Manitoba Hansard — 6 November 1990 (Sitting 19, 35th Legislature, 1st Session)

35-1-19

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

I I MG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXIX No.19-1 :30 p. m., TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 1990 Printed by ,,,., Office of,,,., Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Polltlcal Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARR,James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER.Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MclNTOSH, Linda MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NOP PC NDP PC PC NDP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, November 6, 1990 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and it does not conform with the privileges and practices of this House and our rules. I regret having to rule the petition out of order for it is indeed the right of any and all citizens to petition this Legislative Assembly. However , our Rule 81, which deals with petitions , clearly indicates that every petition must contain a prayer.

The petition presented by the Honourable Member for Thompson does not. It is also worded in the form of a resolution or a motion, and I would encourage all Honourable Members when they are drafting petitions or assisting other persons to do so to conform to the standard format and wording for a petition to be presented to the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Respecting your ruling and recognizing that the wording was drafted by the firefighters themselves, I would ask if the petition could be returned.

I would like to deliver it personally to the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation (Mr. Connery) in the hopes that he will listen to the 17,000 Manitobans- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The petition is out of order and it will be returned to the Honourable Member. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairman of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to. *

(1335) TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I would like to table, Mr. Speaker, the Supplementary Estimates for the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism . Hon. Albert Drledger (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of the Department of Government Services. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of the Manitoba Department of Labour. Hon.

Bonnie Mltchelson (Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of the Status of Women. Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, in a further display of open Government I also wish to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Department of Natural Resources. Hon.

Edward Connery (Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I also want to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Department of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of Honourable Members to the gallery, where we have from the St. John's-Ravenscourt School twenty-five Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Wendy Owen. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey).

817 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. Also with us this afternoon in the gallery, we have the spouses of the elected delegates of the Manitoba Pool Elevators. They are under the direction of Mrs. Jean Strath. On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Labour Laws Notwithstanding Clause Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition}: Mr. Speaker, again we were very surprised yesterday in the Premier's Estimates to hear that he would contemplate using the notwithstanding clause.

Of course the example he used was against working people, workers in the Province of Manitoba in terms of the province. Having lectured the Premier of Quebec during a lengthy period of time over Meech Lake, we were absolutely shocked to see the Premier threaten to use the notwithstanding clause with workers in this province.

My question to the Premier is: Given the fact that in his own budget Manitoba brags about the days lost per thousand workers in the province, outlining how good that is for investment-five days compared to the national average of 320 days per thousand-day workers-is the Premier repealing the labour laws in this province on the basis of his ideology and bias or on the basis of scientific and research evidence about how well our labour laws are actually working in this province? •

(1340) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier}: Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest that the Leader of the Opposition also did not confirm that he would never use the notwithstanding clause. He indicated that he would leave it in place, and that is what I have always said, that we would leave it in place. I also said during my Estimates debate that I saw no reason that I would want to use it, but that I would keep it in reserve in case of some unusual circumstance. Never at any time did I refer to nurses. Never at any time did I refer to anything specific, Mr.

Speaker, other than leaving it in reserve so that if we needed it to protect life, to protect people's health because of some unusual decision that was unexpected , that it would be there, and that is exactly the circumstance. Our moves are never made on ideology. They are made based on common-sense needs of the people of this province, and I would continue to keep it that way. As I also said during the Estimates debate, the comment that we made at the time of Premier Bourassa's decision was that he went a step further, saying ha would not have had to use the notwithstanding clause if Meech Lake had been-- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier should read the comments. We never committed ourself to use the notwithstanding clause. We said we would watch the court decisions over the next 10 years, but we would not use the notwithstanding clause. Let us make that very clear. The Premier never answered the question.

The question was, Manitoba had the lowest days lost per strike and lockout in the Government's own budget document, is the Premier proceeding to amend and repeal labour laws based on his bias, which he demonstrated yesterday, his ideology, his extreme ideology, rather than the facts that substantiate and support the fact that we have good labour-management relations in this province? It should not be changed by the extremists in the Conservative Party. Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, it is a repetitive question. I will repeat the answer. Our moves are not based on ideology.

It is only the New Democrats who are hidebound, narrow-minded and ideologically committed. Our moves are based on common sense and the best interests of the people in the Province of Manitoba, period. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, well, if the Premier reads, the days lost per strike and lockout from January to April have even gone down further to 1.3, even below where their budget was in 1990.

Now I would ask the Premier, will he use common sense-I know the word is foreign to the Premier-will he use common sense and not repeal the labour relations laws in Manitoba based on the evidence, e>r will he continue in his ideological and extreme way and his anti-worker bias that he has

November 6, 1990 LEGISLAT IVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 818 demonstrated again yesterday in his comments about the notwithstanding clause? Mr. Fllmon: Yes, Mr. Speaker . I will repeat for the third time. We will use common sense. We will act only in what is in the best interests of the people in the Province of Manitoba, no ideology, no hidebound old ideas that are based on some 18th Century philosophies that are espoused by all of the backbenchers of the New Democratic Party.

A common-sense approach to common-sense problems, that will always be our approach to solving the problems in the best interests of the people of Manitoba. Labour Negotiations Premier's Statement Wlthdrawal Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. The Premier has indicated that this Tory Government is not following an ideological position with regard to labour relations. This First Minister has already threatened to shut down operations if workers do not like the offers of Governments.

This Premier has indicated that he is going to be reviewing the labour law, looking at major rollbacks, not just in terms of final offer selection, and now yesterday has indicated that while it is not okay for the Premier of Quebec to use the notwithst anding clause it is okay for this Premier to keep that as a club to use against the working people of this province if the Premier decides it is necessary. I would like to ask the Premier, will he not withdraw the statement he made yesterday, given the fact that he is now entering very sensitive negotiations with the nurses?

Will he not withdraw that club that is being held over the heads of people who are negotiating in good faith and try and get back to proper negotiations in terms of that v ery important labour negotiation ? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker , I find it very interesting that the ideologues in the New Democratic Party can not see the difference between using the notwithstand ing clause merely to protect the use of language on a sign versus using it to protect life and limb when they are under threat and that people may die or suffer as a result. That to me makes a big, big difference .

If the Member opposite cannot see that difference then I say that he is blinkered with his own ideology. The fact of the matter is, there is no threat, there is no club and there never will be from this Government. We will act in good faith at all times in the open free collective bargaining process with all of the employees with whom we have to negotiate. *

(1345) Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the First Minister. Why is he holding out the possibility of using the notwithstanding clause when in fact there currently is an Essential Services Agreement with health care professionals? Why is he holding that out? Why will he not withdraw the comments he made yesterday and the implied threat to the health care workers of Manitoba? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, because there was no implied threat, absolutely none whatsoever. I am well aware of the Essential Services Agreementthat exists with approximately a hundred health care facilities in this province.

It is a very responsible agreement. It is an agreementthat I support and that I believe health care workers ought to be complimented for. I say to you that if there were circumstances that threatened the life or the health of the people of this province I would consider using that, but I see no foreseeable reason in the future why I would. Labour Relatlons Provincial Status Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): As a final supplementary, given the success that Manitoba has had in terms of labour relations in the last number of years because of the kind of legislation brought in by the previous New Democratic Party Government, will the First Minister now withdraw his statements that this Government will be reviewing labour law not just in terms of final offer selection, but other issues such as first contract? Will he now admit that here in Manitoba our labour relations and our labour relations legislation is working? Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): We have indicated that there are many aspects of positive relationship and good workings in labour legislat ion in this province ; that does not mean that they are perfect. I think every Government has an obligation to continue to review its legislation in all fields . That is living, evolving Government that responds to the changing needs of a society. So for us to say we will review it does not imply threat to anybody . It does not imply that we are going to make any changes

819 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 that would be not in the best interests of the people and the Government of Manitoba. It implies quite the reverse, that as you have an opportunity for experience you learn by that experience; at least we do. I know New Democrats probably do not learn by experience. They want to go back to the bad old ways. They want to go back into their ideology and put the blinkers on. We do not want that, Mr. Speaker. We want to be very, very practical and very common sense in our approach. Crown Corporations Council Conawapa Dam Project Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood): Mr.

Speaker, we all remember of course that the Government of Saskatchewan used the notwithstanding clause on a labour issue, so we will be watching this one carefully. Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for the Crown Corporations Council. The Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountability Act states that the duties of the council include, and I am quoting now, to review long-term corporate plans and capital expenditure proposals of Crown corporations. Can the Minister tell us what conclusions the council has made on the proposed Conawapa development? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister responsible for the administration of The Crown Corporation Accountablllty Act): The question is fair. I say to the Member that the Crown Corporations Council has been put in place as a quasi-Treasury Board system to look at the capital plans of Crowns, but indeed the question the Member asks is basically academic at this point in time, because the Public Utilities Board has not provided, to my understanding at least, a public determination as to their recommendations, indeed their conclusions with respect to their own review under the capital plans for Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Carr: Mr.

Speaker, the council was set up a year and a half ago, and the Conawapa deal was signed 11 months ago. One of the major purposes of the council is to review capital plans of Crown corporations. Conawapa represents the single largest investment in Manitoba history. Does the Minister intend to send these plans to the council, and if not, why did we set it up in the first place? Mr. Manness: If the Member wants a response as to why we i:3Elt it up in the first place, I refer him to basically pages of debate in this House when we brought in the new Act. Mr.

Speaker, we brought it in as a control measure with respect to Crowns and also a resource area where they could access as certain problems arise. With respect specifically to the capital plans of Manitoba Hydro, I can assure the Member that the Council will be given an opportunity to review those capital plans and will make some judgment in reference of that judgment to the Government. Mr. Carr: The deadline for this contract is December 31 , 1990. IH the Minister then telling us on the floor of the House today that the Crown Corporations Council will review the Conawapa project before December 31, 1990? Mr.

Manness: Mr. Chairman, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the Crown Corporations Council will have an opportunity to review and to make recommendations to the Government some time befon~ ultimately that development project begins. *

(1350) Royal Commission Aboriginal Concerns Establishment Mr. Oscar· Lathlln (The Pas): My question is directed to the First Minister. Last week the Prime Minister rolled the dice again, onco more, and struck a committee that he calls the Citizens Forum on Canada's Future. Mr. Speaker, the timing, the lack of structure and direction of that committee means that it will not be able to solve basic problems that demand action right now.

In fact on Friday Senator Lowell Murray clearly stated that he was using the creation of this commission as an excuse to postpone indefinitely the propos,ed Royal Commission on Aboriginal Concerns. I think that is unrealistic and unfair to expect aboriginal people to simply wait another eight months. My question is for the First Minister. Has he written or contacted the Prime Minister and asked him to initiate the Hoyal Commission immediately, as there is no reason why both initiatives cannot be occurring at the same time?

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 820 Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I indicated that I thought the initiative of going out and listening to the public with a citizens committee of distinguished people from across the country was indeed an appropriate way to begin again reviewing constitutional matters rather than the closed door, behind-the-scenes situation that led to the Meech Lake Accord as we knew it and disliked it, Mr. Speaker. The fact of the matter is that this was a step in the right direction, that this was a recognition of one of the principal areas of failure of Meech Lake.

I believe that the commission does have on it at least one aboriginal representative, from British Columbia. I believe that the attempt is for people to put on the table their concerns of issues, constitutional matters that must be dealt with on a whole range of issues including, I would hope, aboriginal issues. Senator Lowell Murray Replacement Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, we all know that this commission is timed to address Quebec issues and the Senate, and it will not be dealing with aboriginal issues.

Will the First Minister ask the Prime Minister to immediately replace Senator Lowell Murray as Minister responsible for federal relations as a sign that the Prime Minister is truly committed to ending the present tactic, style of the Meech Lake Accord which was so divisive, as we all saw, and did nothing to enhance or strengthen national unity? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): I think I called for Senator Murray's replacement about 15 or 16 months ago, Mr. Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that if we are to influence the federal agenda, then I believe that we have to encourage people who have various viewpoints and all manner of concerns about constitutional matters to go and be heard by that citizens task force, to go and ensure that aboriginal issues are on the agenda.

That is I think first and foremost the responsibility that I would recommend to the Member for The Pas and that I would recommend to any people who are concerned about issues affecting the Constitution, whether they be aboriginal, whether they be constitutional reform in the area of Senate reform or Quebec or any other numbers of issues, Charter of Rights, whatever have you. This is the time. There is a citizens group going across the country. Those issues ought to be put on the table for discussion. Treaty Land Entitlements Negotiations Mr.

Oscar Lathlln {The Pas): My final supplementary is again directed to the First Minister, Mr. Speaker. Just by the fact that we have many outstanding treaty land entitlement claims in this province and other negotiations that have been outstanding for so long, to me that is a sign that aboriginal people have a special relationship with the Crown by virtue of treaties, the Constitution and so on. No other group has that.

I ask the Premier, will he commit himself and the Government today to accelerating those negotiations regardless of the progress or proposals of the Citizens Forum, because we all know that the Citizens Forum will take a long time and will water down aboriginal concerns? *

(1355) Hon. Gary Fllmon {Premier): As the Member has well expressed, our aboriginal people have a number of outstanding issues that must be resolved that affect Governments at all levels. Even aside from the primary constitutional responsibility of the federal Government, there is of course the responsibility of the provincial Government with respect to issues such as Northern Flood Agreement, land claims and all of that. We have made a commitment consistently to do our level best to try and resolve those outstanding disputes.

We had all but one of the bands in the Northern Flood Agreement agree to the basis of settlement prior to the election. With respect to treaty land claims and entitlements, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has a meeting shortly with the federal Minister of Northern Affairs and Indian Affairs, Mr. Siddon, and that is one of the topics on the agenda for that meeting. GA TT Negotiations Removal of John Crosbie Mr.John Plohman {Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.

It has become clear that if agriculture talks fail at GATT, Canada should not agree to settle the other issues

821 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 but should in fact pull out in order to maintain leverage in agriculture. The Cairns Group, of which Canada is a member, is now supporting this position. Yet Canada's senior negotiating Minister, John Crosbie, says that Canada will not withdraw under any circumstances. He shows his lack of knowledge with regard to agriculture by saying that Canada is spending $8.8 billion a year on agriculture. He says that Mazankowski should be ashamed about this spending.

I ask the Minister, since he is a Member of Canada's delegation at the GA TT talks when they resume, will he now demand that the Prime Minister remove John Crosbie as Canada's senior negotiating Minister at the GATT talks since he is not representing the interests of western Canada agriculture? Hon. Glen Flndlay {Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the GATT round of discussions, the Uruguay Round, which began in 1986, some four years ago, are reaching the end of their period of discussion in December of 1990.

The events that have occurred in the past few weeks in Europe are exceedingly discouraging with regard to our desire to have export subsidies first and foremost removed because of the trade distortion they are causing for small exporting countries like Canada and Australia and New Zealand. There is no question we have some severe difficulty. Our Premier has said, and other Members across this country have said that if we do not gst resolution of export subsidies we would be better off to walk away from the table.

That is the position that many other countries are now starting to realize, that the European community has to have some pressure put on them if they are going to bring any meaningful resolution to the table, and that process of discussion must continue. Canada is taking a very strong position in that series of discussions. We are working with other countries around the world to be sure that everybody comes to the table with a willingness to negotiate, particularly in the area of export subsidies, where Europe is the greatest offender in terms of the trade practice they presently have in place.

Government Withdrawal Mr. John Plohman {Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, just in the Globe and Mail today it is reported that John Crosbie says that he will not pull out under any circumstances. How can this Minister have any confidence in the Minister John Crosbie leading our delegation when in fact he does not agree with this position that he is putting forward? Hon. Glen Flndlay {Minister of Agrlculture): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member that I and any other Members of the western Canadian delegation will put extreme pressure on Mr.

Crosbie that if we do not get a positive resolution or a meaningful proposal fr,om the European community, we will have no altornative in the agricultural area but to say we must withdraw from these talks. I will tell the Member that I think it is important that we as a country, since we have so much to gain from those talks, stay at the table as long as we can, because the minute you walk away from the table you are giving up. I do not intend to give up early. I intend to gc, there and be part of the resolution of this procesis of reducing export trade subsidies. ,Agricultural Community Farm BIii Mr.

John l>lohman {Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the negotiating Minister for Canada is splitting from the Cairns Group, and I want to ask this Minister, in view of the fact that the U.S. is now increasing its export enhancemont program in the farm Bill by a minimum of $500 million for each year of that five-year Bill and the fact that will have a negative effect on Canada's grain producers and due to the fact that the safety net program in terms of negotiations is failing at the present tim,e, I ask this Minister, will he now commit to a major farm Bill dealing with cost-of-production pricing for farmers across Canada?

Hon. Glen IFlndlay {Minister of Agrlculture): Well, Mr. Speaker, the Member has just put on the record exactly the reason why we must stay at the table and negotiate, because if we do not negotiate a settlement countries with big treasuries will carry on a trade subsidy war that we cannot compete with, that our treasury is not strong enough to compete with. The Member has indicated exactly why we have to stay at the table and negotiate right down to the final hour, but if at the final hour there is not a resolution that is constructive to western Canadian agriculture then we have to withdraw, but we cannot

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 822 withdraw at this point in time and say that we will take on the treasuries of Europe or the United States, because we do not have enough taxpayers or enough tax dollars to carry that on to keep the farmers on the land in western Canada. There must be a resolution at the GA TT round of discussions at the negotiating table. *

(1400) Winnipeg Police Department Minority Representation Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. This Minister is Manitoba's chief law enforcement officer and as such has a responsibility to use his authority to ensure that minority representation on the City of Winnipeg Police force is seriously and conscientiously pursued. It appears now that the spoken commitments of the police to hire and train visible minority police officers which we have been hearing for at least two years both at this level and at the city level have not been followed through in action.

Can the Minister advise Members what view he takes of the reasons given by the City of Winnipeg Police for the lack of real success in getting visible minority members on the force and what he is prepared to do to change it? Hon. James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I, Mr. Speaker, had a discussion last week with Chief Stephen of the Winnipeg Police Department and was impressed with the number of recruits in this year's class. However, the item the Honourable Member is referring to is I think one that is dealt with in today's press and is something I will follow up. Mr. Edwards: Mr.

Speaker, we have been told at length about recruits. It is a fact that they are not making it to the front line duties where they are needed that is the issue. For the same Minister, will the Minister find out-I know he meets regularly with the chief-will he find out why the RCMP, the City of Calgary and the City of Toronto Police forces, to name a few, have had so much more success than the City of Winnipeg Police and report to the House on that investigation? Mr.

Mccrae: I will take the Honourable Member's question and deal with the question raised by him with representatives of the Winnipeg City Police and get back to the Honourable Member. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, finally for the same Minister, and I appreciate that response. Is the Minister willing to use the meetings he has and the leverage he has as the chief law enforcement officer for this province to insist on a pro-active approach by the City of Winnipeg Police so that some progress is made which other forces have proven can be made but which so far have eluded our urban police forces in Manitoba?

It is going to require a pro-active approach not just with respect to the recruiting, but with respect to the actual employment on the job. Mr. Mccrae: I do not believe anybody disagrees with what the Honourable Member is saying , including Chief Stephen and -(interjection)- the Honourable Member for Fort Osborne has asked me to sit down, Mr. Speaker, so I will. U of M - Faculty of Management Inquiry Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, on Friday last three questions were taken as notice from the Member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) to which I would like to respond at this time.

The first question, Mr. Speaker, dealt with the protection of funds that have been invested by the Government and others into the Faculty of Management developmental program, and I would like to indicate to the Member opposite that in 1989 Dean Mackness submitted a faculty development plan to the University of Manitoba and to the faculty associates, the students and to Government, which after some discussion and negotiation was accepted. Indeed there was participation financially from the associates of the faculty, the students, the University of Manitoba and also of Government. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Member that the program is now being implemented. We have a Ph.D. program being offered at the university, or begun at the university. Six new staff members have been hired for that program. The second question dealt, Mr. Speaker, with the fact whether or not we would look into the matter of- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

823 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 Point of Order Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of Education is going into the Education Estimates right after Question Period. The amount of time allocated for Question Period is somewhat limited and maybe the Minister of Education can table it if all of his answers are at that length. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I do believe it is appropriate that the Minister is responding to questions asked during Question Period, but I do believe the Liberal House Leader has a good suggestion. I would suggest that if there are detailed answers the Minister give a brief

summary of those answers and table any accompanying documents. The same rules apply to questions that are taken as notice as apply to questions that are answered directly in Question Period, and that is that answers should be brief. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, I agree in part with the representations made by both of the House Leaders of the other Parties but, Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the response and the Member spoke very clearly. Every part of that response was dealing with the question at hand.

The fact that he has three questions to respond to is because there were three questions posed. Mr. Speaker, there is no way that the Minister is in any way abusing the rules. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member did not have a point of order. He had a good suggestion. Human Rights Commission Referral Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Education, to finish his response. Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I will try to be very brief, but I will provide a more elaborate answer in written form to the Members for their edification, but I might say that with regard to referring the matter to the Human Rights Commission, the Member should know full well that this is a matter that is in the realm of the University of Manitoba, and indeed the Board of Governors is the appropriate body that would deal with it. Assessment Report Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): In terms of tabling the report that was done by the American accreditation body, Mr.

Speaker, I would have to indicate that once again, it is not my responsibility to release this document since it was done for the university. I do not have any document of that nature, but I would suggest that he apply to the university to get that kind of a document. Thank you. City of Winnipeg - Heritage Bulldlngs Minister's Response Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. The Minister has been advised for several months now that we are in danger of losing a number of significant buildings, the heritage fabric of downtown Winnipeg.

Heritage Canada, Heritage Winnipeg, the Manitoba Historical Society, have all met with the Minister in the last month to express the very deep concerns about this. Can the Minister tell us now what her response has been to these community groups? Hon. Bonnie Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): I have been in fact trying to get up for the last three days to answer those questions that were taken as notice last week.

I am pleased to have the opportunity today to indicate that for two years now the City of Winnipeg has made it public knowledge that they were going to close the• Amy Street steam plant. In fact the City of Winnipe!l did have the option or the alternative to provide alte,rnate heating sources for those heritage buildings that were going to be shut down as a result of the steam plant closing.

We, as the Province of Manitoba, do give the City of Winnipeg block funding, and if they wanted to make pres1~rvation of those heritage buildings one of their priorities they could have done that within the money that they are allocated from the Province of Manitoba. Minister's Responslblllty Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation.

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 824 This is an emergency s ituation. The unheated buildings are in danger . What responsibility is the Minister going to assume? Can she tell us what measures she will put in place for this winter so that the buildings can be preserved? Hon. Bonnie Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): I do wantto indicate that over the last three years this provincial Government has put $1.3 million into support for preservation of heritage buildings throughout the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, there are 12 heritage buildings that were designated properties who have already installed their own heating system, because they acted responsibly and they had a use for those buildings. I want to commend those people, but it is clearly a city responsibility to deal with those people that they are cutting the heat off to. City of Winnipeg - Heritage Bulldlngs Government Initiatives Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Ernst).

Recent Canadian studies show that 25 percent of Canadian tourists are in search of a cultural and heritage experience. One of the attraction s of downtown Winnipeg is its cultural and historical fabric. What measures does he have to put in place to ensure that this fabric survives? Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Industry , Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I concur with the Member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen ) t hat in fact t he preservation of heritage buildings in downtown Winni peg in parti cula r h ave proven to be a significant tourist attraction for the city and for the province.

As my colleague , the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation (Mrs. Mitchelson), indicated the City of Winnipeg cut off the heat to those buildings. It is the City of Winnipeg's historic by-law that will have to apply, and the City of Winnipeg taxpayer will have to bear the cost. *

(1410) Pritchard Place Drop In Centre Government Funding Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Family Services. Pritchard Place Drop-In Centre has been offered City of Winnipeg funding if they can obtain funding from the Family Services Department.

Since police statistics show decreased crime in the north end, since the centre has the support of correctional services and youth along with 25 other organizations and individuals, including his predecessor, and since they have a letter from his ADM, dated January 1989, indicating that serious consideration would be given to funding in the 1990-91 fiscal year, can the Minister explain to the House why Pritchard Place Drop-In Centre received no funding from his department in the 1990-91 fiscal year? Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): The Opposition continues to encourage us to take on new initiatives in a time when we have to make difficult decisions in difficult times. I appreciate that Members opposite have urged me to get money from Environment to spend in this department or from Natural Resources to spend in this department , and we did receive the largest increase across the board in funding in this budget. We are very pleased that we did receive 8.2 percent in new funding. Mr. Martindale: Mr.

Speak er, will the Minister assure the House that Pritchard Place Drop-In Centre, which is keeping children and youth off the street and which is reducing crime in the north end, will receive funding in the '91-92 fiscal year? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Spea ker, I b elieve the Honourable Member realizes that we are dealing with this year 's budget. We will soon be into Estimates, and we are not ata position in time where we can project into the next two or three years with this department.

We are going to very actively work with groups in society, volunteers who are working very diligently in many communities , school communities, church commun ities who provide many of these services, and we would encourage them to continue to do so. Ministerial Meeting Request Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): My supplementary is: Since the Minister's office has

825 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 told the staff at Pritchard Place that he is unable to meet with them until after Christmas, will the Minister show that he cares about youth, that he cares about reducing crime and that he believes in prevention? If so, what is he going to do about it? Will he meet with the staff from Pritchard Place? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, in the short time I have been in office I have had the opportunity to visit many of the service providers that my department comes in contact with. I will continue to do so as time permits.

Multlcultural Appointments Government Polley Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the First Minister. It is regarding multiculturalism and the disservice this Government is doing to the fabric of our multicultural society here in Manitoba. We have recently seen the appointments and hiring of Tories from David Langtry, a defeated Conservative candidate in the last election, to Arnold Eddy, a campaign worker for the current Premier, to Alice Kirkland, who is the campaign manager of David Langtry.

My question to the First Minister is: Is it Government policy in this department to appoint or hire people based solely on their past involvement with the Conservative Party? Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there is some incumbency on an Honourable Member of this House not to berate an individual who is not part of it, to throw innuendo, indeed spurious allegations as to that person and go on and on and on. I ask the Member to apologize or state his case, because to this point he has not. Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

The Honourable Minister did not have a point of order. The question has been put. *** Hon. Bonnie Mltchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation): Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely appalling-absolutely appalling-that the Member for Inkster would stand up and ask questions like that. I make absolutely no apologies for getting our multicultural secretariat up and running with a very qualified person in the person of David Langtry.

I think if Members opposite looked at his volunteer commitment to the multicultural community over the last number of years, they would have difficulty finding anyone in that community who would not feel that he is quite adequately able to meet the needs of the job that he has taken as the executive director of the multicultural secretariat. Mr. Speaker, there were three people that the Member for Inkster dealt with in his question and maligned, and I would like to respond to each and every one of those people. Mr. Speaker: Briefly. Mrs. Mltchelson: Mr.

Speaker, Alice Kirkland, who was a five-year employee of the Folk Arts Council of the City of Winnipeg whose primary functions were to dE1al with communications of all of the pavilions that represent Folklorama and to be sensitive to the community needs, is a very capable person to deal with the outreach. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe this indicates some of the difficulty we run into when perhaps questions do lead to potential debate and also when answers are more lengthy.

Those of us, by the way, who sat in this House when the Conservatives were in Opposition I think will find some amusement at their talk about personal attacks, because we remember on a daily basis when they were involved in that. Despite that fact, they do not have the right and this Minister does not have the right, to extend her answers in Question Period in contravention of our rules, and I would ask you to call her to order. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. Order, please. I would remind Honourable Members a multipart question does tend to lead to a long answer.

The Honourable Minister was just about to complete her answer. * * * Mrs. Mltchelson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I do want to indicate that Alice Kirkland has the qualifications and already has the network

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 826 established in the multicultural community and has the ability to do the job as an outreach officer who is going to deal with communications and that networking throughout the multicultural community to serve them better. The multicultural community will be the benefactors of that. Just let me deal for one moment -(interjection)- Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Speaker, how can this Government expect to have people make application to appointed positions or hired positions when they know full well if they do not have a PC card they cannot get an appointment or be hired with this Government? Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I ask you to call the Member to order. That question is so much out of order, it really does not even deserve a response.

Rule 409 of Beauchesne's says that a question ought not to suggest its own answer, be argumentative or make representation, and I say that question did all three and therefore is out of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, if the Government House Leader would care to consult Beauchesne's, I think he would find too that Beauchesne's cautions that if we followed all of our rules in regard to what may and may not be asked in terms of questions or given in an answer, there would be no Question Period.

I would suggest that -(interjection)- I can understand why they do not want to have to answer questions every day. I can understand that, but in defence of the Member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the kind of question that he just asked is the kind of question that they asked when they were in Opposition and I would suggest to you is totally in order. *

(1420) Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Government House Leader did not have a point of order, but I would remind all Honourable Members to pick and choose your words very carefully. * •• Mrs. Mltchelson: Contrary to what the Opposition might think, we are the Government that brought in the first multicultural policy in the Province of Manitoba -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Madam Minister, to finish her response. Mrs. Mltchelson: I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that it is a policy that the multicultural community applauds, because we have had many, many people-and we have had very little criticism from the Opposition about our policy. We are moving in the right direction. The multicultural community are going to be the benefactors of that policy, as are they going to be the benefactors of the multicultural secretariat, which we have put in place to serve the community. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker , why then has this Minister not opened up the positions for competition if she feels that the individuals were so qualified to fill the position? Why was she- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mrs. Mltchelson: I am certainly glad we had time in Question Period for me to answer the third question and to deal with the third person that the Member brought up in his first question, and that is Arnold Eddy. I make absolutely no apologies for appointing and giving the opportunity to a very well deserving Manitoban who has spent his whole life serving the people of Manitoba through the social services system and who happens to be a visible minority. Radon Gas Levels Public Schools Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): Mr.

Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach). In light of the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States has cited the fact that one in five classrooms may have elevated levels of radon gas and that radioactive gas may be more harmful to children than adults, what steps and measures is this Government taking to ensure that the radon gas levels in our 700 public schools are at acceptable levels? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to report to the Member that we have been doing a considerable amount of work in the area of gathering information on what is happening in terms of radon gas across the province.

827 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 The Manitoba Association of School Trustees has been very active in pursuing the issue, and that information is being compiled and will be made available. Public Schools Testing Mr. Dave Chomlak (Klldonan): In October of 1989 the Government published a booklet entitled, Radon, An Interim Guide, and in that booklet indicated the Government would be undertaking measurements of public schools. Has this started? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I think it is just about complete or is complete at this time. Mr.

Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Glmll): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make some changes to the committee? Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Gimli, does he have leave-yes . The Honourable Member for Gimli, with committee changes. Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Render for Cummings, and McCrae for Findlay. Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a committee change? Mr.

Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have leave? Mr. Hlckes: Moved by George Hickes, seconded by Rosann Wowchuk, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Burrows (Martindale) for Selkirk (Dewar), and a second change, Mr. Speaker, moved by George Hickes, seconded by Rosann Wowchuk, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the MLA for Interlake (Clif Evans) for the MLA for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). NON-POLITICAL STATEMENTS Ms.

Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): May I have leave of the House to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have unanimous consent to make a non-political statement? An Honourable Member: Leave. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am proud today to stand during 4-H Week to speak about the 4-H movement in Manitoba. Throughout rural Manitoba, young people have been given a wide range of opportunities, through 4-H Clubs, to develop skills which they have used throughout their lives. In fact, many of us here today began our public involvement as 4-H members and leaders.

I was a 4-H leader for many years, and my children have experienced many of the benefits of belonging to a 4-H Club. Members of 4-H Clubs learn to do by doing, through participating in public speaking, home economics, woodworking and other clubs, or simply through their club's commitment to community involvement. During the past few years, 4-H has changed to reflect the changes needed, needs and interests of those involved. This means that the motto in 1990, "4-H is more than beef and clothing.ff is particularly appropriate.

I would like to recognize the accomplishments of both young people of 4-H Clubs across Manitoba and the efforts of men and women who act as 4-H leaders. The dedication and countless hours of time by these volunteers is surely one of the reasons why 4-H continues to provide excellent opportunities for rural youth after more than 75 years. When Manitoba became the first province to establish a boys' and girls' club in 1939, it began a proud tradition across Canada.

The accomplishments that have been made over the years by those involved in 4-H and youth programs should make everyone who has been involved very proud of the movement. I would like to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) for recognizing the value of the 4-H program by dedicating November 5 to 11 as 4-H Week. Finally, let me add, that all Members of this Chamber should share the sentiments of the motto of the 4-H members: "I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty, my

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 828 hands to larger services, my health to better living, for my club, my community and my country." Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): May I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr. Speaker: Does the Honourable Minister have unanimous consent? An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Flndlay: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise also and pay tribute to the 4-H people of this province. This is the 78th year of 4-H in Manitoba.

We have over 5,000 members-around 5,500-and my indication is that the number of members is growing this year, is certainly going to be a record over the past three or four years. We have about 2,000 people involved in leadership, some 300 clubs in the Province of Manitoba. Clearly, it is a very good program to help young people learn citizenship, trades, learn leadership. It has lead to many young people moving through that program and into places like this. I was a 4-H member, as I well know many Members of this side and all sides of the House have been 4-H members.

The 4-H program is as good as the volunteer leadership that comes from the adults of our rural communities. I have been very proud to see the number of adults who spent 15, 20 and 25 years as 4-H leaders. They have done a very significant contribution to helping young people in both rural and now urban parts of Manitoba to become leaders of the future. I thank the Member for opening up this opportunity to make this statement, because 4-H is a very significant program for the young people of Manitoba. ORDERS OF THE DAV Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on House Business.

As next Sunday is November 11, the Remembrance Day holiday is being observed within Government and elsewhere on Monday, November 12. Therefore, I would appreciate if you would ask if there is unanimous consent of the House to observe the holiday on Monday, November 12, and for the House to sit Monday hours on Tuesday, November 13. Mr. Speaker: Would there be unanimous consent? It is agreed? Agreed. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), 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. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the Honourable Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Finance; and the Honourable Member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for Executive Council, and the Department of Education and Training. *

(1430) CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPL V SUPPLY-FINANCE Mr. Deputy Chairman (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order this afternoon. We will be resuming considering of the Estimates of the Department of Finance. We will commence consideration of item 5. Federal-Provincial Relations and Research Division; 5.(

a) Economic and Federal-Provincial Relations Branch; 5.(a)(

I) Salaries $902,800.00. Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Deputy Chairman, before we go to the process of Estimates review, under the precedent of this House and rules of this House, I feel obliged to ask that this committee consider a motion I am about to raise with respect to certain events that happened last night with respect to a vote. I think they are very much precedent setting. I sense they spell a great degree of trouble possibly in the future for committees such as this, and I think it is very important.

Under the rules of the House, we are told that this committee itself has to undo, in its wisdom at least, if it sees that there has been an error made in process. I sense that a very serious error in process was made last night, and I think that it is very important that this committee deal with it. Mr. Deputy Chairman, I would like to explain further if I might. Manitoba Rule 65.(9) says that where two Members demand that a formal vote be taken, the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the committee

829 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 shall defer the vote on the motion until the next sitting of the Committee of Supply in the Chamber. Mr. Deputy Chairman, I would submit that this rule clearly outlines what procedures must be followed in Committee of Supply should it sit after 10 p.m., and I would say that was not followed last night. This rule does not indicate that only certain motions apply to this rule. Subsections (a), (b), (

c) and (d), also in accordance with Rule 65, are separate points and should not be read as being interrelated. The rule is clear, and no other understanding can be made of it. Further, Mr. Deputy Chairman, the House of Commons procedure does not apply in this case, as our rules cover motions presented to the Committees of Supply after 10 p.m. Our Rule 1.(2) states in part, "In all cases not provided for in these rules ... "Then we look to the House of Commons of Canada, but where our rules cover a particular matter, we must look to them first. I say to you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, that Rule 65.(9)(

b) certainly lays out clearly the status of how votes are not to be taken in this committee after 10 p.m. I think that hopefully all Members see that a dangerous precedent has been created, and I would explain further. Just imagine if the Government and its majority, having won the vote like it did last night in committee, if indeed the very same motion were presented to rise by an Opposition Member. In theory, the bells then could continue to ring every hour on the hour and the Government's will would be thwarted. So, Mr.

Deputy Chairman, I am saying to you, and I sense, at least I hope that other Members of the committee will see that a dangerous precedent has been created, and before I move my motion, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I think that the Rules 65.(7.1 ), (7.2), (7.3) and (7.4) clearly outline what happens in a count-out prior to 10 p.m. I believe that these rules were used in support of the decision made by the Chair last night. I would submit that those rules are in place properly, in support of a count-out before the ten o'clock adjournment, but the motion to adjourn came after ten o'clock. Let me further say, Mr.

Deputy Chairman, never in the history of my being in this House has a dilatory motion, a motion to adjourn, ever been required to be put formally to paper. Indeed if a motion were made in the House that the House do now adjourn, which I make on a daily occasion, I am not asked to make that motion on paper. I question why indeed that was asked of the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) yesterday. I say to you, Mr. Deputy Chairman, and I say to Members of the committee, I think an awful precedent was set here last night. I think we can correct it.

Therefore I would move thatthe vote taken by the Committee of Supply on November 5, 1990, following 10 p.m ., not be considered a precedent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and that the Chairman of the Committee of Supply be instructed to report this matter to the House. Mr. Deputy Chairman: The Member has raised a matter of privilege to the effect that the vote taken by the Committee of Supply on November 5, 1990, following 10 p.m., not be considered a precedent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and that the Chairman of the Committee of Supply be instructed to report this matter to the House. Mr.

Minister, is this a privilege or- An Honourable Member: Point of proceedings, point of order. Mr. Deputy Chairman: Point of order? This will be a point of order then. This motion will be debatable. The Honourable Member for Thompson. *

(1440) Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Well, the Member had a question, I can defer- Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I just want to ask the Minister a question just to get it clear in my mind. What would he envisage should have happened after 1 0? I may agree with him on this matter, but what would have happened-what does he envisage should have happened if a Member moved that the committee rise? How would that be dealt with? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, the precedent of this Hous1r-and I know the Member would know this probably better than I would-that indeed right at that point the Chairman would be requested to make a c:ount-out vote by pointing. If the Government did not have their Members in place, the vote accordingly would be lost to the Government, and the committee would rise. I am led to believe that because of significant rule changes, after the language issue of '82, '83, '84, there were some changes. I would say that rules that are now written in here, never ever meant to address

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 830 a dilatory motion, that being a motion to adjourn or a committee to rise. That is what we are dealing with. We are not dealing about a substantive motion, and they should be classified into two different areas. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): I am still not clear though what the Minister would envision happening should the situation which occurred last night repeat itself. If he reads 65.(9)(

b) it suggests that the vote on the motion will be deferred until the next day. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, that is why there are two types of motions. There are substantive motions and dilatory motions. They are designed-and I am reading from Beauchesne 's, page 173, Rule 559 (b)(ii): Dilatory motions are designed to dispose of the original question either for the time being or permanently.

They are usually of the following type: that the Orders of the Day be now read; that the House do now proceed to order; that the House proceed to the next order of business; that the debate be now adjourned; that the House do now adjourn. I submit, Mr. Deputy Chairman, that the motion that the committee rise is akin to that the House do now adjourn. In essence it is the same motion. Mr. Ashton: Yes, first of all, dealing with the question of whether the motion should have been written or not, I agree with the Government House Leader (Mr. Manness ). That is not standard practice in terms of adjournment motions.

It is indeed for substantive motions, but is not the case for a motion that committee rise, and I would agree. In terms of the general question, I share some of the views expressed by the Government House Leader, because I think what we are dealing with here is a situation in which our practice has been fairly clear. The practice is, as the Government House Leader outlined should have taken place, in that our rules are quite clear on page 44, when we are dealing with the rule in regard to Committee of Supply after ten o'clock.

It is very clear that the committee shall continue to sit, "and shall rise at its own discretion." That indeed is the Committee of Supply. It has always been practice, as far as I have been here, that it is the

section of the Committee of Supply after ten o'clock that has control over whether it sits or not. What should have happened yesterday according to our practice is that after the vote was taken, after I had requested a counted vote, I do not believe the procedures for substantive votes which were in place would have applied, but instead, the standard practice would have been for the Chair to seek a counted vote from individual Members of the House who were in the committee at the time, part of that

section of the committee , and the question would have been disposed of at that point in time. Now I do recognize there are some gray areas, and I suspect that this is probably part of the problem. It did arise in 1985, and I do know thatthere was some discussion at that time, but whatever the intent was, whatever the intent of 9.(

d) and various other items that relate to the ringing of the bells, the bottom line is that the practice has been clear. What I would suggest is that this diversion from our practice be reported to the House, that we seek a ruling from the Speaker in terms of the ambiguity between the different rules and that we look at perhaps some changes in the Rules Committee, because in defence of the staff of the Chair, there are sections of our rules that could have been read to apply to this case. My

interpretation is that they should not have been, but there are sections that relate to the fact that, for example, if you have two sections of the committee sitting concurrently and a formal vote is requested that the bells ring and the Members are summoned. In fact, it is either to the Chamber or to the committee itself. Our general practice though has been to summon Members into the Chamber, even though this is not what is stated in our rules. That is I think important, because the real difference that we are dealing with here is the distinction between the substantive motions which are clearly identified in 9.( a)(

I) and (2) as not being put to a formal vote at that time, after ten o'clock, and procedural matters that are within the discretion of the committee. I think what we have to recognize, too, is that we have particularly different rules after ten o'clock sittings, because we end up in the situation where we have in our rules provisions that allow us to bend the rules, not to break the rules, but to bend the rules if you like. Normally we go until ten o'clock, but our rules allow us to sit later, but the intent was clearly not that this be treated as a formal motion and really be at the discretion of any

section of the committee. What I would hope we could do with this is get a clear ruling from the Speaker, and if there is a diversion in his

interpretation from what has been the practice, then I believe we will have to change

831 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 the rules, because I do not believe it is in the best interest of the committee Members to end up with lengthy bell ringing sessions on procedural matters after ten o'clock. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Deputy Chairman, I think we are really agreeing on what has to happen after ten o'clock. The option is there for this committee to sit, and certainly everybody recognizes that maybe some people are not going to want to sit. Last night's circumstance ought not to have gone to a formal vote.

It should have been taken immediately as has been mentioned already, and in that case the committee would have adjourned, because I think those wishing to adjourn had a greater number in the committee at that time. *

(1450) How we got into the formal vote was not appropriate, because the precedent that could be set, and this may be joyous for those in Opposition today, but everybody aspires to be Government, and it would not be joyous. You could have, for instance a Minister by himself in committee at eleven o'clock, and a motion come up to reduce the salary to a buck and pass it.

That is a substantive motion that has to be dealt with by all Members of the House and cannot be dealt with after 1 O p.m., so that motions on adjournment, or committee rise, and others which are not in any way taking away from the Estimate process in terms of process dollars or policy, can be dealt with by a simple show of hands. It is incumbent on those who wish to make a point to be here, and that is only fair. Mr. Leonard Evans: Where do we go from here then? Does the MLA for Thompson's (Mr. Ashton) suggestion, is this in addition to passing this motion?

I was not sure whether this was another procedure, rather than passing the motion. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, my greater concern is that if we do not undo what we did last night, that it in essence can become precedent setting, and that is why I am asking the Members to pass this motion. It is a substantive motion, it has had its own debate, and that we pass it and we refer it back to the House for greater House consideration, and ultimately if we want to add to it-I mean referring it back to the House is like referring it to the Speaker.

So I think that the motion is, in referral, does everything that the Member for Thompson had asked. Mr.Ashton: I am not sure ifwe really have the ability to say as a committee that what happened did not happen or we can say it should not have happened, but it did. So I am not sure if certain aspects of the motion will be applicable, and quite frankly, in terms of precedent, if we decide as a Legislature and we change thEI rules, what happened yesterday is meaningless. I think that is the next step, but I am willing to support the motion.

Our caucus is willing to support the motion as an expression of the general consensus that what happened last night, while it may have been and I believe it was a legitimate

interpretation, I am not blaming staff whatsoever . I believe it was a legitimate

interpretation of the rules. What we are essentially saying is it has not been the practice and we want a clear ruling, and then we can decide where to go from there. Mr. Deputy Chairman: Will it be the will of the committee that this be reported to the House immediately? I have to read the motion first. That the vote taken by Committee of Supply November 5, 1990, following 10 p.m., not be considered a precedent of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, and that the Chairman of the Committee of Supply be instructed to report this matter to the House. All those in favour. Opposed, if any. Motion carried.

We are going to recess to report it to the House. An Honourable Member: Right now. Mr. Deputy Chairman: Right now. That is what I asked and you said immediately. An Honourable Member: Who said immediately? Mr. Deputy Chairman: That is what I asked. Mr. Ashton: The intent I believe, the normal practice would be that any report made would be at the next report given by the Chair to the House, which would be tomorrow. I realize you had stated that, but the intent of the motion I think was fairly clear. Mr. Deputy Chairman: Is that the will of the committee that this be reported tomorrow? Agreed. *** Mr.

Deputy Chairman: Okay, on with the business. I will start this all over again.

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 832 Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon we will be resuming consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Finance. We will commence considerations of item 5, Federal-Provincial Relations and Research Division, (

a) Economic and Federal-Provincial Relationship Branch:

(1) Salaries $902,800.00. Does the Honourable Minister wish to introduce his staff? I believe they are new. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Deputy Chairman, I would like to introduce another Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance, Pat Gannon, of this particular division. Ewald Boschmann, involved in taxation policy, and Ron Neumann who is very much involved in understanding transfers. I know he has a more formal title, but certainly I understand was the man who really understands the whole area of transfers, a very crucial important area to this province. Mr.

Leonard Evans: I had expressed an interest in the GST as a question last night. It was suggested that this would be the more appropriate place to ask it, because it involved policy consideration and so forth and also that the people in the division here had been the lead area of the department in discussions with the federal Government on the matter. So I guess my first question is generally a broad one. What is the current status of our relationship with the federal Government on the matter of the GST? I appreciate that is a very broad question.

I know what the Minister has told us in the budget speech, that we are not piggybacking-or cascading is the term used by the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). I appreciate that, and I appreciate there is some loss of revenue also, but generally, what arrangements do we have with the federal Government, if any, about the GST? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, the question is extremely broad. We must remember we have a lot of technical areas where, indeed, there has to be consultation between our Government and the federal Government.

There are other areas of rulings where as the lead Government department we have to seek opinions for other areas of Government. Thirdly, you have a situation where we are trying to decide what type of information we should put out so that there is a clear distinction as to our role versus the federal Government, given that now they are moving into a major new taxation field. So I say to you and to the Member, that there are three or four major areas. I will try and cover them without taking too much time, but trying to provide the information sought. Mr.

Deputy Chairman, there continues to be ongoing dialogue with respect to

interpretation of certain sections. I think mainly it is in the area of Government-to-Government relationships as to how it is that we may, in this case, not tax each other seeing thatthe reciprocal tax agreements in the past have sort of broken down.

Whereas we used to tax each other and then look at the net at the end, now-because we are both senior Governments-are agreeing not to tax each other, but then that leaves in question this whole problem of Government entities, or quasi-Government entities, and to use examples, MPIC; to use other examples, Lotteries, and I could go on and on and on. There is no solid book of rules as against the decision that the federal Government will take as to whether or not they are exempt from taxation. So there is and continues to be dialogue in those areas.

For instance, MPIC has to know whether or not it is subject to this tax, that there are implications of this tax which will be imposed upon it. Because there is some room for an

interpretation, the Government has a role to play in that, because we want to save harmless our motorist to the degree that we can, so we do have a role in that area. Mr. Deputy Chairman, there are other areas of concern. One has to look at whether or not the Government, given that we are a provider of services and I can think, to use an example, park fees. We are selling a service and to the extent that we may or may not, and using that as an example, I guess we are expected to impose the GST on that type of fee.

Then there is dialogue between ourselves and the federal Government as to how it is that we would be a collector of the GST, because indeed if we agree to collect that tax, and we are not saying we are, but if we do then we have to know the rules as a collector. Thirdly, you have an informational side, because we have to prepare ourselves if the GST comes into place, and there are those businesses who now are paying retail sales tax on business inputs in the Manitoba context who will be coming to us for a clear demarcation as to our spheres of responsibility, because they would probably prefer

833 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 that there would be a system in place something similar to the federal system where indeed they gain credit on those inputs. *

(1500) We have to prepare ourselves on that front and there has to be some dialogue. You also have a situation whereby if a corporation has difficulty, and we were talking about arrears for some time yesterday, who has first claim to the assets? Do we rank equally? There is dialogue on that basis with the federal Government. I want to indicate to the Member there is a dialogue on a number of technical aspects.

There is some informational and indeed there is still the critical areas though unquestionably in the gray areas as to whether or not the GST is to be applied to, for instance, those motorists insured underMPIC. Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the Minister for that answer, for the information he shared with us. He makes reference to the whole topic of reciprocal tax agreements. Have we signed anything with the federal Government with regard to some of these elements of the GST that the Minister has referred to? I know some are still in discussion stages. They are up in the air and so on, but have we signed anything?

Is there any agreement whatsoever between the Province of Manitoba and the federal Government? Mr. Manness: The answer straightforwardly is no, there has been no signed agreement with respect to any aspect of the GST. Mr. Leonard Evans: You made reference to taxation of different agencies and so on, including MPIC. When would the decision be forthcoming? You said some of these things were not decided. When will they be decided? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman , it ultimately-some of these very weighty decisions may not be decided, they may ultimately be decided in court.

I mean you have a situation where, for instance, MPIC, you have a situation there where under the early indications provided to us by officials of the federal Government, they deemed that it was in essence a full Crown corporation and therefore would be zero rated. The technical terms is between zero rated and tax exempt, to have great meaning and impact and weight, and in the first indication from the federal Government, that our Crown corporation MPIC would be zero rated. Subsequently over the last month, month and a half, or two months, the federal Government has taken a little different approach on that.

They sense that maybe motorists should be exempt. There is quite a difference of the impact on the rate structure of MPIC, whether one goes one way or the other, and we are saying that we will honour the first indication by the federal Government. Mr. Leonard Evans: When does the Minister then envisage going to court? Does he think that, not only on this, but some other items, that we will be employing a lot of lawyers for some time to fight Manitoba's case? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I do not envisage going to court on any specific area.

Certainly though I can see if the GST receives the parliamentary support necessary to make it law, that you will be in a period of several months bordering on two years if not longer, of major challenges. I would think that if not this province, certainly some of our Crowns, and failing that certainly some Crown somewhere will be in court challenging the federal Government with respect to the application of the GST. I cannot say specifically yes in any area, but I think generally I can answer yes to the question.

It will not be ourselves taking the federal Government to court that I can foresee so much as vice versa, that the federal Government will take us if indeed, for instance, using MPIC as an example, we do not build into thett rate structure some offset as against the GST application. Mr. Leonard Evans: At any rate, the GST is creating a lot of headaches not only for consumers, but obviously for Governments. The Minister I think made reference to the discussions specifically about MPIC. I presume there is correspondence on it. Could he share that correspondence with the committee? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, it may disappoint the Member to find out that there is no specific correspondence using MPIC as an example, that is between the federal Government and ourselves. There has been a lot of correspondence seeking

interpretation as between the department and the federal Government covering a h1,st of issues. I would say quite often as many as six or seven or eight major groupings and within those groupings are several detailed questions.

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 834 There has been a whole host of information and requests for

interpretation that has traded hands. The example that I cite with respect to MPIC has just arisen over the last several weeks and there is no specific correspondence on file with respect to it, more of I think what we hear by word of mouth as we dialogue with officials and indeed as we talk to other provincial officials, so it is sort of in a rumour fashion right now. Mr. Leonard Evans: Really we are dealing with impressions and sort of

interpretations that are strictly based on verbal dialogue. Mr. Manness: That is fair, but we found out through this exercise that when we hear something from a counterpart in another provincial jurisdiction it is matter of time that it ends up coming in to represent itself in paper in some fashion. Mr. Leonard Evans: Normally when you ask for a ruling--and maybe we are too advanced her&-but when you ask for a ruling usually it is put in writing, but I guess you are not in a position to ask for rulings because the legislation has not been passed and so on. It is technically theoretical at this point, I suppose.

Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, the Member answered his question in part. We have nothing to refer to in a legislative form. What we have to refer to are minutes, hand minutes of discussions that took place early on, whereby we have our notes. When we asked specific questions, we were given specific answers by officials. Those are not recorded by way of correspondence, but they are certainly well recorded in note form and in the basis in which we take some of the decisions we do, political decisions in support of the people of this province. Mr.

Leonard Evans: The Minister also made reference to the fact that the province would get involved because it is in the process-it does among other things collect fees for services rendered. I think, if I heard him properly, he used the example of provincial parks where people have to pay to go into the park. Therefore, did I understand him properly then that this has not been resolved, whether the federal Government can require the Province of Manitoba to collect 7 percent on top of the normal entrance fee, let us say, to a provincial park? Just where do we stand on that?

Are we being told that they are going to require us to do that? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, there is still an awful lot of uncertainty in this area, but different provinces are looking at it, I suppose, differently. There are some provinces that are saying there is no way one Government can expect them to collect the tax or can force them to collect another Government's tax, in this case the GST. Yet some of those same provinces are prepared to collect and put it to trust while, of course, obviously there will be some judgment rendered in a court case.

We have not indicated formally to the federal Government that Manitoba is prepared to collect or not collect. However, given that there are being requests made of our departments who do provide services and there is being some pressure exerted upon them that they begin to implement a system of collection, we feel where we have no alternative but to at least explore the ramifications of setting into place a process even though we may not adopt it. When I say, setting into process, I mean building theoretically a process even though a decision to implement has not been made.

Certa inly no commitment has been made to the federal Government. Mr. Leonard Evans: When one thinks about this, there is an enormous array of fees that the Manitoba Government levies- -(interjection)- Mr. Deputy Chairman: Order, please. Could the Honourable Members please take their conversation out in the hallway. We are having trouble hearing. Thank you very much. Mr. Leonard Evans: -all kinds of fees, you know, Land Title Office fees. The fees-- Mr. Deputy Chairman: The Honourable Member for Brandon East, could you bring the mike a little closer. We are really having trouble hearing you. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairman, there are a whole host of fees and charges levied by the Manitoba Government from day to day in the normal course of its business. You go to the Land Titles Office, you are required to pay a fee for various services. In the mining field obviously there are all kinds of fees-drivers' licences, for example, various licences for hunting or fishing or trapping, and I am sure there are all kinds of licences in the field of health. I cannot think of all the examples, but the question is, are we entirely up in the air with all of these?

I would imagine the answer is yes, we are up in the air with all of these. So again, this is a hypothetical question. If the legislation should pass

835 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 the Parliament of Canada through all the stages that it has to, which means the Senate and then approval by the Governor General, and it comes into effect at the beginning of the year, then are we prepared to collect on behalf of the federal Government the 7 percent on all these provincial fees and charges? *

(1510) Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, we are moving down to that final point of decision. We have not made any decision at this point. I guess at this point we are building the case to prepare for that policy decision. We are building the case as we try to get a better understanding of what is exempt, for instance, drivers' licences and land titles, to use the exam pies, are exempt, so we will not have to collect. But the Member is right, there are a whole host of other areas under the legislation as we understand it now that somebody has to collect.

We are trying, firstly, to put at ease the departments as to their responsibilities in this area. We are trying to gain a better understanding of how a collection system may work. We will bring all that information forward and ultimately decide whether or not we will collect, on behalf of the federal Government, the GST. (Mr. Eric Stefanson, The Acting Chairman, in the Chair) Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Acting Chairman, has the Minister considered the possibility of refusing to collect the 7 percent on these various provincial fees and charges, and has he thought out whether there would be any legal consequences?

In other words, if the Province of Manitoba refused, for example, to collect 7 percent on say a hunting licence would it be subject to legal action by the federal Government? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Chairman, we have not, I guess, looked at it in that fashion. We have not made the decision to collect. Ultimately, we will, as a policy decision, be forced to make the decision one way or another. I can assure the Member that the decision not to collect is not so simple and certainly is not an isolated decision.

Because if we are not prepared to collect, I am sure the federal Government will extract some measure of equal treatment with respect to transfers in another area. The simple decision whether to collect or not is not a simple decision; it is one that is just steeped with other political considerations and indeed revenue considerations as to what is in the best well being of the province. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Certainly it is a horrendously complicated issue and, as the Minister suggests, there are obviously a lot of political ramifications in the whole area and whether politically it would be wise to refuse to collect the 7 percent tax and let the Government of Canada do what they will then that Government would have to suffer the political consequences. I guess the province would be losing some revenue then because the 7 percent would be coming from the consumer, from the citizens, not from the Government of Manitoba,

whereas if they extracted it in terms of a deduction from some kind of a transfer payment then it would come directly from the revenue, so the Government would be the loser. At any rate, I do not envy anyone who has to administer the matter. I hope-and I am sure the Minister shares this--it comes to pass that the GST disappears:, but I am not that optimistic. So there is a great deal of uncertainty.

On the informational side, again, the question arises: What about getting ready to advise the people of Manitoba who are affected in all of these areas, not only the departments, but what about all the people out there, all the businesses out there? Is the Government of Manitoba preparing pamphlets and leaflets and information sheets, et cetera, to hand out to the affected citizens and affected businesses? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Chairman, this again, provides another difficult decision to Government.

Obviously it is the federal Government tax, and obviously it is their job to send out all the information circulars. The judgment that we have to make is to what extent are our retail sales tax filers going to be requiring additional information to safeguard the integrity in the amount of retail sales tax that comes to us? That is a judgment call.

Because if we believe that there is going to be confusion and conflict, and that we are not protected in our side and, clearly the retail sales tax revenue field is not protected because of the overlap of uncertainty and bad mistakes and errors that may be made, and the retail sales tax ends up losing, then we all lose. So we have a role in here, we just cannot hold our hands over our eyes and say to the federal Government: You do it all.

They will do what they want, we could care less, but what I am saying is that we may very well have to decide to build information that will safeguard the integrity of our retail sales tax.

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 836 Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I can imagine that it would be very, very difficult for the federal Government to collect certain taxes if the Province of Manitoba refused to, for example, hunting licences. I cannot imagine how the federal Government can go about doing that. However, this is something for speculation. I believe the Member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr) wishes to ask some questions because he has to leave thereafter, so I am quite prepared to yield the floor to him.

I have questions later, more or less of a more general nature, as opposed to administrative. Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood): Let me first ask if it is appropriate that I ask the Minister questions on the Crown Corporation Council at this stage of his Estimates? Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Chairman, I see the Member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) wanting to refer to some line in the Estimates and it touches with that. I was not aware that there would be any dollar commitment in my estimates that would in any way approach the consideration, or the expenditures of the Crown Corporation Council. Mr.

Alcock: Just on that matter, Mr. Acting Chairman, there was a discussion yesterday that we would leave matters of policy to this division. This is the Provincial Relations and Research Division and there was considerable discussion as we went through line-by-line and when we came to global issues the policy questions were best left to this division. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Acting Chairman, if the Member is talking about general, I mean, cover-the-waterfront type of policy questions with respect to the Government, those questions, in that free-for-all, would have to be directed toward the Premier and myself on this particular area, Crown Corporation Council once that Crown comes before a standing committee, and we are prepared to bring that Crown before a standing committee if it has been inadvertently, and it probably has been, left off that list. It should be on it and I have no problem in bringing it before a standing committee of the Legislature because that is the proper place.

There is absolutely no connection as between the Department of Finance, either in a line-by -line activity or indeed by way of policy. The only connection is that I happen to be the Minister of both; they are really basically two worlds apart. Mr. Alcock: The Minister also does sign some considerable loans that are done on behalf of organizations under the scrutiny of the Crown Council. Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Chairman, that is drawing an awfully long bow.

The Member can put those questions in Loan Act, he can put his questions in any standing committee dealing with an annual report of a Crown, at which time, if I am in attendance, I will be more than happy to respond. Mr. Alcock: If the Minister if afraid to answer those questions now we could leave them to another period. I would like an undertaking from him as to when he will call that Council before a Committee of the House? *

(1520) Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Chairman, I do not like the words the Member has used.

I am not afraid of answering questions; I think I have demonstrated adequately to Members of this House I have never feared answering questions and for the Member to say that I am afraid to- If there are a couple of questions, and if it is the will of this committee that we digress, I have no problem, but if it is going to get into long drawn-out specific questions, all the Finance officials are here and not one of them is in a position to deal with specifics, policy specifics, policy questions dealing with the Crown Corporation Council; that is the only point I am trying to make. The Acting Chairman (Mr.

Stefanson): My

interpretation would be that under this

section we stick with the basics of what is detailed on page 71 of the Estimates. The Honourable Member for Osborne. Mr. Alcock: Okay, now perhaps I can continue with the line of questioning that the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Evans) was undertaking. This division, as I understand the functions that this division carries out, in addition to the federal-provincial negotiations, there is also an element of research looking at the impact, looking at some of the policy implications of certain decisions that might be taken.

I note that the Province of Quebec has moved to broaden its provincial sales tax base to merge it with the GST as it is being proposed. Has that possibility, and I know the Minister has answered the question that is not a policy decision of this Government by any means, I am just asking has research been done to estimate the impact of that on Manitoba?

837 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Chairman, yes and no. I will say no from the perspective of hard, hard research looking in detail at the service industry, which is now included in the federal base and the impacts thereon in a revenue sense on the province were it to adopt the total federal base, I would say no. From the perspective of broad, very broad numbers, yes. Long before, I would say back when this talk on the national sales tax was first initiated, basically through '88 and part of '89, but certainly not over the last year or year and a half. (Mr.

Deputy Chairman in the Chair) Mr. Alcock: I note, I believe I am correct, that the Province of Quebec has reduced its provincial sales tax by some 2 percent as a result of this move. I am wondering if there is a sense of what a comparable move would be here in Manitoba. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, again I would give some indication to the Member that we have not done the analysis in that type of detail which would ever allow us to come out and say what might be the case if we were to harmonize bases.

I can indicate to the Member that I know enough about Quebec's existing base as compared to Manitoba's that using Quebec as a measuring stick, and for what we know, and we do not claim to know everything as to the agreement between Quebec and Ottawa, because there are an awful lot of unknowns. What we do know basically about the Quebec base as compared to our own, and using the same methodology in place, I would have to think that if we harmonized the reduction in our provincial sales tax would not be in the 2 percent magnitude, it would be a number somewhat less. Mr. Alcock: How much less? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, I will not put a number to that, because again the analysis has not been done in detail. I think that once I even speculated, that then would become a number that would possibly be on the street, and I would then have to spend countless hours trying to defend a number that I really have no confidence in, so I refuse to even speculate on that number. Mr. Alcock: The Minister, if I understood him correctly when he was talking about the general ongoing discussions between the federal Department of Finance and our own, mentioned a desire on the part of business to receive credits for inputs.

I believe he was saying inputs that would be subject to PST, that there was some interest in receiving tax credits relative to provincial sales tax. What is the status of those discussions? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I brought it up because I see it as being a point of discussion over the years to come, and there is no doubt that as a province we determine a significant portion of our sales tax revenue as a result of the application of our retail sales tax on production machinery, and indeed far beyond that, on all input costs. There are two issues here.

There is the application of the retail sales tax on production machinery and the other issue is that under proposed GST, entities, corporate or non-profit for that matter, will be able to apply for a credit as against all input purchases. We are talking about two different issues, but certainly in the sense that businesses and non-profit organizations were wanting to apply for a credit as against their input purchases similar to the proposed GST and bring that back to a provincial system, it would have significant impact on the revenues we attain under retail sales tax. Mr.

Alcock: One of the concerns that has been raised by small business as well as larger corporations, but certainly in the small business community, is the complexity of the two tax system. I know the Minister has shared concerns about that with the House both publicly and privately in the past. Given that they are not going to create a single tax-that appears to be the policy decision the Government has taken--what actions are they taking to minimize the compliance cost to business? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr.

Deputy Chairman, given that some Members opposite would highly chastise us for even trying to enter into a dialogue with the federal Government to try and remove any area as a redundancy, we still are doing it. As I have said on many, many cases, if we can find an area., in spite of our opposition to some of the basic principles of the GST, if we can still find an area that is going to reduce the costs to our businesses, we will take the political heat from Members opposite. We will try and expose that and see it removed as an additional cost of doing business.

Specifically, we sense that even applying our retail sales tax alongside the GST, listening to the representation made by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, that we are helping, just

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 838 taxing alongside in some cases, remove some of the confusion and, therefore, some of the paperwork. Beyond that, we are still trying to clear out these rules of who has first claim to securities . Indeed, if there are arrears, it is another element of again trying to reduce cost and uncertainty. There are probably many more. If the Member wants more examples, I will try and attain that for him. But you know, we are trying to do what we can to remove complexity. Mr.

Alcock: I should say I would not be one of those who would be quick to criticize the Minister for looking at ways to solve this problem. I think, should this tax come in, there is going to be a significant burden on small business in this province. Let us just for a moment talk about the tax credits under the proposal. People will begin to, if the Government proceeds, receive the tax credit payments, I believe, in the latter half of December. That is when the first ones are to be paid? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, what we know is what we hear on the public media, just like the Member opposite.

We have not been given advance warning as to when these monies may flow, if they flow. Mr. Alcock: I see today through a copy of an Order-in-Council that there has been a decision made of how to treat that credit as far as income security programs calculations of income go. I am wondering, if there have been other decisions made as to how that payment will be treated? *

(1530) Mr. Manness: I know what you mean, Mr. Deputy Chairman. Other decisions, yes, we have made the decision in Order-in-Council, because under the strict accounting, under the strict provisions of the Act dealing with social security , we have indicated that these credits can be received and not attached or attacked. I do not know if that was the request that emanated out of Ottawa or where that came, but certainly Executive Council has adopted that approach, given that the GST comes to be. Mr. Alcock: I think that was a very good decision .

I think it was an important decision, given who those tax credits get paid for. As you get up the ladder, for those people who are the working poor who will still receive those, depending on the amount of income, will there be any exemption for this additional income or will it be treated within the taxable income of people who receive them? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, the Member is asking me to break down the income tax system, which says, as you receive, you shall pay. It is income to be treated no differently from remuneration from wages or commissions or profit or interest.

I do not know how one can discern. It is a source of income. -(interjection)- That is right. I am reminded these are tax credits, so they will flow through the tax form, and they are only received if indeed the level of income is at a certain level. If the federal Government, in their wisdom, decides that they want to raise the level or drop the level, then their greater benefit-raise the level before it starts to be eaten away by the tax rate, then they will make that as their policy decision. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flln Flon): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I apologize for not being here earlier.

I was in the other set of Estimates. I am wondering if we could just move back, with the Minister's permission, to the mining tax area. I am wondering whether the Minister can indicate-- Mr. Deputy Chairman: He will need the wish of the committee. What is the wish of the committee? Agreed. Mr. Storie: This is sometimes a flexible process and Members' questions generally get asked when they can make themselves available and if not, they get asked under the Minister's Salary. So they are asked sooner or later.

In terms of mining tax in the province, can the Minister indicate whether he has any revised numbers in terms of the anticipated revenue from mining tax in the Province of Manitoba? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, the latest numbers I believe are those that I published in the budget and I forget what that number is-118 or I wish it were 118, pardon me--$43.5 million. Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairman, the Minister I believe has at his discretion the right obligation to set aside as much as 3 percent of the mining taxes into the Mining Community Reserve Fund.

Can the Minister indicate in the last three years how much has been set aside, and whether in fact the 3 percent will be set aside this year? Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I do not think the decision has been made for this year yet. Maybe my colleague, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.

839 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 Neufeld), who brings forward that request to Cabinet, could help us somewhat. Certainly the year we had the massive amount that did come in ultimately-we were shooting for 180 and I do not know what came in-120 or 130?-we certainly allocated 3 percent of that total in that year, so this year I imagine it will be considered on its own once this year closes, and that will not be until, of course, after March 31, 1991. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, the Minister will recall that in the budget that was defeated in 1988 there was provision for a Mining Community Development Fund that would have seen 5 percent of mining taxes go toward this fund to assist mining communities in trouble. It was introduced at a time when, as the Minister well knows, mining communities were experiencing substantial increases in base metal prices and the Minister at that time, in his wisdom, I guess, voted against the establishment of that kind of a fund.

Subsequently, of course, two mining communities closed, the community of Sherridon and Lynn Lake and those communities were left without I guess adequate protection, either for the workers or for the investment of people in the communities. I am wondering whether the Minister can indicate whether the Government's policy has changed in terms of developing programs to protect single industry towns? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I would ask that the Member pose this question also to the Minister of Mines and Energy (Mr. Neufeld) in his Estimates because he probably is a little closer to it.

I am well aware of the amount of money that is in the account right now; I believe it is upwards of $10 million. I am aware that there are many applications that come in that money be spent out of it and this Government has taken the approach that if they are legitimate economic development we would be more than happy to spend it.

If the applications are coming in for the sole support to maintain infrastructure, or just to maintain the status quo, without any thought of how it is that the community and/or a proponent therein or indeed the Government, is going to work toward a new initiative, then the money is not forthcoming. There are a million ways of spending that money, I can tell you. Whether or not quite often there are three of four good ones that will cause wealth to be created is always the question and we have taken a pretty firm approach on that.

I guess we do not apologize to anybody, but the decisions that are made around money spent out of that fund are made basically on pure economic development, and we are looking for proponents to come forward. If the Member is saying, well Government is the one that should develop the1 thought process around that, that is where we differ philosophically because we do not claim to have a monopoly around that area. Mr. Storie: We are certainly not talking about a monopoly , Mr. Deputy Chairman.

My question, however, is that if the Minister can put himself in the shoes of the people in Lynn Lake, as an example, who have watched the coffers of Government increase by hundreds of millions of dollars and at the same time requests to stabilize the community, to help support economic development, to offset the damages that are being felt by individual families, individual workers , I guess they have a lot of difficulty with the suggestion that this fund, the Reserve Fund, can only be used for economic development. Where is it written that Is all it can be used for? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, that was the basis on which it was sold to me principally when we were in the House I believe when we discussed it. It is easy to rush out and support infrastructure, but there are other departments of Government who rightfully are to be there during difficult times. To say that the proceeds of the mining company belong purely to those who have done the mining in a certain town is not correct; they belong to all of the people of the Province of Manitoba. *

(1540) Although I know it is hard, it is cold comfort to those who have experienced a change because of the economics of an industry, and who have seen some personal loss with respect to some of their own equity investment. Still, as I understand that account, if it is not put to the use of creation of additional wealth for those people who choose to remain and/or those who are coming, then indeed it will be spent, and there will be nothing to show for it. So I think that is the general approach. I know my colleague might like to comment on this, as is his right. Hon.

Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): The Member for Flin Ron (Mr. Storie) is aware that considerable monies were spent from the mining reserve for the assistance form iners who wished to relocate. There was a considerable

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 840 number of dollars spent on aiding the town or the LGD and for the support of 1990 infrastructure. I think there is a promise for an additional support of some $80,000 for 1991 if memory serves me correctly. So there have been a considerable number of dollars spent. I would like to repeat what the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) has already said, that if the monies to be spent are to bridge a gap that will permit the town to continue as before, that is one thing, but to finance infrastructure or finance town spending or LGD expenditures with no hope of economic improvement in the future, I think is quite another. Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairman, yes, just so the Minister understands my position and the position of the New Democratic Party, no one was suggesting that somehow all of the revenues that were raised through mining taxes were to be somehow funnelled back into northern Manitoba.

What we are saying is that the Mining Community Reserve Fund, which comes from mining taxes, was set up specifically to assist mining communities. If the Minister or the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) had cared to check the record of expenditures from the mining community reserve fund, they would have found that, yes indeed, funds have been used for very diverse purposes. They include support for housing, infrastructure, community works, many different kinds of projects over the years.

It is expected of course that there will always be additional funds used from mining taxes to replenish the fund and to increase it. What is disconcerting is that we have had, in the last couple of years, rather traumatic experiences in two communities where it does not appear that any real initiative was undertaken to either support the communities or the individuals. The Minister mentioned some support for relocation. The community now is faced with the dilemma of whether or not to close the recreation complex simply because there are no funds.

The community was promised $100,000 for economic development more than a year ago now. None of that money has been forthcoming. The point I am making, Mr. Deputy Chairman, is that if the Minister of Finance has any say in how or whether proposals that come from mining communities are supported, then I suggest that he had better visit the communities in question to ask them whether they believe that there is need for support from this program. The community of Snow Lake, which very nearly was a disaster site in the fires of 1989 is still seeking a way out of the community other than the single road access.

They are waiting for the completion of their airstrip. A community where 85 percent of the people gain their employment from a mine where there could be a significant disaster, has no means of evacuating the people quickly. They believe that the Mining Community Reserve Fund may be a source, is a source, of money for the completion of the airstrip. In Sherridon they are suffering from the remains of a mine that ceased to operate in Sherridon in 1952. Their water is becoming polluted. They are waiting for some mitigating measures to stop the pollution and make sure that they have safe drinking water.

The Minister asked what we did. Yes, we did spend some money from the mining community reserve, some $93,000 to begin the process, attempted to stem the problem by constructing a dike. It did alleviate some of the problem, but there is another step that needs to be undertaken. Mr. Deputy Chairman, the point I am making is that this fund was established not for the sole purpose of providing incentives for some other mining company, it was there to support mining communities and the individuals in those communities.

The people in northern Manitoba are extremely frustrated at being denied access to a fund that exists for the purposes that I have talked about. I would encourage the Minister to perhaps first visit the communities and talk to the mayor and council at Sherridon, the mayor and council in Lynn Lake, about what they expect from this fund and from the Government in terms of utilizing mining taxes. The North feels quite often that it is being abused in terms of the wealth that it has created and the money that comes back. Mr.

Neufeld: I would like to respond to the three areas that the Member for Flin Flon has mentioned. Firstly, he mentioned the hundred thousand dollars promised to the LGD of Lynn Lake for economic development. That hundred thousand dollars has indeed been transferred to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Penner), as the LGD of Lynn Lake falls under his jurisdiction. He is the one that

841 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 6, 1990 will be accepting proposals from people within Lynn Lake for economic development. I would have to ask him to see if any proposals have come forward. As far as Snow Lake is concerned, I do not believe it is within the authority of the Minister of Energy and Mines to decide whether or not a landing strip is necessary . I think, first of all, it falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger).

It could well be that if the Minister of Highways and Transportation decides that a strip is necessary the funds could be obtained from the mining reserve, if it is deemed appropriate by Cabinet. As far as Sherridon is concerned, we too have spent some money, I believe, out of the mining reserve, since we took office, for the tailing problem. Sherridon is not in the same, and should not be spoken of in the same context as Lynn Lake. Sherridon was a mining town that ceased operations back in 1952, I believe, and then started up again in about 1987, and operated for a year, possibly.

It was never really revitalized so I do not think we should think of it in the same terms as Lynn Lake. Mr. Storie: The Minister may not want to look at it in the same light as Lynn Lake, but if the Minister had been involved and had discussions with community representatives prior to the opening of the Puffy Lake mine, which was a gold mine, he would have known what that meant to the community.

If the Minister would talk to the business people who built new facilities in anticipation of influx of people, a steady work force; if he talked to the people who built in the community or moved to the community, he would perhaps look atthis somewhat differently . My final question is to the Minister. Is it the Minister's intention to move 3 percent as is allowed under The Mining Tax Act to the mining community reserve fund? Mr. Manness: We take our recommendation from the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld) and Executive Council.

I can tell you to this point in time, as we have discussed this matter over two years now, it has never been a long discussion. We have always seen the wisdom of making that allocation. I cannot foresee a reason why we would not the next time it comes around. Let me say though to the Member-and I do not want to prolong this debate, and just talking probably will. I guess we all put different-using his examples, he could take those examples, he could expand thern a thousandfold. *

(1550) What we found out for instance was that there was something-to use another example, there was the Co-operative Trust monies account or something. It was left over from the Canadian Wheat Board days. It was purely an agricultural funding, a fund that occurred when the pools wound down and/or there were some monies left over and was set up by the Canadian Wheat Board or something. I do not know. The Government of Manitoba has been asked to administer that for 50 years.

I could not help but notice that the former Government decided to take the Co-operative principal-and the source of that money was the Co-operative principal rural farm. They decided to take the proceeds-I think there was a third of a million dollars in the account and it pays off a little bit of dividends. The Government of the Day decided to take and divert that funding into the promotion <>f co-operative housing. Now that is drawing an awfully long bow, and I am saying Governments do that. If Governments wanted to do that with respect to the Mining Reserve Fund, I would say to the Member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Storie), that $10 million could be spent in one Cabinet meeting, because the needs are up there and the needs are in the North. They are genuine and they are real, but that is how quickly the $10 million could be spent. I would have no argument with him that it would not be spent well in most cases. I mean, if you do not put some self-discipline on yourself, then you know there is no fund to draw from when there is a legitimate proposal come forward to provide another activity to a mining community which no longer has a source of ore or whatever. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Deputy Chairman, no one is asking the Minister to spend the $10 million. In factthe three projects I just referenced would not spend the interest on the $10 million, and those projects have been on hold now for two and a half years. An Honourable Member: We did not have $1 0 million in that two and a half years. Mr. Storie: Well, the projects have been on hold and are being cc,nsidered by the Government.

November 6, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 842 The fact is that the interest on the fund would more than adequately cover the projects that we are talking about. I am not asking the Minister to go out and frivolously spend $10 million. I am saying that there are at least three projects that this Government has been sitting on that could be funded legitimately by this fund. I would ask the Government to spend wisely and to meet with the communities and decide when those projects are going to be funded. Moving along, Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, can the Minister indicate whether any provision has been made in this year's Estimates for the funding of the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting modernization? Mr. Manness: Certainly not in my Estimates, and I do not believe in any Estimates. If I am wrong, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I will bring the word back, because it is certainly not in these Estimates. Mr. Storie: Might it be, or would it be normally under The Loan Authority Act? Would that normally be where you would find that kind of funding? Mr. Manness: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairman, it depends on the form of the agreement.

Certainly if a loan guarantee of some sort is required, then, yes, it would have to come under a commitment authority in the first case, and then it is transferred over to loan authority. Mr. Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with item 5.(a)

(1) Salaries $902,800 .00. Shall the item pass? Mr. Storie: Those were the only questions I had on the mining tax. The Member for- An Honourable Member: If you are talking about the mining tax, that is already passed. So we are going back to-- Mr. Deputy Chairman: That is already passed. We are going back to Salaries. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairman, we were talking about the GST previously under the Federal-Provincial Relations and Research Division.

I had a couple of more general questions which I think are appropriate for this area, and that is: Has the Minister any study, any report on the economic impact of the GST, the 7 percent tax that is supposedly coming in on January 1? I would think that would be some kind of research that would have to be engaged in, even as part of a budget preparation process. Mr. Manness: Mr. Deputy Chairman, I just wanted to make sure that I revisited my own understanding.

I want to indicate to the Member that the big hit is on the fiscal side on the provincial Government, and there we sensed that the loss is certainly in the $80 million range. As far as the impact on the economy, we do not accept the federal Government analysis which shows-it seems to me-positive growth at 2 percent or something. We do accept the argument, though, that

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-1-19
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 1st hansardpdf 19.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	449b19a1ee0c0daf3bd072747e7a13c7dcdcc31d

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