Manitoba Hansard — 11 June 1997 (Sitting 59, 36th Legislature, 3rd Session)

36-3-59

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

A o'-/D71 Third Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVII No. 59- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 11, 1997 N 42- 92

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK. Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUA Y, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Rob lin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim Charleswood P.C. EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S.

Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Ind. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon. Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P.

MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. - MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David, Hon. Riel P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank, Hon. Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike, Hon. River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C.

TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P. Vacant Portage Ia Prairie

4759 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 11, 1997 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Obstetrics Closure- Grace General Hospital Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Tracie Johnson, Ian Burron, M. Ewatsik and others requesting that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) consider stopping the closure of the obstetrics program at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. Mobile Screening Unit for Mammograms Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Helen Luce, Edwin Luce, Lon Luce and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Eva Jeffrey, Joyce Kulbaba, Myrna Beals and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request the Minister of Health to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Montreal Trust- Transfer Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of the Bank of Nova Scotia Trust Company and Montreal Trust Company of Canada and Montreal Trust Company praying for the passing of

an act to transfer the personal trusteeship and personal agency of Montreal Trust Company of Canada and Montreal Trust Company to the Bank of Nova Scotia. Licensed Practical Nurses Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Denise Sookram, Dawn Paul, Debbie Sookram and others praying that the Legislative Assembly request that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) consider stopping the elimination of LPNs from the staffing complement in our health care facilities and recognize the value and dedicated services of LPNs across the province. Mr.

Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Shirley Sookram, Brian Allden, Robert Hollins and others praying that the Legislative Assembly request that the Minister of Health consider stopping the elimination of LPNs from the staffing complement in our health care facilities and recognize the value and dedicated service of LPNs across the province. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Obstetrics Closure-Grace General Hospital Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House (by leave).

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the obstetrics program has always been an important part of the Grace Hospital's mandate; and THAT both people in the community and a number of government studies have recommended against the

4760 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 1997 further closure of community hospitals' obstetrics programs; and THAT as a result of federal and provincial cuts in the health budget, hospitals are being forced to eliminate programs in order to balance their own budgets; and THAT the closure of the Grace Hospital obstetrics ward will mean laying off 54 health care professionals, many of whom have years of experience and dedicated service in obstetrics; and THAT moving to a model where more and more births are centred in the tertiary care hospitals will be more costly and decreases the choices for women about where they can give birth.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) consider stopping the closure of the obstetrics program at Winnipeg's Grace Hospital. *

(1335) Mobile Screening Unit for Mammograms Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Mrs. Wowchuk), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Dispense.

WHEREAS medical authorities have stated that breast cancer in Manitoba has reached almost epidemic proportions; and

WHEREAS yearly mammograms are recommended for women over 50, and perhaps younger if a woman feels she is at risk; and

WHEREAS while improved surgical procedures and better post-operative care do improve a woman's chances if she is diagnosed, early detection plays a vital role; and

WHEREAS Manitoba currently has only three centres where mammograms can be performed, those being Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson; and

WHEREAS a trip to and from these centres for a mammogram can cost a woman upwards of$500 which is a prohibitive cost for some women; and

WHEREAS a number of other provinces have dealt with this problem by establishing mobile screening units; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has promised to take action on this serious issue. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

WHEREAS medical authorities have stated that breast cancer in Manitoba has reached almost epidemic proportions; and

WHEREAS yearly mammograms are recommended for women over 50, and perhaps younger !fa woman feels she is at risk; and

WHEREAS while improved surgical procedures and better post-operative care do improve a woman's chances if she is diagnosed, early detection plays a vital role; and

WHEREAS Manitoba currently has only three centres where mammograms can be performed, those being Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson; and

WHEREAS a trip to and from these centres for a mammogram can cost a woman upwards of$500 which is a prohibitive cost for some women: and - -

June 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4761

WHEREAS a number of other provinces have dealt with this problem by establishing mobile screening units; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has promised to take action on this serious issue. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

WHEREAS medical authorities have stated that breast cancer in Manitoba has reached almost epidemic proportions; and

WHEREAS yearly mammograms are recommended for women over 50, and perhaps younger if a woman feels she is at risk; and

WHEREAS while improved surgical procedures and better post-operative care do improve a woman s chances if she is diagnosed, early detection plays a vital role; and

WHEREAS Manitoba currently has only three centres where mammograms can be performed, those being Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson; and

WHEREAS a trip to and from these centres for a mammogram can cost a woman upwards of$500 which is a prohibitive cost for some women; and

WHEREAS a number of other provinces have dealt with this problem by establishing mobile screening units; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has promised to take action on this serious issue. WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONER SH UMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) to consider immediately establishing a mobile screening unit for mammograms to help women across the province detect breast cancer at the earliest possible opportunity. *

(1340) Central Guaranty Trust Company- Transfer Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Praying for the passing of

an act to transfer the trusteeship and agency business of Central Guaranty Trust Company to TD Trust Company. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Cha irperson of the Committee of Supply): Madam 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 Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Law Amendments First Report Mr. Mervin Tweed (Ch airperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Madam Speaker,

4762 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 1997 I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Law Amendments. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its First Report. Your committee met on Tuesday, June 10, 1997, at 10 a. m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Assembly to consider bills referred. At that meeting, your committee elected Mr. Tweed as its Chairperson. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 23-The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d'assurance publique du Manitoba Lyn Charney, Private Citizen Florence Fabbro, Private Citizen Terry Sansom, Private Citizen Lorie Dwornick, Private Citizen Your committee has considered: Bill 8- The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /es biens reels Bill 13- The Insurance Amendment Act: Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les assurances Bill 23-The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d'assurance publique du Manitoba Bill 24-The Personal Property Security Amendment and Various Acts Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et d'autres dispositions /egislatives and has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your committee has also considered: Bill 6-The Natural Gas Supply Repeal and Public Utilities Board Amendment Act; Loi abrogeant Ia

Loi sur /'approvisionnement en gaz nature/ et modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Regie des services publics and has agreed, on division, to report the same with the following amendment: MOTION: THAT

section 1 of the Bill be amended by striking out "c. N65" and substituting "c. 65 ". Your committee has also considered: Bill 26-The Corporations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les corporations and has agreed to report the same with the following amendment: MOTION: THAT the proposed subsection 349.2(4) as set out in

section 23 of the Bill be amended by striking out "subsection 248(3)" and substituting "subsection (5) ". Mr. Tweed: I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources Sixth Report Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Chai rperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): I beg to present the Sixth Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Sixth Report. -

June 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4763 Your committee met on Tuesday, June 10, 1997, at 10 a. m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Assembly to consider bills referred. Your committee has considered: Bi/13-The North American Environmental and Labour Cooperation Agreements Implementation Act;

Loi sur Ia mise en oeuvre des accords nord-americains de cooperation dans les domaines de l'environnement et du travail and has agreed, on a counted vote of 4 Yeas, 3 Nays, to report the bill without amendment. Your committee has also considered: Bi/14-The Steam and Pressure Plants Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les appareils sous pression et a vapeur and has agreed to report the same without amendment. Mr. McAlpine: I move, seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. *

(1345) MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS Red River Valley Farmers Hon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I have a brief statement for the House. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House today to acknowledge the determination and hard work of the Red River Valley farmers. At the height of the flood, fully 610,000 acres of prime Red River Valley farmland were under several feet of water. As of this morning, my staff reported to me that over 580,000 acres of this land have been seeded with only between 22,000 and 29,000 acres remaining.

More importantly, my officials estimate that, God willing and with several more days of good weather, as few as 5,000 acres may be left unseeded for this crop year, which is mostly pockets of land in low-lying areas. Madam Speaker, let me underline and repeat that. In other words, as much as 99 percent of the valley could be seeded this year. Madam Speaker, I urge this House to join with me in applauding the determination and resourcefulness of the Red River Valley farmers who, for the second year in a row, have managed to defeat the Red Sea, and, in particular this year, the flood of the century.

Madam Speaker, while I am obviously elated with the tremendous progress in the Red River Valley, I must also make mention that there is need for rain in the westerly portion of the province. I am also aware that there are difficulties in other parts of the province, including the constituency of my critic from the opposition, the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It is my sincere hope that all the producers of this province will receive the weather they need in the hope of a bountiful harvest this fall. Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): I, too, would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the determination and the hard work of the farmers in the Red River Valley, but also all farmers in this province who worked very hard to ensure that and face the challenges of the elements of the weather, whether it be flood or drought or forest fires or whatever keeps them, but to ensure that we have a bountiful food supply in this province. It is very encouraging to know that the majority of the land will be seeded, close to 99 percent. I commend those farmers.

I guess we should, as the minister said, also thank the good Lord for blessing us with the weather that we need to meet those challenges, but we also have to remember that there are others who are out there, even if it is only 1 percent of the farmers. They are facing very serious challenges. Many of them will not be able to seed their land and many of them have lost their income this year, along with having lost their homes. Our hearts go out to those people who are facing those challenges and hope that in the near future they too will be able to reap the benefits of being able to seed their crops.

It has been a very challenging time to

4764 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 1997 face the flood of the century and, as I say, farmers throughout the province and throughout the country face many challenges. I guess I want to say, Madam Speaker, that as well as commending the farmers and the many volunteers who worked to ensure that the people could adjust to the flood, I am disappointed that the two levels of government have not been able to work together.

It is disappointing to hear a province's election promise of millions of dollars that are going to come in from the federal government and then not have the two levels of government able to work some solution out. I think that is unfortunate, to hear that there is money coming and then have it come as election promises, and then have all of these farmers who are still facing challenges. What we have to look at is not only promises for the Red River Valley. We have to look at long-term solutions throughout the province when we face challenges for any disaster that faces farming communities.

So I would like to extend my best wishes to those people who are still facing challenges and hope that they can do well in this year as well. *

(1350) INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bili 61-The Sustainable Development and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. McCrae), that leave be given to introduce Bill 61, The Sustainable Development and Consequential Amendments Act. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor having been advised of the contents of this bill recommends it to the House. I wish to table his message.

Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, seconded by the honourable Minister of Environment, that leave be given to introduce Bill 61, The Sustainable Development and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur le developpement durable et modifications correlatives, and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor having been advised of the contents of this bill recommends it to the House. Agreed? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Speaker: No? Voice Vote Madam Speaker: All those in favour of leave being granted for the moving of this bill, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. The motion is accordingly carried.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon twenty-seven Grade 8 students from the Austin Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Beverley Wolfe. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD SmartHealth Ownership Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): The provincial government has committed itself to a hundred-million-dollar contract to have a so-called SmartHealth organization dealing with our patient and health care records. SmartHealth has now sold, - -

June 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4765 apparently, its controlling interest to EDS, a company established by Ross Perot, which will now have access to all Manitoba patient records here in the province of Manitoba. I would like to ask the Premier: Did his government, which has the right to block these sales, consult with the various stakeholders that are discussing the health information system? Did they discuss this with the various stakeholders prior to approving this sale to this Ross Perot-established company? *

(1355) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, you know, it is unfortunate that the member opposite operates in such political ways to try and conjure up fears in the minds of people, making up the emphasis on Ross Perot, American-based company, and all those kinds of things. It is just such cheap politics being played by the Leader of the Opposition. It is that kind of tactic that is why he remains in opposition and will be there as long as he chooses to be in government. The fact of the matter is that we are- Point of Order Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to call to your attention two breaches of Beauchesne. One is in terms of the fact that the First Minister is clearly violating Beauchesne Citation 417 and that answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and not provoke debate. Clearly, Madam Speaker, the Premier is doing anything but answering the question.

Also, I point to Beauchesne Citation 489 that the term "cheap political way," which is very similar to the term that the First Minister just used, is clearly unparliamentary and rather than allow the First Minister to continue with these kinds of personality attacks and insults, I would like to ask you to call him to order and answer a very serious question-about SmartHealth and the new sale of SmartHealth from the Royal Bank to a company established by Ross Perot-that is clearly in the public interest. Madam Speaker, the First Minister should answer that question.

Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order. Mr. Filmon: On the same point of order. Clearly, Madam Speaker, what the opposition House leader is doing is making my case for me because he is referring to cheap, personal attacks, and that is exactly what this individual was doing when he was talking about Ross Perot, a person who is not here to defend himself. Clearly, he is making the case that his own Leader in his

preamble was attempting to play cheap politics with the issue as opposed to dealing with the substance of the issue. If the member opposite wants to deal with the substance of the issue, let him do so in a gentlemanly fashion. Madam Speaker: The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on the same point of order. Mr. Doer: On the same point of order, we are not dealing with the thin skin of the Premier. I asked the question of whether he consulted with the stakeholders. Simple question: Did you, yes or no, before you approved the sale?

That is all I asked, and I would ask the Speaker to get control over this thin-skinned Premier to start answering in a substantive way. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members to pick and choose their words carefully. The Chamber is not a place for personal insults or name-calling. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to quickly complete his response. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the point of the matter is that the member opposite is in error in his

preamble when he refers to a company that will have access to the private health records of Manitobans. They will not have access to the private health records of Manitobans. They will in fact control and prevent unauthorized access to the private health records of Manitobans. In fact, that is exactly how these companies work, and this company, in particular, controls the information for

4766 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 1997 Scotland Yard and prevents any unauthorized access to all the information that will be there for the protection of Manitobans. *

(1400) Mr. Doer: The Premier did not answer the question. I asked him whether he consulted with the stakeholders here in Manitoba, you know, those made-in-Manitoba stakeholders that are here in this province dealing with our health care records, our patient records. I asked the Premier whether you consulted with the MMA, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, nurses, and he did not answer the question. I do not know why he cannot answer any questions in a simple way.

I would like to ask the Premier again: Is it not appropriate that the government, who has a g:-oup of stakeholders to deal with this formerly made-in Manitoba company which is now changed, does it not make sense for the government itself to consult with the people that are working on the front lines of this information that are the stakeholders? Did the government consult with them? If they did not, why did they not on behalf of Manitobans? Why are you so afraid to answer the question? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, the stakeholder groups have been consulted throughout the process about the design of the system that will ensure that all of the handling of the private information of Manitoba Health will be done in accordance with the act that is being passed in this Legislature. This Legislature, through its act, will control the protection of any information. This is a company contracted to design the system that will assure that protection.

I might say, Madam Speaker, that, from the narrow perspective of the Leader of the Opposition who, in his desire to be able to criticize anything that is done by this government, he ignores the fact that my colleague Premiers across western Canada, including one of New Democratic persuasion, acknowledge the leadership that Manitoba has in this field of being able to for the first time ever produce a system that will not only protect the information-instead of the private information of Manitobans on health care, unlike the new dumpster party that allowed, under their jurisdiction, records to be thrown into wastebaskets and waste bins, floating around the streets of Winnipeg for anyone to see.

That is what they did with health records in Manitoba. That will not happen, because we will protect it adequately. Health Records Privacy Information and Privacy Commissioner Mr. Gary Doer (Leader ofthe Opposition): Madam Speaker, at least we are proud to put our name of our political party on our party signs, unlike the members opposite who have to hide it-not that that is in order, of course. I guess the Premier is having another tough week, and he is getting more thin-skinned as he goes along.

The Manitoba Medical Association, which has been dealing with the government, said they will not co operate with the provincial government in dealing with confidential patient records unless the government provides for a privacy commissioner to deal in a full and forthright way with the whole issue of privacy here in Manitoba. Will the Premier be listening to doctors who are calling on a much stronger piece of legislation with the privacy commissioner, or is he going to carry on in the way he has in the past, contrary to the advice of doctors here in Manitoba? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, we will listen to all Manitobans when we make our decision. Indeed, the bill that we have before the Legislature will be the subject-presuming that it is able to go to committee stage-of an open public hearing process in which all Manitobans will be allowed to present their views and their concerns. Madam Speaker, the member opposite seems to believe that it is more important to listen to the bargaining agents for the doctors than it is to listen to their professional body.

That is why the College of Physicians and Surgeons are involved as stakeholders in the development of this entire process, including the legislation, to protect the interests of all Manitobans in their health care records. SmartHealth Ownership Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, with respect to this deal, the Premier is wrong on two - -

June 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4767 counts. Firstly, SmartHealth, now the new firm, the new 51 percent base firm, will have access to confidential information. It is in the contract. The Premier ought to read the contract. Secondly, the Premier did not consult with stakeholders before agreeing in this contract, including the college, before agreeing to sell and allow the sale which the province had the power to quash before doing that.

I would like the Minister of Health to explain how it is that somehow along the way to never-never land with this new contract, that is way behind schedule, has delivered nothing in terms of the contract and the deliverables-and we are paying a hundred million dollars of taxpayer money to put our records on file-what the justification was to sell for $50 million the SmartHealth portion to this new Ross Perot-based originally founded firm. Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I have never heard so much false information, so much fearrnongering, so many inaccuracies from the member for Kildonan.

I would need 15 minutes to corre�t all of the errors in the member's statement. The fundamental point here is Manitoba wants to move forward to have one of the best information systems in the world and members opposite do not want that. Madam Speaker, we have an excellent contract in place with SmartHealth. The ownership of SmartHealth has changed. We have done our due diligence to make sure that the contract will in fact remain in place, that all aspects of it remain in place, and we were comfortable that it is in fact the case. So all the protections that have been there-and what is the criticism?

What are the criticisms of the New Democratic Party? They pull names like Ross Perot. If we talked about cakes, I am sure they would invoke Betty Crocker. The bottom line is we have some of the best information people in the world working here in Manitoba to bring us into the next century and the dinosaurs across the way want to go backward. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Kildonan, with a supplementary question. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, will the minister, whose government said the same thing about Connie Curran, whose government said the same thing about Holiday Haven, whose government said the same thing about not lying about MTS, explain to the members of this House why, on the way to this hundred-million dollar deal with Royal Bank-Royal Bank was supposed to have the expertise, Royal Bank was supposed to have the technology, Royal Bank was supposed to deliver the contract. They have not, and now they have been forced to sell 51 percent of their company to EDS, an international-managed health care firm.

Why did that happen? Is it because they have not been able to deliver the contract? Is that not the truth? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, that is not the truth at all. The fact is, in the context of-beginning, the Royal Bank is one of the best in the country. They have now a strategic alliance with another which is in the top category of information systems. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, you know, the members laugh, but we have listened to their questions. We have listened to the member for Osborne (Ms.

McGifford), and what underlies everything they say is not the detail, but they are opposed to moving forward into the electronic age in health information. Madam Speaker, I ask them to look at the gallery, to those young children, because they look down on us. They are learning computers; the information that they use is in computers. They are going to be in the next century. They are leaving members opposite- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Health explain to the average Manitoban who will be sitting at home tonight watching this in Question Period, or this afternoon, how it is the province would pay-[ interjection] Maybe the Premier (Mr. Filmon) would like to answer a question, if he wants to. Can the minister explain how the average Manitoba-how can he explain to them how this government would sign a hundred million-dollar contract with Royal Bank and promise

4768 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 1997 that they are a Manitoba-based company with Manitoba technology and that they are going to deliver-they have not delivered anything to this point, well after the contract-how they now allow that contract to be sold, the majority interest to a U.S.-based health management firm and how they explain the fact they did not consult about the information or the contract with the very stakeholders that are supposed to protect that information? They have not answered one of those questions yet, because they cannot because it is a lousy deal.

They knew it from the beginning, and they know it now, and they cannot defend it. Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, I am going to put this in very realistic terms for members opposite. I am going to put it in personal terms.

When my daughter was two years old and was admitted into the Health Sciences Centre and had to have blood extracted from her for a test in the emergency admitting, with a big needle for a little two-year-old girl with a small arm, three hours later when we went up to put her into a room, a bed up in the Children's Hospital, and the nurse walked in to draw blood from a terrified little child again, and I said, she already had a test, she said, I am sorry, the information is not here.

Can members opposite explain to that two-year-old, that frightened two-year-old, why that information was not up in the nursing station? Can they explain why that has not happened? No. That is real terms; that is real people. We are going to move forward despite them. Gaming Control Commission Staffing Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Madam Speaker, repeatedly this government has expanded gambling in the province while disregarding the views of the public. Even the Desjardins report has been put aside so that the Minister of Finance can act on his own.

While the appointment of the Gaming Control Commission in February suggested the government might actually listen and halt expansion, the Minister of Finance on his own last month committed to expanding the bingo palaces by $50 million, closing the Crystal Casino and making other significant policy changes such as putting alcohol in the casinos.

My question to the minister responsible for the so called Manitoba Gaming Commission: Since the major policy decisions are made by the Minister of Finance, why does the Gaming Commission need a hundred thousand-dollar CEO and a $60,000 special assistant coming from one of the minister's offices to help the Gaming Control Commission which has not met since February? Never met. *

(1410) Hon. Eric Stef anson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, I encourage the member for St. James to read all of the background information on all of these issues, to go back to the Desjardins report and look at what they recommended. They recommended the establishment of the independent Gaming Commission. We are acting on that initiative. They made recommendations relative to VL Ts. We have taken action in terms of a removal of some 650 VL Ts or 15 percent of the VL Ts across Manitoba.

They recommended that we do an independent feasibility study of the Crystal Casino and the consolidation issue of casinos in Winnipeg. That has been done, and we have acted on those recommendations. What we have said all along is there are bodies that provide advice, do research, make recommendations to government, but at the end of the day, Madam Speaker, governments are held accountable. We are prepared to be held accountable for the decisions that we make on behalf of all Manitobans. Policy Development Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St.

James): Madam Speaker, my question to the minister responsible for the Manitoba Gaming Commission: Was he correct when he said on CJOB that they will be setting policies, or is it the Minister of Finance that is going to set the policies on gaming? Hon. Mike Radcliffe (Minister responsible for The Gaming Control Act): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable colleague across the way for that question, because that gives me the opportunity to explain to her, as she obviously was not listening to the broadcast - -

June 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4769 yesterday on CBC, that there is a difference, a world of difference between the operation side, which is the Lotteries Corporation, which handles the day-to-day management and operation of the gaming function in Manitoba, and the policy management which will be the Gaming Commission. They will be-[interjection] I would beg indulgence of the honourable colleague for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) to let me finish my answer.

I would say, Madam Speaker, that the Gaming Commission is charged with the function under the Desjardins report to set policy, to be an adjudicator of disputes, to be the license authority and the regulatory authority for employees, for games and for licensing. If my honourable colleague across the way needs any further elucidation, I would be glad to give it to her in this Chamber today. Ms. Mihychuk: Madam Speaker, if this government hopes to have any integrity, the Minister responsible for the Gaming Control Commission- Madam Speaker: Question, please. Ms.

Mihychuk: My question to the Minister responsible for the Gaming Control Commission: If he is to have any credibility and if the people of Manitoba are to believe you that this is an independent commission to oversee gaming policies, refer the recommendations from the Price Waterhouse report to that commission and allow public review and an open consultation on those policy matters. Mr. Radcliffe: The world has to keep turning, and the Lotteries Corporation has to keep functioning. Decisions have to be made.

We cannot grind govern ment and government functions to a standstill as my honourable colleague across the way would suggest. There will be a plethora of problems that the Gaming Commission will be glad to assume, and I have the greatest confidence in the expertise of the Gaming Commission, of the staff that is being hired, and they will not be bereft of tasks to do. So, Madam Speaker, it has been very appropriate that the management of the Lotteries Corporation has been functioning and carrying on in an appropriate fashion and a consultative fashion.

The people of Manitoba will be well served by the steps that have been taken to date, as they will by the work of the Gaming Commission that we can look forward to anticipating. Canad ian Corrosion Control Stop-Work Warning Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, in Judge Minuk's inquest report on Andrew Kuryk and the Canadian Corrosion Control company, it was made clear that the company had a long history of violations of The Workplace Safety and Health Act.

In response to my questions about Canadian Corrosion Control, the Minister of Labour has stated four times in this House that the stop-work warning issued to Canadian Corrosion Control in 1991 was complied with. Yet the chronological sequence of events attached to the inquest-of which I have a copy here-clearly indicates that that 1991 stop-work warning was not complied with by the company owners because they said they were a small company and did not have the money necessary to provide the safety equipment for their workers.

I want to ask the Minister of Labour: Who is telling the truth in this matter, the Minister of Labour, who says that the company immediately complied with the stop-work warning, or Judge Minuk who said that the company did not? Who is telling the truth? Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I certainly would not accept the comments made by my honourable friend. My staff have informed me that improvement orders were put in place on the company and these were complied with. Also, that a stop-work warning was put in place and that this was complied with. Workplace Safety-P rosecution Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, then I will table a copy of Appendix F of the Canadian Corrosion chronological report that was appendixed to Judge Minuk's report, and I will table that, showing that the order was not complied with. I want to ask the minister: What direction did this Minister of Labour send, what direction did his department send to the Department of Justice, who prosecutes in these matters, with respect to the

4770 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11, 1997 Canadian Corrosion Control fatality when Andrew Kuryk was killed as a result of a workplace accident? What recommendations did his department send to Justice with regard to the prosecution of the company and the owners? Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, my department compiled the facts and all of the issues to do with this case and forwarded it to the Department of Justice, indicating that they recommended a prosecution. Workplace Safety and Health Act Prosecutions Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, then I want to ask the Minister of Labour, who did not answer that second question, because he did not talk about the owners being named in that prosecution as well. We know the charges were stayed against the company, so no one has been charged as a result of this accident. Will this minister-since there had been 27 Workers Compensation claims for deaths last year alone-agree to recommend that company owners be prosecuted, in addition to naming the companies, when they make recommendations to the Department of Justice for prosecution in these matters? Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I think that there is a close working relationship between the staff at Workplace Safety and Health and the departmental people in my department, the Prosecutions branch. The cases that are sent over by Workplace Safety and Health are, from my experience, done in a very thorough way. I believe the Department of Justice responds in a similarly thorough manner, determining what are the appropriate charges, and if appropriate charges are there and it is in the public interest to do so, as they must make that determination, those charges are laid.

SmartHealth Head Office Location Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, when the government moved toward SmartHealth, the Liberal Party actually applauded the government on its action with respect to moving toward the future. When I met with representatives from SmartHealth, there was a great deal of optimism in the sense that Manitoba was going to have the head office. Manitoba was going to be on the leading edge of providing this sort of technology which would transpire into many jobs for the province.

My question to the Minister of Health is: Given that we have seen the sale of SmartHealth, a significant percentage of shares, will Manitoba still see those benefits, such as the head office remain in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Inkster for this question. The contract is in place exactly as it was yesterday with that organization.

The only difference is there has been a change in its ownership. [interjection] Well, members opposite laugh, but any first-year contract student would understand that, but that may be asking too much from members opposite. I know in the Free Press

article there was some reference to the head office being here for another three and a half months. That was incorrect; it was three and a half years, which is the life of the contract. Their intention of course is. with the experience they garner in Manitoba with how they build an information system, one of the best in the world, they are hoping that becomes a product that is sold around the world-not the information, but the system. Members opposite in the New Democratic Party do not understand it. I know the member for Inkster does. *

(1420) Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I would seek the assurances then from the government that this sale will have no impact on the promises and the types of guarantees that were in fact being committed. Even when the contract expires, when I had raised the issue with SmartHealth, they said that they had anticipated that Manitoba was in fact going to lead throughout not only Canada but in North America. Does this minister still feel as confident today as the Minister of Health no - -

June 11, 1997 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 4771 doubt would have felt back when this was initially signed? Mr. Praznik: The member for Inkster, I think, in his question, demonstrates a very in-de pth knowledge of what this is about. [interjection] Members laugh in the New Democratic Party, but they could learn a few things from the member for Inkster about this particular matter. The guarantees and promises, I have said, remain intact today, as they were yesterday and as they have been in the past.

In fact, I would suspect that, given the involvement ofMDS and their greater experience in this area as a company, the Royal Bank taking their experience in finance and moving into new markets, I am even more hopeful today that we will see the realization of those provinces in even a greater way, even greater benefit for the people of Manitoba. Ownership -Minister's Awareness Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I am wondering if the minister can indicate when he first learned about the sale and if in fact he has met with representatives from EDS. Hon.

Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I do not recall the exact date. It was some weeks ago that the SmartHealth people, with Royal Bank representatives and representatives ofEDS, met with myself and some others and indicated that this purchase was in the works. We conducted, through Treasury Board and Finance, our due diligence to make sure that we were in fact-all elements of our contract remain the same. That has been done, and I have met with them since, as they have concluded their arrangement.

I can tell the honourable member, given their world experience, given the fact that they employ some 2,800 Canadians in their Canadian operation, given the fact that we are in a world that is moving very quickly in information technology that the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) escapes-he will have us going back to slates and chalk, I am sure, if he ever is in government. I am very comfortable that we are going to be and are on the leading edge of information technology in this area, and Manitobans are going to be extremely well served.

My little daughter and other little children like her will not have to have two blood tests unnecessarily as long as this party is in power. The New Democrats, we cannot guarantee that. Brandon General Hospital Physician Resources Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Mini ster of Health. The status of the Brandon General Hospital as a regional hospital is being undermined by the loss of many specialists available in Brandon. We have lost obstetricians, pediatricians and urologists.

We no longer have a dermatologist, and we now have only one part-time ophthalmologist and one part-t ime nose, ear and throat specialist. Will the minister undertake to assist the Brandon General Hospital in finding the required medical staff to enable the Brandon General Hospital to continue to be a meaningful regional health facility in western Manitoba in the future? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): I thank the member for that question. I know the former Minister of Health and member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) is also very much concerned about this issue.

I know that the chair and CEO of the Brandon Regional Hospital Authority were attempting to arrange a meeting to look at some options for recruitment of speciaiists there, but I can assure him it is our intention, to the best of our ability, as it is that board, to see Brandon be a truly regional centre. In fact, in establishing the Brandon Regional Hospital Authority, we provide for appointments, cross appointments to the two neighbouring rural regional health authorities, recognizing that the Brandon hospital has, I believe, at least an expanding role to play.

But there is a great deal of work that has to be done in recruiting specialists, and that is a very complex issue, as the member knows, but I thank him for his question, and we make that commitment. Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for his answer. So he is telling us today that he is going to take whatever steps are necessary to correct the situation because the hospital needs four obstetricians; it only has two. It needs four pediatricians; it only has two. It

4772 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 used to have two neurologists; it only has one part-time neurologist now. It used to have two urologists; it now has only one. We have lost the eye, ear, nose and throat specialist; we only have one part time. There is no dermatologist anymore. We have lost the ophthalmologist; there is only one part time. So it is a serious situation. I ask the minister if he would do everything possible in his power to correct the situation. Mr. Praznik: The recruitment of physicians and specialists is a very complex area because it is not a matter of just willing it.

Often it is not even a question of money, but there are a host of factors involved, and it involves a strategy. The member well knows we have difficulty in hosts of areas around Manitoba in recruiting necessary medical staff, but whatever we are able to do that is reasonable, we certainly intend to do in concert with the Brandon Regional Health Authority. Emergency Services Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, further to my previous question on the loss of emergency services at the Brandon General Hospital as of June 30, can the minister tell me today whether he will or can guarantee that the Brandon General Hospital will have sufficient funds provided to ensure that the emergency services will be available beyond June 30 on a 24-hour, seven-day-per-week basis? Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): As the member may or may not be aware, we have a very serious issue in emergency services today across rural and northern Manitoba.

We have a number of communities, including Beausejour, Steinbach and I believe Winkler, where services have already been withdrawn. Madam Speaker, there are a host of ad hoc arrangements that have been made with a host of boards by their former boards. In taking over with the regional health authorities, we discover these things.

So what we are attempting to do, as I have outlined in this House before, we did set up a 90-da y process with the MM A, the college, the regional health authorities, and we are working toward that June 30 deadline with a proposal that should provide a means of solving, we think, the emergency situation on a province-wide basis. Brandon is one part of that province wide, and we recognize the importance of June 30. We are working toward that deadline now. As I have said, the parties, all parties have been at the table working very diligently through the variety of options that are available to us.

Teulon Rural Development Bond Corporation Interest Arrears Payment Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, for the Minister of Rural Development. The Teulon Grow Bond corporation has indicated that it is prepared to pay out interest arrears that have been owing for some time, but they are saying to bondholders, according to a document received by them all, that they will only pay out interest arrears to those who agree to renew their bonds for another five-year term.

Madam Speaker, has the Minister of Rural Development approved this arrangement of creating, after the fact, a separate class of bondholders, namely, only those who wili agree to extend the term of their bond will get the interest they were entitled to by the prospectus? Has he approved ofthis arrangement? Hon. Leonard Derkacb (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, that, I believe. is a proposal that has been sent to the bondholders by the company.

That is not something that comes to my desk for approval, but indeed, as the members knows, there have been arrangements that have been negotiated back and forth between the bondholders and the Teulon company in the spirit of trying to keep the company viable and also in attempting to ensure that the jobs and that the company continues to operate in Teulon. However, it is up to the bond corporation and the bondholders to either accept or reject that proposal, and that relationship is one that we do not interfere in.

However, if there is a problem, there is a regulation and legislation that we will comply with to ensure that no bondholder is left out there, but the member must understand that the interest on bonds is not a guarantee from the province or from the corporation. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, I will table the document I referred to. I would like to ask the minister whether he does not consider that in effect the Grow Bond corporation has reached back into the original prospectus and has changed the classification of the bonds so that only -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4773 those who agree to a 1 0-year bond will have the right to have back interest paid. I would like to ask the minister if he would refer this to his legal counsel to see whether the corporation is acting properly under his act, The Grow Bond Act, and under the attendant regulations by creating two classes of bondholders, which are not provided for in the prospectus. * (14 30) Mr.

Derkach: Madam Speaker, indeed my department staff do work with not only the company but also with the Grow Bond corporation, and any agreement that is put in place will not only have to be agreed to by the bondholders and by the corporation, but indeed we will try to ensure that all of the legal aspects of the agreement are in place so that the company can continue and will be in compliance with the legislation and the regulations that are set. Disaster Assistance Agricultural Losses Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, during the federal election we heard all kinds of promises of money for farmers who were affected by the flood. Farmers were to receive payments for unseeded acreages. I am very pleased that farmers have been able to seed and very few will have to collect payments, but there are still many farmers who have not seeded and who have been misled by the federal government. In fact, the program that we are seeing now is completely different and has nothing to do with unseeded acreages.

I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture why his government was unable to negotiate a long-term agreement with the federal government on farm assistance so that all farmers who suffer disasters are considerably enhanced in the last year-b ecause the opportunity or the likelihood of ad hoc support programs in the future simply are not going to be there. That is why I want to take this opportunity to encourage producers throughout Manitoba to take advantage of the crop insurance program that is being offered, which includes and continues to include a program for unseeded acreage.

For those farmers-and I understand there could be some in her district this year who for different reasons find themselves unable to put in a crop-they should avail themselves of the program of assistance that is available under crop insurance. Ms.

Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, since the federal government was so generous during the election and made $10 million available for assistance to farmers, and it has not been used and in all likelihood will not be used, what steps will the Minister of Agriculture take to ensure that that is in fact allocated to Man itoba farmers for safety net programs, as he indicates are very important to the producers of this province? Mr. Enos: Madam Speaker, I must correct the honourable member.

If indeed the federal government, for whatever reason, because of the election or whatever, felt the need to provide this assistance to farmers, it was the assistance of this government that that be provided to all farmers, including those on the upper Assiniboine in the Swan River. They have steadfastly refused to do that, and that was the reason why the government of Manitoba could not, in fairness to all farmers, participate in this program.

I welcome, invite, particularly those farmers who feel that they ought to avail themselves of some of the federal government's support, feel free to contact the federal government, feel free to call Mr. Iftody, for instance, in the Red River Valley and ascertain for themselves what kind of support is available. offered assistance, not just promises during federal Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has elections. expired. Hon.

Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I believe the honourable member for Swan River is aware of the fact that one of the reasons why so much attention is being paid to the development and improvement of what we refer to as our safety net programs-in Manitoba essentially it is the crop insurance, the basic crop insurance program that was ORDERS OF THE DA Y House Business Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader) : Madam Speaker, I do not have it clear in my mind whether there would be a disposition to waive private

4774 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 members' hour today. Perhaps you might find out for Amendments committee for Friday morning, depending me. on what happens with Bill 7, but again, I will talk to the members of the House about that a little later this Madam Speaker: Is there leave to waive private afternoon. members' hour today? [agreed] Mr.

McCrae: I would like to request leave of the House to permit the Standing Committee on Economic Development to sit tomorrow morning, June 12 , at 10 a.m. as has previously been scheduled, but what we need leave for is to allow that to happen while the House is sitting. Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to permit the Standing Committee on Economic Development to sit tomorrow morning, June 12 , at 10 a.m. as previously scheduled while the House is also sitting? [agreed] Mr.

McCrae: I would like to announce, Madam Speaker, that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Thursday, June 12 , at 7 p.m. and, if necessary, on Friday, June 13, at 10 a.m. to consider Bill 7. I expect, perhaps later this afternoon, to announce a further committee for Friday morning at 10 a.m. as well, but I think we will do that a little later this afternoon. Perhaps, before I announce which bills we should proceed with, the Whip for the opposition has a motion to make.

Madam Speaker: The announcement is that the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet on Thursday, June 12 , at 7 p.m. and, if necessary, on Friday, June 13, at 10 a.m. to consider Bill 7. Committee Chang es Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) for Thursday, June 12 , 19 97, for 10 a.m. Motion agreed to. House Business Mr.

McCrae: It may well be that, pursuant to further discussions, we may indeed refer other bills to the Law Madam Speaker, if you would be so kind as to call the bills for second reading introduction as listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Order Paper, with this modification: if you move Bill 60, the last bill listed, to the beginning. That is the bill standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Housing and Urban Aff airs and Seniors (Mr. Reimer) and if we deal with Bill 60 first and then the rest in the order listed. Following which, would you then call Bills 9, 2, 28, 20, 25, 40, 18 , 57 , 55.

If those bills are not enough to keep this House busy this afternoon, then I guess we can go to the remainder of the bills on the Order Paper. SECOND READINGS Bill 60-- The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Amendment Act Hon. Jack Reimer (Minister of Housing): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), that Bill 60, The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur le logement des infirmes et des personnes agees ), be now read for a second time and referred to a committee of the House. Motion presented. Mr. Reimer: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill 60, an amendment to The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act. The bill contains the following: A change to the definition of elderly persons' housing unit along with a provision giving the department the authority to regulate the type of unit that will be licensed under the act and provisions to allow buildings currently licensed under the act to continue to be licensed.

Let me provide you some of the details of these amendments. Enacted in 19 59, the Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act or commonly known as The EIPH Act was intended to encourage municipalities to develop adequate nonprofit housing for low-income seniors. The act provided a framework for - -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4775 development by setting out physical and operational standards, including age and income criteria for the seniors to be housed, and by providing grants to offset the capital cost of development. The act has become less relevant for a number of reasons. For example, over time the framework it provided was replaced by other programs. The capital cost of providing seniors' housing was offset by other programs and funding options. Consequently, no new grants have been issued under the act since the 19 70s.

Physical and operational standards set out in the act are now regulated through other legislation. Because of changing social and economic conditions, the income criteria specified by the act are no longer congruent with the original intent, that is, to provide housing for lower-income seniors. However, buildings continue to be licensed under the act because the licences are used by assessment authorities as verif ication that projects meet the age and the income requirements or qualifications necessary for the project to be exempt from school taxes under The Municip al Assessment Act.

Without the licence, a project mig ht lose the exemption and the increased costs could be offset by increased rents. This is particularly difficult for nonprofit projects subject to rent control and might threaten the viability of some projects. The act defines eligible elderly persons as those with incomes no more than five times the rent of the individual units. Although the income criteria worked well when the housing being developed was modest, they no longer operate to restrict the EIPH licence to buildings housing lower-income seniors.

The bill before you contains amendments to allow the Department of Housing to regulate the type of units that would qualify for an EIPH licence and restrict its application- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Sorry. An Honourable Member: His mic rophone is off. Mr. Reimer: Is the mike on? Yes, it seems to be recording, Madam Speaker, giving the indication anyway. Point of Order Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): I was having difficu lty hearing the member. I heard a distinct change, and it sounded like the microphone went off for a period of time. I just request that you ensure that it is being recorded. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Radisson for that clarification. I wonder if I might ask for the co-operation of all honourable members in having their private meetings either in the loge or outside the Chamber; but, in particular, more quiet please so that people can indeed hear. *** Mr. Reimer: The bill before you contains amendments to allow the Department of Housing to regulate the type of units that would qualify for EIPH licence and restricts its applications to more modest projects with smaller units intended for lower-income seniors.

The regulations will impose size restrictions similar to the modesty standards used in a former federal-provincial private nonprofit housing program. There are currently 18 4 buildings licensed under The EIPH Act. The vast majority provide modest housing for low-income seniors. Most of the newer projects, although they qualify for a licence under the current act, do contain units that do not meet the size limit ations being proposed. However, as I noted earlier, impact on the loss of the exception would be very severe for a number of these buildings.

For that reason, the bill also contains an amendment that would allow for the continuation of existing licences while the exception issue is being further reviewed. * (14 40) My department's mandate is to enhance the affordability of, the accessibility of adequate housing for Manitobans. At the same time, as the Minister responsible for Seniors, I am concerned with the housing needs of this province's seniors, particularly those with lower incomes. The Elderly and Infirm Persons' Housing Act has, in the past, served its purpose well.

It is time to bring the act in line with current economic and social conditions and to ensure

4776 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 the provisions of the act again reflect its intent, purpose, to enhance the development of affordable housing for seniors. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I recommend this bill to the members of the Legisla ture for their consideration and their adoption. Thank you very much. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just want to say a few words on this particular Bill 60.

Having listened to what the Minister of Housing has said on the record with respect to the basic understanding of the bill, I guess I would just want to very briefly emphasize the importance of elderly person housing. In the past, what we have seen is there has been more of a higher vacancy rate in many different nonprofit housing complexes because I believe, in part, that there has been a need for somewhat of a change.

The change even goes a little bit broader, and that is why I am going to talk really about the principle of the bill in the sense that there are a number of units that are out there that are not fully utilized for the simple reason of their size. The min ister, I am sure, is well aware of the number of vacancies of those small bachelor-type suites- An Honourable Member: 400-plus. Mr. Lamoureux: The member for Burrows indicates 400-plus, and it is probably somewhere in around that number.

I have had an opportunity to visit some of them, and in campaigns I can recall calling them like a shoe box of sorts where you walk in and to the left here you see the bathroom and you take one baby foot forward and there is the kitchen and then there is the living room along with the dining room-bedroom. It is all in one room, and those buildings, in many ways, went up prior to this particu lar administration.

We quickly realized that what we needed to do is to be able to have better facilities for our seniors, that it is not just a question of providing a facili ty and saying, here, you have to pay this percentage of your income and that is where you are going to be spending, because for many of them this is maybe their last stop before they go to a personal care home or something of this nature. I think that we want to provide a decent standard of living for our seniors, and that is the reason why, Madam Speaker, in principle, when we look at this particular bill, it deals with more of the financial aspects.

We need to review how we are going to deal with a number of those EPH housings that are out there, elderly persons housings that are out there so that we can better utilize some of the space, and that might mean in some areas trying to have a little bit more of a mi xture. I know we have even dropped the age in the past in order to allow people to fill some of these particular facilities. With those few words, we have no problem with this particular bill going to committee. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

Bill 44- The Municipal Amendment Act Hon. Leonard Derkacb (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Health (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 44, The Municipal Amendment Act; Loi modif iant Ia

Loi sur Ies munici palites, be now read a second time and be referred to a commit tee of the House. Motion presented. Mr. Derkacb: In accordance with the recommen dations made by the municipal Employee Benefits Board, the Manitoba government will be providing it with the authority for the admini stration of municipal employee pensions. It is our intent to transfer responsibility for the employee pensions to employers and employees under a trust agreement to be administered by the board. However, in order to proceed, The Municipal Act will have to be amended.

The amendments were first suggested by the municipal Employee Benefits Board, which represents employers and employees when the new Municipal Act was being drafted for introduction at the 19 96 session of the Legislature. Unfortunately, at that time, there was insuffic ient time to draft the - -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4777 legislation with respect to the municipal employee pensions. The Municipal Act moved forward with municipal employee pension provisions from the old legislation, but with the understanding that amendments would be introduced as soon as possible. What has been carried forward are some 70 pages of regulations to The Municipal Act that deal with the structure and operations of the municipal Employee Benefits Board.

The legislative amendments we are proposing would eliminate those regulations and put in their place a trust agreement to be operated by the board, which will streamline operations and allow the plan to be more responsive to its contributors. The amendments are supported by the municipal employers through the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and are also supported by the municipal employees through their representation on the municipal Employee Benefits Board. Madam Speaker, I think this is a very positive move.

It puts the power of the administration of this fund in the hands of employers and employees. In both cases they agree with the amendments that are being proposed here today, and I recommend this bill to this House. Thank you very much. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 47- The Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Toews), that Bill 47, The Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur !'adoption et modifications com!latives), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mrs. Mitchelson: I am extremely pleased to rise in the House today and introduce The Adoption and Consequential Amendments Act, Bill 47, which does establish a piece of legislation solely for the matter of adoption. This proposed legislation is part of our government's response to the review of The Child and Family Services Act and the recommendations put forward in the Zuefle report.

We are introducing separate legislation to clearly distinguish between the matter of adoptions and the matter of child abuse and protection. The Child and Family Services Act is, first and foremost, child protection legislation. Adoptions are imp ortant for many children in our communities, not just those who become permanent wards of the province. In addition, we believe that separate legislation will permit easier application and admini stration by the department, by the lawyers and by the courts and the agencies. Adoption laws and practices have changed steadily in all parts of the country over the years.

Adoption itself has changed from being surrounded by secrecy to more openness. There has been a steady decrease in the number of infant adoptions as more young single women are choosing to parent their own children. At the same time, there has been an increase in the number of children coming into the permanent care of Child and Family Services agencies. Mar1itoba's adoption laws need updating to provide more opportunities for children to belong to permanent families. In addition, participants in the recent consultations told us that the current system needed to be made more user friendly.

This bill seeks to improve and to streamline the adoption process, make it easier for parents to adopt a child and enhance the ability of birth parents to contact their adopted children. *

(1450) I would like to comment on some of the key areas addressed by this bill. Proposed legislation will reduce the waiting period for signing of a surrender of guardianship or adoption consent to 48 hours after the birth of a child. Participants in the consultation process have said that the current waiting period of 10 or more days before placement is too long for an infant child to be left in a neutral position and not placed with the

4778 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 adoptive family. The new provisiOns will ensure quicker placement of children with the adoptive parents and prevent the need for interim caregivers such as foster parents for the chi ldren This change has been requested by both birth and adoptive parents, and we believe that it is in the best interests of the children to reduce this waiting period. Under the proposed legislation, the time period for withdrawal of a surrender of guardianship or consent to adoption will be reduced to a period of 21 days following the giving of consent.

Bir th parents will be able to withdraw a voluntary surrender of guardianship or consent to adoption within 21 days after signing, and the children will be returned to them even if the children have been placed for adoption. Presently, voluntary surrender of guardianship cannot be withdrawn after the child has been placed for adoption. Consents to adoption can be withdrawn until the order of adoption is granted, but the present legislation is silent on what is to happen to the child if a consent is withdrawn.

The automatic return of the child to the parent withdrawing a voluntary surrender of guardianship or consent within the 21 days is the result of the decrease in the time after birth in which these documents can be signed. Bi rth parents must be given time to be sure they have made the right decision after the child is born, but it is in the best interests of the child to ensure that placements are not delayed.

The time period for private adoptive parents to apply for an order of adoption will be reduced from no earlier than six months and no later than 12 months, to no earlier than 30 days and no later than six months from the date of consent to adoption by the birth parents. The time period required for a de facto adoption has been reduced from three to two years to ensure more timely decisions for permanency for chi ldren and families in these situations. Birth fathers will be notified of an adoption plan for their children. The court has required this notice by practice for about 10 years.

This notice is intended to prevent the overturn of an adoption because the child's birth father was not notified at the time of placement, as has happened in the U.S.A. in recent years. This will provide better protection against future court action for the adoptive parents and for the child, and it is consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

After an adoption placement, an adoptive parent will be able to enter into agreements to maintain contact or to share information with birth parents, other individuals with a relationship with the adoptee, a member of an Indian band if the adoptee is a member of the band, and adoptive parents of siblings of the adoptee. These openness agreements may include the sharing of identifying information or be limited to contact without an exchange of names and addresses.

The openness agreements will not affect the status of the child as a member of the adoptive family after an order of adoption has been granted by a court. Simi lar agreements have been signed for a number of years, but including this provision in legislation will give more enforcement capacity to this practice. Another key area addressed in this legislation is the treatment of adoption records.

This legislation will provide for future records to be open unless a veto on accessing identifying information or contact is filed by the bir th and adoptive parent or adult adoptee or an adult bio logical sibling of the adoptee. We believe, however, that there is a promise of confidentiality in the current system and that the confidentiality of those who previously placed their children for adoption should be respected. Thus the confidentiality provisions of existing legislation regarding adoption records will be maintained.

The post-adoption registry, which was established in 19 81, provides services allowing nonidentif ying information to be provided to adult adoptees, adoptive parents, birth parents or adult biological siblings of an adoptee on request. In 19 86 the register became semiactive, permitting searches on behalf of adult adoptees for their birth parents or for their biological siblings. If the person being sought out also registered, the system would help them to make contact with each other.

Under the proposed legislation the post-adoption registry will become fully active, allowing for searches on behalf of all eligible registrants, that is, the adult adoptee, bir th parents, adoptive parents and adult biolo gical siblings of an adoptee. Persons eligible to register with the post-adoption registry may file -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4779 disclosure or contact vetoes to prevent either the release of identifying information about or contact with that person. Provision has been made to facilitate services for situations seriously affecting the life or health of an individual affected by an adoption, such as the need for an organ transplant or to help the individual obtain a benef it, such as registration with an India n band. In Manitoba, there are agency adoptions which involve the adoption of permanent wards and nonagency adoptions.

In the second category assessments are required to be completed by a Child and Family Services agency before the matter can proceed to court. Consultation processes revealed that there is a need for private practitioners to undertake the required assessments in order to shorten the processing period. This bill allows for private practitioners to conduct assessments required for adoption, providing that they work under contract to an existing agency or a not-f or profit adoption agency.

Li censed, not-f or-profit adoption agencies will expand the number of service providers and allow adoptive applicants a choice of service providers for adoptions which will not involve permanent wards of Child and Family Services agencies. Child and Family Services agencies will continue to provide adoption services on behalf of their permanent wards and all other adoption services upon the request of an adoptive applicant. This bill reflects the comments, suggestions and recomm endations received from people across the province regarding the adoption process.

We have listened to what Manitobans have said, and I am confident that this bill will meet the needs of birth parents, adoptive parents, and the children for whom adoption is planned. I believe this bill strikes a reasonable balance between the interests of chi ldren and the rights of families, and I urge all members of this Legislature to give it their full support. Thank you. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 52- The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1997 Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Min ister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 52, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 19 97 (Loi de 19 97 modifia nt diverses dispositions legislatives ), be now read a second time and be referred to a comm ittee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, Bill 52, The Statute Law Amendme nt Act, 19 97, is before us primarily for the purpose of correcting minor errors in the statutes.

Hono urable members will note that the bill corrects typographical, numbering and other editing errors in the English and French versions of act. There are, however, some substantive matters included in the bill, which I would like to mention. Bill 52 includes provisions to remove from The Animal Diseases Act's references to animals suffering from conditions of deprivation or ill treatment. These provisions are no longer required as they have been replaced by provisions in The Animal Care Act enacted during the last session of this Legislature.

As well, The Hig hways and Transportation Department Act is being amended to remove an unnecessary regulatory requirement in relation to the abandonment of provincia l highways and roads in the government's continuing effort to streamline the regulatory process. The Law Fees Act is being amended to repeal a provision that was rendered obsolete by the establishment of the Legal Aid Services system in Manitoba.

A technical amendment to The Special Operating Agencies Fi nancing Authority Act is being made in order to elimin ate a redundant step in the processing of Orders-in-Council in relation to the designation of special operating agencies. *

(1500) Finally, The Treasury Branches Act is being repealed. This act was originally enacted in 19 74 and has not been proclaimed. There is no longer any need for this

4780 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 act, and it is being repealed as a result of review of unproclaimed legislation. I believe that concludes my remarks on Bill 52. would be pleased to discuss the bill further at comm ittee stage. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 53- The Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Highways (Mr.

Findlay), that Bill 53, The Local Authorities Election Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifia nt Ia

Loi sur !'election des autorites locales et modifica tions correlatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a comm ittee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Derkach: This amendment is being introduced to allow urban municipalities the option of using the register of electors maintained by Elections Canada as an alternative to conducting a house-to-house canvass for the purpose of preparing an electors' list. It is impor tant to note that use of the register of electors would be optional, not mandatory. Some of the smaller towns and villages may find it most convenient to continue to conduct a house-to-house canvass,

whereas larger centres, most notably Winnipeg and Brandon, will no doubt wish to take advantage of this option. When the last general municipal election was conducted in the fall of 19 95, municipalities were able to avoid the cost of a house-to-house canvass by utilizing voters' lists prepared by Elections Manitoba for the provincial election which had taken place that year. The next general municipal election is to be held in the fall of 19 98, and by passing this bill, we will again give municipalities the opportunity to save the cost of a door-to-door canvass.

Along with the amendments to The Local Authorities Elections Act, which will permit the use of the register of electors, there are consequential amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act and to The Municipal Act which will address protection of privacy concerns regarding the use of the register. These amendments will repeal the requirement that a copy of the electors' roll be held open for public inspection. That is consistent with the protection of privacy concerns expressed at all levels of government. In

summary, it is expected that this bill will be welcomed by local government officials throughout Manitoba. The change has been specifically requested by the City of Winnipeg, but it is optional so that munic ipalities will still have the choice of conducting a house-to-house canvass, if they so wish. Madam Speaker, I think again this is a positive move in allowing our municipalities to utilize the resources and the information that is available to the best use possible, and I recommend it to the House. Thank you. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr.

Jennissen), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 56-The Family Maintenance Amendment Act Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 56, The Family Maintenance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur )'obligation alimentaire), be now read a second time and be referred to a comm ittee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, Bill 56, The Family Maintenance Amendment Act, will establish the framework necessary for a child support guideline scheme, the specifics of which will be contained in a new regulation to the act and similar to the federal child support guidelines which apply in divorce cases. In order to understand the purpose of this bill, it is necessary to understand the newly enacted federal child support guideline scheme and why it is impor tant that - -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 478 1 child support cases falling under provincial jurisdiction not be treated differently from those under federal divorce jurisdiction. The Divorce Act amendment, setting forth a framework for a child support guideline system, came into force May 1, 19 97, together with a regulation containing the specifics of the guidelines. The regulation and the amendments to the act must be read together in order to understand the overall federal child support guideline system. Individual support tables for each province and territory are contained in a

schedule to the regulation. The child support amounts prescribed in the table are based on the income of the payor, the province of the payor's residence and the number of children. Amounts do differ slightly from province to province because of the different tax impl ications for the payor's income level, depending on the jurisdiction of his or her residence. The table amounts take the new tax treatment of child support into account; that is, payments are tax-free to the recipi ent and may not be deducted by the payor.

Child support payments and orders pronounced and agreements made after April 30, 19 97, are now essentially made out of the payor's net income, rather than gross income, as was the case previously. The guidelines also enable the courts to award additional payment amounts for special or extraordinary expenses such as daycare. In addition, judges are allowed discretion to depart from the child support amounts in a number of situations, including undue hardship, adult children and parents' consent as to the level of child support in orders.

Table amounts are based on the payor's ability to pay and are intended to be floor, not ceili ng, amounts; hence, the court's ability to order additiona l payments when the party's financial circumstances make it reasonable to do so. When additional payments or other grounds for departure from the guidelines are considered, the court will look at the financial circumstances of both parents.

The provinces of Ontario, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have all introduced or passed legislation which would make the federal child support guidelines applicable to cases falling under provincial jurisdiction. A uniform system of determining child support, regardless of whether cases are under federal or provincial jurisdiction, is imp ortant because it would be extremely confusing to the public to have two different ways of determining child support, depending on whether provincial or federal legislation applies.

For example, with the dual system, separating spouses would have different regimes applying to their child support at two different stages, that is, separation and divorce. All Manitobans would not be treated equally if there were a dual system. Without provincial legislation, unmarried parents would be unable to take advantage of child support guidelines since the only persons who are entitled to child support orders under the Divorce Act are spouses who are or have been legally married.

Without provincial legislation, married spouses who have separated but are still hopeful of reconciliation and do not wish to proceed with divorce would be unable to take advantage of child support guidelines. The federal guidelines are intended to result in fairer, more consistent child support awards. At present, the amount of a child support order under both federal and provincial legislation is almost entirely at the discretion of the court. This has resulted in inconsistent and unpredictable awards.

The federal guidelines legislation is based on years of work by the federal provincia l-territorial family law committee. The committee researched, studied and debated how best to deal with the problem of inconsi stent and inadequate child support. The legislation is also the product of extensive consultation with the public and interest groups over the last few years. The experts agree that there is no one perfect model. The federal government is committed to evaluating the guidelines and operation so that changes can be made in the future if the scheme or particular aspects of it prove unworkable.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate now be adjourned. Motion agreed to. * (1510 )

4782 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 Bill 57-The Highway Traffic Amendment,

Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that BiJI 57, The Hig hway Traffic Amendment,

Summary Convictions Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modi fiant le Code de Ia route et Ia

Loi sur les poursuites

sommaires et modifi cations correlatives), be now read a second time and referred to a commit tee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Findlay: I am pleased to introduce this Bi ll 57 today for second reading. The purpose of this bill is to provide authority for the province's law enforcement agencies to use image-capturing enforcement systems, a form of automated photo enforcement technology, as an aid to traffic enforcement. The legislation is being introduced at the request of the Winnipeg Police Service.

Traffic safety was a primary concern identified by Winnipeggers at a series of public forums held this past winter by Winnipeg Police Chief David Cassels. Law enforcement resources are straining under the pressure of increasing demands from the public for enhanced enforcement. Consequently, law enforcement has to be done in a more efficient and at times a more unique manner. This is where photo enforcement systems come it. This technology allows the police to be in many places at one time. The legislation wiJI permit its use in the following situations. First is intersection enforcement.

Running red lights, as I am sure every member in this House wiJI know, is a common violation with very serious consequences, particularly in Brandon and Winnipeg. Conventional enforcement poses specific difficulties for police officers who must first observe the infraction of somebody running the red light; then they must chase the individual, stop and ticket the vio lator. In many cases, police must follow the vio lating vehicle through a red light to stop it, and this can certainly endanger motorists and pedestrians, as well as the police officers themselves, especially when traffic is reasonably heavy.

Police cannot efficie ntly enforce against this type of violation due to the limited resources and the potentially serious safety consequences. Winnipeg police statistics indi cate that the total cost of right-angle collisions at intersections in one year is approximately $90 miJiion.

Traffic statistics that the Department of Hig hways collects identified in 19 95 that in a list of about 20 different types of accidents that happened throughout Manitoba, 18 deaths occurred because of right-angle accidents at intersections, and also 18 deaths happened from head-on collisions, and those are the two categories of highest accidents resulting in deaths of motorists. The second use of the technology is rail crossing enforcement. Photo enforcement cameras will also be allowed to be used to monitor selected controlled railway crossings.

Red-light cameras have been in use in many countries since the 19 70s, where they have been shown to reduce red light violations and collisions at intersections. Manitoba will be the first jurisdi ction in Canada to introduce photo enforcement technology for inter

section and rail crossing enforcement. The province's main law enforcement agencies will be conducting an analysis of various sites to determine where the intersections and railway crossings with the highest incidence of collisions or violations are and where they will use the lights. Offences detected through the photo enforcement system will be charged against the vehicle owner. As the owner is being held responsible for the offence, even though he or she may not have been the driver, demerit points will not be assessed.

However, to ensure there is stiJI a significant deterrent to people who might consider reoffending, a higher fine of $10 0 plus $32 in costs will be assessed for each infraction. A charge laid through conventional enforcement methods, in other words, where the police officer stops the person and issues a ticket directly, will continue to carry two demerits plus a fine of $40 plus court costs of $13 . -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4783 This bill also introduces a number of innovations to the court process which will streamline the movement of photo enforcement offences through the system. These changes will also reduce the cost of enforcement by allowing police officers to spend more time on the street where they are needed rather than in the courtroom. For the sake of brevity, I will not go into any further detail in the photo enforcement system or the changes in the court process at this time.

A much more in-depth explanation of the legislation is provided in spread sheets which I will offer to my critics when I complete this. I look forward to the critics passing this, and we deal with it in committee and it becomes law in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 58- The Law Ref orm Commission Amendment Act Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I move, seconded by the Minis ter or Urban Affairs (Mr.

Reimer), that Bill 58, The Law Reform Commission Amendment Act (Loi modif iant Ia

Loi sur Ia Commission de reforme du droit), be now read a second time and be referred to a comm ittee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in a response to a question during the Justice department Estimates, the government was looking for a way to preserve the process of law reform in the province. We have had discussions with various individuals and groups.

I indicated at that time that none of those di scussions would see a return to the level of funding that the Law Reform Commission had received from the government in the past in view of this government's comm itment of funds to public safety initiatives. The purpose of this bill is to preserve the commission and allow it time to investigate other sources of funding and ways of operating to deliver its services at a reduced cost. Future funding for the commission from the government will be by way of grants, and commission staff will not be civil servants.

We have had some indication that the commission will consider operating using independent consultants on a project basis; however, that is for the commission to decide. I am pleased that we have been able to preserve the commission, offer it the opportunity to look for other sources of funding and other ways to carry on its mandate. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 59- The Conservation Agreements Act Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Natural Resources): I move, seconded by the Minis ter of Justice (Mr.

Toews), that Bill 59, The Conservation Agreements Act (Loi sur les accords de conservation), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Cummings: The purpose of the conservation easements legislation is to establish a legal mechanism that allows for conservation agreements between a private landowner and a specified conservation organization. Conservation easements would run with the tile of land to ensure long-term protection of natural areas.

Conservation easements have been used in private land across the United States for the past 65 years as a means of protecting imp ortant natural areas, including wildlif e habitat. Specific legislation amendments have been made in many Canadian jurisdictions to permit their use as well. Saskatchewan and Alberta recently passed legislation to permit these agreements. Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario, British Columbia and the Yukon have also enacted specific legislation for this purpose. Conservation easements provide an efficient and cost-effective means of protecting valuable natural lands.

It is an alternative to purchasing or leasing the

4784 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 land. The development of the legislation demonstrates that we are comm itted to sustainable development.

Conservation easement provides an opportunity for an individual to be compensated for retaining parts of their land in a natural state for a specified length of time without removing the remainder of the land for other productive uses which would normally and primarily be agricultural. * (1 520) To assist in the implementation of the legislation, a working group was established which included a number of key stakeholders, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Keystone Agricultural Producers, Ducks Unli mited, Delta Waterfowl foundation, the Cattle Producers Association of Manitoba, Manitoba Habitat Heritage Corporation and representatives of the Department of Natural Resources.

This has followed an extensive period of consu ltation regarding the easement legislation which has evolved over the last couple of years, and I believe the legislation that you have before you today meets the needs of all the stakeholders that were consulted. lin the process of reviewing the legislation, I would invite my critics and the members of the opposition to review the appeal and the mechanisms that are in place in order to allow for the establishment of protective capacity for chunks of land that people wish to either donate or sell easements against for long periods of time including and up to anything that could· be referred to as perpetuity, that allows for a fair process to review those leases over particular periods of time.

Thank you. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Biii 9-The Public Utilities Board Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To continue debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), Bi ll 9 (The Public Utilities Board Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Regie des services publics), standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), who has 28 minutes remaining. Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Also standing in the name of the honourable member for Ki ldonan (Mr. Chomiak). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] As agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) and the honourable member for Kildonan (Chomiak). Bill 2- The Arbitration and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 2 (The Arbitration and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur !'arbitrage et modif ications correlatives), on the proposed motion of the honourable Mini ster of Justice (Mr. Toews), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? No, leave has been denied. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St Johns): Madam Speaker, some brief comments on Bill 2. It is interesting that, when the minis ter introduced this bill, he failed to compl iment the organization which is responsible for this legislation and for so many improvements in our law in Manitoba, and that is the Law Reform Commission.

I think that is very sad, and I think, of course, it is part of this government's agenda to diminish, if not entirely abolish, progressive law reform in this province through a law reform commission that is publicly funded and independent. Of course, it was the Law Reform Commission of Manitoba that in 19 94 recognized that we had to get up to date on how we conduct arbitrations in this province. Of course, The Arbitration Act which is currently on the books dates back to 18 89 and legislation from the United Kingdom.

It is certainly outdated and people have commented that it actually discourages arbitration which is so important as an alternative dispute - -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA 4785 resolution. In deed, one person commented to me that the current legislation is hopelessly antiquated. As a result of changes at the international level and particularly through the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement ofForeign Arbitral A wards, a new regime for arbitration processes came into force, and eventually that spilled over into the area of domestic arbitrations. The Alberta Law Reform Commission did ma jor work to adapt the international model to domestic use.

Then in 19 90, the Uniform Law Conference of Canada used that work to produce a uniform arbitration act. As I understand it, Alberta, Ontario, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick now have new arbitration acts based on the model. I think there are really two shortcomings in the current statute that are addressed by this legislation. One is a more comprehensive procedural process being set out there, and the second is a move to greater restriction on the party's access to the court's power of intervention.

The Law Reform Commission points out that, since this type of model is already available in Manitoba for international commercial arbitration, it is obviously fair to have a similar model available for domestic arbitration. We on this side acknowledge the value of arbitration as a way to resolve disputes. Arbitration usually costs less to the disputing parties. At least, we recognize that it can cut down on some costly legal costs and pretrial procedures. It certainly costs less to the taxpaying public, because the expensive judicial system is not called on to resolve the disputes.

Arbitration is often, although not always-but usually faster than litigation. It is also informal, accessible and flexible, which meet the needs of the parties to a greater extent than formal litigation. Of course, arbitration also allows privacy. It is confidential, as long as one of the parties does not pursue an appeal.

The Manitoba Civil Justice Review Task Force report from September of 19 96 also noted, of course, that there are some disadvantages to arbitration and noted that arbitrators can make decisions on questions of fact in law but may lack the legal expertise of some judges, and in the absence of a specified time frame arbitrations may continue over a long period of time. It is clear that arbitration does have a very important role in our society and, indeed, it is my firm belief that we should rely more on alternative dispute resolution.

We should be looking for not only a greater reliance on arbitration but other ways of resolving disputes outside of the courts. I think one of the greatest arguments to support my belief is that when there are limited resources to deal with conflicts between individuals and limited resources to deal with Criminal Code infractions, we have to think why are we putting so many resources into the resolution of disputes between, for example, two large corporations that may have extensive resources and, yet, are going head to head in a battle over many years.

I can think of several cases recently in Manitoba history over a contractual provision. We really, I think, have to think in larger terms about how we are using public resources to solve disputes between certain kinds of parties and, in that regard, I wonder if we should not be looking toward a more affirmative statement or a more ef fective way of getting parties to use arbitration as an alternative to civil litigation, including requiring arbitration clauses in certain commercial contracts. We have some questions that we will be pursuing before third reading.

We wonder why, contrary to the recommendations from the Law Reform Commission, the act can be excluded by agreement of the parties. We want to know why the government has made changes to the Law Reform recommendations regarding appeal rights and the appointment of experts in the taxation of costs. With those comments, we are prepared to see this legislation proceed. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Some Honourable Members: Question. Madam Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 2, The Arbitration and Consequential Amendments Act.

Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion?

4786 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 1997 An Honourable Member: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 28- The Emergency Measures Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pitura), Bill 28 (The Emergency Measures Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les mesures d'urgence et modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? No. Leave has been denied. *

(1530) Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and put a few comments on the record regarding Bill 28. At the end of my remarks, I think it would be appropriate for us to send the bill to the committee stage to hear from any presenters that might want to make comments at that stage. The stated purpose of this legislation is to amalgamate the functions of the Emergency Measures Organization and the Disaster Assistance Board and to set up an appeals board and to increase penalties for offences under the act.

What this bill evidently does is dissolves the Disaster Assistance Board and makes the newly named Emergency Management Organization responsible for the handling of emergencies and for the assessment and distribution of disaster assistance. It puts into place the disaster assistance appeal board, and I will have some comments to make on that in a few minutes. The board sets a fee payable by the appellant, and its decisions are not subject to review or appeal to any court. It also increases the penalties for offences under the act to a maximum of $1 0,000.

Now, Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Treasury Board of the province approved this amalgamation back in February of 1996. That was well over a year ago, and the government has taken over a year to introduce legislation to this House confirming what it approved and what it did months and months ago. That is a clear case of the government putting the cart before the horse. (Mr.

Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) This is an indication to us that this government has been in power for too long, because at the nine-year mark it has given up the proper practice of introducing legislation to this House, getting approval of this House and then proceeding with the changes that it wants to do that result from the legislation. In this case, it simply made all the changes that it had to do and now, a year later, is coming forward with legislation. That, Mr. Acting Speaker, is absolutely the wrong way to proceed.

How do we know that in the future we will not see the government making arbitrary changes such as this and, in fact, if they get away with one year of delay, why not make it two years or three years? At some point the accountability of the government comes into question on this matter, so that was a concern of our caucus. Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister has explained that the government is trying to save some money by making these changes, and the minister is promising staff reductions of, I believe, 1. 26 positions. I believe that is one full-time and one part-time person are affected in this reduction.

We are also concerned that the amalgamation may in some way be linked to the loss of discretion on depreciation that existed with the old board. I know the minister claims that the method of settlement is not any different now than it was before and that in fact there was no provision for replacement cost on chattels in the past, but my information is that in a lot of cases people got either replacement cost or something that was tantamount to replacement cost in the basement flooding of 1993 .

There is a concern that this new regime that he is now in charge of, in fact, may change its method of adjusting and may become tougher and more stringent on the claimants. We would not want to see that happen; we would not want to see the system so tight that the adjusters did not have a certain amount of leeway and a discretion to be able to effect, in effect, something that was close to a replacement cost settlement, a settlement that would put people roughly - -

June 11 , 19 97 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4787 in the same position they were before the flood or before the natural disaster occurred. Time will tell, and I think what we will find is the number of people who make appeals and are unhappy with their settlements will tell us how this new system that the minister has set up is in fact working. So I think it is in his interests and the government's interests to make certain that this system does work well. Now, the whole issue of the appeal board or the appeal commission is something that is of major interest to us.

What we are suggesting, and we plan to be making an amendment to the bill, would be to institute a system similar to what is available at Workers Compensation and similar to the suggestion made by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) in attempting to amend Bill 23 on MPIC yesterday and that is to set up an advocate, an appeals advocate, to help people with their cases before the appeal board. This is something that I think may be useful in making certain that people who have appeals are not at a disadvantage in going through the process.

At least the people with the appeals would have an advocate on their side in this situation. So I think that is a worthwhile suggestion for the minister to look at and see if that is a possibility that we might incorporate that amendment into the appeal procedure. We have suggested in the past that the government do something about the question of deductibles, unlike 19 93 when the minister at the time was dealing with sewer backup cases that amounted to, in number, I believe, about I 0,000 claims, but the claimants were dealing with an average of $2,000 claims.

I believe the total bill for that disaster was around $25 million. We have nowhere near that situation in this case. We have a situation, while the number of claimants is lower, we are dealing with only a quarter of the number of claimants, in around the 2,500 range and that is just for property damage. There will be a lot more for the evacuees, but at least on the property side of things the sheer number of claims is down, but the size of the claims and the complexity of the claims are much enhanced over 19 93 . So I think, and submit to the minister, that he is in uncharted territory in some respects in this.

We have never had a loss this big, and I do not believe that this government is at the point that they have actually quantified the loss. I do not think the minister, in fact, knows how big the loss is. I mean, is it going to be $200 million? Is it going to be $300 million? Is it going to be $400 million? Mr.

Acting Speaker, we do not know what the size of this loss is going to be, and so for the minister's sake, and this government's sake, this system had better work right, this system had better work smoothly, and this system had better deal with the people fairly and solve the problem in a smooth and a fair and a proper and a timely manner, or it is this government that is going-as I said in Estimates to the minister, this minister is going to have potentially 2,500 people chasing him if this system does not work.

So I will have to have some faith that in fact they will be attentive to the needs of the claimants in this situation, that they will do their utmost to get their people in the field to determine the size of a loss, to assess the loss as quickly as possible, and to approve the repairs and to get the repairs done in a timely manner so that they do not inconvenience people anymore than they already have. That, Mr. Acting Speaker, brings me to another point, and that is the whole area of the reconstruction and the use of renovation contractors and so on over the next few months.

The government insists upon not doing anything to regulate the contracting or the renovation contractor industry in this province, and I think perhaps to the detriment of the people and also, I guess, at the end of the day, to the detriment of the government because they will be the people that will have to carry the can for all of the renovation scams that occur, and they do. * (1 540) Every time there is a major disaster, hailstorms, floods, whatever, there are renovation contractors coming in from out of province, and some right here in our own province, who take on much too much work and work that they are not capable of handling in an efficient and proper way.

In fact, people get stuck with shoddy construction, shoddy work and a lot of inconvenience. That does not make for a happy, healthy environment, and I think that this is the environment that we are dealing with. The minister knows that this construction work cannot be done over a protracted period of time. We do not have the luxury

4788 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 11 , 19 97 of rebuilding over the course of two or three years. People are going to want the construction done all at the same time. That is an expectation that they will have, and that is understandable. Given that situation, then, all ofthe pressures and confusion that occur at the time will allow certain contractors to get involved and lead to many, many more problems. So there is a lot of potential for troubles to develop in this whole area.

We, certainly on this side of the House, wish the minister luck in trying to sort all of this out, but we want to give him as much advice in advance, if that is possible, so that he would avoid some of the problems. Now, one of the major problems that we have been facing in this case has been the whole question of deductibles. The people did not ask to be flooded. The floods occurred.

This was I 00-yea r or 500-year or whatever-year flood, and it is not expected that we are going to see a situation repeat itself like this for some time. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) But to try to exact a deductible from the affected people is just to me adding insult to injury in this situation. Madam Speaker, deductibles, historically, at least in the insurance industry, have been used for the purposes of discouraging small claims. The fact is that the insurance program is there to pay out on major-type losses, and it is not really designed to be a maintenance policy.

It is not really designed to be there for small claims because the cost of adjustment for a $500 claim is the same as a $5,000 claim. So they do not like little claims. They are there to solve the big claims. When your house burns down, it is a big loss. They get a nice story in the paper about how efficient they were and how quick they were at rebuilding the loss. Everybody is reasonably happy about this, but what they do not like are these little claims. That is why you have a deductible there in the first place, to discourage small claims.

Typically what happens is that either under certain conditions the deductible does not apply at all or it is a disappearing deductible. For example, the deductible will disappear completely once the loss reaches $5,000. If it is over $5,000, no deductible, or it will disappear. It will be 10 percent up to $5, 000 and, after that, there will be no deductible. The point is that the loss is sufficiently large, that no

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-3-59
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 3rd hansardpdf 59.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	46db896930742e2dfc6cbf3e310665edbe6d8dac

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