Manitoba Committee Hansard — Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee, Sitting 4 (32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-sro4

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEG ISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING CO MMITTEE ON STATUTORY REGULATIONS AND ORDERS Tuesday, 9 July, 19 85 TIM E - 8:00 p.m. LOCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRMAN - Mr. C. Santos (B urrows) ATTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Me ssrs. Penner . Ko styra. Ho n. Ms . Hem ph id Me ssrs. Corri n. Harper. Kov nats. Santos . Steen, Birt. Downey WIT NESSES: Bill No. 19 Mr. Fred Sm1th. Director . Man itoba Heavy Cons truction Association Mr . George Cr eek. Insur ance Agents Associa tion Bill No. 14 Ms. Vicki Shane.

Manitoba Assoc iation of Inde pendent Child Care Operators Fred Ch apman . Mani toba Cl 1ild Car e Associa tion Patrick Ritter. Citi zens for Better Day Car e Abe Arnold. Man itoba Association for R1 ghts and Li berties · Bill No. 16 M1. Harry De Leeuw, Winnipeg Real Estate Board and Manitoba Real Estate Assoc iation Prof. W.P Thompson. Manitoba Histo rical Soc iety Ms. Moira Jones. Man1toba Histoncal Society Mr . Sid Krok er. President. Association of Mani toba Arche ologis ts Mr. Gordon Bre ckman. Manitoba Archeo logical Soci ety Mr. Te rry Wright, Pemb1 11a Mou ntain Cla ys Ltd Bill 36 Mr . Frank Cvitkovit ch.

Legal Couns el . Mor tgage Loans Association of Man itoba Bill 37 Mr. 1\ilu rray Smith. Past President . Man1toba Teachers· Society Bill 55 Mr . Bob Sparrow. Vice- President Manitoba Hotel Associ ation Mr . Te rry Wnght. Med1c al Research Bill 57 Mr . William Ol son. Manitoba Law Soc1e ty Bill 58 Mr . Frank Cvitk ovitch . Legal Coun sel . Mo rtgage Loans Associ ation of Man1toba 57 Bill 72 Mr . Mur ray Smith, Past President. Manitoba Teac hers' Society Mr . Waiter Melnyk, Pre sident, Manitoba Assoc iation of School Su perintendents Bill 74 Donna Lucas.

Charter of Rights Coalition Bill 78 Edward Lips ett , Mani toba Associa tion for Rights and Li berties Ray Boeh ler , Ma nitoba Video Reta il ers Associa tion Mu rray Smith, Past Pre sident , Manitoba Te achers' Society Liz Cof fman, Man itoba Ac tion Comm ittee on the Status of Women Bill 85 Dr . lan Sutherla nd, Presiden t-elect Manitoba Med ical Associat ion John La Plume, Manitoba Medic al Assoc iation Dr . Jame s Briggs, Pr esi dent , Col lege of Physicians and Sur geons Dr. WB. Ewart, priv ate physician Bill 98 Wayne Hancock. pr ivate citi zen MA TTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 19 -

An Act to amend The Highway Tr affic Act (2): Loi mod ifiant le code de la route

(2) Bill 14 -

An Act to amend the Communi ty Child Day Car e Standards Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les garderies d'e nfants Bill 16 - The Herita ge Resou rces Act;

Loi sur le patri moine Bill 36 - The Mo rtgage Dealers Act;

Loi sur les cou rtiers d' hypoth8ques Bill 37 -

An Act to amend The Public Schools Ac t; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les ecoles publiqu es Bill 55 -

An Act to amend The Liquor Control Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur la reg lementation des alcools Bill 57 -

An Act to amend The Law Socie ty Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur la Soc iete du Barreau Bill 58 -

An Act to amend The Mor tgage Act ; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les hypotheques Bill 72 -

An Act to amend The Teac hers' Pensions Act: Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants Bill 7 4 - The Equal Rights Statute Amendment Ac t: Loi mod ifiant le droit statutair e afin de favonser legalite des droits Bill 78 -

An Act to amend The Amus ements Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les div ertissements Bill 85-

An Act to amend The Health Services Insur ance Act (2); Loi modifiant la

loi sur !"assura nce maladie

Tuesday , 9 Ju ly, 19 85 Bill 98 -

An Act to Valida te an Expropriation unde r The Expropriation Ac t; Loi validant une expr opria tion effectuee en vertu de la

loi sur !'ex propria tion BILL NO. 19 - THE HIGHW AY TRAFFIC ACT (2) - LE CO DE DE LA ROUTE

(2) MR. CH AIRMAN: The Standing Commit tee on Statutor y Regu lations and Orders is called to order . We shall co ntinue with the presentations under Bill 19,

An Act to amend The Hig hway Tr affic Act (2). Mr . Fred Smith, Direct or . Manitoba He avy Construction Asso cia tion. MR. F. SMITH: Thank you , Mr . Chairman. Lad ies and gentlemen: I'm here on behalf of the Manitob a Heavy Construction Asso ciation to exp ress our views and the views of the gr avel tru ckers in the Provi nce of Man itoba. First of all, I'd like to read a letter which we add ressed to the Mo tor Tr anspor t Board back in May. We'll give you some overview as to what we feel are upcoming problems for our ind ust ry.

"W e're wri ting on behalf of the Manitoba Heavy Construction Ass ociation to rais e our conc erns about the possi ble changes in trucking regula tions and lic ensing which will have a very costly and damaging effect on our indus tr y. At present, our truckers are able to haul sand and gr avel anywhere in the provinc e on a T-pla te. We note, at the present time. the board has these items on a sug gested new list of des ignated commod ities which, if approved , wou ld req uir e the gra vel trucks to pu rcha se PSV-Iic ences which will likely be approxima tely 300 to 400 percent of the existing T-pla te premiu ms.

"lt was mentioned, I believe, by you r chairman to one of the board members at the MT A convention that we will requir e a PSV-pla te and that there will not be any res triction of entry or rate filing or autho rity pr otect ion that pr esent PSV-carriers now have. As we see it. the new changes will be very dr astic incr eases in licenc e and insur ance costs with no additional benefits to the truck er. "At the present time, we estimate some 700 trucks are owned by our assoc iation members.

The se tr uckers are subject to seasonal work and requ ire special ized equip ment and need the fre edom to be able to go and work wherever the work is. In these tough ec onomic times that we are all facing. I hope the Tr ansport Board und ers tands our feelings on this matter and will give our conc erns serious consi dera tion." To add further to that, with these new proposals, the Highways Depar tment and the reg ulation review has recom mended eliminating the T-pla te if gr avel is hauled for hire and then for cing us to buy a PSV-plate.

I note as an exam ple of rates . for an 80. 000 pound T- plate is $537 and a PSV-p late is $1 ,9 47; or 12 0,0 00 pound T -plate is $814 versus a PSV-pla te at $3,38 1. 00. The task force review and regula ted carriers have said we should all pay equitable fees, but what is equitable in gr avel haulers paying the same licence fees as reg ulated carriers? The PSVs are pr otected from others entering 58 the busine ss in a particular area or commo dity.

The plate will not be prot ected with an authori ty, so 1 res triction of entry and rate pr otect ion that the PS have enj oyed in the past and in the future is well wo1 the extra lic ence fees they have been payi ng. T average PSV- carrier puts on 12 0,000 to 15 0, 000 mil per year; and the average T-pla te puts on 25 ,000 30,000 miles per year . If the government is looking at equitable fees, it th should be the fuel tax that they coll ect. Tha t w; whether we go 25,0 00 mi les per year or 12 5,0 00 mil a year, you pay on the fuel accord ingly.

I'm not sayi; we should incr ease the fuel tax, but the col lecH system wou ld be equ itable. Also the end use of the gr avel should be dele t• from the act, and I'll make a comment on that. Wh1 it comes to the enforcement portion of licensi ng, tl way it is in this recommenda tions under review, if you ' hauling san r' or gr avel for the construction maintenance of a public highway, that could be do1 on a T-plate.

So to my understand ing, if you were taki1 it to another pr oject besides this, even in the pa! would have been req uir ed to have a PSV-Iic ence. � the exam ple I use, if I had two trucks going do wn tt highway, and one going to a highway pro ject and or going, sayi ng to a local concr ete plant, one should ha' a T-plate; one should have had a PSV-plate. I dor know how in the world you wou ld ever have any idE of enfor cing that kind of a regulation, becaus e it impossible. The end use shou ldn't have any beari r on the type of plate.

The way we see it, these propo sed changes will t of no benefit at all, just dr astically incr eased costs 1 the neighbour hood of a 300 percent to 400 perce1 incr ease. Also I think if the gr avel indus try and othE T-p lates are forced to buy a PSV, it will gr eatly add t your enforcement problems which I have just state< and I will comment on that.

At the present time that the gr avel indu stry has T -plate, if they have no gr avel to haul, if they wou l go and try and haul another commodi ty, say, lumbE or whatever, if the inspector saw them on the road , h only has to spot that T-pla te and he knows the shouldn't be doing the job. But if they have the PS' on in the future, as recommended , if they have no wor� the only way of enforcement would be - if they wer hauling something tha t they shouldn't be - if they'r stopped and the autho rities checked.

So the way I se it, it's going to cr eate a further enforcement proble rr and that was one of the reaso ns for this review becaus of the complaints about enforcement. Another comment is that a lot of the highway cont ract ors when they'r e out doing road constructio 1 jobs, they do about 25 percent or 30 percent of thei miles in the cou rse of the busi ness year of mu nic ipc roads, and they general ly, when they' re on these roads have to maintain the municipal roads at their OWl expense.

So if they have to pay equitable fees on tor of it to a PSV and then maintain the road s, I don' think that makes it very equitable either. Another is commod ity rest rictions. If they have tc pay an equitable fee to a PSV-carri er, then they car still only haul gr avel, they still have to go and hire < PSV to haul their asphalt or whatever. Furth ermor e - there's somebody else here tonigh that will com ment on this - insu rance agents, if yoL

Tuesday, 9 July, 19 85 take all the T -plates away from the small Auto pac agents and hand them over to the Mo tor Tr ansport Board or whatever, I think you're going to be taking busi ness out of the hands of the small busi nessman and giving it to a government agency which I think is a further hindr ance to the problem. I"d jus t like to make some comparisons out of this review book .

I went through and I took a category from 20,000 ki lograms . which is approxi mately 44.000 pounds. about a tandem truck size. up to 125 .000 pound maximum; and I gr ouped the PSV- and the CT-carriers together because they pay the same lic ence fee. and of all those grou pings we came up with 2,905 trucks . whic h brings a revenue of $5,858,0 00.00. Then I gr ouped the T -plates and the farm-pl ates which both pay very cl ose to the same kind of fees and we came up with 4,609 trucks, which genera tes a revenue of $1 ,91 8,000.00.

So you see that there's a vast dif ference in dol lars and I hope we're not jus t look ing at these changes in reg ulation to come up with another $5 mill ion or $6 million of revenue because it's basic ally hitting all the small busi nessmen in the provinc e and I jus t don't see how any of us can afford it, if it's jus t strictly a money thing.

I think the reg ula ted carriers are getting good value for the extra money they're paying, without criticizing them; but if I had the pr otec tion in business and a number of things that they·ve had over the years for their money, I would n't mind paying a little extra for li cence . But in the gr avel busine ss. we have no pr otect ion. We jus t have to go out and try and dr um up our busi ness and I do n't think it's equitable to be asked to pay the same kind of fees. MR. CH AIRMAN: Are there qu estions from members of the committee? The Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Chai rman.

A question to Mr . Smith. He's bringing to the attention of the Minis ter and the comm ittee a dolla r-and-cent problem which will face all currently T -plated or CT plated trucks, in that their indi vid ual lic ence fees will increase. and I believe the figure us ed was from 300 percent to 400 perc ent, if now they have to be forced by this legislation to carry a PSV. Your last series of figur es, Mr . Smith, ind icated approxi mately $5.8 million from PSV; $1. 9 million from jus t . MR. F. SMITH: The $5.8 million was . . . MR. CH AIRMAN: Mr . Smith. wait until you're recog nized , because of the rec ord ing.

MR. D. ORCHARD: This is not like an ordi nary business wher e you do things instantly. MR. F. SMITH: We're not normally that slow. I gu ess. MR. D. ORCHARD: We have to abide by government ru les. MR . CH AIRMAN: T he Member for Pembina , the record ing man .. MR. D. ORC HARD : I"m sor ry. Mr . Chairman. 59 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Smith. MR. F.

SMITH: The $5.8 million that I took out of this review book from the task force was on 2,905 PSV and CT-trucks in a category from 20,000 kilogr ams up to the total weight of over 48,000 kilogr ams, like up to the 12 4.6 ; and in the same weight category , from 20,000 kilograms, we totalled up 4,609 T -plate and farm -plate trucks, which is relatively cl ose on plate fees and we came up with $1, 91 8,0 00 of fees for those two categories. MR. D. ORC HARD: So then have you go t an appr ox imation, Mr . Smith, that you can give to the commi ttee as to what revenue impact this may well have?

Does this mean a $3 million revenue incr ease to the gover nment, $4 million; have you got a rough gue sstimate? MR. F. SMITH: I wou ld estimate that it could be a $4 million or $5 million incr ease in revenue. MR. D. ORC HARD: Mr . Smith, I presume you 're in the gr avel busi ness because that's one of the areas you 've been add ress ing tonight. Gi ven the compet itive nature of the ind ustry that you 're particip ating in right now, is there $4 million or $5 million of extra paying capacity there that you can dona te to the government with this legislation? MR. F.

SMITH: No there isn't, but in this group, I grou ped the farm plates with that too in that rating, so it wou ldn't be jus t the gr avel ind ustry because they pay about the same kind of a licence fee as we do, and they have a similar prob lem. MR. D. ORCHARD: Tha t's something the Minister didn't tell us about. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hono urable Minis ter. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr . Chairman, I just want to thank Mr . Smith for his presentation. I wanted to ask him a little bit about the figur es that he had.

Cou ld he explain how he says the farm trucks are in the same situation with regard to the proposals that are put forward requi ring the T -plated trucks, gr avel trucks and dump truck operators to have a PSV-Iicence? Could he explain why he categ orizes them the same and where he gets his figu res, and include s them in the changes for the reve nue tha t the pr ovince wou ld get? MR. F.

SMI TH: Basically I'm not here to speak for the farmers, but in the review, they said over a three-axle truck would be requir ed to have a PSV-plate, so that's why I assumed they'd be in the same categ ory as what we are going to plac ed in. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Of cou rs e, Mr. Chairman . that wou ldn't be the case. The only prop osal there was that those over three axle s that were used then for hired transportation wou ld be req uir ed to have a PSV-Iicence for the period of time that they're used for hauling for comp ensation.

But all semi-trailer trucks could be licens ed as farm trucks if they're used for the farmer 's

Tuesday , 9 Ju ly, 19 85 own use. So I think maybe you've taken that a bit out of context there. You also included the CT -plates in the co mputation you had? MR. F. SMITH: Yes, the PSVs and the CTs pay the same fee. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Th at's corr ect. MR. F. SMITH: So out of this review book, I total led up the truc ks in the categ orie s and totalled up the fees and that's how I came up with the money. it's right out of the review book. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr .

Chairman, I'd jus t like to ask - as the presenter is aware, the Federal Go vernment, of cou rse, just rece ntly applied the 6 percent sales tax to concr ete and asphalt materials and we've had comp laints from the construc tion ind ustry that they aren 't able to pass that on in their cont racts; in many cases it happened is MR. J. DO WNEV: What's it got to do with the bill? HON. J. PLOHMAN: No, what I wanted to ask MR. D. ORCHARD: Yes, what do you want to know? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: . as it applies to this, if we were able to have sufficient notic e on this propo sal, so that the du mp-t ruck operators would be able to be ensu red that they could recover the revenues from the cont racts that are left if there was sufficient notice, would that lessen the impact on your ind ustry and on your operation? MR. F. SMITH: I don't think so becaus e probably these da ys the majority of the people aren 't work ing for highway cont racts . So if we jus t assume that they're work ing for highway cont racts, we're probably only talking about a small percentage of the overall ind ustry I think.

I honestly cou ldn't give you the percentage, but I mean there are an awful lot of people that don't work for highway construction that still haul gr avel. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I realize that. Mr . Chair man. What I was asking Mr . Smith was whether a significant amount of the income genera ted in that ind ustry comes from highway or government work? MR. F. SMI TH: A fair amount of it, but like I just previously stated. there's a lot of construction that's done locally , throughout the countr y that isn't government work . MR. CH AIRMAN: Are there other qu estions? Thank you. Mr . Smith.

The next person on our list is Mr . George Cr eek. rep res enting the Ins ur ance Agents Assoc iation of Mani toba. MR. G. CREEK: Mr . Chair ma n, mem bers nf the com mittee. my name is George Cr eek and I represent the Insur ance Agents Assoc tation in my capacity as 60 past pre sident. lt is our assoc iation's desire to expr es our concerns regard ing the effects of Bill 19 may hav< on our indus tr y, as we perceiv e it, affe cting th• distribution system of vehicle lic ences and reg istratiot and basic insu rance.

Our assoc iation rep res ents, as volu ntary members over 300 independent insur ance agencies in th• province, most of whom are consid ered small busi ness These agency members di rect ly emp loy ove r 70( lic ens ed general insur ance agents , in ad di tion t1 approximately 1, 000 suppo rt person nel. Curr ently we believe that our members acc ount to 80 percent of the pro perty-ca sualty pr emiums writter in Manitoba, and we've been advi sed by officials Iron Autop ac that we handle approxim ately 95 percent o all vehicle reg istra tions and basic insurance that i! available to us.

We feel these figur es suppor t our conte ntion that i! competent, qu asi-pr ofessional small busi nessmen, wf are adeq uately servi cing the public and being wel received by the public as important elements in thf com mu nities, both rural and urb an, in which we residE and conduc t our busine ss. Agents. in general, providE a wide variety of services, advice, and fulfi ll othet functions for other cl ients, in addition to being an outle for vehicle reg istra tions. They are often opened wher the MVB branche s are closed .

Any changes in the current system can only affec· cause, di sruption and inconvenience to the existin� agency- client rela tionship. Please accept my apolog ieE for not prov iding written statements. lt was not unti yesterday that we were able to perceiv e the pr oposec effect of Bill 19 on our busi ness. With regard to the actual bill, it's our concern that cer tain amendments deal ing with co mmercial and farrr trucks will ha ve the effect on both vehicle owners and insu rance agents alike. The distribution system o1 vehicle registra tions and insu rance as it now standE will be di rect ly affected .

We feel that gr avel and farm truck owners who cu rrently pur chased their registr ation and insuran ce from ind ependent agents would no longer be able to do so, as current admi nistrative ru les, set out by the Mo tor Vehicle Branch and Autopac, prevent inde pendent insur ance agents from handling PSV reg istra tions. A change in certai n vehicle cla ssifica tions will impose considerable inconvenienc e and unnecessary expe nse through lost time and tr avelling costs, if truck owners canno t go to their local Autopac agent for reg istration and basic insur ance.

Previous presenters to this com mittee repres enting the farm commu nity have put forth strong arg uments and have pointed out how the pro posed bill will affect them. Perhaps the simple solution for the committee would be to rede fine and req ual ify within the act what is a bona fide farmer, and who is operating a comme rcial hauling opera tion with an expecta tion of real izing a prof it. I understand that farmers now merely share expens es on commo n shipments. In other words, what is hauling for compensa tion?

As the act would affect agents, the remu nerat ion and fees earned by the independent agent fro m vehicle registra tions and insur ance on many cl asses of vehicles is retur ned to the commu nity through dir ect employment and the pur chasing of goods and services from other small busi nesses in each commu nity. Any red uction in

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 m agency income w1ll have the effect of red ucing the �mou nt of money being red istrib uted back to the �ommu nity. In conclusion . while it may be desirous of the ·eg ul atory authority to rec lassif y cert ain types of tehicles and their use to achieve a change in the system, :he inc onvenience to those vehicle owners and the nc reased reg istra tion fees, along with financial effect )n agents must be consi dered .

Of cou rse . should the �ov ernme nt and the Mo tor Vehicle Br anch re quir e �ssistance in enhancing the dis tri bution system of tehicle reg istra tion and insurance by elimi nating the ·estric tions as to what cl asses agents can handle, we'd :>e more than happy to accommod ate them. Thank you . PJIR. CHAIRMAN: Any qu estions from members of the �ommittee? The Mem ber for Pembina. PJIR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Mr . Cr eek. the agents that you represent at pr esent �an nat offer to your customers a PSV-plate and the :;erv ice. PJIR. G. CREEK: Tha t's right. MR. D.

ORCHARD: The proposal wou ld eliminate the T in CT and roll them into a PSV plating system. Currently you can write up T and CT? MR. G. CREEK: That's correct . HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr . Chairma n, on a point of order . I ju st want to clarif y because the Mem ber for Pembina has mentioned on several occa sions that this proposal would elimina te the CT -plate. That is not the case, and I stated that in the House. The CT -plate wou ld re main for those commercial operators who are hauling their own goods.

What we're deal ing with here is the T-pla te, for exempt commodities, wou ld be requir ed to have a PSV-Iicence in the future. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a point of new information or clarifica tion, but not a point of order . MR. D. ORCHARD : Thank you, Mr . Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Cr eek will have to be recogn ized before he answers becaus e the recorder will not ident ify the voice. The Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. The current T -plate. with this legisla tion, when it's replaced with a PSV-plate, wou ld not be written up by your agents.

The sc enario with the farm-plate, if a farmer with a semi-trailer und ertakes any commercial hauling or hauling for com pensation, wou ld have to switch his farm- plate to a PSV-pla te. Tha t swi tch would presumably ha ve to be done at other than an Auto pac agent. The sc enario was dev eloped this afternoon by some pres enters who were speaking on behalf of the farm community that within a week they may have to switch their farm-pla te to a PSV-pla te once or twice or three times a week. 61 Mr .

Cr eek , could you ind icate the kind of ad ministrative nightmare that that wou ld pose to you as an independent agent who oper ates, presu mably, qui te efficiently? MR. G. CREEK: Yes, it wou ldn't present as much a hard ship on the agent, other than we wou ld lose the busi ness, but to the farmer it wou ld pres ent to him a major thing because he wou ld have to . . . Fi rst of all, if he had a farm-pla te, he could have valida ted that or got it at an inde pendent agent.

If he has to turn that over into a PSV-plate, he must tr avel to a Motor Vehicle Branch no matter how far it may be, turn in his farm plate and ac quir e a PSV-plate, tr avel back to his busi ness, do his busi ness. Now he wants to trans fer his PSV-plate back to a farm-pla te, he must go back to the Mo tor Vehicle Bran ch. In each case , he would be penalized one month's pr emium. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr . Cr eek, how many independent insu rance agents will be put out of business if they are not allowed to sell PSV-plates? MR. G. CREEK: I suspect, none, but we'll hur t a little.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are no other qu estions for Mr . Cre ek? The Chair thanks Mr . Cr eek for his pr esentation. Are there any other delega tions unnamed under Bill 19? Hearing none, we pr oceed at the top of the list. Is Mr . Abe Arnold here? BILL NO. 14 - THE COMMU NITY CHI LD DAY CARE ST ANDARDS ACT; LO I SUR LES GA RDE RIES D'ENF ANTS MR. CH AIRMAN: Bill No. 14,

An Act to amend The Commu nity Child Day Care Standards Act. Phyllis Patricia Brodsky and Lisa Fains tein. Mr . Abe Arnold is going to present. Is he arou nd? We go to the next person on the list, Heather Call igan, Manitob a Associa tion of Ind ependent Child Ca re Operators. Hearing none, we go to the next person on the list, Vi cki Shane, Ma nitoba Assoc iation of Inde pendent Chil d Care Operators. MS. V. SHANE: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. I think it's im portant to make very clear that independent centr es sup port fully the stre ngthening of legislation with regard to Bill 14 and governing da y ca re centres.

As inde pendent centres, we don't object to standards and regu lations gover ning the safety and well-being of childr en. There's no que stion that standards play a vital role in crea ting the best da y care possi ble for our childr en. Ho wever, we as inde pendent operators are concern ed that perhaps there is going to be some overreg ulation in this regard . We're wel l aware that this present gover nment was publ icly embarra ssed by a most unfor tunate situation in Charieswood where loopholes were used and abused . A tough stance was necessary in order to pr event a similar incident from oc curring again.

Amendments to The Child Day Car e Act were implemented to give power

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 to those in the da y care offices to offset a repeat perfo rmanc e with this regard; and our concern is that. in some instances. it's a very loose power that's being given. We take exc eption to being compar ed with an isolated incident and in the same breath sug gest that if all centres were govern ment ru n, with high standards and tr ained pers onnel , this type of incident would perhaps never occur . Please bear in mind that we are lic ensed centres as independent operators. This particular centre in qu est ion was no t lic ensed .

If this centre in Charle swood made it dif ficult to deter mine how many childr en were in the centre at any given time, let us rem ind you, please, that we as independent operators have reg isters and files regard ing each of the child information availability to those in authority to see them. We don't think it's fair to ha ve the publi c think that simply because we're not a govern ment fu nded centre that our standards and our programs and our staff are not as good as those in govern ment centres.

After all, do we not all use the same manual and check list and criteria in order to meet the lice nsing requir ements? Have we not all been given the same dead line for up gr ad ing our facili ties in having to meet staff up gr ad ing? I think perhaps we should make clear what exactly is a da y care centre. Under this present govern ment's philosophy, it means a service provided only by a Provincial Go vernment or a Municipal Go vernment body or an authorized agent, such as a parent, a co-operative or a funded com munity gr ou p.

Muriel Smith contin ues to emphasize the right of every child to good day care and we agree, but do es this mean that only the government has the right to make the decision as to what constit utes a good da y care? it seems to me tha t someone else has been overlooked - the parent. Does the parent not have a right to choose the kind of centre that the parent feels is best for his or her child?

If we only have governme nt spon sored centre s in this pro vinc e. and clear ly, Bill 14 encou rages this monopoly , what alterna tive does a parent have if he or she should become di senchanted with the kind of centre that his or her child now attends? Perhaps this govern ment is su ggesting that the parent is not capable of making a decision as to wha t kind of a centre that child should go to. Just as parents are given the opportun ity to change from an independent centre to a government centre, we feel the reverse should be applicable as well.

If we only have government centres, how can a parent make a choic e for another centre? As independent operators, our view of da y care is a service pr ovided by Provi ncial or Munici pal Go vernments or anyone who meets the licensing requir ements. In other words, we want both government sponsor ed cent res as well as inde pendent centres. Sinc e we are all licensed under the same conditions, ther e is room for both. A real conc ern, as far as Bill 14. as an independent pers on. is with the quest ion of bus iness record s.

Is it really this government's sug gestion that access to books of acco unt, which in this case are financial records, are going to show whether or not a centre is offering a safe environment for these childr en? If so. then cert ainly we'll no longer need the services of our licensing co- ord inators. our health inspectors. our fire 62 inspectors and so on. After all, these books of acco u are going to show every thing that this govern ment nee• to know. I would rem ind this government that the accoun tabil1 of our books is not subject to pub lic perusal wh1 pub lic fu nds ha ve not been used .

By the same toke government centres are subject to public accou ntabili because it is the taxpa yers ' dol lars that ru nning the' centres. Perhaps it might be a wiser step at this tin to concentr ate on the government 's own method accou ntability in order to offset many of the defici that we see. If this kind of legislation will be passed reg ardir priv ate financial records for independent ope rators day care centres, is this also then a first step for tt same kind of leg isla tion to be applied to oth• businesses which are lic ensed as well?

For examp l if a health inspector comes into a restaurant ar chooses to say, yes, this restaurant will pass inspect io can he walk out the do or and come back and say, o by the way, I want to see your financial records or ye won 't get your licence or you won't be applicable f1 the lic ence. I don't think, in fact , this is what Bill 14 tr yi ng to do. However, that's the way it read s. Clearl we have other bodies in our government which ar priv y to this kind of financial record seeking. Sec ondly , one of frig htening aspects of this bill is t� power which can be yielded almost at whim.

We'r concerned about this. To sug gest that these power will only be used in extreme ci rcum stances ques tionable. Who makes the final decision and wh1 recou rse do es the centre have to defend itself? As Ion as the possibili ty of that authorit y exis ts it can b enter tained as a loophole, so it be, if you will, to b rid of any undesirable situation. Thirdly , the power of a government dir ector to entE a da y care premis e and simply take over its ban account and to co ntinue ru nning a centr e is shock in! Will this dir ector also have the power to sign the chequ e in that centre?

If the past record of day care financ e is any ind ication, I shudder to think how long, or perhap a short period of time, it's going to take to exhau! the centr e's resources . This kind of take over , under que stionabl ci rc umstances, can not be tolerated . The possibili ty c this kind of power is there and to sug gest that it ma never be used leaves it open to quest ion. In closi ng, I might remind this government the ind ependent operators were offering child care Ion before the government stepped in.

There had bee sweeping changes in legislation and, for the most par· can be shown as a model for other provinces. Howeve those of us who have taken gr eat pains to provide, a independents, the best measure of care for childr e tod ay, we wonder why we are treated as something t< be tolerated for the time being, when the governme n conti nually insists there is no room for ind epende n centres. May we ask then what they plan to do will us? Where are we supposed to go? We're offering ' service that's being legislated the same as any othe su bsid ized centre.

We have to follo w the same criteria the same licens ing, the same upg rad ing, the sam1 licensing all arou nd. Our care and our concern is for the childr en firs and foremost . If we offer the same care as subsid ize< centres and were licensed acc ordingly , perhaps it's tim1

- - Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 o apprec1ate the tact that we. too. put the care and atety of ch ildr en first and can ex ist in harmony . We're aying there is room for both. Independent centres and :overnment cent res. As cit izens and tax payers 1n this provinc e. as 1depende nt operato rs. we·d like to rem ind th1s body hat we have a right to con tinue with our livelihood 1hen we know it is not at the expense of child ren's 1elfare. The se are a few of our concerns and I conclude at �is time. Thank you . �R. CH AIRMAN: Ques tions for Vicki Shane from 1e mbers of the comm ittee? The P..ttor ney-G eneral. ION. R.

PENNER: I'd just like to thank Ms. Shane for 1e r presentat ion and jus t offer three very br ief omments. The presenter refe rred to government da y :are centr es. There are no gov ernment day care entres: there are centr es which receive some form of nancial assistance; there are some that don't. but there re no government da y care centres.

The pol icy which was enuncia ted by the government then we first enacted The Commun ity Child Day Care itandards Act of allo wing, inde ed in some meaningful 1ay . welcom ing the continued existence of the pri vate ector has not been changed by anything in this act nd !'m sorry that the presenter thinks that it has. I hink we share a common goal and tha t is the well >eing of childr en, and I'm pleased that she notes that 1ost of tr1e amend ments that are being propo sed tren gthen those provisions of the act which have 1de ed that object, the wel l-being of childr en.

But I 1ant to assur e her that there's no intention in this �g islation, or any legislation that is contempl ated, to trike out at the pri vate sec tor. �S. V. SHANE: If I may re spond to that. Contr ary to that yo u'r e sayi ng, as far as not wanting to put us out ,f busi ness. this government has made it very clear hat ther e is no place for independent operators. ·hey've stated that publ icly : they've stated that in their •hilosophies. Where do we stand? If the government ays we are not need ed . do es that mean we cease to xis t? IO N. R.

PENNER: That has never been said by 1 0ver nment or any spokesperson for governm ent. �S. V. SH ANE: I beg to differ. it's been made public. �uriel Smith has said there is no place for us in day are. as ind ependent operators. ION. R. PENNER: Apparently we're going to have to 1gree to differ . �S. V. SHAN E: I will do so. �R. CH AIRMAN: Are there any other questions? learing none. thank you . Ms. Shane. Wanda Wishart. repres enting Man itoba Child Care \SSOCiation. �R. F. CHA PMAN: Mr . Cha irm an. my name is Fred :hapman. I'm assistant dir ector of the Manitoba Child 63 Care Assoc1a t1on Ms.

Wishart has asked me to speak on behalf of the assoc iation this evening. She ext ends her reg rets for being unable to attend. MR. CHAIRMAN: Sorr y. I didn't catch the last name. MR. F. CHAPMAN: Chapman. MR. CH AIRMAN: Chapman, C-h-a-p-m-a-n? MR. F. CH APMAN: Th at's correct. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Chapman. MR. F. CH APMAN: I jus t have a shor t presentation this even ing. As a commun ity- based organiz ation concerned with the qu ality of child care services in the provinc e and repres enting cl ose to 1, 000 members, we'd like to exp ress our sup port for Bill 14,

An Act to amend The Commun ity Child Day Care Standards Act. We believe that the proclamation of legislation three years ago allo wed Ma nitoba a standard to begin dev eloping a quali ty service for childr en and families. Although the act rep resents a minimum stand ard , it was nevertheless progr essive and fundamentally essential, so the building of an ever-i mproved child care system could be established . No w that the act and reg ula tions have been opera tional, and to some extent tested in the day care communit y, it is apparent that amend ments to various areas are necessary and appropria te.

Members of the commun ity apprecia te that many of the amendments are simply a statement of clear er defi nition which is necessary to make them effective.

Th ere are, however, some sections that represent more significant change. lt is in the interest of better da y care to suppor t the following points: that there be gr eater refinement of how we des cribe day care, so that the jurisd iction over licensing and funding be adeq ua tely appl ied; that ther e is more ext ensiv e authority for the di rect or, again so that the responsibility for da y care programs can be assumed where it was intended ; and that there be stronger guidelin es for provincial admin istra tions for cent res that may be in di fficu lty and req uir e ext ernal resou rces to effectively continue the opera tion of their programs.

My last point, the ability for gr eater amou nts of infor mation be called for from centr es so that accura te assess ments can be made. In conclusion , we are in agreement with the Honourable Mur iel Smith in her attempt to con tinue to impr ove the stand ard by which the da y car e co mmunity should operate. We note, very clear ly, from research cond ucted through our office and with the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg, that parents, by major ity, are pr eferring licensed , re gula ted, affor dable and accountable pr ograms for the care of their childr en.

With this being the case. it should remain an important prio rity for government to continue to enact legislation that will allo w for qual ity care for childr en in Manitoba. Thank you. MR. CHAIRMA N: Thank you , Mr . Chapman. Are there questions from members of the comm ittee? Mr . Attor ney-General.

Tuesday , 9 July , 19 85 HON. R. PENNER: May I thank Mr . Chapman and , through him, the Mani toba Child Car e Assoc iation for appearing here and for its sup port to the pro gram. MR. CH AIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . Chapman. MR. F. CHAPMAN: Thank you , Mr . Chairman. MR. CHA IRMAN: The next person on our list is a couple, I think, Ly nn Cr anstone and Patrick Ritter rep rese nting Citizens for Better Day Care. Patrick Ritter. MR. P. RITTER: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Only I will be speak ing this evening, and thank you for the opportu nity to add ress you .

A li ttle over a year ago, I and 60-other -o dd Charle swood parents opened the Pandora's Box that was the opera tion of a cer tain da y care centre. In the pr ocess that followed we encou ntered much that was unim aginable. A brief litany of our experie nces must include dis may over our own ignorance, bureaucratic mazes, ostriches who refuse to believe facts no matter what the corrobora tion, and an amazing array of journal ists, health inspectors and. of cou rse, many Civil Service staff members. We look forward to the passing of Bill 14 as one end point in that pr ocess.

Bill 14 represents the succ ess of the labours of many and we mus t take exception to tho se who oppos e various aspects of it. Resis tance to the concept of cov ering some types of facili ties and the reg ula tions rather than in the act itself as exp ressed by Mr . Birt. the ML A for Fort Garr y, we feel is unwarranted .

He stated , and I quo te, "To leave it in the reg ulations which means leaving it to staff members in a department and then flowing through for approval at Cabi net, I think is doing a dis service to those people who want to properly oper ate good , valid and care ful centres for the care of chi ldren." At the risk of sounding like cheerleaders for the Department of Communi ty Services, I have the utmost confidence in the professional integrity of the indi viduals that we have dealt with tod ay.

Furthermore, it would be cogent to note that the appeals pr ocess provides more than adeq uate checks against any arbit rary or loose use of power that the Honour able Member for Fort Ga rry seems to be con cerned about. We submit that his dis trus t of the reg ulator y process, and from our experiences, the profess ionals involved in it is at best rhetorical and at worst counterproduc tive cynicism. Mr . Bir t and other s have also taken except ion with su bsect ion ( 18 )( 1.1 )(

c) that states that the dir ector may refuse to issue a lic ence if he has reas onable gr ounds to believe that any person associ ated with the oper ation of the propo sed facil ity is not suitable to provide da y care. Couching objec tions to any issue in the rhetoric of rights ignores a fund amental reality of our socie ty, that of the fact that rights are tied to responsibil ities. Th erefore, we submit that if a person has demons trated ir responsible behaviour towards childr en, they have inde ed lost the right to be associated in any way with their care.

Additional ly, with refere nce to cases in the Un ited States where former child offend ers have had institutional conta ct with childr en, this is pr ecisely and 64 emphatically the type of protect ion that the publi req ui res. Sect ion 5. 1(1) enables the dir ector to gain access t the books and reco rds of facilities. We suppo rt thi amendment becaus e we see it as the only way to contr< the abuse of staff/child ratios and other abus es. W do not see in it any spectre of Big Brother governmen Again, we note that under sect ion 19 (4) the right c appeal remains intact as a safeguard.

With regard to the rather thor ny issue of subsid ie� pri vate-oriented da y car es. We see this as a secondar issue at this time. The political

partie s involved, n doubt, have a clear-cut issue to de bate during the ne> elec tion. In conclusion, we would ask that this committ ee tak heed of the only special interest group whose voice i critical in the matter before it; the childr en attendin day care centres. They need the pr otect ions afforde· them in Bill 14. They are uncon cerned about politic < pressure from any quar ter. They care not about th threats of a few marginal operators. The y do, howeve need these amend ments which are being prop osed an< we, as their parents, ur ge you to pass Bill 14 in it entirety. Thank you . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Are there ques tions for Mr . Ritter The Attorney -General. HON. R. PENNER: Again, may I thank Mr . Ritter an< the Cit izens for Better Day Care. I think we're a indeb ted to the tough struggle that was cond ucted i1 adverse circums tances. I sup pose we're all still a littl naive enough to think that at times right and truth wi conqu er. Thank you very much for your support. MR. P. RITTER: Thank you. MR. CH AIRMAN: Thank you , Mr . Ritter. I can see that Mr . Abe Arnold is here and i rep res enting the Manitoba Asso ciation of Rig hts an1 Li berties. Mr . Arnold. MR. A. ARNOLD: Thank you. Mr .

Chairman. I'm sorry I was dela yed in the other room for awhilE In any event, I was not suppo sed to be the offici< presenter . The two offi cial presenters are unable to b with us this evening. This brief was pr epared for the Manitoba Associatio for Rights and Li berties in consultation with Sybil Shad Pat Brodsky , Heather Leon off, Lisa Fainstein an• assisted by Ther esa Clark. I'm speaking, of cou rse, o: behalf of the Manitoba Association for Rig hts an< Li berties, which is a human rights and civil libertie organ ization in this province.

In today's worl d, the need for da y car e for childr e: is one that must be met on an organ ized and planne' basis. Bill 14 introduc es some positive and necessar changes to The Communi ty Child Day Care Standard Act, otherwise known as

Chapter C 15 8 of the Continuin' Consol ida ted Statutes. A system of da y care for you ng childr en has becom a necessity in today's world. A substantial number c

Tuesday , 9 Ju ly, 1985 ingle parents are the sole suppo rters of their families nd more and more freq uently both parents are work ing utside the home. The natural consequenc e of the se nd other contri buting factors is the need for consis tent tandards for day care facil ities as they exist and as 1ey are es tablished in the pro vinc e. Such standards hould be assessed acc ording to four criteria : 1. The rat io of staff to childr en, the prior trai ning of staff. the qual ity of staff in their relationship with the childr en are all impor tant to the kind of care the childr en receive. 2.

Cl osely related to No. 1 is the type of control exercised over the childr en. Parental expe ctions vary . but the respo nsibili ty of government is to ensure that childr en are tr eated with respect as persons. 3. Su pervi sion of the childr en, and mo re general ly, of the facil ity itself is a necessary component . 4. A fourth consi deration is the physical environment in which the childr en spend their tim e. Is the building safe ? Are sanita ry req uir ements adeq uately met? Is the environment pleas ant?

Does it have the equipment necessary to provide both rest and stimula tion for chil dren of the ages being cared for? If food is provided . is it pr epared and offered under sanitary conditions, and is it of the kind and quan tities suitable childr en? Bill 14 attempts to set the terms for licensing day ;are facilities. pr esu mably in the light of what has been earned through the opera tion of The Commu nity Child )ay Car e Standards Act. MARL agrees in principle with he pro posed amendments which set forth req uir ements or licensing day care fa ciliti es.

We hope that the result )f the bill will be to provide better day care facil ities n Mani toba. We would like, however, to dr aw attention to a number )f claus es in the bill which we believe could be and )erhaps should be impr oved . In exa mining the bill, we 1ave given consideration to human rights and civil ibertie s aspects as we do with all bills before the _eg islatur e. De aling with su bsect ion 2(2) - "Reg ula tion may oxempt.

The Lieuten ant-Governor -in-Cou ncil may, by ·egula tion, exempt any person or class of persons, in Nhole or in part, from the provisions of this act." This claus e provides a power that might be su bject :o abus e. lt could be used for reasons not in the best nterests of chil dren in day care and leaves the door Jpen to possi ble favouritism in tr eatment of day care Jpera tors. On the other hand, if hand led with care, it wou ld 3lso allow new operators an oppor tunity to up grade. 3nd operators work ing under the old rules time to make the necessary changes.

To avoid possible abuse and the con tinuing exi stence CJf what might be su bstandard facil ities. we recommend that exem ptions under su bsection 2(2) be care fully reviewed at stated interv als. no longer than 12 months, and ex emptions be withd rawn if facil ities continue to be su bstandard. Su bsect ion 5. 1(1) - "Investigation by Di rector .

The di rector may at all reasonable times and upon produci ng proper identification enter any lic ensed facilit y or any premis es that the di rector on reas onable or probably 65 grounds believes is being used as a day care centre or a da y care home to inspect the facil ity or premis es, the services pr ovided and the books of acc ounts and other rec ords. " We believe that this

section is too broad . Operators of da y care faci lities and others caring for childr en, but not lic ensed as operators of da y care fac iliti es, might consider themselves to be unduly harassed if visited on a dir ector's interp retation of '·r easonable and probable gr ounds. " Such a visit by the di recto r might be construed to be an illegal search and seizure. On the other hand, the dir ector must have the right of entry and inspect ion if he or she has reason to believe that childr en are at risk.

We sug gest that reasonable and probable grounds be specifically defined and an alternative proc ed ur e establis hed for investigating facil ities. Only in cases of valid emergency should search and seizure be permitted without a warrant. Other wise, a di rect or of Child Day Care Services should obtain prior authorization in the form of a valid search warrant to enter a da y care facili ty, ex amine evidence, take away for further examination or copy or take away to copy any docume nts that are seized .

For assistance in dev eloping guid eli nes for "reasonable and probable grounds" we would sug gest that refe rence be made to the judg ments in the case of Hu nter et al. vs. Southam Inc. in Dominion Law Reports, Vol. 11, Four th Series, 19 85, on the defi nition of reas onable and probable grounds, illegal search and seizure and prior autho rization. Su bsect ion 5. 1(2) - Order granting di rector r ight to enter.

Where the di rector is refused access to a licensed fac ility or premis es und er su bsect ion ( 1 ), a judge of the Cour t of Qu een's Bench or a justice, on application by the di rector , may gr ant an order authorizing the di rector to enter the facili ty or premises and to inspect the facil ity or premis es and the services provided and req uiring any person therein to produc e to the di rector and to allow the di rector to make copies of the books of ac counts and other records related to the facil ity or premis es.

The intent of the legislation is to stop unl icens ed fac ilities from opera ting and to pr otect childr en in such da y care facil ities, particularly if these day care facil ities are unsafe. In emergency situations, the di rect or should have the right of entr y without a warran t. MARL wishes to stress that there are separate and dis tinct proced ur es used by the dir ector for enteri ng, inspec ting, copying docum ents, giving proper notice and issu ing a sum mons to a da y care facili ty operator .

MARL rec ommends that a proced ur e be implemented for separate orders for right to search and right to seize materials by the di rector . De spite these considera tions, MARL wishes to emphasize that the childr en's legal rig hts must be the first priority in these situations and that the best interest of childr en mus t always be protect ed. Refu sal to issue a lic ence. This is where the di rector (

a) is satisfied that any facil ity de scri bed in the application would not be operated and maintained in complia nce with the req uir ements or standards pr escribed in the act or reg ulations for that type of facili ty. I'll skip the rest of the quo te from the act and just go on to what we're talking about here. This claus e

Tuesday , 9 Ju ly, 19 85 opens the door to the possi bility of dis crimi nation in issu ing lic enses at the dir ec tor's dis cre tion on the basis of unsuitabil ity. MARL rec ommends that "reaso nable gro unds" confor m with the provisions of The Manitoba Human Rights Act and Clause 15 of the Charter of Rights. Appl icants should be clearly informed in writing of the reasons for refu sal to issue licences. Sect ion 35( 1} - Rega rding penal ty. This

section provides that any person who cont rave nes any provisions of the act be su bject to a penalty of not more than $1 ,000 and, if the offence con tinues for more than one da y, to a further fine of not more than $200 for each day during which tl1e offence contin ues after the first day on which it oc cu rred . The monetary penalties seem un neces sarily high, although the rates might dis cou rage fly-by -night opera tors. MARL suggests the maximum penalties be changed to a $500 fine and a $10 0 maximum further fine per day as long as the offence con tinu es.

Proper notice should be given to persons being charged and such perso ns must be informed of their rights promptly . MARL also reco mmends that the word ing "after the first da y on which it occu rred " be changed becau se. if da y care operators are unk nowingly com mitting infract ions for a time period of one year prior to their being brought to acco unt. they could be fined an unr easonable sum for the entir e time period when they did not meet the req ui reme nts of the act . Instead , we suggest the word ing of this phrase be changed to "after the first da y on which the person is fou nd guilt y.

" In conclusion, these are the concerns that MARL has for Bill 14,

An Act to amend The Co mmu nity Child Day Care Standards Act. In mak ing our rec ommendations, we have emphasized the best inter ests of childr en in da y care facili ties, the rights of oper ators of child care facil ities and the resp onsi bilities of the dir ector and his or her des ignates. The number of single parent families, low incom e families and famil ies where both parents work points to the need for more qual ity da y care spaces, about 5,000, if waiting lists are any ind ica tion.

We believe that an investment in good care for childr en no w will bring rich re turns thr ough the prevention of proble ms in the future. We. therefore, urge the Go vernment the pr ovision should be made as rapidly as possi ble for more day care facil ities to fill the gr owing need in this province. Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any qu estions for Mr . Arnold? The Attorney-General . HON. R. PENNER: Mr . Arno ld, jus t referring to one or two of the points in your . MR. A. ARNOLD: Excuse me, Mr . Chair man.

I'm not sur e if I may be able to answer your que stions because my experts are not here tonight, but we'll try. HON. R. PENNER: I'm glad you prefaced your rema rks in that way, Mr . Arnold, because I had the impress ion that you might not be able to. Th at's not facet ious .

I'm just wondering if you 're aware . with respect to the point made in 5. 1( 1) about 66 investigation by the dir ector , that that investigatio referred to in 5.1(1} is. in effect, a consensual entr That is, that the rights of the person in 5.1( 1} to refus entry rema ins, because 5. 1( 2) deals with the situatio where the di rect or is refused acce ss. In other word: we've recog nized the right of the person to say, ne you can 't co me in, and then the person must get, effect, a jud icial warrant. Are you aware of that? MR. A. ARNOLD: I'm glad you advis ed me of that. HON. R. PENNER: Okay.

Wo uld you agree that the improves the situa tion? MR. A. ARNOLD: Th at's a reaso nable HON. R. PENNER: Okay. Again, I ju st wond er, whe you dealt with 18 .1 (1} which is, in effect merely a addition to

section 18, whether you, in makin g thi presentation took into acco unt the appeal proc ed ur e in sect ions 19 -25 which, indeed , wou ld put an onus o the body refu sing a licence to jus tify that in a co ur t c law, or at least in the body set up in the act. Are yo aware of those appeal pr oced ur es and did you tak them into accou nt? MR. A. ARNOLD: I'm glad you 've dr awn that to m attention. HON. R. PENNER: Okay. In the ci rcumstances, an1 cert ainly not wishing to embarrass Mr . Arno ld, I'll jus perhaps make one ad di tional point. If you'l l refer to your br ief, Mr .

Arnold, when yo1 raised the qu estion of sect ion 35( 1) penalty, are yo1 aware of the fact that Bill 14 has no amendment t1 that sect ion, that it do esn't deal with this issue at all and that you 're raising an issue that simply rel ates t1 the act as it alr eady is and not to the pro pose1 amendm ent? MR. A. ARNOLD: Yes. HON. R. PENNER: Okay, I jus t wanted to make sun on what grounds you stood . Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: Other qu estions? Heari ng none thank you , Mr . Arno ld.

These are all the pr esentations I have under Bill 14 un less there are some unnamed perso ns who want t< make presenta tion under Bill 14. BILL 16 - THE HERIT AGE RESOURC ES ACT;

LOI SUR LE PATRIMOINE MR. CHAIRMAN: We are now proceed ing as scheduled Bill No. 16, The Herita ge Resou rces Act. Any persor who wish to make pr esentation under Bill 16 ? I havE here in my list Eric Robins on. Exe cutiv e Co-o rdina tor Brotherhood of Indian Nations. The next persons on the list are Gary Simonsen anc Harry De leeuw . both of them together, rep rese ntin� the Winnipeg Real Estate Board and the Manitoba Rea Estate Associa tion.

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 �- H. DeLEEUW: Mr . Chairman . I'm Harry Deleeuw •m the Winnipeg Real Estate Board . �- CHAIRMAN: Mr . De leeuw . �- H. DeLEEUW: Repr esenting the Winnipeg Real late Board and the Manitoba Real Estate Associa tion. ! find ou rselves in a rather anomalous situa tion. On e hand, we supp ort the government in promo ting d preservi ng pro perties of anticipa ted or real historic lue; yet on the other hand, we strongly believe in the ility of indi vidual pr oper ty owners to freely enjoy, to 'ely own, and to freely dispo se of their proper ty.

Acknowledging our suppo rt for the former , we wish identif y a number of concerns with Bill 16 that have rious ram ifica tions to proper ty owners, prospectiv e Jperty pu rchasers, and real estate practitioners. The ;t concern is designation of heritage sites. Our written :ef was pr eviously subm itted to Mr . Kostyra and Mr . •styra 's office and I'd like to present that brie f to this mmittee if that's allowable. agre eable? �- CH AIRMAN: Yes. �. H.

DeLEEUW: Our br ief sug gested that the group body making rec ommendations to the Min ister for signation of historical properties be compo sed of prese ntativ e int erests, including those with propria te technic al and historical expertis e and those :h co mmunity and ind ividual interests in mind. The rrent bill makes no provision or reference to this gges tion .

Recommendations must be based on mmon sense, historical value and prac ticali ty, not �serva tion for the sake of pr eserva tion . :>nee a designation proced ur e comm ences, without eh prior input, vested interests are bound to emerge d where they conflict. the long-term succ ess of ritage pr eservat ion will suffer. The criteria to be used in the designation of sites ve not been specified . At a rece nt meeting with 'vernment of ficials from Cultur e. He rita ge and !Crea tion, it was ind ica ted tha t such wou ld be ·thcoming.

We recommend that this informa tion be tde available and incorp orated in the bill to ensur e 11 the designation process is grounded on some basis pred icta bility and cons istency. :>ur second point is un der impact assessment and ligation.

Part 11, sect ion 12 of the act requir es the st of impact assessment and mitigation studies to the responsibil ity of the deve loper or proper ty owner. di scus sed in our brief, we submit that costs to be rne by a pro perty owner , which will accrue to the blic's interest and use, should be the resp onsi bility the ultima te user, namely, the public. "oint No. 3, under mai ntenanc e of sites.

Part 11, :t ion 15 of the act, states that it may re quir e owners heritage sites to und ertake repairs. maintenance. ;!ora tion. etc., and that the government may - not 311 - provide financial assistance. We wou ld urge tha t l government make available appropr iate fu nding for :h work. A pro perty being pr eserved for the public erest should not be at the expens e of the indi vidual Jperty owners.

"oint No. 4, under tran sfer or sale of heritage sites. rt 11, sect ion 20. ind icates that prior to the sale or 67 tran sfer of a heritage site, the owner or lessee is responsible to advis e the pu rchaser of a pr oper ty of such a designation or of a Notice of Intent to desi gnate. Realistical ly, this information could be withheld intentionally or inadver tently from a pu rchaser and/or real estate agent. resu lting in serious legal con sequenc es.

During the Notice of Intent to designa te and any su bsequent appeals to that notice, a pur chaser could be compl etely unaware of any possi ble or any pend ing rest rictions on the use of the prope rty. Indeed , if it is a lessee situa tion, there is a potential that the proper ty owner himself may be ignorant of any designation pr ocedu res taking place, for exam ple, a non-resident or a forei gn investor .

Part 11, sec tion 23( 1) and (2) and

Part 11, sec tions 37 and 39( 1) and (2), refer to a listing of heritage properties that may be publi shed by the Provincial Go vern ment. We think it is imperative that a master list shall be available from the province and all municip alities to ensur e that owners and purcha sers do not become entangled in needless civil litigation over undis cl osed designations or pending designations on a prope rty. To assu me that a proper ty owner will, in all cases, either be aware of or willing to dis clo se

an act ual or potential designa tion on a proper ty, is overly optimistic. We are confident that the government do es not wish to gener ate costly , unnecessary legal act ion as a resu lt of this present prov ision.

Part I, sect ion 3, ind ic ates that sites adjacent or nearby to an estab lis hed herita ge site may be designa ted . The general and open-ended nature of this power causes concern for its potential imped iment upon present owners and futur e buyers of such a prope rty. Noting that the bill provides for pr iority of any designation over all other filings on a title, we would sugge st more specific guideli nes to deter heritage designations by osmosis and to confirm the rights of mor tgagees and others in the pr otect ion of their filings on a heritage proper ty.

We wish again to empha size our board and associa tion's supp ort to the continua tion of heritage preserva tion, while advoca ting caution and resp ect for pro perty owner s' rights. Continued sup port for heritage preservation will be attained through co-opera tion, fairne ss and recog nition of financial resp onsi bility to rem unerate where basic rights to the enjoyment and use of one's prop erty have been infri nged upon. Thank you very much. MR. CH AIRMAN: Are there ques tions from the members of the commit tee? The Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Mr .

Deleeuw , you refe rred to sect 10n 23 of the bill on the reg istration of heritage sites.

Section 24 provides that sites that are so decl ared a heritage site un der existing legisla tion automatically become heritage sites with the passage of this bill. One of the concerns I've had , and I wonder if it has an impact on your assoc iation, and the activities of your assoc iation. in that there is a pr esu mp tion of kn owledge that under exis ting legisla tion designations have been made. Is that a legitimate presu mption of knowledge. or should the act

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 provide for a notification of the owners of exis ting decl ared heritage sites with the passage of this act? MR. H. DeLEEUW: Tha t is a concern with us and I think that should be part of the act. One of the facilit ies that we have as real estate agents is a co mputeriz ed service that we could pu blish these designations on. I think that wou ld be another one of our rec ommendations to go along with what I think you 're say ing. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chair man, I apolog ize to Mr . De leeuw . I missed your first point in your presentation, your initial concern . MR. H.

DeLEEUW: Under sect ion 23? MR. D. ORCHARD: No. MR. H. DeL EEUW: I'm sor ry. The fir st point then was desig nation of heritage sites. MR. D. ORCHARD: Right. MR. H. DeLEEUW: Maybe I should just read it over again rather than summarize it. I will read it over rather than summarizi ng. "Sug gested tha t the group or body mak ing rec ommenda tions to the Min ister for designation of historical properties be composed of rep rese ntative interests including those with appropria te technical and historical expertise, and those with co mmu nity and indi vidual interests in mind ." Is that suff icient? MR. D.

ORCHARD: Thank you . HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you . Mr . Chair man. I'd like to thank Mr . Deleeuw for the pres entation on behalf of the Real Estate Board. In terms of the qu estion that was asked by the Member for Pembina, the di fficulty that Mr .

De leeuw may have in answeri ng that is that there is only seven buildings that are under pr ivate ownersh ip that are pres ently designat ed . none of which are in the City of Winnipeg, except for one owned by the Winnipeg School Division. so no priv ate prop erty owners would be impacted by the fact that the legislation takes into account previously desi gnated sites because ther e are none und er priva te owner ship in the Cit y of Winnipeg, outside of the Winnipeg School Division. I'd like to ask Mr . Deleeuw .

I pr esume the Winnipeg Real Estate Board work s and colla borates with other such bod ies across Canada. Are you a member of a national organ ization in terms of infor mation sharing? MR. H. DeLEEUW: Yes. HON. E.

KO STYRA: I was wondering what kind of experienc e your col league s have had in the Province of Alberta where there are similar provisions to the act that's before us tod ay, specifi cally in the area of desig nation and the fact that there is no legislativ e provisions in Alberta for compensa tion, No. 1; and No. 2 they have pretty well the same provisions with respect 68 to impact assessment I was won dering if you had ar di scussion with your colleag ues in Al berta in terms < how that legislation has impacted your col leagues c your members in Al berta in those two specific area: MR. H.

DeLEEUW: I have to say that I pers onal! haven't. Ga ry Simonsen who was to be with me tonigt has had con tact with the Alberta group. I believe thi there was some mention made in our brief, on Pag 9, "'to accept the arg ument based on Al berta' experience that the incl usion of compensat ion in th act leads to the assumpt ion that historical desi gnatio is detrim ental is to bur y one's head in the sand. Th operativ e principle on this notion appears to be thi if one avoids the issue, or at least do es not mentio it. the proble m will go away. " Mr .

Simonsen probably could answer that a little b better than I could, but that's what our opinion is c what his di scussions were with Alberta. HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you for the rep ly. I'd ju� like to again thank you for your pres entation and th ongoing co-opera tion that your or ganization has give to us in dev eloping this legislation regu lations. MR. H. DeLEEUW: Thank you. MR . CHAIRMAN: Thank you . The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr . Deleeuw . MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . De leeuw. there is anothe qu estion fro m the Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KO VNATS: it's not really a qu estion.

The nam• Harry De leeuw is a very respected name in th< commu nity in which I was brought up. I just want yor to know that I have a gr eat respect for your father an< I'm sur e that the family name will always be held ir high esteem by mys elf. MR. H. DeLEEUW: I appr eciate that. MR. CH AIRMAN: Thank you, Mr . De leeuw . The next persons on our list are Rosemary Ma laher Prof. W. P. Thompson and Moir a Jones represe ntin! the Manitoba Historical Soci ety. Professor Tho mpson. PROF. W. THOMPSON: Good evening, I'm Pr of Tho mps on.

This is inde ed an historic occa sion, we believe it i: a most important piece of legislation. lt su persede: legislation that has exis ted for a number of years. Ou1 inter est in heritage goes back to our family in 18 7� and we feel this is a landmark in our histor y, as wel as the histor y of the provi nce. We co mmend the government in the revisions to Th! Historical Sites and Objects Act. We believe this wil be a piece of legislation that will be impor tant for w and also important as a preced ent for the rest o Canada.

We're very pleased that the Provincial Govern men· has cl arified the pr oced ur es for designating sites anc

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 bjects. Processes are clearly stated and are relatively ncomplica ted . The legislation is readil y unders tandable ) the la yman. we believe. The extension of power to desig nate to the 1unicipaliti es is a welcome step and will contri bute 1uch to the unde rstan ding of local history. Local eritage groups will be able to perform their vital un ction in their com muni ties as le aders in the ,wareness within each community of the movement to 1r eserve what is important to them and to the rest of he provi nce.

We, as the senior heritage organ ization >f the province. welcome the co-opera tion that we will 1a ve with these local groups toward pr eservat ion. Th ere are contr ibutions from various lev els of JOVernment in this act - the province, the municipaliti es md. inde ed , the local organ izations and provincial )rgan izations such as ou rselves. We bel ieve the participa tion of the volun tary )rgan izations cou ld be str engthened perhaps a bit 'urther in the act . There are a number of things we Nould like to point out as ways of making the act even better than it already is.

There is an additional role g1v en to the Muni cipal Board und er sect ions 7, 9 and 27. as well as sect ion 28. This will allow for the particip ation of local heritage organ izations. we hope, as wel l as the municip alities tha t govern their jurisd ictions. Under

Part 11, sect ion 12 (2), the situa tion might arise in which the pr esence of a heritage object is di scovered in a non- designed site. Th ere is no incentiv e for people who di scover such an object to repor t the dis cov ery . There may, in fact , be some di fficult ies for them. some disinc entive; for example, in the devel opment process, when construction is going on. when dev elopment of other sorts is happening.

Cer tainly we welcome the requir ement to report dis covery of arti facts as part of dev elopment of non desi gnated sites, but we do believe that the government should take a role to intervene on the behalf of developers to allow that there will be no penalty for their report ing of dis covery of archa eologic al or historial artifac ts. because in many de velopment agreements, as you know, there are claus es which wou ld penalize the developer .

So we feel that it wou ld be advisable for the governm ent to perhaps take a role to attempt to alleviate the problems which might dev elop - but I say might - as part of the di scovery and exam ination of archa eological or other artifacts.

Under sect ion 13 (2) there is not a qualifying statement reg arding the powers of the Min ister in issuing a heritage permit without an impact statement We apprecia te the need for latitude on the part of the Min ister in such cases, but we sug gest respectfu lly that this might be limited in some way, or at least reacted to by asking for the consultation with the chairma n of the Muni cipal Heritage Committee, or the Heritage Board of Manitoba, as the case req uir es; that is. a pr ocess of consultation might assist both informa tionall y and to bring the local group or the Herita ge Board into the case of that di scre tion.

Und er sect ion 22(b). does the provision allo w for financial assistance to the group or munici pality as de emed appr opr iate? Presu mably this is included implici tly. but it m1ght be appropria te to str engthen this

section with the inclusion of a more specific statement of the province offering some financial assistance i n that cir cu mstance 69 We urge the str engthening of sect ion 23 by the subs titution of the word "shall" for the word "may. " One of the problems cited by the Federal Min ister of Revenue for not proceed ing with tax inc entives for preservat ion of heritage buildings was that there was not a sufficiently defined register of buildin gs.

The need for such a reg istry, we believe, is paramou nt and therefore we believe it is incum bent on the provi nc e and on the mun icipaliti es to have such a reg ister. We believe it shouldn' t be dis cret ionary, but it should be a req uir ement that such a reg istry is formed . Naturally it will take time to form such a reg istry in its fu llness, but the req uir ement that there be a reg istry, it seems to us. rather important. Un der

Part Ill, sect ion 25, we believe the government cou ld stren gthen the act a bit by encou rag ing munic ipalities to designa te sites of local significance, things which are of importance to them and perhaps not of media impor tance to the entir e pro vince.

We also believe, and perhaps it is not - cer tainly it is not part of this act - but we also believe that grants for assistance - and we un derstand that such a document will appear short ly, but we wish to encou rage such a document - for heritage resources, both provi ncially and local ly, should appear as part of the annual Es timates of the depar tment. it should be clearly ind icated as part of their Es timates that these gr ants be und erstood and apprecia ted in their significance.

Under sect ion 39, again we wou ld sug gest, respect fully, the altera tion of the "m ay" to a "shall." This is again with reference to our previous com ments about the regist ry. The word ing should be "shall" to strengthen the requir ement. Under sect ion 40(2), we believe that funds rece ived under the provisions of this section, which we laud whole ly, should be set aside or held in trus t for heritage projects.

Tha t is, we believe that they should not revert to the general revenue of the mun ici pality, that they should be held in some sort of trus t for heritage purpos es, if indeed that is the matter and purpo se for which they are given. Un der

Part IV, sect ion 44(2), this pr ovision should be made for objects to continue to be held. This is a sect ion which refers to the holding of artifacts by private cit izens in their custody . We believe that provision should be made that. in the proper circums tances, these objects might inde ed be held in trust by the family or the heirs of the person in qu estion becau se, in many cases. they are not simply a personal semblage of objects. but they are respected and held by a family or perhaps even a group.

So the con tinua nce of this trus teeship we believe should be conside red beyond the time of holding by an ind ividual. Un der sect ion 53, until fairly recen tly amateu r archae ologis ts have provided the majority of knowledge about the pre -history of the pr ovince. However, it is also clear that an uns killed amateur ma y cause some dama ge to an archa eological site, so we do welcome the pu rview of the government in this

section , pur view over the sites and to see that they are not dis ru pted, so we strongly supp ort this sect ion. it's kind of a balancing that we favour , some accommodation to the abilities of the amateur to pu rsue his studies but, on the other hand. purview the govern ment Un der

section 55, again we ur ge a stren gthening of th1s sect ion by the substitution of "shall" for the word

- Tuesday , 9 July , 19 85 "may," and again, as we said in the sec tion on regist ry, we believe the strengt hening of this as a req uir ement, rather than dis cre tionar y is impor tant. Under sect ion 56, that's

Part V, under the present Historic Sit es and Objects Act, the Manitoba Historical Soci ety has been represented on the advisory board . This has been a wor thwhile link for the socie ty and we feel that we have con trib uted to this board signic antly. We ur ge the Mini ster to consider the incl usion of the soci ety, as well as the Manitoba Archaeological Socie ty, as members statutorily of this par ticular sec tion of the act. In conclusion, we ur ge the Minis ter to consider enshrining in statute annual gr ants for voluntary heritage organ izations.

The province has been most generous in supp or ting organiza tions, as other heri tage organ izations. We however would like to see a prov ision in the annual statements of the province that inclu des a sect ion of grants to volunt ary heritage organ izations as part of their balanced appr oach providing for heritage within the provincial req uir ements, as well as through the volunt ary organiza tions. We feel this balanced view is most important and in the interests of the province and the people who have contri buted significantly to heritage through the vol unteer organiza tions.

Again, the act, we believe, is excel lently dr afted , by and lar ge; is a gr eat step forw ard . We applaud you , Mr . Minis ter, and all those who have helped you in the arduous pr ocess of preparing this act. We ur ge most stron gly, speedy passage of this act so that we can be in the forefront of Canadian provi nces in heritage. Thank you very much. MR. CHAIRMAN: Any qu es tions for Pr ofessor Thompson ? The Honourable Minis ter. HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. Thank you , Mr . Thompson, for your pr esentation on behalf of the Mani toba Historical Socie ty.

I would jus t like to comment before I ask you for some clarification of comm ents you put forward , I can't help but put on the record the fact that the reason this act is before this legislation, this comm ittee tod ay, is due in no small part to the efforts of the Manitoba Historical Socie ty on behalf of heritage preservat ion and ed uca tion in this province. I think your soci ety and members deserve a gr eat deal of credit for this bill.

I wanted to ask you, in terms of your comments on sect ion 25, were you sugges ting that this do es not allow for the desi gnation of sites that are of local heritage value, heritage sign ificance? PROF. W. THOMPSON: Perhaps I can answer briefly and then pass it over to our exe cutiv e di rect or, Moir a Jones, for additional comment. We believe it do es allow for that, but we feel that . . . it out more specif ically might give the municip alities more encou ragement to take some initiative on their own. MR. CHAIRMAN: Moir a Jones. MS. M. JONES: Our feeling, Mr. Minister, on this

section is that while the act is encouraging munici palities to undertake legislation which will permit desi gnation at 70 that level, we feel that they will not undertake this exo there is a strong grant program in place, which l have mentioned that would come along as com pan legisla tion. But perhaps this could be inclu ded in · act to say that there would be financial assistance those municip alities that undertake this legisl ation. I think the fear of municipal ities is that if tt unde rtake the legislation they're going to be delug with requests for funding for up keep of heritage sit HON. E. KO STYRA: Ms.

Jones or Professor Thomp s< I'll pose this by way of a ques tion. Ar e you aware t1 du ring the course of sec ond read ing deba te of this I that I did annou nce that there would be a grant progn avai lable for sites that have been design ated provincial historic sites and a companion prog ram · sites that are desi gnated as municipal heritage site MS. M. JONES: Yes, I am aware of that, Mr . Mi nist but we felt that if it was within the act, it might strength it further . MR. CHAIRMAN: Other questions? The Honour able Mi nister. HON. E.

KOS TYRA: Yes, I jus t wanted to commer Profess or Thompson, with respect to your sugge stio with respect to sect ion 44 of the act, with respect the passing on of those artif acts to others within tl family or inde ed other persons, that that's not restri ct< in the legislation the way it's laid out, but thou! prejudging what this commit tee may do, I would inter to further clarif y that to cover specif ically the sugg esti< that you 've made. PROF. W.

THOMPSON: The question was about tl passing on of artif acts to other members of the fami We und erstand that it's not res tric ted , but we als from our membership, receive a number of com men and worries about this. This is by manner of assuran< to them, so whether in the act or whether by yo statement, it wou ld assur e them I think and make the aware that their contributions to heritage are respecte to show them that this will be given every consid erat ic if they are judg ed capable of such custo dianship. HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you for those comment Professor Thompson.

I would sug gest that once tt comm ittee conclu des its deli berations on the bill, th; may well be better cla rified. MR. D. ORCHARD: Professor Thompson, on sect ic 44, in the com ments from your membership, they ha� expr essed a concern that I've heard as well. Is ther a basic di sagreement amongst the membership of YOl organization of the specific provision in the act her which vests owner ship of archeo logical objects in th Cr own after the passage of this act ? PROF. W. THOMPSON: Yes, certa inly there is th< conc ern.

We, within the exe cutiv e and co uncil of th socie ty, feel that it is important that the province tak a role and be the ul timate guardian of the heritage c the province. The histor y of the matter is that inde ec for a long time, including up till the previous act an

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 to da te that a large part of the archeological heritage has been held priva tely. This is a fact; people have cared for it. some better, others not qu ite as well, so that the need for looking at it on a case- by-case basis and seeing the capabilities of the person or persons and the situation in which it's held , we believe is very important to judge it on an ind ividual basis.

We do not qu arrel with the basic notion that the province should have a role in this and should have the ulti mate respo nsibili ty for things which are pro vincially sign ificant. it's a balancing act between allowi ng those people who have the heritage already and are jud ged to be prop er cust odians of it to con tinue that effect ive custod ianship. MR. D. ORCHARD : Mr . Chairman, one other que stion to Professor Thom pson stemming from sec tion 12 (2).

This is one claus e where there is considerable power gr anted to the Minist er and yo u've ide ntified , I think, the concern that I have and others have in that - I'll give you two scenarios - first of all, if the reason to believe that a heritage resource exis ts turns out to be true and the dev elopment pro ject - whether it be resi dential . highway, whatever - is held up due to the desire to pr eserve it as a heritage site, that there is not a forma t in the legislation which wou ld compensate for any lo sses, contractual or otherwise. for the develo per.

Secondly , and possibly more important where the reason to believe turns out to be unfounde d , once again there is no obl igation on the gov ernment who has imposed a stop order , a cease- work ord er, etc., to pr ovide for any dama ges to the contra ct or the individua ls so affected .

I took it from your com ments that you wou ld prefer to see written into the legislation a method of comp ensation which would clarif y the government, hence. the public's resp onsibil ity in sect ion 12 (2) for preserva tion of resou rces which are fou nd and. indeed. if they're not found to make sur e that we haven't unduly impacted financially on a pers on. PROF. W. THOMPSON: I share a portion of your con cer n. The que stion is the method ology for doing this.

We believe that when the public interest do es cause some sign ificant injur y to the party in que stion that this. inde ed. should be part of the res ponsi bility of the government to, in the first instance. be able to deal with a problem at an earlier stage where perhaps the injury might be less by designa ting sites and registering things. notice to people. We believe that would help conside rably in the early ins tance so that when something goes on and the person does know it's a regi stered site that they are aware of it.

However, in cases where this is not a reg istered site, then another si tuation appl ies. We belie ve the government should enter into negotiations with the parties in que stion to det ermin8 the best way to handle it so there is not sign ificant inju ry. I don't know whether that really construes. however, as com pensation .

Ther e cert ainly is a responsibi lity we vie w of the go vernment to, in the fi rst in stance, desi gnate sites and make it aware that these are design ated sites, and in the instance of non-desi gnated sites . to enter into proper negotiations so that there 71 is not an injur y to the parties who are dev eloping the site. MR. D. ORCH ARD: Mr . Chairman, just to follo w up with one other point that you made, if I und er stood your comments to sect ion 12 (2). Le t's say the Min ister is not involved in having reason to believe. and the developer himself notices, say, an India n campsite.

If he's a contr actor and has 10 0 da ys to comp lete that work and reporti ng this archaeological site is going to dela y it beyond his contra ct will trigger his penalty clause, wou ld you recommend that in order to make sur e that people repor t them rather than simply put the blade of the bulldo zer a little deeper , to be crude. that there is an amendment so that there is an abili ty to negotia te dama ges or compensa tion or rei mbursement of additional costs? PROF. W.

THOMPSON: We believe that in such an instance there should be negotiations between the province and the person involved and that some resp onsi bility do es obtain to the province in seeing that if there are dela ys in the prog ress of work that some method is found to prevent that from being injurious to the person de veloping, yes. MR. CH AIRMAN: Are there other qu estions? Hearing none, thank you , Professor Thomson . The next person on our list is Sid Kroker, President, Associa tion of Manitoba Archaeolog ists. MR. S. KROKER: Mr.

Chairman, and members of the commit tee, I'm rep res enting an assoc iation of career archaeolog ists and avoca tional archa eologis ts whose main aim is the preservat ion and protect ion of our preh istoric and early historic heritage. We are very strongly in favour of this bill. it's some of the best heritage legislation that we have seen and we have looked at acts ra nging from The Arkan sas Act which is a very good one in the States; The Albert Act. This one is extremely good. it's well organ ized . it's well developed and it brings our legislation up- to-date with the pract icalities of this pr esent da y.

We wou ld like to speak strong ly in favour of sect ion 12. There are about 3, 000 heritage sites recorded in the province. This is a bare minimum number of the ones of the evidenc e of our pr edecessors that walked over the lands of this province. In 10 ,000 to 12 ,000 years, most of the provi nce has been occu pied and evidence of the people and their activities rem ains behind. Th ere have been some negative comments about certain aspects of impact assessment and I think those comments are based on the aspect that the thought is the assess ment is oc curring after dev elopment is started .

Proper assessment should be done on lead time in advance, so that sched uling of material that is fou nd for the mitigation and/or any findings can be done as par t of the sche dule. With the Al berta experienc e of the archae ologis ts and developers there, mitigation and assessment aspect on a large scale housing de velopment adds about $8 to the cost of each hous e in that tract. lt is not an ex pensive situa tion. lt preserves heritage and usually in a developmental situation the bud get for the heritage

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 assess ment is on the order of one one-hundr edth of to one-tenth of 1 percent of the total budget. it's very cheap money to get out heritage available to the public. With regard to the aspect of the ownersh ip of artifacts, sect ion 44, we feel that Cr own ownersh ip is necessary for the government to be able to legally safeguard our heritage from wanton di st ribution. Mo st of the information over the last 20 to 50 to 70 years has come from the avocational arc haeologist, the colle ctor . The first career archaeologist was hired in this provi nce 20 years ago only.

We've had 50 to 10 0 years of cat ching up to do in the last decade. This act is helping that. We wou ld like to see this legislation come thr ough as it is enabling legisla tion to encou rage people and institutions to pr eserve the heritage, and it wou ld allow the Minister to prevent wanton destruct ion of important heritage res ou rces. We see the intent of this act, not to be heavy-handed or dr aco nian in implementing the legis lation.

Firstly , there's neither the adequa te resou rces of perso nnel to do so and other pr ovinces which have Crown owners hip of artifacts and heritage objects have never shown such an incli nation to be heavy-handed . We would prop ose an amendment under sect ion 44( 1) , a new subclaus e, claus e (

c) which would state more or less that when a heritage obj ect is fou nd on pri vate land or water abut ting priv ate land, that the owner of the land may trans fer the custodial rights of that obj ect to the tind er. There are a la rge numb er of col lectors and avoca tional archae ologists who colle ct on priv ate land. They have to have permission of the landowner to walk on that land, so it wou ld be a matter of the lando wner to say, yes, you can obtain my custod ial rights. Mo st col lectors and avoca tional archa eolog ists are very law-abiding in the aspect that they do approach lando wners.

They usually share their informa tion with the lando wner and some of those lando wners have no interest in accept ing the cus tod ial responsi bility for obj ects that are on their land and are willing for those objects to go to avocat ional archa eolog ists who will pr eserve, protect, document and share the informa tion obtained from them. These col lectors and avocat ional archae ologis ts need to have their cus tod ial rights recog nized and this is wha t we are sugges ting with the new su b-cla use amendment.

Further to the ownersh ip aspect, we wou ld see, although the Mini ster said in the House that it was not proh ibited and he res ponded to the Manitoba Hi storical Society point about bequea thment or inheritanc e rights of heri tage object s_ We also wou ld supp ort a clarific ation in the act tha t such custod ial rights can be inherited or given to any ind ividual or an asso cia tion or an institut ion. The reasons we have for sugges ting this is that people who have col lect ions often feel a sense of ownersh ip.

These people should be allowed to pass their custod ial rights onto family or friends who have a concern and interest in the items. but these new custod ians should know their responsi bilities. With an aspect like this col lectors are more likely to have a co-operative attitude to sharing their knowledge, rather than going under ground and becoming secretive about their activities and colle cti ons. Further , this will also help to ensur e continu ity in the care and documentation of the col lec tions.

One other aspect that there has been a mod erate amount of reference to in the House has been the aspect 72 of fines that may be imposed for breaches of the act The Associa tion of Manitoba Archa eologis ts feels thal these fines should be retained in the size that i� mentioned in the act; the act needs teeth. A� pr ofess ional arch aeologis ts we see the need to call bac apples from within the archa eologic al commun ity.

WE have yet to have, in Canada, a case of an unscru pu lou� pr ofessional arch aeologists, as has happened in PerL or other countries, where material from national heritagE sites is sold on the black market for perso nal gain. WE need something like this to prevent a similar instancE occurring here. Also, with regard to corpora tions, we feel the ful penalty should be assessed when a corpora tion ha� knowingly and willfully de stroyed a heritage resou rce either before or after they have received an impact assess ment.

In closi ng, we wou ld like to commend the Min ister and his staff for an excellent piece of legisla tion; one that our association has felt has been long ov erdue and we're very happy to see it, and we ur ge rapid and speedy passage. Thank you . HON. E. KOS TYRA: Mr . Chairman, I'd also like to thank Mr . Kroker for the pr esenta tion on behalf of thE association and just like to comment and commend your association for the various proposals that you ha ve put forward over the last three years with respect to this legislation.

I'm sure you 're pleased that most ot those proposals have found their way into legisla tion. I'd like to thank you for your sug gestions tonight that were contained in your brief. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Kroker , you made reference that you sup port sect ion 12 of the act . Do you consider that there should be a com pensatory cl ause as part of sect ion 12? MR. S. KROKER: In jurisdictions where there is none, it se ems to have worked qu ite wel l. An im pact assessment is part of the development cost of a project .

In the case of a pipeline, it may be the aspect of hiring an arch aeolog ist to traverse the route that the pipeline is going to cover . lt may be one week's salar y for the archa eologist, as oppo sed to several millions of doll ars for the whole cost of the pipeline. lt is, in many cases , such a miniscule bud getary amount which is part of busi ness expense that I do not see compens atory aspects written into the act as necessary. I believe people who feel aggrieved by certai n aspects of the act do have other legal recourse that they can undertake. MR. D.

ORCHARD: What would those legal aspects, accord ing to this act, be, Mr . Kroker? MR. S. KROKER: Under this act it do esn't specif y it, but I do believe there are things like The Expropria tion Act, under which people who feel aggri eved may be able to pu rsue what they see as their rights. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Chairman, I'm not sur e that that's applicable to this act.

Section 12 (2), I think you 're qu ite familiar with the act, allows for the Minis ter, where

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 e has reason to believe. to put a cease order on any ind of a dev elopment. Now because he has reason J suspect the exis tence of a heritage site. if that uspicion doesn 't material ize and the Mi nister's cease fOrk order has del ayed the pr oject , cost the cont ractor ·r the ind ividual unde rtak ing that work , penalty cl ause. elay, you don't feel there's any necessity under this et to com pensate that ind ividual or that company who as been impinged upon by the exerc ise of sect ion 2(2)? �R. S.

KROKER: Fi rstly , with regard to that, the �in ister - and I have faith that the Min ister and his tall - would have a very good reason to believe. in •ther wordsm they wou ld have an impact assessment •n that area which states. yes there is material there, •r the de veloper wou ld ha ve already had an impact .ssessment which says. yes there is material there and : would only be in cont ravention of further portions ,f the act. in which case a stop order wou ld be issued . From a pro fessional archae ologis t's point of view.

I vou ld see the aspect of a Min ister ac ting wit h 1ni nformed knowledge would be basically impossi ble. le could not do that, as he is politically accou ntable, herefore. he wou ld have experts and facts. so he would 10t be ac ting on "a suspicion ." He would have locumenta tion. as well as perhaps an assess ment of 1is own . that would be applied . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr . Kr oker that isn't the way sect ion 2(2) read s. 1t doesn 't read anything about the Min ister 1as docu mentation to exist. 1t says, '·where he has eason to believe." and that is wide open.

I believe vhen we dis cu ssed this act you had some concerns 1bout this having too much club and not enough carrot, 1ut you don't seem to share that concern with the :ommittee tonight. "R. S. KROKER: The aspect of reason to believe - if have reaso n to believe something, that means I've 10t some evidence. not jus t a suspicion. When I was alking to you earl ier, when I was read ing that I did see t as suspicion only. Reread ing. I do see "reason to >elieve" as the operative phrase and that, to me, means �vide nce. "R. D. ORCHARD: Mr .

Chairman, to summar ize Mr . (roker's last answer, he is satisfied that reason to >elieve wou ld not be exerci sed by anyone other than vith pretty solid evidence, so that there's no necessity o pr ovide comp ensation where the reason to believe lees not turn out to be factual . III R. S.

KROKER: Yes, the reason to believe aspect , feel, is that there is evidence, there either has been m asse ssment done on that area prior to dev elopment >r the da ta has been obtained from avoca tionists and here is evidence that a heritage site do es exist i n that 1rea which is slated for dev elopment. in which case here is why the Minis ter has the reason to believe. 3ec ause this evidence is there, a developer who wou ld >roce ed in light of that knowled ge, then would be :ontr avening another sect ion of the act. He would be vantonly destro ying and disturbing an archeolo gical 1eri tage site. 73 MR. D.

ORCHARD: Thank you , Mr . Kr oker. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ar e there any other ques tions? Hearing none, thank you , Mr . Kroker. The next presenter on our list is Garden Breck man, also rep res enting the Manitoba Archeological Soci ety. MR. G. BRECKMAN: My name is Garden Breck man, and as a member of the Archeological Society, I suppose I speak for many enthusia stic amateur archeolog ists in the province, those whose activities will be governed by this act . I must say, having read it, I'm enthusiastically in favour of it.

I have a small problem and following a number of di stinguished speakers I've heard all my minor points raised a number of times. I must say that I have gr eat enthusiasm for the act in its pr esent form . I think some of the problems that are add ressed by this act are taken up in spel ling out in somewhat mor e detail some of the things that were omissions in the act that is in place at the present time. I think that act gave rather unila teral and sweeping powers to the Minis ter and the present situation is gr eatly to be desi red .

I note with inter est, that the cli mate of co-operat ion and mutual work that's bei ng done between the department of the Cultural, Heritage and Recreat ion and the amateur arche ologists throughout the provi nce, has resulted in qui te a few books and pamphlets. Th ese repres ent, to my mind, an ideal situation where we have the people who have these artifacts and who have col lected them and treasured them, they've made them available to profess ionals.

The result is a very well researc hed book where we have photogr aphs, dr awings and informa tion about these artifacts and they' re brought together in a cohesiv e whole which is of gr eat in terest, even to a casual reader , one who isn't pr ofessional. I note with gr eat interest that at the beginning of each of thes e books there' s a long li st of ack nowledgments of the people whose col lections have formed part of the basis for these books.

I think this is really wonderful because unde r the pro posed bill the people will continue to retain posses sion of these arti facts, and having copies of a book such as this is bound to arouse their interest. The y have a strong feeling that their artifacts have contri buted to, shall we say, a scholarly study . The result is that there's less likelihood of a loss of these artif acts when there is a book pointing out the importance of these to the indi vidual and to the communit y. I think this represents a very wonderful situation.

I do not believe, as some have sugg ested , that having the ownersh ip go to the Cro wn, of these articles, as long as indi viduals are allowed to re tain them, will do any particular harm as far as the amateur is concerned. I do not feel this will da mpen his enthusiasm. This owner ship by the Cr own is very common in other cou ntries and other pr ovinces in Canada and it's not causing any par ticular hardship.

I think somebody sug gested , through a casual read ing of Hansard , not my favour ite light read ing - for some, it's a req ui red part of the job , I un der stand - that anybody picking up an arrowhead might get into di fficu lty. I can see where the Min ister might have bushels of ar rowhea ds, people who are terror stricken that they

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 might get into some difficulty havtng colle cted them. This is cert ainly not the intention of the act . However. many people are thinking in terms of physical things they can pick up and look at. The y'r e thinking of something made out of gold and having an intri nsic value perhaps.

What they don't think of very often is that a site which wou ld be totally uninteresting to anyone that didn't have any kno wledge, is of fant ast ic importance and interest to someone who can make sense out of it, do some carbon 14 dating on the remnants of a campfire, de ter mine the use to which some of these, through microsco pic in spec tion, dete rmine the us e that some of these artifacts were put to. This tells us a tremendous amount.

Sometimes flotation to get articles of cereals and vegetation from a cer tain layer can tell us a gr eat deal about the cli mate and the foods that were available to people at that time. These are not of gr eat value and when we're talking about com pensation , is there some way that we could put a pric e on some of these things? In situ. and stud ied by someone who's going to take the time to make a detailed inspection, they'r e pr iceless. To someone who jus t looks at it as jus t a di fferent colour ed piece of dirt, they're almost nothing.

So I feel that the intent of this ac t, if I may speak from the amateur point of view rather than a mor e detai led, pr ofessional point of view of the people who have pr oceeded me, I think it has a very strong appeal to me as an indi vidual. I like the sugges tion I read in Hansard , that some companion legislation might make it possi ble to di splay and get interpr etations perhaps of some these, shall we say, otherwise uni nteresting artifacts that we ha ve fou nd. In general , I wish to perhaps add my voice to those of the people pr eced ing me, in strongly supp or ting this.

I have never encou ntered anything in my read ing, or in speaking to other people. I've never encou ntered anybody who spoke against the spirit of this act . What seems to be a problem is the mechanics and so far what I have read leads me to believe that it will encou rage the present clima te of co-opera tion. I think it will make the case for her itage in Mani toba much stronger than it has been at any time in the past. I'd like to thank the Min ister and the people who made it possi ble for me to add ress you , I think with perhaps a gr eat deal of enthusiasm and with a minimum of techn ical detai l.

Thank you. HON. E. KOSTVRA: I'd also like to thank Mr . Breckman for his pr esentation on behalf of the Soci ety.

I note that you made reference to the publi cation "Journey through Time, " which was something that was dev eloped as a result of a lot of sharing of information from amateur archae ologis ts. 1 also note you made reference to those that were recogn ized for their cont ribution on Pages 1 and 3 of that; and I also note that there·s a num ber of those that are listed with the surname ··or chard" - and I have reason to believe that some of them may be related to the Member for Pembina - were very active in the Morden area. I'd iike to thank you for your presentation. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there que stions. comments?

Hearing none. thank you. Mr . Bre ckman. 74 MR. G. BRECKMAN: Thank you . MR. CHAIRMAN: Next pr esenter is Te rry Wright, rep resen ting Pembina Moun tain Cla ys Lt d. MR. T. WRI GHT: Thank you , Mr . Chairman, lad ies and gentlemen of the comm ittee. I must take a di fferent point of view than many of you r previous speakers, in that I oper ate, not a pipeline owner or a major real estate dev eloper , but a small open pit bentonite cla y mining operation called Pembina Mo untain Cla ys; it operates in southw estern Mani toba.

They have cer tainly supp or ted the spirit of this act and, over the years, have acted in high co-opera tion with the local heritage interests arou nd south western Man itoba, and I think told me today that they've probably suppl ied two- thirds of the contents of the Mo rden Mu seum. Ho wever, they are very con cerned with many of what they see as the "dr ac onian" provisions of this act, and some of them have been ar ticula ted by Mr . Orchard, in particul ar, sect ion 12 of the act, which allows a work stoppage. Let me fi rst explain the opera tion of Pem bina Moun tain to you .

Thr ough lands that they own, and other propr ietary interests they gain through lease rights from priv ate owners and Crown lands, they enter into a prop rietary right and then they have to off to the Min es Branch to get a lic ence in order to cond uct their opera tions. Having done that and having only a mining season from May to October , they must stock pile for 12 months of oper ation in their plant in Winnipeg. They emplo y approxima tely 30 employees on a full-time basis.

If they were hit with an order under sect ion 12 (2), after having taken those steps, it could seriously impact on their production schedules. As has been pointed out earlier , there is no means of com pensation. There are no time limits on such a work stoppage, and no com pensation for it. Who is going to compens ate them for the lost production time, not only during the summer months in the mining season, but perhaps not having the inventory to process during the winter months.

Who is going to compens ate those employees that would have to be laid off as a result of good planning gone astray on this kind of an order? So it is dr aconian: it is very wide. As Mr . Deleeuw pointed out earli er, there are no specific criteria upon which an order might be made. One of the previous speakers ind icated the Min ister would not act unreaso nably, but I wou ld sugge st to you there's an absolute waiver pr ovision in sect ion 63 of the act, it gives him a right to act arbitrarily and not be accou ntable for it.

The other draconian aspect, as I see it, is the extent of the fi nes that are imposed und er this act for what I see as omission that can occur , not willful commissio ns of over-ze alous archaeolog ists tryi ng to spirit off valuable artifacts, but perhaps a failur e to report und er sect ion 46, of something you don·t even know is of value, you could be penalized under sect ion 69 in a very sign ificant way.

So these are the dr aconian aspects of this act that has my client ups et, which feels that it's acted in a very public spiri ted way over the years and, in fact, enjoyed a very cl ose relationsh ip with the heritage people in

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 3outhwestern Manitob a; in fact. told me they have three students there at this point in time vie wing their operations for summe r emplo yment . So I would ask. Mr . Min ister. that you rec onsider those

part icular sec tions. it's not the spirit of the bill that we are being contrary to, but some of those pro visions . it cer tainly wou ld impact on the size of the operat ion of my client, and I'm sure many others in similar ways. We talk about measu ring the cost of an impact asses sment in small dol lars for hous es, but the cost of such an impact assessment on my client would be signifi cant in its overal l operat ion . I suggest, as Mr . DeLeeuw did to you earli er, that that cost should be born by the public who is going to benefit from such an assess ment.

Tho se are my points and I'm open to any questions, Mr . Min ister. HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you . Mr . Wright, and I'd like to tha nk you for your pr esentation on behalf of Pembina Mountain Cla ys. I would ask you to pass on to your cl ients that we fully recog nize the co-ope rat ion that's exis ted between Pembina Mou ntain Cla ys and the local commun ity in the area in which they opera te, in terms of their attitude with respect to the artifacts that have been unearthed in their opera tions.

I can assure you that nothing in this act will allow that co operat iv e situation between them and the local com mun ity to be altered . With respect to your comments with respect to the fines, are you aware that the fines that are contained in this act are the same that are contained in The Clean Environment Commis sion Act ? MR. T. WRIGHT: I haven't made that comparison, but I accept your comment on it. HON. E. KOS TYRA: Thank you . no other ques tions. MR. CH AIRMAN: Other qu estions? Hearing none, thank you, Mr . Wright. MR. T. WRIGHT: Thank you . MR.

CH AIRMAN: Is Eric Robins on, Exe cutiv e Co ord inator, Brotherhood of Ind ian Nations here? Anybody else, un name d person who ma y wish to make presentations under Bill No 16. The Heritage Resou rces Act ? Hearing none, we pr oceed to the next bill. BILL 36 - THE MORTGAGE DEALERS AC T;

LOI SUR LES COUR TIERS D'HVPOTH EQUES MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 36, The Mo rtage Dealers Act . Available are some copies of written pres entations made from MARL, but will not be personally pr esented I un dersta nd. The first person on the list is Mr . Frank Cvitkovit ch, Leg al Couns el. Mo rtgage Loan Association of Manitoba. MR. F. CVITKO VITCH: Good evening, Mr . Chairman . I have with me also Mr .

Gr eg Ander son who is the president of the Mortga ge Loan s Asso ciation and is cu rren tly with Cr ed it Unio n Central in execut ive position and also manages the Buf falo Cr ed it Union. 75 I see many familar faces around the table and probably those who are familar are aware of the Mortage Loan Association , but there are some new faces.

I might just mention that the Mor tgage Loan Asso ciation is made up of approxi mately 35 members, and those members encompa ss all of the banks, trust companie s, life insu rance mortgage departments that are in Winnipeg and some of the cr edit unions, including the Credit Union Central and the Soc iety - I'm going to have trou ble with that one - I'll say the Fr ench, Credit Union Central.

In addition to those members, we have as assoc iate mem bers and ob servers who partici pate in our deli bera tions Canada Mo rtgage and Housing Corpora tion, your own Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corpora tion . the Winnipeg Real Estate Board, the Mor tgage Insur ance Company of Canada and the New Home Warranty Program . Our assoc iation has been in exis tence for approx imately 70 years. One of its main objectives has been to deal with government legislation and comment on it from an ind ustrial point of view. Mr .

Chairman, I had subm itted a written brief which I had dic tated yeste rda y being aware of Th e Mor tgage Dealers Act, but not being aware at that time of Bill No. 58, The Mo rtgage Act . I'm not sure whether this is the appropria te time, but I wou ld like very much, Mr . Chairma n , if it were possible, after I finish my comment on The Mor tage Dealers Act, if we could go to Bill No. 58. I believe I'm the only other person ind icated as having a subm ission for that bill, so we cou ld deal with it at the same time. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreea ble to the comm ittee? (Agr eed) Leave is gra nted . MR. F.

CVITKO VITC H: Thank you, Mr . Chairman. As you are aware, Bill No. 36, The Mo rtgage Dealers Act has taken more than two years to arrive at the Leg islatur e. Ordi narily , that might be an unusual and an unnecessary del ay. However, in this case, these efforts have resu lted in the formation of laws which well reflect the experience and concerns of government, publi c and busi ness. Usually our asso ciation, as spokesmen for the mortgage indus tr y in Ma nitoba, pr esents a br ief to commit tees of the Leg islatur e, pointing out technical concerns and request ing revisions to the bill.

To da y, we are pleased to say that we are satisfied with the act. I'm referring here, of cou rse, to The Mo rtgage Dealers Act. The proc ed ure which your government has followed , Mr . Chairman, of a dr aft pro posed act being circula ted for comment and review is an excel lent approach. We commend the government and, in particul ar, the government staff in the Securit ies Comm ission office and the Depart ment of the Attor ney General.

We have had seve ral open and us efu l dis cussions, and these have resu lted in many changes from the first and second dr afts, which we believe make the act more approp ria te while, at the same time, provi ding for the principl es which the government is conc erned about. We appreciate the oppor tunity afforded to busi ness and public to partici pate in the details of legislation.

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 We encou rage government to use this proc ed ur e of dr aft legislation more freq uently. particu larly where there are te chn ical concerns which ind ustry should ha ve a reaso nable time to react to and dis cuss with those resp onsi ble for dr awing legislation . I wou ld add , Mr . Chairman. that is respectfu lly subm itted . it may so und. in relation to the next bill that I wish to speak on, a little tongue in cheek.

But I want to say very sincerely , it was intended sinc erely that the proc edur e of dr aft legisla tion . particularly in an area of techn ical concerns to the ind ustry with concerns for the consumer and the investor, we have been able to have meaningful mee tings. Without getting involved into the princ iples of the thing with the legislators, we have been able to deal dir ectly with the people involved with enfor cing. That, Mr . Chairman, is our subm ission with regard to Bill No. 36. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Cvitkovitch, you may wish to pr oceed with Bill No. 58, or just Bill 36.

The Honourable Attorney-Ge neral. HON. R. PENNER: I think now wou ld be an opportune time. I'm sure, to thank Mr . Cvitkovitch for his remarks. I may not be qui te as enthus iastic after his remarks on The Mo rtgage Act. However, I think that we'll be able to find some common gr ound there as well. But cer tainly it has been a pleasu re work ing with the assoc iation and a whole num ber of other institutions in the, I think, over two years that have gone into the devel opment of this piece of legislation. I think he's right about the strengths of the consul tative pr ocess. BILL 58 - THE MORTGAGE AC T;

LOI SUR LES HYPOT HEQUES MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr . Cvitko vitch. MR. F. CVITKO VITC H: Mr . Chairman. may I now speak to Bill No. 58 then? MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave has been gr anted . MR. F. CVITKO VITCH: Thank you. Bill No. 58, Mr . Chairman, is ju st the opposite to what I have said with regard to Bill No. 36. Bill No. 58. I give you right here. I've got 35 copies, cou rtesy of the department. I am very appr eciativ e of that. I got them by courier at about 3:30 this afternoon . I was aware of the bill this morning, as I sat and waited for· my opportun ity to make my presentation.

I conside red di sposing of the pr esentation on Bill 36. but I thought better of it because, as I say, usually we are concerned with criticizing the legislation and I thought when we had something positive to say, like about Bill 36, we should say it. But I suggest to you that Bill No. 58. Mr . Chairman and members. is a far-rea ching bill with regard to mor tgages. The Mo rtgage Dealers Act. which has taken two years to pass and to hone down into the pr oper form . deals with relatively few mor tgages in this com munity.

By that I refer you to the fact that, unde r The Mo rtgage Dealers Act. the banks. the trust compan ies, the credit unions. the life companies are 76 all exempted . The y are exempted , because they ' already regul ated . So we have spent a gr eat deal time in working out

an act in which I think the orgi intent was to pro tect the investor in mortgages unr The Mo rtgage Dealers Act and to deal with the srr priv ate mor tgage lend er. Her e we are with Bill No. 58 and , in sect ion 26(1) the bill or the amend ment I should say, to the act says "every mor tgagee." "E very mor tgagee" is talki jus t exact ly in those terms. We are talking about evE mortgage loan will now be su bject to these req ui remer some of which, I can tell from just look ing at them m the last hour or two, are requir ements that were

Schedule A of The Mor tgage Dealers Act or T Mo rtgage Br oker s and Mor tgage Dealers Act. But vE few lend ers were involved in pr oviding that type statement, as req uir ed under The Mo rtgage DeaiE Act. Now that is not to say that mor tgage lende rs ' not di scl ose these terms. I had pr epared and I had started work ing on tt about three wee ks ago with one of the Deputy Min istE of the department to obtain copies from the vario members of the association of the kind of material th they use to dis cl ose their mor tgage terms to tl bor rower .

I under stood that what we wou ld be hopir to do wou ld be to di alogue on what the consumer rec eiving now, what he need s, and how best to ! about doing that without conf using him with anoth form. As a lawyer in priv ate pr actice I now spend, it seen to me, a half-a n-hour longer with a borrower descri bir to him the terms of the mortgage, because I've got statement of dis clo sure in some cases, not all casE but, under those banks that refer to The Bank Ac they have a statement of dis closu re. They have commi tment letter, and then we have our mortga� document.

I think the consumer is baffled by the tirr he gets finished , and I am tired. I sugge sted to the department that if you were goir to come out with something that was effective for tt public and the consum er, one should go so far < perhaps could look at either the mor tgage docu men or at least what they are getting now in terms of th comm itment letters that most of the major lender provi de, and de term ine if that is satisfacto ry. Now I'm sur e that the Attorne y-G eneral and his sta wil l ind icate that, if you are already doing these thing: why not con tinue to do them in the forma t that w have here?

Fran kly, becaus e of the time constraint: we're not sur e we are already doing all of these thing: or whether the way that we do them wou ld comply wit this new req uir ement . it says that this informa tion wi be given before the mor tgage is signed, and it will b furni shed either to the mor tgagor or to the agent c the solicitor . Now I'm informe d today by commu nic ation from M Gr aeme Haig, the legal counsel for the Winnipeg Re< Estate Board , that this bill was news to them. He ha1 been informed of it at 2 o'c lock this afternoon.

He i concerned and asked me to exp ress that concern will regard to the resp onsibili ty and the liability of agent: under this act . They have not consider ed it previous! ) because they were not aware that they would bE requir ed . in some fashion, to have a liability with regarr to mor tgage lending. I'm also informed by Mr . Gr aeme Garson who is hen to make a subm ission later, the Execu tive Chief of thE

Tuesday , 9 July , 1985 aw Socie ty, that the Law Socie ty was not aware of 1e act. There is a sect ion, ac tuall y two sect ions. that 3late to the soli citors involved , and cou ld create abilities and perhaps even create a conflict. Again , I refer to 26( 1) which says "the solicitor of 1e mortgagor .'· The solicitor of the mortgagor , in many 1stances, is also the solicitor of the mortga gee, robably in most instances is the same solicitor . There 1ay be a problem and there may not be, but th

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-sro4
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf sro4.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	4736b0c4cc9539928feb347e452982f97c23295e

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