Manitoba Hansard — 20 December 1989 (Sitting 95, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-95

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, December 20, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTIN E PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMM ITTEES Mr. Parker Burrell (Chairman of Commit tees): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Comm ittee on Law Amendments. Mr. Cl erk (W il liam Remn an t): Yo ur Stan ding Comm ittee on Law Amendments presents the following as their Second Report. Your committee met on Tuesday, December 19, 1989, at 10 a.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consider Bills referred. Your committee has considered Bill No. 67 - The Social Allowances Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur l'aide sociale, and has agreed to report the same with the following amendment: MOTION: THAT

Section 4 be struck out and the following be substitut ed: Coming into force 4 This Act is retroactive and is deemed to have come into force on December 18, 1989. All of which is respectfully submitted . Mr. Burrell: I move, seconded by the Member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), that the report of the committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Goods and Services Tax Opposition Support Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, yesterday we witnessed an absolutely incredible performance from the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

He states on the one hand that he is responsible for the reduction in the GST from 9 to 7 percent. He then disavows any knowledge of the new proposal, but he is against it-he tells us that. He will not join in the boycott, but he will assist Michael Wilson in collecting the new tax. Mr. Speaker, instead of working with Michaei Wilson to collect the new tax, what steps will the Premier take to assist Manitobans as they fight Michael Wilson? * (13 35) Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, just so that the Member for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock) understands fully and compl etely, this Government remains opposed to the GST. We are opposed to it whether it is at 7, whether it is at 9, because it carries with it the prospect of inflation for our province. It carries with it the prospect of serious problems and concerns for our small businesses attempting to collect two different taxes on two different sets of goods and services. It carries with it the prospect of having 10,000 additional bureaucrats and a billion dollars of collection costs. It carries with it the prospect of damage to our tourism and to many other aspects of our economy.

We are firmly opposed. This Premier went on record, went to the Premiers' Co nference in Quebec City and, together, all of the 10 Premiers of this country issued a communique opposing the GST. I believe from what I have seen in the coverage of yesterday's response to the GST that in fact the Premiers are still opposed to it. This Government will continue to op pose it in every possible way that it can, Mr. Speaker, and we will have the Minister of Fi nance attempt through his colleagues, the Ministers of Fina nce, to work with Ottawa to convince them that an alternative to this damagi ng tax must be found. Mr.

Alcock: Mr. Speaker, we hear that. We also see in other provinces when they condemn the tax, they do not immediately jump in and start collecting it. I would ask the Premier, what specific steps is he and his Government going to take to assist Manitobans as they continue to protest this tax? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, does the Member for Osborne believe that we should inflict upon the small businesses and the retailers of this country two separate taxes paid to two separate tax collection systems, to double bureaucracy to a billion dollars of collection costs and to 10,000 more bureaucrats?

Is that what he would prefer to see, rather than have at least two taxes, if there are to be two taxes -a nd we will continue to fight against th ose two taxes- but to say that, no, we would not allow our collectors to save the taxpayers of this country and the small businesses and retailers a billion dollars of costs and 10,000 more bureaucrats, is that his solution? If it is, it is another typical Liberal solution which is absolutely negative, which will cost more to the taxpayers, which will drive up inflation and drive up- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please; order, please. * (1 340) CFB Portage la Prairie Compensation Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): If you do not believe in the devil, you do not dance with him. Mr. Speaker, we need a Premier who is not afraid to stand up for Manitobans and who is able to negotiate for Manitoba. 3980

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 Now, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note that Prince Edward Island is cl ose to signing a deal with Ottawa to provide compensation for the loss of the Summerside Base. Can the Premier tell us how close he is to a similar agreement on Portage la Prairie and Kapyong? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, if what the Member for Osborne is now suggesting is that we no longer work with the people of Portage la Prairie to save the base, and that is what he is saying, that is exactly what he is saying, and if wha t he says instead is that we sign an agreement with Ottawa to do a replacement there, well, I will tell him this, that first, Ottawa has already done more than just give us any li p-service, th ey have al ready put forth two new businesses in Portage la Prairie. They have put forth an oats processing plant. They have put forth a rotary combine manufacturing plant. Mr.

Speaker, we do not think that is the right solution; we want to work to preserve the base. If all he wants us to do is to sign with Ottawa an agreement to put forth other economic development and to abandon the people of Portage la Prairie in their fight to preserve the base, then let him say that. If that is what he wants, we will go and talk to the people of Portage la Prairie and see if they choose the Liberal solution, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Spea ker: Ord er, please; order , ple ase. The Honour able Member for Osborne. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, this Premier is abandoning the province.

The Premier of P.E.I. is able to get a meeting with the Prime Minister to discuss his base. Why can this Premier not meet with the Prime Minister to discuss our bases? Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I did in August when his Leader opposed that. She said I should not be talking about the base closure at Portage la Prairie. She said that is not the kind of thing that I should be tal king with the Prime Minister about.

She said do not talk about economic development for Manitoba, do not talk about economic development for Portage la Prairie, do not talk about all those important long-term issues for Manitobans. She said that was the wrong thing to do. Mr. Speak er: Ord er, please; order , ple ase. The Honourable Member for Osborne. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, at least my Leader is prepared to fight. Goods and Services Tax Impact Labour Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the Fina nce Minister (Mr.

Manness) stated yesterd ay that Michael Wilson's proposal is a better deal , so good that he now intends to join in collecting the tax. Can the Fi nance Minister quantify for us, as he did a few months ago, the job losses in Manitoba over the next three years as a result of this good deal? Hon. Clayton Manness (Mi nister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, there is some incumbency upon all Mem bers of this House to get their facts straight when they are asked a question. At no time did any Member of this Ho use, indeed any Minister, say that they were joining in joint collection of the federal tax.

Indeed, that has not even been talked about with the federal Finance Minister. So until the Member for Osborne can get his facts straight, I am afraid I cannot answer his question. Mr. Alcock: Well, Mr. Speaker, I do have a fact, actually it comes right out of the Financ e Minister's mouth, and that is we are going to lose 6, 700 jobs as a result of the 9 percent proposal. I am asking the Fin ance Minister today: how many jobs are we going to lose in Manitoba as a result of this proposal? Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, let me say that first of all with job loss, the Li berals are more interested in losing jobs in Manitoba than any Party in this House. If they had not been, they would have supported the tax measures of this Government by way of introduction in the budget. They would acknowledge today that the economy in the Province of Manitoba is forecast to grow at a rate second highest in the nation, and th ey would be prepared to acknowledge that fact.

With respect to the goods and services tax, by way of the analysis done by the Conference Board of Canada which seems to be the one that is accepted by most, it would appear that there are upwards of a couple thousand jobs that are going to be lost in the next period of time given the 7 percent solution. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, we are indeed concerned about job losses because that is all we have seen since this Government took office. A couple of thousand jobs-on Nov ember 13 the Fin ance Minis ter (Mr . Manness) stated 1,200 jobs in '91; 4,500 jobs in '92; and a further 1,000 in '93. What is his estimate now?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, it is not my estimate. I was reporting a conclusion drawn from the Conference Board . So it is not my estimate at all. Indeed the numbers that were presented by the Mem ber opposite were basis 9 percent, and indeed that number now has droppped down somewhat to roughly 2,000 jobs, as I understand that number to be today, Mr. S peaker. * (13 45) Minister of Health Apology Request Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, a couple of weeks ago we commented about the chaos in the Department of Health, ADMs that were leaving, confrontation with many of our health care people. Two weeks ago the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) called the doctors of this province liars. The Premier has had two Cabi net meetings sinc e that time to hold the Minister of Health accountable. I am absolutely shocked that the Premier has not yet had, either through himself or the Minister of Health, an apology, because no one can conclude that is good negotiations or good Government. I would ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) why we have not received an apology from the Government on the 3981

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 Min ister of Health's comments so we can bargain tough but in a hospitable way with the people across the table? -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please . Order . The Honourable First Minister . Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we continue to be in discussion with the members of the Manitoba Medical Association . Those discussions continue to involve exchange of information and positions with regard to the settlement of an agreement with the MMA. I might remind the Member for Concordia (Mr.

Doer) that his administration strung the doctors out for 11 and a half months beyond the expiration of their agreement. His administration belittled the doctors, were in confrontation, told them they could leave the province if they cared, that they would not do-insulted them at every turn. He is in no position to offer advice about relationships with the doctors, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doer: I am surprised that the First Minister does not have standards of integrity and negotiations bargain tough, bargain firm, but do not bargain in the gutter , Mr. Speaker. I am surprised that the Premier allowed that to happen .

Cadham Provincial Laboratory Infectious Material Storage Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). We have commented about the decision making and the chaos in his department before . Hopefully, he has some ADMs left. He has lost two in the last year under his stewardship . A month ago the employees of the Cadham Lab informed his senior management that there were infectious wastes and material stored improperly in the front of the Cadham Lab, in the reception area of the Cadham Lab .

I would like to know what action his department has taken on this material stored in the front of the Cadham Lab in the public reception area? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health ): Mr. Speaker, I will seek answers to that question and report to my honourable friend. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we are further informed of internal documents in his department that this material, which had been ident ified to senior management a month ago, also constitut es a fire risk at the entrance of the Cadham Lab.

I ask the Minister why his senior management has not acted upon the recommendations of employees and removed the material from this

section of the Cadham Lab, the public area of the Cadham Lab? Mr. Orchard: As I indicated, to the first question I will prov ide information on that matter as soon as I have it. Department of Health Assistant Deputy Ministers Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker , I was wondering whether the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) , in reviewing this question and reviewing his department, can report to the people of Manitoba whether we are going to · have any ADMs go ing into 1990 with the two he has lost in his department? Has he been able to attract- An Honourable Member: Nonsense . Mr.

Doer: Well , this is a serious issue of health management under the Minister's administration. Are we going to have senior management in the Department of Health to run the Department of Health in a way that is consistent with the health care needs of Manitobans? •

(1350) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I might remind my honourable friend, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that under the stewardship when he was Government, a Minister resigned as Minister of Health for what reasons I cannot say. I want to tell my honourable friend that as he makes allegations, and I might indicate totally unfounded allegations of chaos in the Health Department , he has absolutely no substantive proof .

My honourable friend in the New Democratic Party knows because he has his advisors on his Health committee telling him that there is more reform and initiative in Mental Health than ever in the 20-year history of this province, 15 of which were under New Democratic Party jurisdiction. His own advisors are telling us. Mr.

Speaker, there has never been more close consultation on issues important to the health care system with individuals delivering health care from administrators to the nursing profession , to the medical profession, to all those involved in health care delivery than ever before in recent history in the Department of Health .- (interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please ; order , please. Drinking and Driving Legislation Justice Minister's Position Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): My question is for the Minister of Justice .

This Mini ster has repeatedly stood in this House and taken a holier-than-thou attitude toward the evils of drinking and driving. All the while he was bungling through a piece of legislation that required amendments by this Party to give it a chance of success . Sadly, this Minister has now condoned the actions of drunken drivers who destroy lives and property by defending MPIC regulations- Mr. Speaker: Order . Is there a question here, please? 3982

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 Mr. Edwards: My question to the Minister is, why did he say to Mr. Joseph Pollock in a letter to him of November 13 which I will table, that impaired drivers were not as bad as suspended drivers because they are drunk, they do not know what they are doing, so we should spare them from being sued from MPIC. Why the hypocrisy from this Minister? Hon. Glen Cummings (Min ister responsible for The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr.

Speaker, the Member chooses to paraphrase in his comments, and certainly the words that he chose to put on the record are not what is included in the letter. (int erjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Cumm ings: The fact is that this is an interesting issue of concern, because the issue that is addressed in the letter is whether or not the liability insurance for a third party can be recovered from the insured as opposed to someone who is driving suspended . Drinking and Driving Legislation Justice Minister's Position Mr. Speaker: The Honoura ble Member for St. James, with a supplementary question. Mr.

Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I have tabled the letter and it is now a matter of public record, but let me quote very briefly the statement the Minister made. Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Question, please. (i nterjection)- Order, please. Order. Mr. Edwards: My question is, and I hope the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae) will answer it because he wrote the letter.

Why does the Minister defend protecting drunken drivers by saying it is necessary in order to pay victims swiftly when he knows fully well that collection later from a drunk driver for damage caused would in no way prejudice or delay payment to victims, payment which is made immediately now upon settlement? Hon.

James McCrae (Mini ster of Justice and Attorney Gener al): The Honour able Member's questions come not surprisingly as the issue was covered last ev ening on CKND television, but it is somewhat surprising in view of the fact of his faint-hearted support for the anti-im paired driving measu res announced by this Government last May 9. His first reaction to our nine-point program to deal with impaired and suspended drivers was, well, it probably will not make it through the courts, this was his reaction.

All the way through, the Honour able Member made every possible attempt to discredit a program which works very effectively, I might add, against impaired and suspended driving. Recent news reports and other reports tell us that the program is working extremely well. As a lawyer, the Honourable Member might also take into account the opportunity or the cost that would be involved for the Publ ic In su rance Corpora tion in recovering the kinds of monies that we are talking about and some of the serious accidents that are caused by impaired drivers. What is behind the letter written to Mr.

Pollock was advice given to me by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corpora tion. Acting on that advice I drafted a letter to Mr. Pollock to respond to his letter. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. James, with his final supplementary question. Mr. Edwards: This Minister does not know yet how much he owes me for saving his legisla tion . Mr. Speaker- Some Honourable Mem bers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Honourable Member for St. James, kindly put his question. Mr. Edwards: Let me save the Government some more money. The Minister has just said MPIC is going to cost money.

The Minister of Fi nance (Mr. Manness)- Some Honourable Mem bers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for St. James, kindly put your question now, please. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, that from the Minister who has a slush fund making $55,000 a day in interest. The fact is, the ability to sue impaired drivers would make MP IC money from impaired drivers.

How can this Minister on the one hand say all over this province on radio and TV ads, "If you choose to drink and drive, that is everybody's business," and then say in this letter MP IC should forgive them the carnage they create because they do not choose to drink and drive, they are too drunk to choose- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. The question has been put. The Honour able Minister of Justice. Mr. Mccrae: There may be something in what the Honourable Member says, but I do not think very much.

In addition, I could say with respect to the Honourable Member who shows lack of modesty today he has a lot of qualities, but modesty usually is not one of them. That is pretty clear today. * (1 355) To be fair, the Honourable Member should have a look at the letter in its entirety. I would rather trust my own writing of the letter than the Honourable Member's paraphrasing of it. What the letter was doing was giving a recitation of the history of the situation.

The fact is, The Manitoba Insurance Act and other insurance Acts in Canada, including the Ontario one, were amended in September of 1973 so as to dele te the impaired driving as a breach from third party liability coverage. 3983

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 That has been the situation in Manitoba since 1973. What I was doing for Mr. Pollock was giving him a recitation of the history of that particular provision in the Act. Speech Pathologists Waiting Period Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kil donan): Mr. Speaker, in June of 1988, there were 250 preschool children waiting for appointments with speech therapy. In June 1989, the number rose to 300. Now there are 493 children waiting for speech therapy at Childr en's Hospital . The waiting period has increased from 14 months to 23 months. Can the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) tell us why he is ignoring all these parents and their children? Hon. Don ald Orchard (Minis ter of Health) : My honourable friend's information in terms of the growth of the waiting list is accurate. The rest of his

preamble is totally inaccurate. I realize my honourable friend and the Liberal Party have instant solutions to every single problem in Government. Most of them involve a blank cheque, but in this case even a blank cheque will not work. The issue of speech language pathologists is one not only of a shortage in this province but a shortage across Canada, so that even if we used the Liberal blank cheque, individuals are not available in this province for hiring. Mr.

Speaker, let me tell my honourable friend, as I have consistently indicated to him, that the additional resources that went into the Health Sciences Centre program have allowed more children than ever in the history of the Province of Ma nitoba to receive assessment, service and treatment. Mr. Cheema: That is the result that at least 20 percent more speech therapists have left Manitoba in the last nine months. Funding Increase Mr.

Guizar Cheema (Kil donan): Can the Minister of Health today assure this Hous e that he will allocate some of the funds from his saving account, from the underspending of health care, out of $32 million he has saved for the last 19 months? Hon. Donald Orchard (Mini ster of Health ): Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why we increased the resourcing to the Health Sciences Centre as an intermed iary step to attempt to provide more service to children.

In that additional resource to the Health Sciences Centre, a fact my honourable friend fails to put on the record, increasing that resource was also in the area of pediatric audiology in which waiting lists have gone down and waiting times have gone down from 6 months to one month. That issue has been substantially resolved by this Government. No credit would flow, and I would not expect credit to flow from my honourable friend. Mr.

Speaker, surely my honourable friend would indicate to the public that more children, preschool aged children, have received service in the last six months since that resource has been enhanced at the Health Sciences Centre than ever before possible. That is an intermediate step. The MacDiarmid Report has offered us further direction on which we are prepared to consider action on a number of fronts. * (1 400) Speech Pathologists Educational Incentives Mr. Guizar Cheema (Kil donan): Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary to the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach).

Can the Minister of Education assure this Ho use that educational incentives will be provided to the students seeking training outside Manitoba so that they can come back and practise in Manitoba? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Min ister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, any students that are studying outside of Manitoba are indeed offered the opportunity to access the Student Aid Program that is present in this province.

Staff from my department have been in contact with all those students who have left Manitoba to study outside of the province to ensure that we can attract them to this province, and recently I can indicate that we have just hired three speech therapists for this province who had been studying outside of the province. We are presently in the department looking at ways in which we can provide such incentives that will attract even more of those kinds of professionals to our province because of the need of those professionals within our province. Inter-City Gas Corporation Rural Rate Increases Mr.

Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speak er, this Government is always paying lip-service for the need to pr otect rural Manitobans and Manitobans who live outside the City of Winnipeg. My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Neufeld). Can the Minister of Energy and Mines indicate whether ICG has provided any jus tific at ion to the Gove rnment of Manitoba for proposing a 25 percent increase in the price of natural gas to consumers in the City of Brandon, increases two and three times the cost of living for other rural consumers of natural gas?

Can the Minister indicate what justification there is, why people in rural communities like Brandon should be facing a 25 percent increase in the price of gas to equalize the rates across the province? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, the Member for Flin Flon knows very well that the rate increases are approved by the Public Util ities Board . They are the final authority on what rates shall be charged at whatever centre they are being charged. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Speaker, that sounds suspiciously like the Minister is going to stand by and watch ICG gouge people in rural Manitoba to maintain a rate of return of 14 percent on its investment. 3984

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 My question to the Minister is, can the Minister indic ate whether he intervened or is prepared to intervene before the Public Util ities Board approves the rate hike of 25 percent. Will he intervene today to protect the consumers of natural gas in the City of Brandon and rural Manitoba? Will he do that? Mr. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board makes its rulings without Government intervention. They have been set up as an arm's length committee and they should remain at arm's length from Government.

If Government is to make the decisions on natural gas rates, we do not need a Public Utiliti es Board . The Public Utilities Board will make the final decision. Municipalities Direct Gas Purchasing Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Fl on): Mr. Speaker, I raised with the Minister more than a year ago the possibility of establishing, or working with municipalities, so that they could directly purchase their own gas supplies and save themselves 15 percent or 20 percent.

Is the Minister today prepared to commit to working with municipalities so that they can do their own direct purchasing and save themselves from this outrageous increase ICG is, with the support of the PUB, imposing on the residents of Brandon? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Min ister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, it is very easy for the Member for Flin Flon to stand up and say municipalities could buy dir ectly cheaper than they can through the ICG distribution system. It is not quite as easy as that. The Alberta Government has to issue export permits.

It is true some large businesses or large industries in Ontario buy direct, but an individual municipality may not be big enough to buy direct. We have a problem with core area users that has to be settled before any such direct purchases can be made. Cadham Provincial Laboratory Infectious Material Storage Ho n. Don ald Orchard (Mi nis ter of Healt h): Mr. Speaker, I have just received an answer to the question posed by the Leader of the Second Opposition Party (Mr. Doer), and the materials that he referred to have been removed entirely. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the Honour able Minister.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Petroleum Products Storage Tank Monitoring Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, Manitobans are growing more frustrated with this Government's performance on environmental issues every day. The Conawapa fuel spill, the other well-noted gasoline spills that are becoming routine in the rest of the province have demonstr ated this Go ver nment's lack of enthusiasm in gett ing tough with polluters. Can the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cummings) tell why he has not taken the necessary steps yet to ensure that regulations for fuel storage tanks are properly monitored and enforced? Hon. Gl en Cummin gs (Mini ster of Environmen t): Mr. Speaker, the regulatory control on fuel storage across this province is a massive undertaking. I stated in the Ho use during the Estimates process that we were improving the ability of the department to follow up more closely on the monitoring on the major bulk stations and public gas stations. The numbers of tanks across this province is enormous.

Frank ly, we have been left with a very large backlog, and we are actively working to get that cleaned up. Mr. Taylor: Not a very reassuring response. Mr. Speaker, given the environmental danger posed by the resale of old storage tanks that have outlived their safe life span, when will the Minister introduce measures that will control the sale of used fuel storage tanks? Mr. Cummings: Mr.

Speaker, the Member chooses to misunderstand, or possibly he chooses to misrepresent the situation in the region of the Conawapa dam site where riveted tanks which are not considered proper for bulk storage any longer in this province were put in place. The fact is the owner of those tanks did not register them with the Environment Department. If they had been registered he would not have been allowed to use them. Since it has been found that he was using these tanks, he has ceased to use them. That is the matter in which we control the use of vessels for storage within this province.

Conawapa Project Fuel Tank Inspection Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Wolseley, with his final supplementary question. Mr. Harold Taylor (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I take exception to the comment about misrepresentation. There has been a total lack of action by the $198 man- Some Honourable Memb ers: Oh, oh! Mr. Sp ea ker: Order , please; ord er, please. The Hono urable Member for Wolsel ey, kindly put his question, please. Mr. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question to the same Minister: what is the status of the other tanks that Vector has on the Conawapa site?

Were they also illegally purchased from the same individual, have they yet been inspected by the department, and what is there status today? Hon. Glen Cummin gs (Min ister of Environment): Again the Member chooses to misrepresent the facts, either that or he does not know them. 3985

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 Some Honourable Memb ers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Minister of Environment. Mr. Cumm ings: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated in my answer to the previous question that the other tanks owned by Vector that were in improper storage have since been emptied; they are not being used any further for that purpose. The tanks that were in fact removed from service are now-the re is a direction to have them rendered unusable for further holding of petroleum products. * (1410 ) Municipal Assessment Act Public Presentations Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday and last night a number of people had expressed concerns about Bill 79, The Municipal Assessment and Consequential Amendments Act , which affects all Manitobans who own or rent property in this province, a very important Bill.

I would ask the Ho use Leader if, in view of the concerns that were expressed about inadequacies in the Bill, concerns about omissions and concerns about changes that must be made in the appeal process and the market value definition and phasing and procedures and so on, will the Ho use Leader now agree to giving Manitobans an opportunity to present their concerns in January, as well as rushing it through in the last couple of days, give them some more preparation time to make presentations in the new year? Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Minister of Justice. (i nterjection)- Order, please. Hon.

James Mccrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): As I recall, the Bill was introduced for second reading early in November, I believe it was November 2. That is well over a month and a half ago. Precisely because Honourable Members on this side of the House would like to give Manitobans those opportun ities to be heard , I recog nize th at the presentations are not complete as yet, but a little later I will be announcing further sitting dates for that committee so that Manitobans can be heard. We have had two meetings now.

We will have another one tonight, and another two meetings on Thursday to give ample opportunity. Mr. Plohman: A Bill that has been some 10 years in the making in preparation, a Bill that affects the property of all Manitobans surely deserves more than three days' consideration. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Sp eaker: Order , ple ase; ord er, ple ase. The Hon ourable Mem ber for Da up hin, kindl y put his question now, please. 3986 Mr. Plohman: This is a very serious matter. In view of the fact that we have had very cold weather, the Government- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

Is there a question? The Ho nourable Member for Dauphin. Mr. Plohman: Will this Hous e Leader and this Go ve rnment allo w Ma nitobans time to ma ke presentations after they have had time to prepare them, and not rush it through in three days prior to Christmas? Mr. Mccrae: I think the Honour able Mem ber's reference to th ree days is somewhat misleading, albeit I am sure it would not be intentional on the part of the Honourable Member. The issue has been current in this province for the last 10 years. Wher e was his Government for seven years of those 10 years?

I can only repeat, the Bill was introduced for second reading on November 2. It is a very, very important Bill. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Penner) and other colleagues are listening very carefully to the presentations that are coming forward. I am sure that the Government is attempting to do the right thing, but I think the Honourable Member's plan of just stalling for the purpose of stalling really is not acceptable to the people of Manitoba. Some Honourable Memb ers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order , please; or der, please. The Hono urable Member for Da uphin, with his final supplementary question. Mr.

Pl ohma n: This Bill is too important to be done in this Government's usual shoddy fashion which requires more amendments in subsequent sittings. We want to get it right now, and we want Manitobans to have an opportunity to make their presentations. Mr. Speaker, in the interest of co-operation in this Ho use which is so important- Mr. Speaker: The question, please. Mr.

Plohman: -e specially in a minority Government, will this Ho use Leader now reconsider his position and grant Manitobans and agree to giving Manitobans an opportunity to make presentations, or early in January as his Minister had indicated willingness to do earlier in the letter that he sent to me just this last week? Mr. Mccrae: The Honourable Member as critic in this particular area also knows that it was about a month ago that I wrote to his House Leader (Mr. Ashton), letting the NDP and the Liberal Party know the priority this Government placed on Bill 79, asking indeed for their co-o pera tion.

Inde ed , tha t is the way this Government has attempted to proceed. We asked that that Bill be considered. We gave adequate time for that consideration. The Honourable Member-I can show him a copy of that correspondence if he does not have it before him. What we come down to is a few days prior to a potential holiday recess and the Ho nourable Members

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 are trying to find reasons to stall Government legislation. It just does not wash, Mr. Speaker. ***** Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honour able Member for Dauphin, on a point of order. Mr. John Pl ohman (Dauphin): The House Leader (Mr. Mccrae) is imputing motives, Mr. Speaker. I have letters on record that say we are willing to have this Bill dealt with by January 15, and that is on record and letters have been delivered. It is not an attem pt-this Minister is imputing motives to our concerns- Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member does not have a point of order.

No, he does not have a point of order. Taxicab Industry Foster Report Mr. Ed Mandrake (Assiniboia): The taxicab industry has been studied to death, yet no firm policy has been formulated . First, we had the Fox-Decent Report, then the Touche Ross Report, then the review of the Touche Ross Report. Now Jody Gilmore was to conduct a study on actual earnings by the average taxicab driver in Winnipeg. My question to the Mini ster of Hi g hways and Transportation is, a report by Jody Gilmore which will cost the taxpayers of Manitoba $1 1,000 has not yet been tabled. Would this Minister table it toda y in this Ho use?

Hon . Albert Driedger (Minis ter of High ways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that further information to the Member on his question is that the Taxicab Board had held hearings, a series of hea.rings based on all kinds of problems that had developed within the industry. Those hearings have been comp leted and I am awaiting a report from the chairman. Once I have that report, I will be meeting with the industry itself to see whether we can resolve some of the concerns that they have. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF TH E DAY Hon.

James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you kindly call the Order for Return standing in the name of the Hono urable Member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr s. Yeo). ORDER FOR RETURN NO. 12 Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), THAT an Order of the Hous e do issue for the return of the following information: (

a) The total cost of travel, accommodation, and othe r exp enses paya ble by Mani toba taxpayers incurred by the Deputy Minister of Education on a trip to Ho ng Kong with regard to Gloria School; and (

b) The cost of the painting that was presented by the Deputy Minister to Paul Hui, proprietor of Gloria School, on behalf of Manitoba; and (

c) The annual cost of reviewi ng acad emic criteria of the Hong Kong School; and (

d) An itemization of all costs associated with Mani toba's involv ement with the Gloria School in Hong Kong and payable by the taxpayers of Manitoba; and (

e) The number of students enr olled at this time and the projected enrollment estimate for the fall of 1990. MOTION presented. Hon. James Mccr ae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the Order for Return put forward by the Ho nourable Member for Sturgeon Creek is acceptable to the Government. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. HOUS E BUSIN ESS Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a matter of Ho use business, as I said a few moments ago to the Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plohman), in an effort to ensure that people who wish to be heard may be heard and to help in the proper consideration of Bill No. 79, I would announce today that if necessary the Municipal Affairs Co mmittee of this Ho use would sit on Thursday morning at 10 a.m. and Thursday evening at 8 p.m., if that is necessary, in Room 255 to resume consideration of Bill No. 79. I understand, Mr . Speaker, there might be leave on the part of Honourable Members to waive Private Members' Hour today.

I will be asking that Bills be called , but if we should happen to get through the list and there is time available, we might discuss that amongst House Leaders later, but as I understand it right now, there is a wish to waive Private Members' Hour. Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call the Bills in the following order: Bill No. 76, 71, 90, 42, and if we get that far I would then give you some more Bills that you might call. Mr. Speaker: The Ho nourable Member for Dauphin on House business. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphi n): I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: On House business? Mr.

Plohm an: Yes, on a matter of House business. I want to indicate to the House at this time that the New Democratic Party does not agree with the sittings. There 3987

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 has been no consultation with us on the sittings that have been announced by this Minister for Thursday. We believe that the committee will finish its public hearings tonight, of the public, and that we should adjourn until January to have an opportunity for others to come forward, and that is the position that we will be taking on this issue. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! * (14 20) Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please. On this matter of House business, I would strongly recommend that the House Leaders get together other than on the floor of the Cham ber. ***** Mr.

Speaker: The Honourable Government Ho use Leader, on a point of order. Hon. James Mccrae (Government House Leader): I do not think, Mr. Speaker, a point of order is the proper place to put an inaccuracy on the record. The Honour able Member should be called to order for making the stat ement in this Hous e that the announcement of the committee sittings was made without consultation. To the Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) perhaps consultation means agreement.

I respect the fact that the Honourable Member for Dauphin does not agree that the committee should continue to hear people who want to be heard on Bill No. 79, but that does not mean there was not consultation, both with his House Leader and with the Acting Ho use Leader in the House today, so I would like that to be clear. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Attorney General used a vehicle on a point of order. The point of order raised, he said the Honour able Member for Dauphin was up on a point of order. He actually was up on Ho use business.

The Ho nourable Government House Leader does not have a point of order. Debate on Second Readings? Order, please. I have said that House business can be done by the Ho use Leaders other than on the floor of the Cha mber. Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I accept that. The Government Ho use Leader has put on record that there is agreement to waive Private Members' Hour- Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

On the point raised by the Ho nourable Member for Flin Flon, it was that there appears to be an agreement, but House Leaders would meet later on today and this matter would come back to the Ho use. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BILL NO. 76-THE REAL ESTATE BROKERS AMENDME NT ACT

(2) Mr. Spea ker: On the propos ed motion of the Honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Con nery), Bill No. 76, The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur les courtiers en immeubles, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Seven Oaks (Mr. Minenko), the Hono urable Member for Seven Oaks. Mr. Mark Minenko (Seven Oaks): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I welcome this opportunity of participating - (interject ion)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Mr. Mine nko: -in debate on this Bill No. 76. Again, if we were to reflect on comments I made earlier this week with respect to other legislation introduced by the Ho nourable Minister responsible for Consumer and Corpo rate Affairs (Mr.

Con nery), I think that debate could equally apply in debate on this Bill in that this Bill is again looking at the protection of the public in the Province of Manitoba and raises an interesting point that we understand has been under discussion for a number of yea rs, I bel ieve sinc e 1986, when the Manitoba Real Estate Association first approached Government with the concept of this fund. It would certainly be interesting to listen to the debate of some of the Members who were Government at the time as to why perhaps this matter was not brought forward at that time. Mr.

Speaker, again, if a member of the public or a Member of this Ch amber were to review this legislation it would appear to be a technical kind of change, a change that maybe adds a few things, takes a few things away from the present legislation, but on closer study I think we all can agree that it indeed introduces quite a substantial change in the way this particular industry will conduct their business affairs in the future.

As we indeed know that pursuant to other legislation in the Province of Manitoba, the law profession is governed and has a similar type fund in operation as protection for the members of the public and has unfor tuna tely , as a mem ber of that profes sion, unfortunately been had to be tapped into from time to time. This piece of legislation is looking at changing again in some substantial way the method by which the public in Manitoba will be protected .

I think as a result that it indeed should be given due consideration by Members of this Cham ber, because it again potentially will affect many of our constituents, if not most of them, and indeed all of those who will be looking at purchasing and selling some property, as it deals with the problem of a real estate agent or broker through some fraudulent means absconding with or misappropriating the trust funds that have been given to them by potential purchasers of the piece of property. I think in that way, Mr.

Speaker, where we are dealing with a matter of trust, this Bill does indeed deserve an appropriate level of attention and review by Members of this Cha mber and also members of the public and the profession that is going to be affected by this legislation. All matters of trust where indeed many of 3988

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 us have purchased property, some more recently than others, in various sizes and shapes-I indeed took great pride in just under three years ago purchasing, actually around this time, Mr. Speaker, my wife and I submitted an offer to purchase on a small home in West Kildonan, and part of that offer to purchase was indeed a token amount for trust money, trust account, given as an indication of our seriousness of purchasing that piece of property.

One of the things that many people who come into Manitoba are quite surprised about is how little money people need to place down in trust with their offer to purchase that is submitted to the seller of that particular property. Many of the other provinces across Canada, the practice, if perhaps not the law, is several thousands or many thousands of dollars or a percentage of the actual offered price is placed with the real estate agent and the broker to secure their intention of purchasing that particular piece of property. (Mr.

Herold Driedger, Acting Sp eaker, in the Chair) Although the amounts that many people have in trust are relatively small, I still think, Mr. Acting Speaker, when we look to the issue of trust, that in itself makes this Bill important enough for honest and serious review both now and in committee later. One of the areas, Mr. Acting Speaker, where there is indeed quite a sizeable amount put forward by a purchaser or potential purchaser of property is with respect to commercial and farm land.

I have been advised by the various brokers that oftentime the average, perhaps in the City of Winnipeg or other towns in the Province of Manitoba, that any client may have in their particular trust account with a broker is approximately the amount of $1,000.00. Obviously that is an average; some may have less, perhaps many do have less and some may have more. On an average there is about $1,000 in any particular trust account, although I understand that in commercial and farm property you are looking at quite a bit more, in the $25,000 to $50,000 range, and perhaps the Minister of Fin ance (Mr.

Manness) could even comment on this particular aspect. I think recently or in the last year or so, he himself purchased some property. What we see happening, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that although here in Winnipeg and other centres in the province the amount is relatively small, but in many other transactions the amount is large, what this Bill proposes to do is set up this fund, a fund that will be assessed by the association and I understand operated by the association who is prepared to operate it starting January 1 of 1990.

The fund would be built up based on assessments of their Members. * (1 430) This is a voluntary organization as opposed to an association like the Law Society of Manitoba, where if any person who wants to practise law in the Province of Manitoba has to first become a member of the Law Society, paying a relatively substantial amount to have that privilege of practising law in the province. Part of tha t asse ssment is inde ed to deal with the reimbursement fund.

So ag ain we look, interestingly enoug h, to the regulations, as mentioned in debate by the Minister responsible for this legislation, as to exactly how it will be opera ting in the assessments and so on. We understand that indeed the association is prepared to operate that and is prepared to operate it relatively quickly. When we look to the fund, and what the purpose is of this fund then is indeed to deal with any-to protect consu mers agains t real estate brokers who misappropriate trust funds.

We have heard in certainly my participation in the debate on the various consumer Bills, Bill No. 63, The Consu mer Protection Amendment Act, and Bill No. 64, The Business Practices Act, where again I discussed the aspect that the vast majority of people who provide services to Manitobans, to our constituents, the vast majority of people who provide the goods to Manitobans and our constituents are indeed on the straight and level.

However, it seems to always be the role and obligation of Government to look at that very small percentage that always seems to stir the pot up, to bring it to a boil, and ultimately our constituents, the consumers, are burned. Mr. Acting Speaker, this Bill attempts in the same way to provide coverage for consumers so they are not burned, sort of an asbestos glove as they say. I think that when we look to this fund it certainly seems to be going in the general direction of looking at increasing the amounts that the brokers will actually be covered for.

Today, I understand the real estate brokers, who register and are required to register with the registrar of The Real Estate Brokers Act, have surety bonds which vary in amounts depending on the size of that particular broker's operation. What this legislation will do is three things. It will first of course, as I mentioned before, create this fund. It will, two, increase the levels of protection to the public and, three, over the long term, as set out to us by the association, will ultimately save their members money in this self-administered fund. May I add, Mr .

Acting Speaker, that a few years ago when I was a bencher with the Law Society of Manitoba-and tha t is sort of the exec ut ive, the directing body of the Law Society of Manitoba-the Bench-w e looked very seriously at self-insurance. The quotes tha t we were gett ing for providing coverage to the public from actions by members of the Law Society were growing in leaps and bounds, not necessarily reflecting the incident rate here in the Province of Manitoba but more of a national or North American scale where many states in the U.S., and so on, pay tremendous amounts of money for insurance coverage.

We were looking at ways of ensuring the public is protected but also the amounts that lawyers pay out, which ultimately is as in every sort of business paid by the consumer does not grow too quickly beyond the limit of many of our members, especially many of the younger members of the Law Society who are 3989

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 beginning their practices. Thereby, if those amounts were to prog ress too far, too high, perhaps many members, young practising lawyers, would not be able to practise law. Law would then become restricted to only those people who can actually afford those higher rates. Perhaps the repercussions of higher rates would go to that point of even perhaps shutting out people like myself.

Cert ainly I do not come from a wealthy family at all, worked hard and paid for the education, and was indeed fortunate enough to be able to participate in that type of education, but certainly who does not come from a rich family whose family could help them setting up a business. I think that is an important aspect to this legislation. The first point of course that we as legislators in this province have to ensure is that the consumers of various services are protecte d.

I would certainly look forward to this Bill moving on into committee to in fact hear, have input, from the various elements that will be affected by this legislation. We all know, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this legislation can be amended at the committee stage because it is in everyone's interest, including our constituents' interest first and foremost, to ensure that the legislation is as good as it can be, that it looks to and addresses some of the problems and concerns that may injuriously affect Manitobans.- (interject ion) - I am inde ed encouraged by the comments of Members opposite.

Well, it seems that this debate is becoming quickly a question and answer period, and I would certainly welcome the Minister's questions at a time- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herold Driedger): I am having difficulty following this debate, so if I could have a bit of co-operation from the Members. Mr. Minenko: Mr.

Acting Speaker, it seemed that some Members of the Government benches agree that they were having difficulty in following the debate and perhaps I would suggest that it was not necessarily because of lack of hearing on that side, but I am indeed encou raged tha t Mem bers of the Leg isla tur e are considering my remarks this afternoon because this is indeed an important piece of legislation.

Perhaps if I could just step back to my comments previous where I think that what we are going to find is- I am directing my subsequent comments to the suggestion that any increased cost to the person providing the service, the businessperson, is ultimately going to end up on the consumer's back.

This is a concern when we look to the GST and the changes that have been recently introduced by the federal Minister of Fin ance with respect to that and indeed the amount that they had offered to small-busi ness people to perhaps allow them to defray or defer some of the cost of doing business with this new tax, which certainly was not because of their own efforts. Ultimately now with the cutback in that aspect we will find that, and I would predict that should this tax ever come into law and indeed become part of our doing business in this country of ours, that who will ultimately bear the cost? (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair) * (1 440) The people who will ultimately bear that cost are the consumers, your constituents and mine, Mr. Speaker. In every aspect, not only on the direct amount that they will pay in tax to the federal Tory Government to try to deal with the deficit that they have been increasing in leaps and bounds since they were.elected in'84, but the consumers will be hit in at least three ways that I can think of in my own humble opinion. First, Mr. Speaker, we see ultimately that they will be affected by the actual amount of taxation.

The next aspect to it that I think is important is the fact that small-business people will no longer be getting, other than a small initial defraym ent of costs tha t will ultimately be passed on to consumers, and third, I would submit that unless Government is vigilant as to the costs of goods in this country of ours and specifically in the Province of Manitoba, I do not see too many businesses reducing that 13.5 percent manufacturer's tax that is presently applied.

I can see the price staying the same, and instead of the 7 replacing the 13, that I can see the 7 being put on top of the 13, because the 13 may not be eliminated. The federal Government has not put in place any effective means of dealing with that particular problem. If you were to review the materials presented by the federal Fin ance Minister, he pledges to set up some sort of office or small bureau to deal with consumer complaints dealing with prices. There is no efficient way that they have projected in dealing with that particular problem.

Just in highlighting some of these issues, I just wanted to point out the aspect of cost with respect to Bill No. 76 and the cost of doing business to brokers. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion -(interjection)- I would say that this Bill, 76, which will set up -(interjection)- well, if Mem bers oppo site, Mr. Speaker , were actually following my comments they would indeed understand exactly which Bill we are addressing.

I do not know whether they are participating in some sort of other activity that does not necessarily allow them to be here, but it is certainly evident from their comments that they could not necessarily even follow what I have been suggesting, and certainly that is a problem that has to be addressed at another time. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this legislation, we feel that it certainly appears to be protecting the interests of consumers and purchasers of property in the Province of Manitoba, and it will do that by increasing the levels of protection available to the public.

I think in our deliberations in the future on this particular legislation and in our deliberations in committee that we need to keep that as first and foremost in mind. Mr. Jim Maloway (El mwood): If I were ever to hire the previous Member as a lawyer I certainly would not want to have to pay him an hourly rate. With this Bill No. 76 it is a bit of a deja vu situation for us, because this Bill was actually introduced, I believe, by Al Mackling in the previous Government way back in 1976. It ranks right up there with The 3990

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 Cemeteries Act and The Prearranged Fu neral Act in the list of priorities. It is an important Bill. There was an agreement on the part of all three Parties to support and pass this legislation back in 1986, Mr. Speaker. I might spend a couple of minutes giving a bit more background on the Bill and how it came about. The Real Estate Asso ciation is a non-pr ofit professional association representing over 2,500 real estate brokers and salespeople in this province.

The association itself is dedicated to serving the public in an et hical man ner, educa ting and regu lati ng its members in promoting private property ownership and rights. In October of this year Bill 76, The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act (2), was introduced in the Legislature. Now I might point out that our caucus has a similar Bill and that is The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act (1) .

We have yet to see it out of Legislative Cou nsel, so we have ele cted instead to proc eed with the Gove rnment's Bill and sup por t its passage to committee, whereupon we do have some questions and we may have an amendment or two. Mr. Speaker, currently the requirements for brokers require a surety bond to be filed in an amount specified by the regulations. The amount varies depending on the size of the real estate brokerage from $10,000 to $100,000, once again depending on the number of people each brokerage employs.

The reimbursement fund that is envisioned under this Act would provide identical coverage to all the members, and the levels would be prescribed by the regulations of the Act. As I had ind icated , the asso ciation first had discussions with the Government back in 1986. There was a concern that the current bonding regulations wer.e too onerous and did not provide an even and proper type of coverage for persons who had to make claims when there was a case of fraud arising when funds were misappropriated by people in the real estate agencies.

This fund is envisioned to provide an amount of $50,000 per claimant up to a total of $250,000, and the total amount in the fund would be a half a million dollars. The association plans to pay for this fund through an assessment levy on their members. The association plans to contract with an insurance consultant in terms of the early years in dealing with a possible insurance scheme in the years when the assessments do not match the required levels.

If they get hit with a very big claim in the early years the amount of assessments will not have built up to the half million dollar level, so some insurance mechanism has to be put in place through a private insurance company to pay these excess claims. They are going to deal with that situation. The association itself, Mr. Speaker, will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of the fund.

The association office itself will collect the levies, it will forward notices of assessment, it will maintain a roster of participants in the fund, and it will do all of the things necessary for the fund's smooth opera tion. The 3991 asso cia tion's resp onsi bili ties will also include the education of the members and the consumers on the parameters of the fund coverage.

The Securities Comm ission, which is the regulatory body charged with the responsibility of enforcing the Act itself, will maintain its current investigatory powers with regard to the claims that are made on this fund regard ing fraud and misappropriation of funds. In appropriate circumstances, and only after they make the required investigation, the commission will order the fund to make payment and the fund will be obliged to comply. * (1 450) The Real Estate Association was hopeful that this particular fund could be set up as early as January 1, 1990.

Well, that is only 10 days from now, so we would certainly be interested in asking some questions when this Bill gets to committee. For example in the Minister's sta tement he made a comment tha t indepen dent brokers who are not members of the association will continue to be required to file surety bonds as in the past. We want to ask him the question at the committee as to why that is the case. We would like to know why this fund cannot cover all of the real estate brokers in Manitoba, and why the Government feels they have to exclude the non-members at this point.

This is a question that I have been wanting to ask and will ask at the committee stage. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that I had a couple of comments dealing with funds such as this in general and how they relate to both the real estate industry and other industries in Manitoba and Canada and also some comments regarding the Government's handling of the House and of this particular legislation. I believe it was two weeks ago that I met with people from the Real Estate Association regarding this Bill.

Now the Government has tried to blame the Opposition, certainly the third Party, for slowing down the House. The fact of the matter is-a nd they tried to blame us for slowing down the Ho use when we have been prepared to support this Bill, support Bill No. 63, the amendments to The Consumer Protection Act, The Business Practices Act, Bill No. 64. We have been prepared to support The Prearranged Fu nerals Act and The Cemeteries Act. What has this Government done? It does not even call the Bills. I was away for a week a number of weeks ago.

I came back expecting that The Business Practices Act, Bill No. 64, would already be in committee, because the Minister made his second reading speech to this House. I got up and spoke immediately after that, and typically the Liberal Members stood the Bill and did not speak to it. With fairness to the Liberal Opposition, when I got back I expected that the Government had been calling the Bill. I expected that the Liberals would be feeling the pressure and would be wanting to speak to this thing.

I did not anticipate that they would have spoken in the week, but I certainly anticipated that this Government would have at least called the Bill on those da ys tha t Bills were called. They did not do it. (int erjection)-

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 The Opposition Whip is correct. They cannot speak to Bills that the Government does not call. To me that indicates that the Government really are out of control. This Government has no plan. I will say that when the Minister of Fina nce (Mr. Manness) takes over, and the days that he takes over the duties as House Leader, things appear to proceed a little more orderly and a little more efficiently and things get done. We found that last year too, whenever the Minister of Fina nce was taking over. So perhaps the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) should pay attention to that, do another shuffle, shuffle the current Ho use Leader out to some other less onerous responsibilities and put the Fi nance leader in as House Leader, and maybe we will see this House carry on a lot more smoothly and efficiently than it has in the past. Another comment that I would like to make in this regard is that when the Real Estate Association people came to see me, they were at a loss to find out how it is that they were to get this Bill through before the January 1 date.

In fact it was they who deserved the credit for getting this Bill back on track, because it was the Real Estate Association people who went to the Attorney General to get this Bill back on track, which goes to show and prove that the Attorney General listens to the Real Estate Association before he listens to the Members of the Opposition Parties. I give them full credit for being able to lobby and get their Bill pulled up in front of others, because we supported them, we supported the Bill but we could not get it to the top of the line.

We could not get it to the front of the line, but they could by going to see the Attorney General. That is a bit of advice I would give to anyone who wishes to pass any of these 90 Bills we have before the House. If there is any interest group who wants to see a Bill passed, The Motor Dealers' Association, they know the way to deal with this House. They know they can go to the Liberal Caucus and stop Bills that they do not want to see passed. That is what the Motor Dealers' Association does. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I do not know how much more time I have, but I do want to say that we think this Bill is a good idea, because what it does in a way is it gives the association, the industry responsible, the responsibility for funding any misappropriation in trust funds and so on that occur within its purview.

We have seen in the last 10 years, in 1980 in Ontario, a similar situation develop with the Insu rance Bro kers Association of Ontario where they formed the RI SO organization and they became a self-regulatory body to a certain degree where they in fact policed their members and probably policed them more stringently in some respects than in fact the Government would. In the travel agency area we have funds that are set up to protect consumers in the event of bankruptcies and insolvencies on behalf of suppliers. We have funds in Ontario. We have funds in Quebec. We have funds in British Columbia.

In fact that appears to be the way to go, because while people tend to support a mixed economy and a sort of free market economy, the public want to be protected. The public want to be protected from gouging, the public want to be protected from bankruptcies from companies that go down and take trust funds with them or misappropriate funds. With that, I think that this is a positive step forward. I commend this Bill to the House and want to see it to go to committee as soon as possible. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 71- THE LAW SOCIETY AMENDMENT ACT

(2) Mr. Spea ker: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Minister of Justice (Mr. Mccrae), Bill No. 71, The Law Society Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur la Societe du barreau, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), the Honourable Member for St. James. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise today on this Bill of - (interjection)- Well, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), sings from his chair "Ho w Great Thou Art." Fi rstly, let me thank him for that. Secondly, let me say that I was indeed- An Honourable Memb er: Are you going to save this Bill, too? Mr. Edwards: Well, actually I am going to- An Honourable Mem ber: Are you going to save this Bill, too?

The great saviour from the Liberals. Mr. Edwards: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I do intend on improving this Bill, but let me say it appears that the Members opposite would have liked Mr. Mackling to have replaced me in the House. They called for my resignation tod ay. He was my predecessor , tha t spendthrift, Mr. Mackling, who they are now naming community clubs in Saudi Arabia after. Let me start my comments by refuting the totally unjust and incorrect allegations of the third Party yesterday when they spoke to this Bill.

I feel I must use up some of my time to respond because of the gross inaccuracies which they put on the record. Mr. Speaker, I want to start by saying I was a little chagrine d yes terda y to see tha t the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) was suggesting that elderly people are somehow incompetent to lead nations. He left the statement on the record that the new leader in Chil e was someho w not so suscep tible to be overthrown. Why? Because he was elderly, Mr. Speaker.

Indeed a shameful comment that was for the Member for Elmwood, and I expect at some point he will want to speak to his Leader and attempt to set the record straight. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! 3992

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 ***** Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. The Ho nourable Member for Elmwood, on a point of order. Mr. Jim Malo way (Elmwo od): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I do not know where the Member got that information, but I made no statement such as that. Mr. Speaker: The Ho nourable Member does not have a point of order. That is clearly a dispute over the facts. * (1500) ***** Mr. Edwards: There is no point of order. The facts speak for themselves. If he would read the paper today, his comments are quite clear; if he wants to refute them that is fine.

He said the new Leader of Chil e was not in any danger. Why? Not because he is democratically elected and the candidate supported by the people; no, he was not vulnerable because he was elderly. Those are the comments of the Member for Elmwood. Mr. Speaker, let me also simply refer to comments made by the Member for Elmwood speaking to this Bill yesterday, where he started talking about the gas system; a truly relevant comment and I say that with no small amount of sarcasm with respect to this Bill.

The only person with gas in this Cham ber was the Member for Elmwood who is spouting it from the mouth throughout his speech. Mr. Speaker, his speech and those from his Party were totally without analysis of this Bill. While I appreciate and I agree with their support of the thrust of this Bill, they clearly had not taken the time to look at it in any detail. Their speeches were as per usual filled with an inordinate amount of rhetoric. lri fact, when the debate was raging on this Bill some months ago and POI NTTS was in court, taken to court by the Law Society, where were the NOP, Mr. Speaker?

Where were they on the issue of parale gals and POI NTTS? Nowhere to be fo und; let the record speak for itself, absolutely nowhere to be found. So when the Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) says that he was willing to deal with this Bill before the end of the week, I think as my colleague the Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) has pointed out quite correctly, we have to take that with more than a little grain of salt, given the context in which it comes.

The fact is, I have been calling for this legislation for some time and I was willing to support it being passed prior to the end of this session on one condition and one condition only. I made this condition clear to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mcc rae). I said, I will speak to this Bill. We will curtail our comments, we want it to go to committee, we want it to be passed on the condition that we have at least one week between when it is referred to committee and it actually appears at the committee stage.

There are interested Parties who want to speak to t.his and deserve notice of a committee da te and at least one week I submit to prepare presentations to the committee. (Mr. Mark Minenko, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Clearly, the Minister of Justice in effect withdrew this as a top priority for his Go ve rnment before the Chr istmas break. With that in mind, I had every intention of course of putting my comments on the record before the end of the break. I look forward to this being passed speedily and becoming a priority of this Government early on in the new year. That is not to say, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that I will not have amendments to make; I will. I think that this Bill needs some improvement. (i nter ject ion) - The Min ister of Hig hways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger) yells from his seat, you always have. Well, if the shoe fits I will wear it. The fact is the legislation is generally deficient. The fact is tha t in the drinking and driving legislation, the Minister admitted at the committee stage that he put it forward as a flyer, to test the waters and he was going to go back and get it right later. That is the attitude of this Government.

It requires amendments; quite frankly, most of them do.- (i nterjection)- The Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) says, why do I not cross the floor. That is some cheek, Mr. Acting Speaker, from the Party tha t has been propping up this Government for a good 15-16 months, by this point. These are the people who say we should cross the floor. They already have. They are already in the pockets of this Government.

They are the people who rail for 39 minutes out of 40 every time-39 minutes out of 40 the Government is a disaster; they are ruining the North; they are ruining the farm economy; they are doing all the wrong things, but in the 40th minute th ey always say it is not that bad, we will support them, because frankly they know the polls. They know where they are going. They are not in good shape and they know that full well. That is why they do not dare have the courage of their convictions, Mr. Acting Speaker.

Recently, in a large part due to a well-publicized federal leadership campaign they are doing a bit better I hear in the polls. I hope they will come to the courage of their convictions now that they may even think they might retain the seats they already have. Let me go on to say that the Member for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak), in speaking to this Bill, makes the interesting suggestion-a nd he refers to the Thatcher murder case in Saskatchewan-tha t paralegals should be moving into murder cases. Let me simply say I do not believe that position is particularly well thought out by the Member for The Pas.

It is tha t level of analysis of this whole issue which has pervaded the comments and the indeed mostly rhetoric from the third Party on this issue. They detect that it is a populist issue. Yes, it is, it definitely is a populis t issue. Should a Party -an ele cted representative- abandon all analysis because an issue is populist? Certai nly not. That clearly is the position of the third Party. The fact is that they go so far. The Member for The Pas (Mr.

Harapiak) says the Thatcher case in Saskatchewan, he references in his speech, seems to suggest that paralegals will soon be defending murderers in this province. I would submit that is not the intention behind this Bill. That is not desired by the people of this province. 3993

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 The Member for The Pas had better raise this in his own caucus to see if his caucus supports his position, because if they do, credibility- if it was not already down the drain-c ertainly will be. Mr. Acting Speaker, finally let me correct whoever it was-a nd I am quite sure it was the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Albert Driedger)- ***** Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minenko): The Member for Flin Flon, on a point of order. Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order based on relevance.

The Member continues to use other people's arguments and other people's views. He said when he began his remarks he was going to put the Liberal point of view on the record. We are waiting to hear that. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minenko): The Member does not have a point of order. ***** Mr. Edwards: If it embarrasses the Members of the third Party for me to quote their speeches on this issue, far be it for me to continue quoting what they said on this very Bill. If I am irrelevant, Mr. Acting Speaker, what were they? I am quoting what they said. They said parale gals should de fen d mu rder ers in this province.

That is what they said. That is the level of analysis they have gone through on this Bill. They know nothing about this issue except that it is populist. So they latch onto it like dogs to a bone, because they know that what is populist they want to be a part of, whatever the cost. The fact is they do not know what is going on in this whole area let alone this Bill specifically. Then the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) has the gall today to purportedly stand up, after their Party has spoken on behalf of seniors and the elderly, and say the new leader of Chile is not in any way vulnerable.

Why- only because he is elderly. Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact is this legislation does a very major thing, although the legislation is quite brief. It, for the first time in this province, legalizes agents appearing on behalf of accused persons in front of highway traffic court in this province. That is indeed, in my view, an acceptable and a preferable way for this province to go.

I am mindful that while the POI NTTS group itself is a group that has a track record and has had some success and we have not had problems with consumers of their of their services, this legislation is of course not restricted to POI NTTS. It is going to allow indeed anyone to act in the capacity that the POINTTS people now do. * (15 10) For tha t reaso n, Mr. Acting Speak er, certain considerations have to be taken into account.

We do not want people represented by those who have I would sugge st perhaps been proven incompetent in other areas, who have been perhaps criminally charged and convicted many times themselves. The protection the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has put in is that judges will do the reviewing. Judges will be the ones, not the Law Society or not their own regulatory body; judges will be the ones who will be asked to decide if the representation given an accused is competent. Mr. Acting Speaker, I have some serious concerns about that. The traditional- An Honourable Mem ber: You might get struck out. Mr.

Edwards: The Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) makes light of this by saying, for fear that I might get struck out. Mr. Acting Speaker, that again really sets -(interjection)- Well, now he denies it and I will accept it, it is more likely withdraw, because he realizes the really incipient insinuation which he makes by that comment. The fact is that it is a very important issue for this province, and it is an important issue for this province to get right. He suggests and the Minister of Labour (Mr s.

Hammond) also suggests that there is some conflict of interest, and that was raised yesterday by the Members from the third Party. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, where were they and where was the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mcc rae) when I was calling, months before he did, for this legislation. The record is clear and it speaks for itself. I have been calling for this very move for months. What I also said was, and it stands correct in retrospect, but I said it at the very time that the lawsuit was going on, there was no need for that injunction application to have gone forward with the Law Society and POINTTS.

Thousands of dollars were spent by both parties going to the courts. The fact is the Minister did not do anything to facilitate discussion between those parties to attempt to reach a compromise position and quite likely come forward with the legislation or a form of it that we see here today. Instead , the Minister of Justice rode the sidelines for months until our Party, the Liberals in this province, forced action on this issue after repeated calls for the Min ister of Jus tice to take some action and do something.

It is the same strategy that the Minister of Justice took with respect to the prayer issue in this province and many other issues. It is a sit and wait and see how the fight goes and maybe I will take initiative. That is the approach of this Minister of Justice. Mr. Acting Speaker, the legislation, as well as raising concerns about judges entering the fray as it were in a court and being asked to defend the accused also I believe leaves short the issue of privilege between a solicitor and a client. Let me raise this spectre.

The fact is that under our laws in this province you have two years to sue for personal injury. That is because oftentimes personal injuries are not known or at least the severity of the personal injury is not known for some time after an accident. There can be a lag 3994

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 time, and that is why you have up to two years from the incident itself to launch a suit. In the event that a traffic accident occurs it appears there is no personal injury perhaps at the time that it is dealt with. Oftentimes these are dealt with very quickly if it is pied out and a guilty plea is entered. It may not be known whether or not someone was injured . In the event that someone is injured and there is a lawsuit in which MPIC would most likely be involved, it is possible that the POINTTS person, the agent, could be called to testify against his or her client in court.

That would I believe be a real possibility, given the fact that solicitor-client privilege only covers solicitors, it does not cover agents. The fact is that in a lawsuit a POI NTTS agent could be subpoenaed to court and could be demanded to testify against his or her client, and I think tha t has to be made clear.

I think when you go to a POI NTTS agent you have to know that what you say may indeed not be covered by solicitor-client privilege, and that very agent whom you may be seeing as a solicitor may not qualify for solicitor-client privilege and may end up some day in court testifying against you in a personal injury case. That is a real concern and a real scenario which flows from what is being done in this legislation that has to be addressed at the committee stage. It is not, I would submit, irreparable or something that cannot be dealt with by an appropriate amendment, but it has to be thought about.

I do not believe it has. An amendment has to come forward. Mr. Acting Speaker, other concerns, which have been raised many times by the Bar Association and the Law Society, I will indeed be raising at the committee stage. I simply want to at this point indicate that the Law Society and the Bar Association are not the only people with concerns about how paralegals become a part of ouF sys tem. This has to be done very thoug htfully and very carefully. I want to refer to correspondence from the Manitoba Association of Legal Assistants, which is the recognized major group rep resen ting paralegals thems elves.

Paralegals themselves say this in correspondence dated September 12 to Mr. Mccrae, the Minister of Justice. They say, in Manitoba paralegals have thus far worked under the supervision of lawyers. MALA, that is M-A L-A, the Manitoba Association of Legal Assistants, believes that this supervision should remain as is. We have the association of legal assistants themselves clearly raising some concerns.- (interjection)- The Member for Chur chill (Mr . Cowan) indicates "table" and I certainly do not mind doing that.

I must admit I have made notations on the copy, I have underlined it, and I will be more than happy to table this document for the Member for Churchill's edification. I am sure he will want to read it in great detail. This is correspondence written by Lori Symbol, who is the president of this associa tion. He is very knowledgable about this. This association represents people who by and large, I believe, maybe perhaps entirely, have come out of the Red River course. So the y are trained paralegals.

The y have their own reservations about this whole area and that is why I demanded that we have at least a week's notice to people for the committee stage, because I think they will want to make a presentation on this very issue. I think it is important that they have notice. I have surveyed in great detail the comments made by the Bar Association nationally when they opposed parale gals. I have looked at the Manitoba Bar Association. That branch's opposition spoke on many occasions to Mr. Teffaine, who sat on the national committee for the Bar Association looking into this.

I have had lengthy discussions with Mr. Scurfield, the President of the Law Society, and I feel that I have canvassed the experts , both paralegals themselves, consumers of paralegals. Certainly Mr. Goddard, the head of the POI NTTS group, I have spoken to on a numb er of occa sions, as well as ob viously the associations representing lawyers. I do not agree that paralegals should be outright banned from practising independently in this province. I have made that position clear from Day One on this issue, far before any other political Party in this province took a stand on it.

What I do- An Honourable Memb er: How great I am. Mr. Edwards: Well, the Min ister of Fina nce (Mr . Manness) sings, how great I am. I am not willing to agree to that on his part, but in any event I simply remind him that the option to me was Mr. Mackling. In terms of being a spendthrift, I think he should reconsider his earlier call for my resignation, something that I do not think the people of St. James would be too pleased he is calling for at this point. I remind the Minister again that to my knowledge they are naming, no doubt, hockey rinks and community clubs and soccer fields in Saudia Arabia after Mr.

Mackling with some $26 million left on their sands. In terms of being financial ly reward ing to this province, I think I have done more than my fair share. The best thing I can do for this province is continue to vote against the Government, something the third Party has yet to recognize, even though 39 minutes out of 40 minutes, on a regular basis, they call for it, but th ey never quite get up the gumption to do it. An Honourable Member: We voted against them more often than you have. * (15 20) Mr.

Edwards: Yes, the Member for Ch urchill says, we voted against them more often then you have-the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), excuse me. Yes, when they know the Government cannot be brought down, they do occasionally vote against the Government. Yes, Mr. Acting Speaker, when the big issues come, they still vote against them, but what do they do? They send in three people, sometimes two, because they know he is standing- maybe it is four on occasion. Whatever it takes, just so they do not have to face the people, just enough to maintain a facade of opposition to this present Government. 3995

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 The Bill in particular, gett ing back to some of the specifics referred to in it, I believe needs improvement. I have mentioned a few of the areas in which I see specific improvements needing to come forward, and I will be bringing those forth. I might add that I anticipate being in a position to share those concerns prior to the committee stage with my colleague the Justice Critic from the New Democratic Party and also the Minister of Justice {Mr. McC rae) himself.

The concerns which have been expressed throughout this debate by me were not just with respect to dealing with paralegals in a fair and an equitable and a progressive way in this province. They were also aimed at downplaying and downgrading as much as possible the hostility which this issue brought to the legal community. The Law Society and POI NTTS were at each other's throat, as it were, in the courts of this province for many months. That in my view was not necessary had the Minister of Justice done his job.

I think it is important to remember that while I personally do not entirely support the tactics which were used by the Law Society, some of the arguments they made quite frankly I have to say were simply not tenable in their opposition to POINTTS. When they took POINTTS to court they were defending The Law Society Act, in fact. Anybody who took the time to read that Act would see that it imposed a duty on the Law Society to defend The Law Society Act. The Law Society does not make laws. It is only empowered and required to defend the Act under which it functions.

They in fact did that and their position was vindicated by the courts of this province. That required the politicians in this province taking the initiative, and doing what they should have done months before to prevent the lawsuit, and that is, have brought in legislation like this. That could have been do ne early on and wou ld have prevented in my view, in all likelihood, the very divisive and very hostile lawsuit which took place. Of course, it is also my view that POI NTTS knew that they were not going to win that lawsuit.

They were engaging in it because they wanted to refer it to the political forum where they knew that it belonged , and they knew that the way to do that was to take it through the courts, to raise it as a populist issue, which indeed it is, and ultimately to spur the politicians to movement in this whole area, to look at it seriously. Quite frankly, I believe the Law Society was looking for the politicians to take some initiative in this whole area as indeed ultimately the Minister of Justice {Mr. Mcc rae) did after repeated calls from this, the official Opposition, and only the official Opposition.

I want to simply say on the record that the Law Society did, in defending The Law Society Act, what they had to do. I do not think anybody would take away from their defending the Act, which they were required to defend. The fact is, that their doing it in the first place, had this Minister taken the initiative, would not have been necessary, but indeed their position clearly, simply on the wording of The Law Society Act, not looking at the overall political considerations, simply legally they had to defend their Act and their position was obviously vindicated. Mr.

Acting Speaker, let me also, in closing talk about the comm itte e which the Mi nister of Jus tice {Mr. Mccra e) -{interjection)- the Members opposite are calling for me to close. They have had a bit of a rough day, and I know that they will not want Opposition Members to speak at length today. They are tired and it is close to the break, but this is an issue which deserves a thorough consideration. An Honourable Member: What break are you talking about? Mr. Edwards: The Minister of Fina nce {Mr. Manness) says, what break? Perhaps he is thinking of rescinding the two-week Ch ristmas break. The fact is, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I certainly think we have to deal with this Bill as soon as possible when we get back. With respect to the committee, which the Minister of Justice {Mr. Mcc rae) has indicated he will be setting up, I want to encourage him as I have done privately already to be very, very careful and very thoughtful in the mandate he gives that committee.

Like the INE Comm ittee in Ontario, which has now published a preliminary report on this whole issue and will be publishing a full report ---,hopefully very soon; I think it was expected earlier this fall-i t is very important that this committee and this whole review of this area be done thoughtfully and with a view to what is best for all Manitobans. What is best for all Manitobans is affordable, competent legal service. Mr.

Acting Speaker, the fact is that in defence-and I will defend the many practitioners in this province who provide affordable, competent legal services to the people in this province because there are many, there are hundreds of them, if not thousands.

The fact is all over this province, and in particular I want to distinguish the rural and northern practitioners in this province who by and large have general practices, and attempt to keep up on the law and do as best they can in the many areas of the law which are continually changing, and they do a truly admirable job, I wou ld submit, in the vast majority of cases, at a very affordable and reasonable rate. The interesting thing about lawyers in this province is that people will say-a s a profession, they will make disparaging comments about lawyers. Generally they will say, but my lawyer is different.

They will generally like their own lawyer but not the profession. I think it is important to remember when we talk about this whole area that there are sole practitioners with a general practice throughout this province who do very good service to their communities. It is important to respect those people who have dedicated their careers to serving their clients throughout this provi nce in a dedicated, competent fashion. Mr.

Acting Speaker, I have the privilege of practising with a larger firm in this province, which allows me the advantage of specialization in a certain area or areas, but I recognize the difficulty that sole practitioners have as inde ed any profess ional has, a do ctor , or an accountant, or whatever, in doing a generalized practice. It is indeed, I believe, more difficult because they have to keep up on all the areas of the law. They are truly serving their community by being able to do all of the legal functions required of them by their clients. 3996

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 So let me simply leave on the record my com ments recognizing the dedication and the service given this province by the vast majority of the legal profession. Indeed, I do indicate that I believe most, if not the great majority, would support this legislation given certain guarantees in the interest of the public; that there be certain things in place to allow for review in the case of incom petence, proven incom petence, or found incompetence. We have to be aware of that.

We have to be aware of the solicitor-client privilege, which has grown up over hundreds of years in our legal system. We have to be aware that this may have ramifications for that. These are not solicitors per se and will not be covered, it is my submission, by the common law of solicitor-client privilege. We have to deal with that in some fashion at the committee stage. Those and other issues, which I have indicated, I will make every attempt to raise with the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mcc rae), prior to the committee stage, as well as my colleague the New Democratic Party Justice Critic, will be important to deal with at the committee stage. I believe we will have submissions which will give us further guida nce and enlightenment on this whole area as we move into it in this province. I suspect that the committee when it is struck will have a mandate which requires a fairly lengthy period of time because I think it is important that we do not rush into this and we do a thorough job.

I look forward to that announcement of the committee and in particular its mandate, which I have said needs to be carefully thought out by this Minister of Justice. I have had discussions with him on that issue, and I refer him back to th ose private discussions. Mr. Acting Speaker, we look forward to this being in the committee stage certainly by the end of January; I would hope before that. My only requirement is that there be at least a week between going to committee and the actual committee hearing itself.

With that I will close and ask that this matter be dealt with in an exped itious fashion by the Government and thank all Members for the opportunity to have addressed them on this very important Bill. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minen ko): Is the House ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Churchill. * (1 530) Mr. Jay Cowan (Chur chill): It is obvious from the speech just given to us by the Liberal Justice Critic that some speeches in this Hous e are harder to giv e than other speeches. Generally they are harder to give when one feels somewhat ambivalent about an issue.

An Honourable Member: On a point of order. ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr. Mine nko): Order, please. The Ho nourable Member for St. James, on a point of order. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Acting Speaker, I sense that the Member for Churc hill (Mr. Cowan) is about to embark on a tirade which is totally unfounded. Let me say to him that six months ago his Party did not speak on this issue, I did. I called for this legislation six months ago. Where was his Party? The Acting Sp eaker (Mr . Mi nenko): Order. The Ho nourable Member does not have a point of order. (interjection)- Order, please.

The Chair has recognized the Honourable Member for Chur chill. ***** Mr. Cowan: I guess the more difficult the speeches are to make, the more sensitive the Member is who makes them, because I was not going to embark upon a tirade, I was just going to note again that when someone is somewhat ambivalent about an issue and has not firmly staked out a philosophical approach, it is difficult for them to order their thoug hts in such a way as to provide an illuminating statement on where they stand on a particular issue. That is difficult for any one of us in this House at any given time.

I would suggest that it is more difficult for Liberals than it is for others because they start from a common position of ambivalence and therefore when they find themselves personally stuck in a philosophical swamp of ambivalence they find that is very hard to find their way out of it. The Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) gave us a very torturous rendition of how his logic has proceeded to flow on this particular issue to the point where he supports the Bill but he does not want to see that support in any way be interpreted as a reflection against the legal community.

He shrugs his shoulders and -(interjection)- the Member for St. James said, read the speech. Sp are me. I just had the opportunity to hear the speech. Why would I want to su bject myself to it twice? ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minenko): The Honourable Member for St. James, on a point of order. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I think the Members of this House will remember my comments that I could not support many of the arguments put forward by The Law Society and the Bar Association on this specifically. I said that and that is on the record. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minenko): Order, please.

The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. ***** Mr. Cowan: I am pleased that I am giving the Member for St. James this opportunity to regroup his thoug hts and to clarify his comments somewhat, but I can tell you, Mr. Acting Speaker, that having listened with some care to the Member for St. James I am not certain that we as a collective are any further ahead in our understanding of the Liberal position on this particular Bill than we were when he started his comments some time ago, but that does not surprise me.

I found a statement in a magazine the other day, very enlightening, I put it on the record once, and I 3997

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 will put it on again today. I imagine I will have an opportunity to put it on the record in future speeches as well. It is a statement by the Liberal House Leader (Mr. Alcock) when he was speaking before the MGEA with respect to privatization.

The headline is-a nd this is out of the MGE A latest edition of their magazine cal led Contact, "L iberals no longer unkno wn on privatization." The statement is, and I am reading the narrative of the statement now, "When Reg Alcock, there to represent the Liberal Party, began his address to delegates there was no doubt where his party stood." This is a quote. This is what he said at that time, "I am sitting in the middle, and I am going to take a classically Liberal position." The Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) obviously has taken note of that classic Liberal position and tried to position himself on the leading edge of a populist issue, but still in the middle, torn between his sincere desire for populism where it suits certain purposes and his own participation in one of the organizations that may find this Bill to be somewhat less than favourable from their perspective. He stated -(interjection)- well, the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) says from his seat that he believes I am imputing motives. If I have left that impression I apologize to the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards).

I think I am only stating the facts. If he takes any imputation of motives out of that statement then I do apologize to him. It is not directed at him as an individual. It is directed at the classical Liberal position of trying to run down the middle of the road and his own personal circumstances which he has to, in every speech in this Ho use, as do we all in some way, let come through our speeches so that the people are aware of how we feel about certain issues. I saw an interesting poster the other day, and what it had was a big truck.

Most of the poster was just a truck with a white line going underneath the truck symbolizing the middle of the road, and someone standing just about to be hit by that truck and knocked aside or knocked over, and the slogan on the bottom is, "This is what happens when you stand in the middle of the road." -(interjection)- The Member tor Concord ia (Mr. Doer), who did not hear the first part of this speech, took immediately the note and the message that I was trying to portray in the speech, and that is that the Liberals indeed on most issues find themselves stuck in the middle of the road.

There is a danger to that. I am just trying to provide some helpful but unsolicited advice. The Liberal Party and the Members of the Liberal Caucus in the Legislature can take it tor what it is worth. I think it is important to note that it is becoming fairly apparent to even an individual like myself that they do, on almost every occasion, find themselves in the middle of the road on an issue without very definitive ideas on where to go and how to get to th ose objectives.

They cannot clearly define what the philosophy is, and for that reason, what the route to that philosophy or the accomplishment of certain objectives might be. It was a difficult speech tor the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), but I appreciate the tact that even under those very difficult circumstances, partly philosophical, partly personal, that he took the time to try to illuminate us on his position. You know, the speakers before me the other day, the Member for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak), the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) and the Member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) all said they wanted to hear the Liberal position on this Bill. We asked for the Liberals to speak, and that was just yesterday. We indicated yesterday that we were prepared to let this Bill pass yesterday, Mr. Acting Speaker. I will indicate today to my knowledge there is one more speaker from our caucus following myself, and I will not take long. We are prepared to let this Bill pass to-or a vote to be taken on this Bill at least today so that if it is voted in favour it can pass on to committee stage. I want to commend the Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards) on one of the suggestions he had, that is, there be adequate time given for notice for committee so that people who want to make representation to this Bill and want to provide differing perspectives on the Bill have full opportunity to do so, not only full opportunity to do so in the committee but also full opportunity to prepare themselves to go through the comments that have been made in this House to research the subject and to prepare themselves fully so we can benefit from the research they do to carry forward their message. • (1 540) I make that special note not only to commend the Member for St.

James (Mr. Edwards) but to criticize the Government for trying to ram through committee The Muni cipal Asse ssment and Consequential Amendments Act, because I believe, Mr. Acting Speaker, that if it is- An Honourable Mem ber: Is this relevant? Mr. Cowan: Well, the Minister of Fina nce (Mr. Manness) asks if this is relevant.

Cer tainly it is relevant because if in any way the Government attempts to damage the ability of citizens to come forward to make known their views, to make representations to us, to aid us in better understanding what it is they believe we should be doing on their behalf, to give us technical advice, to give us philosophical advice, to give us policy advice. When the Government does that in any instance it reflects upon the Government in every instance.

Because they are attempting to ram through the committee on The Municipal Assessment Act and Consequential Amendments Act, we could therefore assume they may be wi lling to ram thr ough the committee on this particular Bill, The Law Society Amendment Act. The fact is that they are wrong in the first instance. If we let them get away with that sort of railroading of legislation through the committee process in this House on that particular issue we may face it also on this particular legislation. So I ask the Minister of Fi nance (Mr. Manness) to talk to his seatmate, the Attorney General (Mr.

Mccrae), to ensure that the Attorney General does- 3998

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 ***** The Acting Speaker (Mr. M in enko): Order, please. The Honour able Mini ster respo nsible for Rur al Development, on a point of order. Hon. Jack Penner (Min ister of Rural Develo pment): Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order. I take exception to what the Ho nourable Member for Chur chill has put on the reco rd, sayi ng tha t we are trying to ram something through. It is important for this Chamb er to not e tha t we put forward The Assessment and Consequential Amendments Act in November.

It is also important to note that there are only three presenters left in committee to make presentations, and therefore there is ample time to not only debate the Bill but to hear everybody who has indicated an interest in this Bill. The Acting Speaker (Mr . Minenko): Order. The Honourable Minister did not have a point of order. The Ho nourable Member for Churchill. ***** Mr. Cowan: Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not want to reflect upon your ruling that the Minister did not have a point of order, but I do want to address the general philosophical question which was contained in his response.

I think he overreacted , quite frankly, to what I was saying. What I was saying was that I did not think the Attorney General should pick up on the bad habits of the Minister of Municipal Affairs with respect to trying to ram legislation through committee stages. The reason I said that is because I think if it is successful in one instance they will be tempted to try it in other instances, and they may be tempted to try it with respect to The Law Society Amendment Act. I agree with the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) that we should not allow that to happen.

So in order to not allow that to happen with The Law Society Amendment Act, we must not let it happen with The Municipal Assessment and Consequential Amendments Act. That is a pledge I can give to you, Mr. Acting Speaker, as we pledge today to allow this Bill to go to a vote on second reading after a few short comments by myself and the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). We also pledge to you, Mr.

Acting Sp eaker, that we will not let any Min ister nor the Con servative Government of the Day ramrod legislation through the standing committee so that people do not have time to appropriately prepare themselves to make informed and well-researched representation which helps us as legislators. So I make that point in passing. With respect to the Bill itself, we believe it is a good first step. We believe it should go forward. We will be supporting it, we will be listening very carefully to what is said to us at the committee stage.

Depending upon the advice we are given, if it is tha t which we expect, we will be supporting it either in its present or amended form when it comes back for third reading because we believe it is time to demystify some of the more professional processes th at we as indi viduals are subject to in our normal life. That does not mean we are suggesting that paralegals, or paraprofessionals, or other individuals have free access to carry on their business in an unfettered way; no, we believe it should be regulated and we believe that this Act provides for that regulation to take place.

We also believe that it should be tested and tried. We believe that this is probably an appropriate area to make the first initiatives which will result in some lessons to be learned and some evaluation that can lead us to an expansion of this, but we are going to be pres sing for an exp ansion of this pr ocess of demys tifica tion beyond this Bill based on our experiences with it.

In saying that, I do not mean to suggest that we are going to wait a long time, but we want to take a quick look at what is happening and build upon this process and encourage the Government to further put into effect amendments of this sort that allow a more open process. A process that is less designed to suit the needs of the professionals and more designed to suit the needs of the population. For that reason we believe it to be a populist first step.- (int erjection)- The Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummi ngs) suggests that I should not be distracted by the dialogue that goes back and forth.

Contrary, I find it very enlightening. I find that sometimes the dialogue that people in this House speak from their seat is much mo re illum inating and much mo re informative than that which they say on their feet. If I can encourage that sort of banter, which I believe is in the finest trad itions of Parliaments, then I will do so.- (interjection)- The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says it keeps my speech going, and in some instances, and I expect there will be some instances in the near future where I may require that sort of encouragement. I would agree with him.

In this particular instance I am going to prove him wrong, which is something to which he should become more familiar with over the last little while, having been proved wrong in so many instances. I am proving him wrong in this instance by not extending this speech too much further than to say that we want very carefully to review what is said in committee, but we believe the general intent and thrust of this legislation is positive. We hope that if there are any areas that require clarification we will listen closely to what the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and our own Justice Critic (Ms .

Hemphill) has to say with respect to how the clarification might be beneficial to the Bill. We will certainly entertain that from an open perspective, but we do want to see the Bill proceed very quickly. Having said that, the one point which I think we may want to take a look at is the coming-into-force

section of this Bill, and I do not want to refer to the

section specifically, but I want to talk about the ways in which a Bill can come into force. One is by a day fixed by proclamation, the other is by Royal Assent, and the other is that- let me go back, 3999

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 the day by proclamation can be put right into the Bill itself. I believe in order to make certain that the Government does not lose momentum for whatever reason with respect to this Bill that an amendment should be forthcoming that would put this Bill into effect on a specific day rather than to return this Bill back into the hands of the Government where it could be lost for some period of time before it was put into effect. That is how far our support of this particular Bill goes. We want to see it implemented quickly, fairly and equitably so that we can carry on with any momentum tha t might be created by this

part icu lar piece of legislation. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Minenko): Is the House ready for the question? Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I also want to add a few remarks to this debate on this legislation. I want to begin by comme nding the Att orney General (Mr . Mcc rae) for introducing this legislation. I think that if there is any argument, and I preface my remarks by saying if; if there is any argument to having someone as the Minister of Justice, the Attorney General for the Province of Manitoba who is a non-la wyer , this legislation is an argument for that.

This legislation is an argument for that, because I believe it would have been very difficult for someone who had been admitted to the Bar, who was a member of The Law Society, to have introduced this without having had to face a significant amount of pressure from his peers one way or the other, of one sort or another. I think that we would have been the sorrier or the poorer for not having had this legislation. My colleague from Churchill (Mr. Cowan) indicated in his remarks that he was having some difficulty interpreting the Liberal position.

He attributed that to the fact that the Liberal position is generally in the middle of the road. I am somewhat more cynical about the Liberal position. I think that they have not formulated a position. I do not believe that the Liberal Caucus has formulated a position on this. I do not believe for a minute that any amendments introduced by the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) are going to do anything more than complicate this Bill, are going to make it less likely that people can act on behalf, as agents of people who come before the courts. The Member for St.

James will have a chance to prove me wrong when he introduces his amendment.

The fact of the matter is tha t this Party, the Liberal Pa rty, has not id entified its posit ion, has not unequivocally said that yes, this is something that is desirable, has not indicated whether it will be prepared to proceed with amendments to allow paralegals in other areas of current Law Society jurisdiction, whether they are prepared to amend this whole process so that people can more easily both represent themselves in legal transactions or have others who are non-lawyers represent themselves. * (1 550) For the information of the Member for St. James (Mr .

Edwards), this caucus did go on record far in advance of the Liberals trying to develop a position. In fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, on May 11, some two weeks after I received a letter irom Mr. Dave Goddard, the vi ce-presi dent, western Cana da of POI NTTS , I responded with our position with respect to POINTTS, some two weeks after it. The Member for St. James may want to listen to this. On May 11, I wrote to Mr. Goddard and I said: Thank you for your letter of April 27, regarding the actions of the Law Society of Manitoba.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Law Society is concerned about protecting its monopoly against the perceived intrusion of paralegal organizations such as yours. You may recall that the New Democratic Party introduced legislation that would make it easier for individuals to purchase residential property without using the services of a lawyer. This too was vehemently opposed by the Law Society. The demystification of professional duties is a goal of the New Democratic Party.

I can assure you that we support your battle, and if there is anything that we can do to support your cause, please do not hesitate to ask." I go ahead to outline why we support POI NTTS, and I want to indicate for the record, or for Members of the official Opposition, that this Party has been on record for a long time as desiring and wanting to demystify professional associations whether it be the Law Society or the Teachers Society.

In fact the Teachers Society have proposed some amendments on their own, which would bring lay people into the process so that they can provide new perspectives on the transactions and the approaches that society takes. Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe we should certainly be supp orting this in principle. I bel ieve tha t the amendments that are being proposed are reasonable and I know that there are going to be objections, some individuals, professionals, lawyers, are going to object. I know that representatives of the Law Society are going to come before committee and object.

I have to chuckle when the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) suggests that the Law Society had to defend its Act. Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the Law Society could have approached the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mcc rae), could have said, yes, we see what you are trying to do, and in principle we do not want to deny ind ividuals the right to choose their rep res entative, regard less of his or her legal qualifications. If someone can represent themselves, then clearly there should be a way.

We should be perhaps encoura ging the development of paraprofessionals who are licensed and bonded to represent individuals on other ma tters. I am not trying to deny that lawyers bring a certain expertise to many matters, be they criminal or civil, but certainly a trained professional is not required in all ins tances. I have said on many occasions that real estate transactions, and the drawing of mortgages, can be done quite adequately by paraprofessionals. They can give the same protection to clients providing that they are bonded , and they are licensed, and there are regulations governing their operations.

I think we should be doing that, and we should be doing it forthwith. It will reduce the costs, it will introduce a measure of 4000

Wednesday, December 20, 1989 competition into the provision of legal-type services, and I think that is desirable. Mr. Acting Speaker, I can tell you that while there will be amendments introduced I am sure that the New Democratic Party will be watching for amendments that are more progressive, more expansive, that limit even further the wall that had developed around the legal profession, which prevents competition, which prevents others providing paralegal services th at are less expensive, but also which are professional in its own way. So, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are going to be track ing this very carefully.

I am anxious to see whether the words of my colleague from St. James are lived up to in terms of his amendments. I predict now that they will be designed to complicate, obfuscate, make more difficult the appointment of an agent to act under The Highw ay Traffic Act. I will pred ict now tha t the amendments for the Member for St. James will not broaden the mandate, will not attempt to demystify, will not attempt to further limit the power of the Law Society, which I believe is desirable.

We will watch, and when the Bill comes before committee we will be introd ucing our own approach to this particular piece of legislation. If it is feasible we will also be amending it to improve its scope and perhaps look to my colleagues who have at least su perficially ind icated they will be supporting this legislation, see whether they are prepared to go that extra mile, provide additional services at lower cost

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-95
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 95.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	47c6fe6ec4b2d962e55fa700d6cb744bfa1130de

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