, Sir. Those are the forms that are used by the Milk Producers Co-operative. Then, Sir, there is a space for the date, producer's address and a signature and a witness's signature to the consent form. By hard work, Sir, and commitment and service to its members, the Co-op has developed a membership of several 100 producers.

This achievement is all the more commendable in view of the number of extraneous obstacles that the Co-op has had to overcome. I cite this example to illustrate that a producer or association funded by voluntary contributions can be successful provided that it is responsive to the needs of its members. In summing up, Sir, I want to reiterate and to emphasize that the present government supports the right of producers to establish and operate organizations or associations that meet their needs. We support the right of cattle producers to maintain an association, financed by voluntary contributions.

Producers however, who do not wish to fund the Association should not be forced to do so. Accordingly, Sir, the present bill provides for the continuation of the MCPA, but it emphasizes that the Assocation will be operated as a voluntary organization. The Association will be able to, through its by-laws, register producers, impose fees on producers who wish to contribute to the Association, collect these fees, provide for the operation of a board of directors and so on. Furthermore, the Association will no longer be precluded from exercising its economic power through the sale, marketing or processing of cattle.

In brief, Sir, the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association will be able to operate like any other voluntary organization. Sir, I am confident that if effective service is provided to its members the Association will have no difficulty in financing its operation, unlike the honourable members opposite. As I have stated, Sir, Bill 90 is piece of legislation which supports the principles of freedom of choice. I don't know if my honourable members will recognize that My view is that it is time to remove the heavy hand of government from the backs of cattle producers, Sir. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. B.

URUSKI: Sir, it is time that we allow individual producers to exercise their freedom in deciding whether or not to support and finance the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I've listened with great interest, almost with laughable interest, to the remarks of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, because he ends up with a very laudable and worthwhile statement. He said these are the principles.

I think that it's important that when you introduce any bill for Second Reading, you should deal with principles. What I'm going to talk about today, Mr. Speaker, is purely my own viewpoint. These are my own personal views. They may not be the views of other members of this side, because we haven't had an opportunity to caucus this bill yet, but I can tell the Honourable Minister that the principles that apply in the cattle producing business in Manitoba are far more honourable than the Minister. I think that is something that is, in my opinion, vital to this whole thing. Mr.

Speaker, I recall many years ago hearing reports of a speech made by a First Minister in this province who was speaking in the Village of Angusville during an election campaign when he issued some pretty serious statements to the people of Manitoba. When he said - and I'm going to paraphrase the words because I haven't got them in front of me - any community in this province that elects a malicious, vicious or vindictive MLA cannot expect too much support from him. That was a former Premier of this province in 1973 speaking in Angusville.

Listening to the words of the Minister of Agriculture today, I couldn't help but wonder if the then Premier was referring to the present Minister of Agriculture, because everything that he has said to date in this bill indicates to me a malicious act on his part. It's vicious because it does not subscribe to his philosophy; and he has given every indication that this is a vindictive act on his part to get even with those people that refused to bow to his will in previous years. Mr.

Speaker, I say that because I believe it I have watched this Minister act in the last two years, and I have seen the type of people that he has surrounded himself with. Certainly his actions so far have given me no indication whatsoever that this is nothing more than a malicious, vicious and vindictive act on his part to the cattle industry in this province. I say that, Mr.

Speaker, because it was only half-an hour ago that he was talking about a private deal that he had made with Manitoba Pool that he would not interfere if they would have a vote on a $2 checkoff, and if the majority ruled it would apply to the whole works. Now he's turning around. If this is the man who believes in principle, if he believes in any principle at all, if he would allow that to happen in Manitoba Pool and then refuses to allow it to happen with the cattle producers in the Province of Manitoba, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the principle is far less than the interest. So, Mr.

Speaker, I wanted to make these few remarks right now, because I believe that this Minister has done nothing to assist the agricultural community, has done nothing to build his credibility in the agricultural communi ty, has tried desperately to destroy the cattle industry in this province and said, if you don't subscribe to my policy, I will get you. That is the approach that he is taking. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't think that it's an attitude that is completely foreign to this government. I think it is an attitude that we have seen evidence of in this House.

We saw it with the Government House Leader who said that you will do as I say. It doesn't matter what the principle is, you will do as I say. So it is an attitude that is becoming increasingly more prevalent in this government. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Manitoba will become more and more aware of it, that this is a dictorial government, that this 3658

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 is a vicious and vindictive government. On top of it, we have seen the actions of the First Minister; it is also an incompetent governme nt. So, Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the actions of the Minister of Agriculture today in bringing forward this piece of legislation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Roblin-Russell, that debate be adjourned . MOTION presented and carried. BILL 91 - THE REAL ESTATE BROKERS ACT HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK presented Bill No. 91,

An Act to amend The Real Estate Brokers Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill is designed to provide, through changes in bonding provisions of the Act, better protection to the public and a reduced administrative burden to both the industry and the Securities Commission. The Act currently requires that salesmen, authorized officials and brokers be bonded. The amendment would provide only for a broker's bond.

The requirement that salesmen and authorized officials of real estate brokers file surety bonds has proven over the years to be almost entirely redundant. This is the case because, where bond forfeiture has been called for, the practice almost invariably has been to recoup losses from the broker's bond, which is larger than that of a salesman. At the same time it has happened that a broker's bond, which is currently about $1 0,000, has been inadequate to cover all losses of the publ ic.

By eliminating the bonding of salesmen and authorized agents, and by increasing the broker's bond, it is believed that we can improve the protection to the public and reduce an administrative burden. I therefore recommend this bill to the honourable members for their consideration and adoption. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister would entertain a questi on. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes. MR. A. DRIEDGER: The salesman does not have to be bonded any more and the broker is going to bonded.

Is the broker going to be responsible for the actions of the salesman in this case? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: That is my understanding. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Assiniboia, that debate be adjourn ed. MOTION presented and carried. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, just an announceme nt. I want to announce a meeting of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations for next Tuesday, June 21, 19 83, to consider bills referred. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to move that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, seconded by the Minister of Finance. MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Jobs Fund; and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Legislat ion. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - LEGISLATION MR. CHAIRMAN, C.

Santos: The committee will please come to order. There will be no opening statement from the Minister responsible. Would the Leader of the Opposition want to make an opening statement? HON. S. LYON: Who is the Minister responsible, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the Commissioners on the Board of Internal Economy are the Minister of Health and myself. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, under

Section 5 and

Section 8 of The Executive Government Organization Act, Orders-in-Council are regularly passed assigning responsibility for different legislative votes contained on Estimates of Supply for each matter. We're now dealing with Items Appropriation No. 1 through to 7, I guess it is. MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now dealing with Item No. 4.(a)( 1) , 4. (a)(2) and 4. (a)(3) - Other Assembly Expenditures. The Leader of the Official Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Who is the Minister responsible under The Executive Government Organization Act for those expenditures? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, certainly the Board of Internal Economy Commissioners are not involved 3659

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 directly or have been appointed to deal with the Auditor's and Ombudsman's and Other Assembly Expendit ures sections, and I'm not certain whether the Premier has designated a particular Minist er for those. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think that we should find out to see if we're properly constituted. If there is another Minist er responsible, then the courtesy, custom and tradition is that the government would ask that there be a substitute because the responsible Minister is not available, or whatever. We don't just take whoever walks by the door.

The Executive Government Organization Act makes provision, usually. I don't know what provision this government has made for its own affairs. God knows they've made very lit tle provision for the public affairs of the province. What I'm trying to find out is, who under The Executive Government Organization Act is responsible for these votes that we are being asked to pass today? There has got to be a Mini ster responsible, presumably. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, it's my understanding that over the last number of years that there has been no Minister specifically designated to handle those particular Estimates, it's been handled by the Commissioners of the Board of Internal Economy when the Premier has not been available. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm just going on my recollection, which of course can always be faulty, but it's been my understanding since I've been around here that the Premier has always had responsibility for this item. If the Premier is otherwise engaged, the Deputy Premier or somebody designated by him takes it over.

It's no great problem, but let's find out who's responsible and let's not just assume that some House Leader, who is ill-informed about how Parliament works, can make a unilateral judgment and get one of his colleagues to wander in here and look after the responsibilities for which he may have no legal authori ty. That's the whole point of the exercise. Who has the legal authority? Who is answerable to this committee under The Executive Government Organization Act? Now the Clerk of the Executive Council or the Legislative Council should be able to answer that very quickly. I don't expect Mr.

Bryans to have that info at his fingertips, although he may. MR. CHAIRMAN: The way the Chair understands it, the Mini ster of Government Services has been designated to sit in these Estimates by the Premi er. I don't know if he takes responsibility for all the items or only the items about the Legislative Assembly expenditures. HON. S. LYON: That's getting closer to the point then, Mr. Chairman. If, by that designation, we can work on the assumption that the Premier is responsible for these votes and that he has designated the Minister of Government Services to look after it, that's fine.

All I am asking is: Who is the Mi nist er responsible? Obviou sly, it isn't the Minister of Government Services. If the First Minis ter, for reasons of his own, doesn't want to come before the commi ttee, fine . He's designating somebody else, fine, but let's make sure that the record is clear. We are operating a Parliament, not a unilateral bucket shop run by the Attorney General. MR. CHAIRMAN: It would seem then that the Premier had the respo nsibility and has delegated that responsibility in the meantime to the Mini ster of Government Services. HON. S. LYON: I'm asking now, is that the case? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Certainly the Premi er, in appointing myself and the Minister of Health to the Board of Internal Economy , has given us the authority and the respons ibiity to deal with the Estimates dealing with the Legislative Assembly and at the same time has asked us to deal with the other Estimates that are included in that

section under Legislation. HON. S. LYON: I won't worry the point anymore. It's just that, because of the now ordering of the business of the House by the House Leader, this situation need not come about. The First Minister ends up in the dilemma of having Jobs Fund and Legislation on at the same time. A suggestion was made by our House Leader that one of the items could have been on this afternoon and the other on this evening. That kind of common sense apparently didn't commend itself to the arrogance of the Attorney-General.

Let the record be clear that we're going to proceed, we're willing to proceed with the Estimates on the understanding that these are the statutory responsibility of the First Minis ter, who has in turn designated the Mi nister of Government Services. We are not proceeding and we would not treat with these Estimates on the unilateral decision of the House Leader, who doesn't know how this House operates yet. Now as long as that understanding is clear, fine, we'll go ahead. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a)(1) ... HON. S. LYON: Is it or isn't it clear, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minis ter of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, if I may, I don't think it is proper to fault the House Leader. I think maybe there might have been lack of communic ation. I think it's obvious that this was at the request of the First Mini ster. I think it's obvious that the First Minis ter is responsible for Legislation, and I don't think that there is any sinister motive in going ahead in this procedure. I think it was to try to accommodate the members of the House and try to advance the work of the committee.

There is no doubt that the Minis ter responsible is the First Mini ster, but I recall in my years in Opposition that accommodation of this kind has been done. I remember Mr. McGill on a couple of occasions conducting in that way. Right now, if it's ... HON. S. LYON: When the First Minister was out of the province or elsewhere. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, all right. I would have to admit that maybe there could have been better 3660

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 communication, but having said that I would hope that we can deal with the committee. I don't think this was something that was dreamed up by the Attorney General or the House Leader, it's something that was decided at the request of the First Minister. My understanding of it, I was given the information that, yes. what the Leader of the Opposition is saying was a suggestion, but as an alternative I was never made aware that they would follow this, what we're following now, reluctantly .

I think it was presented to the First Minister - and I was sitting near him - that we had a choice or something after discussion with the Opposition. If there are some questions we can't answer, we'll take them as notice and try to get the answer for the Opposition. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Just to add to that, Mr. Chairman. It was a similar practice followed last year with the Minister of Agriculture, who was a member of the Board of Internal Economy , and who answered for the Estimates for the government for all of these sections as well.

That was the practice that was established last year and the House Leader was simpl y following that practice this year. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: One year's practice by an ill-informed House Leader does not constitute a precedent.

I'm satisfied from what has been said by the Chairman, by the Minister of Health, that the First Minister is responsible under The Executive Government Organization Act before these Estimates; that he is not in the Estimates because he's chosen to be in the Jobs Fund at the same time; or the House Leader has managed to confuse affairs again and get him in there when he should be able to be here; that he has designated the Minister of Government Services to answer on his behalf and we're prepared to proceed on that basis.

It's not a very good way to run a peanut stand, but that's what we're accustomed to, so let's go. MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's go and proceed, so we can facilitate the work of the committee. 4. (a)(1), we are talking about Other Assembly Expenditures, Leader of the Official Opposjtion Party pass; 4.(aX2)-pass; 4.(aX3) - (Interjection) - that will be Other Assembly Expenditures, Leader of the Official Opposition Party, Other Expenditures-pass; 4.(b) pass; 4.(c)-pass; 4.(d). The Member for Virden. MR. H. VIRDEN: Mr. Chairman, under Other Expenditures, I see a rather significant amount of an increase here this year.

Could we have a breakdown on what those expenses are? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Excuse me, I was just discussing with staff. Did you ask for a breakdown on the increase, Mr. Chairman? MR. H. GRAHAM: No, on what the expenditures are - $266,400. 00. MR. CHAIRMAN: The breakdown, $266,400. 00. MR. H. GRAHAM: The others are all statutory? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, it includes, Mr.

Chairman, a number of small items that would add up to the total amount: fringe benefits and other costs of professional fees; other fees - membership fees; real estate rentals; office furniture and equipment; printing and stationary supplies; xeroxing; telephone and postage; furnishings and furniture; computer usage; automobiles; mileage; advertising; publications; travel, and so on; and conferences, of course, which is the major one this year because of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference that is being hosted by Manitoba this year. MR. H.

GRAHAM: On the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, how much money is there allocated to that? HON. J. PLOHMAN: i.'r. Chairman, $65,000 has been budgeted for that this year. MR. H. GRAHAM: Was there any money budgeted for that in last year's Estimates? HON. J. PLOHM AN: Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that last year there was a total of $15,000 budgeted for that conference, for advanced planning. MR. H. GRAHAM: So there's a total of $80,000 for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference. Is that correct? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Yes, that would be the money available over the two-year period for the expenses for hosting that conference. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, does the Minister consider that to be a sufficient amount to cover the cost of hosting that conference? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, certainly there's been a tradition to spend rather large amounts of money in the past years - an increasing amount - on that particular conference, a very important and major conference.

However, the Planning Committee this year has been able, it is my understanding, to work quite comfortably within these guidelines by utilizing some innovative ways of accommodating people in travelling to and from the airports, and so on; co-operation from departments, and so on; and also, by spending less emphasis on excursions to any great distance outside the city. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I know what other conferences have cost in other years, and I believe if we look back, you'll see that over the last four or five years, the various provinces that have hosted this, have spent well in excess of $100,000, in some cases over $200,000. 00. I was just wondering if Manitoba was going to be hosting it in the same degree that other provinces are now accustomed to, or are we going to 3661

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 be appearing to be a rather severely restrained convention? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, as a member of the committee that discussed that, I guess that it is obvious that we're going through a period where we have to look at restraints. That's done in many of the provinces. There was a province, I guess, of Nova Scotia which was supposed to hold the meeting of Ministers that I was supposed to attend and then they cancelled that because they couldn't because of the cost. I think it is a responsibility to show an example.

There is no doubt that it won't be as elaborate as it has been, but I think that there is a movement in most of the provinces, if not all the provinces, in cutting down. The meetings that I've travelled to the last two years or so I've certainly noticed that and, as I said, there are a couple of provinces that have cancelled meetings because they felt they couldn't afford it. We're cutting down on travelling in my department and most of the departments, and I think it's a sign of the times. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I just wanted to add to that.

I think one of the important elements of the conference this year is the fact that Folklorama is taking place in Winnipeg at the same time and gives an opportunity tor visiting delegates to take in a great deal of information on our culture and what Manitoba is all about, certainly through the visitations at Folklorama. So that is one aspect of it that has contributed to a lower cost involvement. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairm an. Earlier the Minister had indicated that there was some involvement from various departments of governme nt.

Could we have an indication of how much participation to this important conference will by supplied from other departments of government? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: Speaking from the aspect of the Department of Government Services, and I think that would be the main department involved in terms of travel arrangements, in terms of supplying vehicles and drivers to assist people, delegates who are arriving in Winnipeg from the airport, and also in certain travel arrangements to get from one point to another during the course of the conference, we are assisting and co operating through Government Services with that - we will be, I should say. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d) - the Honourable Member for Virden. MR. H.

GRAHAM: Could the Minister put a dollar figure on the amount that his particular department will be contributing or a rough estimate? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, I'm not able to do that at this time. It's a matter of making vehicles available when they're needed . Certainly the vehicles are there at any rate and could be utilized for that purpose, so it's not like we're incurring greater costs to have those vehicles available. MR. H. GRAHAM: Will the province be hosting a dinner at that conference? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe we are.

However, I'm not involved on the organizing committee and I believe that the province is hosting a dinner, but I'm not certain of that. I could certainly get that information out from the minutes of some of the meetings that have been held. MR. H. GRAHAM: Would the funding for that come under the Executive Council under the Premier's Office, or what area would that come from? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I would have to get that information for the honourable member. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(d)-pass; 4.(

e) Hansard-pass; 4.(e)(1)-pass; 4.(e)(2)-p ass; 4.(f)-pass. Resolution No. 1: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,386, 100 for Legislation for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1984. The Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, just before we leave that item, I have a question with respect to statutory allowances. I can ask it either under that item, 2.7 million at the end, or I can ask it here. Actually, if I ask it now, perhaps Mr. Bryans or one of the staff can get the information. Pursuant to

Section 64, Subsection 2, the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is entitled to an indemnity of $50 tor each day he attends at his office when the House is not in Session. I wonder if we could have a breakdown as to how many claims the Speaker has made for those per diems since the Speaker took office. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't have the information for as long as he's been in office. Was that the question? Or just tor the last year? HON. S. LYON: Last year would be a good starting place. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I believe it was in the neighbourhood of 140 days. It would be $7,000, approximately. HON. S.

LYON: That would be for what period, Mr. Chairman? HON. J. PLOHMAN: The fiscal year, 1982-83. HON. S. LYON: So from April 1st, 1982 until March 31st, 1983, per diems were paid for 140 days. Can we have some indication? I know my recollection is that the House was sitting for at least four months of that period. By quick arithmetic, it would indicate that the Speaker must have made application for a per diem 3662

Tuesday , 14 June, 1983 payment for practically every other working day of the year, whether he was in the office or not. Is that the case? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I certainly wouldn't agree with the premise that the Speaker was making claims when he wasn't in the office. I would say that if we had a Session of approximately 100 days and his claim for 140 days, that would leave about 125 days of the year that were not covered. Of course, that would have to include holidays and weekends and so on.

So the honourable members can draw their own conclusions as to whether he claimed every possible day that he was able to, when in office - I really cannot speculate on that. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman, again in a ballpark way, we presume that the Speaker would not be claiming for Saturdays, Sundays or holidays, and in an ordinary fiscal year there would be a minimum of 52 weeks, there would be a minimum of 104 days taken up by Saturdays and Sundays, to say nothing of holidays, which would be on top of that; so that would account for about 120-odd days there.

That being the case, it would appear that the Speaker claimed for practically every working day of per diem allowance, practically every working day of the working week, for those weeks when the House was not in Session. Would that be an accurate assumption? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: My understanding, of course, is that he would claim for the days that he's in working, and it could involve weekends and certain times, as well, and I think the Honourable Member for Virden would be aware of perhaps sometimes that he would have had experience in that regard, and also the Honourable Member for Concordia, who's had the experience, as well, and would know that very often there are official functions that the Speaker would be involved with on weekends, as well. So I don't know that it would be accurate to include, or to take off all weekends on that.

However, as I said, I cannot speculate on which days the Speaker - I don't go with the Speaker to work every day and I'm certainly not aware of his general routine - I understand that he claims the $50 per diem every day that he comes into work, in his duties as Speaker, between ... HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman, we dun't want to deal with guesses or anything of that nature either.

Could we have produced before the Committee the claims made by the Speaker for per diem allowances, so that we'll all know what we're talking about and we'll be able to make a judgment then on whether the figure is within the voted - well, it's not the voted estimate - the statutory estimate that is provided, as I see it, the Speaker's per diem allowance is $5,000.00.

You tell us that in the last fiscal year he received $7,000, so obviously he received $2,000 more than was anticipated in the statutory amount, which would appear to be unusual, because recalling the terms of Speaker from the Member for Virden, the Member for Concordia - I don't think there was ever an excess amount claimed by previous speakers under this

Section 64(2) - and I'm not claiming that the present Speaker has been excessive - except that the figures would seem to indicate that the amount of $7,000 is certainly beyond that contemplated in the statutory appropriation under this item. Can we then, Mr. Chairman, just make a quick addition. The Speaker's expenses - well, first of all, the Speaker's salary is $12,000.00? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that's correct. HON. S. LYON: Then his indemnity as a member is the same as all of us. It would be in the area of . HON. L. DESJARDINS: $31,416.00. HON. S. LYON: $31,416.00.

And then his expense allowances are $3,000.00. Now, I'm not sure whether those are on payment on voucher, or whether they're HON. J. PLOHMAN: On voucher, Mr. Chairman. HON. S. LYON: All ri£,'1t. Can we have from Mr. Bryans, or from the staff, what the Speaker's expenses amounted to in that same fiscal year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: $3,000 a Session, isn't it? HON. S. LYON: Yes, a max. of $3,000, it's supposed to be. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, the amount out of the $3,000 allocation that was spent by the Speaker on voucher was $1,283. 86. HON. S. LYON: Thank you. HON. J. PLOHMAN: And that was.;for a reception. HON.

S. LYON: Yes, that would be vouched for expenses. All right, well leaving that item aside, would my arithmetic be correct then, that if the Speaker received $12,000 salary; he received an indemnity as an MLA for $31,416; he received $7,000 in per diem allowances; then I take it he would also receive $1,500 for .. . HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's part of the $31,000.00. HON. S. LYON: Is that part of the $31,000.00? So the research amount is paid to him directly? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Right. HON. S. LYON: Yes, and that's part of the $31,416. 00? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Not the research.

Just the constituency allowance, the indemnity and expense allowance. HON. S. LYON: And $1,000 for research? HON. J. PLOHMAN: $1,500 is constituency expenses and $1,000, I believe, is research. 3663

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 HON. l. DESJARDINS: That's included . HON. S. LYON: $1,000 is research? HON. J. PLOHMAN: $1,000 for research. HON. S. LYON: So, the Speaker's gross salary then would be $51,416 for the last fiscal year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'd like to change jobs. HON. S. LYON: Is that the case? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health . HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I wish to say that as a new memb er, actually, of the Board of Internal Economy - I've only been named recently and attended one meeting - that was a concern that we expressed. This was discussed with the Speaker, and that is probably the reason why you have

an Act in front of you and it suggests that it'll be a set fee, except for a per diem maximum, a set fee. Also of course, that would be increasing from 6 to 12. That's done only this year, the 6 to 12 of his extra remuneration, so he would put 12 - well, that

part isn't being introduced but it'll be discussed during the bill, but the members of the board had the same concern and that was discusse d. We'll try to rectify that. HON. S. LYON: Well, Mr. Chairman, I take it the Minister of Health is confirming the figure that I was trying to add up here; that there was a total amount paid to Mr. Speaker, of $51, 416, that is by way of allowances exclusive of expenses, which are not properly accounted for there, that would be by way of gross salary, or allowances paid to him including the $1,000 research allowance, which every member is entitled to. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Is the Leader of the Opposition using the figure as additional indemnities of $12,000.00? HON. S. LYON: Yes. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, well, it should be $6,000. 00. HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, Mr. Chairman, could I just ... He actually received, Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify - $11,766, instead of the $12,000 because it was changed during the year. HON. S. LYON: That's because of the way the payments go, I suppose. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes. HON. S.

LYON: But in the fiscal year that would be $11, 766, or whatever, but based on the $12,000, so we're not being unkind if we use the $12,000 as a rounded out figure . How would that compare, Mr. Chairman, with the salary and MLA's indemnity and other ordinary allowances that are permitted to members of the Cabinet? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health. Please use the microphone, so he can record. HON. L. DESJARDINS: The indemnity is $19,944, that was for 1982; the expense allowance - $9,972; constituency allowance $1,500 - that was included in what the Speaker we get.

Now the research thing, and I would imagine in both parties, there are only two parties now, that would go direc tly, except the independent member of the House and the Speaker, it's paid directly to him. Then he'll have the 12,000 A MEMBER: No, the Cabinet Minister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, the Cabinet Minister. MR. A. ANSTETT: It would be the 31.4 plus $20,500.00. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, then this year, Mr. Chairman HON. L. DESJARDINS: 31.4 plus what? MR. A. ANSTETT: 20,500.00. MR. CHAIRMAN: We've got to keep the record straight of the proceedings.

Nobody's recognizing the tape if everybody speaks at the same time. The Member for Springfie ld. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, the only difference between a regular MLA and a Cabinet Minister in terms of additional remuneration over the $31,416, I think the figure was, is the $20,500 that was payable last year and has been reduced to $19.5 this year. So the figure will be approximately $52,000 for a Cabinet Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: It's $19.6. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposit ion. HON. S.

LYON: So then the effect really of the situation about which we're speaking is that the Speaker, even though the Legislative Assembly rejected the notion that the Speaker should be paid at the same rate as a Cabinet Minister - that was rejected in legislation last year - even though the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba rejected that notion by virtue primarily of the utilization of per diem allowances, the Speak er, in fact, received almost the equivalent of what a Cabinet Minister would have received. Is that right, Mr. Chairman? MR. CHAIRMAN: A little bit less. The Minister of Government Services. HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I don't know whether the Honourable Leader of the Opposition is saying that there was anything rejected by the Legislature last year. There may have been a bill that was not voted on or passed last year, but I don't believe that the concept was necessarily rejected or was even proposed last year, it was just discussed. I don't know that it was ever rejected or approved . 3664

Tuesday, 14 June, 1983 However, I would agree that the final figure that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has stated is very simil ar to what a Cabinet Minister and Leader of the Opposition would have received. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can clarify one point. The Leader of the Oppo sition makes reference to the Legislative Assembly not accepting. The Assembly did pass a statutory salary to the Speaker of $12,000, which is an increase from the previous $6,000. 00.

But, I can confirm what the Leader of the Opposition, I believe, was referring to and that was discussions were held amongst members of both sides to give consideration to recogn izing the position of the Speaker as that equi valent to a Cabinet Mini ster, either with or without portfolio, and the salary that would be attendant thereto. Those discussions resulted in a salary change of $6,000, which was implicit recognition that members who were involved in the dis cussions, although not necessarily the Assembly formally, rejected the suggestion that the Speaker should have that equivalent salary. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Oppo sition. HON. S. LYON: I thank the Member for Springfield for that clarification. It wasn't in the statute certainly in my recollection, in accordance with his it was in discussion. The idea was advanced and then the idea was dropped and the House, I think, unanimously , went ahead with the idea of $12,000.00. Does the Speaker, Mr. Chairman, have a government car as well, or not? MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, he does not. HON. S. LYON: Does he have the use of one on a part-time basis? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I believe that he has not used a government vehicle for any purposes; that is my understand ing. HON. S. LYON: Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minis ter of Health indicated that there is a restriction in the new amendments to The Legislative Act, a restriction on the per diem allowance payable to Mr. Speaker of - what is it - $3,000 a year? HON. L. DESJARDINS: $3,500, I think. MR. CHAIRMAN: That will be $3,500 maximum. HON. S. LYON: $3,500 maximum would be permitted. Is that the . . . ? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Springfield will clarify. MR. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, the proposal in Bill 55, before the House at the present time, will fix an intersessional allowance for the Speaker of $3,500.00, period. There is no minimum or maximum, and it will abolish the per diem, so that there will not be a claim required by Mr. Speaker as to how many days he has worked. In effect, it'll recognize the fact that he does have intersessional obligations and he will be paid that. So, in effect, his salary will rise from $12,000 to $15,500 and his right to claim a per diem will be removed. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Chairman, perhaps I could ask the members of the Board of Internal Economy, through you, was it ever intended that the per diem allowance provided under

Section 64(2) would be used in this extensive way by any Speaker to really, in effect, provide an increase in salary, which would bring him up to the equivalent of a Cabinet Minis ter. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe that various Speakers have drawn on that per diem at various levels over the time. It certainly has varied on the information that I have from the previous two Speakers, as well as the Speaker at this time, and so it has varied, I guess, with the degree of involvement that the Speaker has felt was required in carrying out his duties.

I couldn't comment though as to whether it was ever intended that it would be used to the extent that it has been in the past year, because certainly that figure has been in place for some years and that per diem has been in place. What the thinking was in terms of the number of days that it should be used, certainly I can't comment on, but I would assume that it was put in place to be used by the Speaker in as a responsible way as required. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall we proceed to Item 5(a)? The Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Just on that point - well then I can take it, Mr.

Chairman, by implication from what the Minis ter of Health has said, that it is the considered opinion of the government now that by placing a limit of $3,500 on this intersessional allowance that they certainly consider that the amount drawn last year, $7,000, was excessive. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we believe the intersessional allowance of $3,500 is fair. MR. A. ANSTETT: You can draw your own conclusions beyond that. HON. S. LYON: It's very hard, Mr. Chairman, to draw a conclusion then from the statement.

The Minister of Health said - I'm sure he doesn't mind - he said, across the table, yes, that it was considered excessive and I think we're in agreement with that statement. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I think that's exactly it. This was discussed by the Board and the Commission. The thing is, especially with the increase of $12,000, it was felt that it was too much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall we proceed to 5.(

a) and 5. (b)? 3665

Tuesday , 14 June, 1983 HON. S. LYON: Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: 5. (a)-pass; 5. (b)-p ass. HON. S. LYON: Just one question to the Provincial Auditor. He's here. The question can be asked of him, Mr. Chairman, in the Public Accounts, but if we could have an indication. I know that the Provincial Auditor makes his requests through Treasury Board in the ordinary course for staff. Could the Minister indicate if the Provincial Auditor is satisfied that he can do all of the jobs that we in the Legislature lay on him and his staff with this vote? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, I'm informed that the Provincial Auditor feels that he has no trouble meeting the obligations with the present staff. HON. L. DESJARDINS: And he can't claim $50 a day. MR. CHAIRMAN: We passed the items 5.(

a) and 5.(b). Resolution No. 2: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,316,900 for Legislation for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1984-pass. MR. CH AIRMAN: Proceeding, 6.(

a) and 6. (b), Ombudsman, Salaries and Other Expenditu res. 6.(a) pass; 6.(b)-pass. Resolution No. 3: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $235,200 for Legislation for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1984-pass. 7.(a), 7.(

b) Electoral Office. 7.(a)-pass; 7.(b)-pass. Resolution No. 4: Resolved that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $235,300 for Legislation for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1984-pass. There is another item that we have to pass and this is the Main Estimates of Expenditure on Page 133 in your book . HON. S. LYON: There's another item in Labour. MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't know if we have to do it in this committee, or in the other committee. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Chairman, I think that our House Leader has some understanding in any case that this could be dealt with in the other committ ee.

We've only got the Jobs Fund plus this item, as I understand it. So if we rise, we're through in here. MR. CHAIRMAN: Committee rise. SUPPLY - JOBS FUND MR. CHAIRMAN, P. Eyler: We are considering the Estimates of the Jobs Fund. Does the Premier have an introductory statement to make? HON. H. PAWLEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'll be dealing with an introductory statement pertaining to the nature and the structure of the Jobs Fund, and the Minister of Finance will be offering some words pertaining to the financial aspects of the Jobs Fund.

The Jobs Fund was established as a means of not only responding to the urgent needs of unemployed people in the Province of Manitoba, those desiring work, in order to deal with the bitter consequences of the unemployment situation that has confronted all of Canada including the Province of Manitoba over the last number of years, but to make a contribution on the part of the Provincial Government and the provincial community as a whole working through their Provincial Government in order to better deal with the development of initiatives to provide employme nt. A close relat ionship has been established, Mr.

Chairman, with the construction industry in the province. The construction industry appeared before the Jobs Fund Board within the past few weeks and urged us in what I feel to be a very realistic sense to accelerate capital works projects during these particular times, to refurbish the infrastructure of the province so that infrastructure of the province could be refurbished during times of high unemployment and create employment in the important task of creating long term benefits to the provin ce. Mr.

Chairman, at the same time we make no apologies in respect to funding and enriching various short-term projects in the province. The Manitoba Employment Action Program, for example; the provincial contribution that has been made to the NEED Program; the highly successful Careerstart Program that has been extremely successful is one of those kinds of short-term projects initiated and effected by this government through the Jobs Fund Committee. These are undoubtedly temporary expedients but at the same time, during times such as these, they are necessary expedients.

I am pleased to indicate that the Jobs Fund Committee will continue to finance such expedients. I am pleased to say that we will fund these kinds of activities. There will be a Northern Employment Program, possibly by the Jobs Fund, and such efforts will be continued as long as they are required to provide Manitobans with some protection from the worst ravages of unemployment. We recognize, Mr. Chairman, that we cannot eliminate unemployment in our midst.

We are an island unto ourselves, and we can but reduce the extent of the ravages of unemployment within our provincial community through the operations of the Jobs Fund. Also, the kinds of activities represent - there is a second phase, a second stage in respect to the projects of the Jobs Fund initiative, those activities which have stimulated the construction industry in Manitoba; those that will benefit suppliers of materials and other products; those that will ensure spinoff benefits insofar as either suppliers and businesses are concerned within the provincial community.

This morning I had the pleasant opportunity, along with the Minister responsible for Education, to attend at the University of Manitoba and to make an important announcement pertaining to the Earth Sciences Building, to move ahead the construction of the Earth Sciences Building, a project that will cost some $11.4 million, but $3.5 million allo cated for the Earth Sciences Building during this fiscal year from the Jobs Fund Program. Mr. Chairman, there can be no doubt indeed in the minds of anyone that natural resources are an important 3666

Tuesday , 14 June, 1983 base insofar as the provincial economy is concerned, and the development and exploration of our mineral resource is important. The contribution by those that are engaged in that kind of economic activity is essential to the future well-being of the economic and social health of the Province of Manitoba.

Therefore, this was a most appropriate time to move forward that kind of project insofar as timing was concerned to ensure that the most significant work done in respect to the construction of the Earth Sciences Building would take place during this fiscal year, the following fiscal year, during times of high unemployment in order to assist the construction industry in the Province of Manitoba, assist in respect to the creation of employment in Manitoba. There are many other examples that honourable members, I'm sure, would appreciate hearing about.

For example, the expansion of the Auto Diesel Shop at the Red Ri ver Community College that was announced by the Minis ter responsible for Labour and the Minister responsible for Education some weeks ago was another very important addition in respect to this, and the continuing commitment on the part of this government towards the excellent facilities at the Red River Community College.

The renovation of former shop; additions to the school at Cranberry Portage - the Honourable Member for Flin Flon would be quite familiar with the need that existed in that respect; Crane River; the addition to the expansion of the Food Products Centre at Portage

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-87a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 87a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	41ffb175d898ecd4d87c358fe85a8709ea32bb9b

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