Manitoba Hansard — 29 May 1996 (Sitting 42A, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-42a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

. Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 42A- 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 29, 1996 ISSN 0542-5492

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Rob lin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirktield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River bJ:ty N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

2833 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 29,1996 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Home Care Services Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Nellie Bonni, Jose A Quijada, Reyna Escoto and others, requesting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, I beg I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Bon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Madam Speaker, I would like to table a fmancial statement for the former McKenzie Seeds for the year ending October 31, 1995. Madam Speaker: I am also pleased to table the Statutory Report of the Chief Electoral Officer on the conduct of the April 25, 1995, thirty-sixth provincial general election, including recommendations respecting amendments to The Elections Act. to present the petition of J. W. Balagus, Margaret *

(1335) Balagus, Tennie Naurot and others, requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing INTRODUCTION OF BILLS their plan to privatize home care services. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Joan Rurak, Robert Rurak and Barbara Mynzyk, requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Reena Kreindler, Dale Cooper, Joe Olson and others, requesting the Premier and the Minister of Health to consider reversing their plan to privatize home care services. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of Committees): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. Bill 70-The Animal Care Act Bon.

Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 70, The Animal Care Act (Loi sur le soin des animaux), and that the same be now received and read a flrst time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I will provide the appropriate message along with that. Motion agreed to. Bill 71-The Manitoba Film and Sound Recording Development Corporation Act Bon.

Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Reimer), that leave be given to introduce Bill 71, The Manitoba Film and Sound

2834 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 Recording Development Corporation Act (Loi sur Ia Societe manitobaine de developpement de l'enregistrement cinematographique et sonore), and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the Legislative Assembly. I table his message. Motion agreed to. Bill 72-The Public Schools Amendment Act

(2) Bon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 72, The Public Schools Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles publiques, and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill 73--The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act Bon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that leave be given to introduce Bill 73, The Construction Industry Wages Amendment Act (Loi modiflant la

Loi sur les salaires dans l'industrie de Ia construction), and that the same be now received and read a fust time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of the bill, recommends it to the House. I am tabling the message of the Lieutenant Governor, as well. Motion agreed to. *

(1340) Bill 74-The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act Bon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, on behalf of the Minister ofJustice (Mrs. Vodrey), seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 74, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Cour du Bane de la Reine), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill 75-The Commodity Futures Act Bon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), that leave be given to introduce Bill 75, The Commodity Futures Act (Loi sur les contrats a terme), and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have this afternoon eighteen Grade 4 students from Strathclair Community School under the direction of Mr. Adam Grabowski. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) We have twenty-four Grade 9 students from River West Park School under the direction of Mr. Gary Perrett. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr.

Ernst). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Faneuil Corporation Public Subsidy Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on August 29, 1994, the Premier announced in a press release the arrangements for Faneuil and the contributions from the provincial government to the F aneuil deal. This was a deal, of course, negotiated by one ofhis principal staff, Mr. Mike Bessey, and it failed to disclose that $3 million in public subsidies would be made to this agreement with the Faneuil corporation.

In light of the recent announcements by the provincial governm ent on disclosure, why did this Premier fail to

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2835 disclose a $3-million public subsidy to the Faneuil corpor ation, and will this government in the future be required to disclose all financial information and all subsidies for private companies pursuant to their so called commitment to disclosure? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am not aware of any subsidies to which the member is referring. I am not sure that he is presenting the situation as it exists. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it begs the question again whether Mr.

Bessey, the $400,000 Harvard person, informed the Premier of this subsidy or not, because I will quote from May 10, Public Accounts, where the Provincial Auditor says-and I am sure the Minister of Finance is now alerting the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to this fact-where the Provincial Auditor states that, yes, there is a $3-million subsidy, a subsidy that was arranged through the Manitoba Trading Corporation, through a licence that they signed for $10. In fact, the Auditor has co nflnned what we alleged last December, that there was a $3-million subsidy.

How can we believe the Premier in terms of his new found commitment to disclosure when we have deals like the Faneuil deal where the government launders money through the Trading Corporation and fails to inform the public as the Auditor has identified in his statement? *

(1345) Bon. Eric Stef anson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, all aspects of the Faneuil arrangement were made public at the time of the announcement. This is not a new issue; this has been discussed before. It reflects the net present value of the debt that has been converted from Manitoba Telephone System to Faneuil, and that debt I believe is generating a return effective immediately as a result of the conversion to Faneuil servicing that debt as opposed to Manitoba Telephone System. Winnipeg Jets Operating Loss Agreement Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I defy the Premier to identify the $3-million subsidy statement in his press release of August 29, 1994. I defy him to identify where he disclosed that to the public. I would like to ask a further question to the Premier. The Premier signed an operating loss agreement with the Winnipeg Jets back in 1991, where he informed all Manitobans that this would cost us about $5 million over the life of the agreement. In that operating loss agreement, under

Section 12.12, the Premier signed a gag order dealing with the salaries of the CE O of the hockey club, one Mr. Barry Shenkarow. How can the public again trust this Premier on full disclosure of salaries when he signed a gag order under the operating loss agreement and prohibited the public from knowing how much we the public are paying Mr. Shenkarow under his agreement signed in 1991? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the public knows exactly how much money is being paid to the Winnipeg Jets Hockey Club, exactly how much money is being paid to that hockey club.

The fact of the matter is it is no different than in the legislation in which we disclose the payments that are made to doctors and to lawyers for legal aid, and that does not say what their salaries are because everybody knows that out of that they have to pay their office expenses, they have to pay for nurses, for support staff, they have to pay for recepti onists and for everything else. It is the total dollars that are paid to them that is disclosed. It is the total dollars that are paid to the Winnipeg Hockey Club that are disclosed as well, and it is all public information.

Manitoba Telephone System Advertising Campaign Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): It is becoming increasingly clear that this Conservative government cannot be trusted with the public assets of the province, whether it be MTS or Manitoba Public Insurance or Manitoba Hydro. I would particularly like to ask some questions to the government, which in the case ofMTS, as was indicated yesterday, where we now have a massive advertising campaign being conducted by government that never once held any public meetings or any public consultation with Manitobans over the future ofMTS.

I would like to ask, now that the Minister responsible for MTS is here, exactly how much money is being spent on advertising, and who was involved in putting that advertising togethe-r?

2836 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 Mr. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible fo r the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the member, I am sure, is fully aware that the public is very much in favour of what is being proposed by the government to deal with the circumstances that telecommunications face, not only in Manitoba, right across the country. Manitoba Telephone System consistently does advertising to promote itself. It is in competition to over 70 percent of its revenue base.

It is important that they inform Manitobans about their industry and the positive opportunities that exist for its industry, and part of the recapitalization is part of that process. Mr. Ashton: Perhaps the minister would like to attend some of the public meetings we are arranging throughout the province and see what Manitobans really have to say about their plans to sell offMTS. Madam Speaker, for the minister-and this is in regard to advertising that specifically uses the same wording that this government used when it announced the privatization ofMTS.

I want to ask how much money is being spent, where is it corning from and who is putting these ads together which are nothing more than propaganda pieces for the privatization agenda of this government? Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, in the process of trying to determine how MTS will be recapitalized, eight firms were asked for proposal calls. Three firms were determined to be the people who should do the analysis. They have been engaged to do the analysis and in turn hired people to do the media work. Mr. Ashton: I will try again, Madam Speaker.

How much money, which I assume is corning from the ratepayers of Manitoba, is being spent on this propa ganda-style advertising campaign that is nothing more than an attempt by this government that has no mandate to sell off MTS, to try and push its own agenda with the public of Manitoba at the expense of the ratepayers ofMTS? How much are they spending on that advertising campaign? Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, part of the advertising initiative of MTS, this program is part of it, and the investment advisers that were employed and are being paid to do their work in turn contracted with media people to do the media component of it. An Honourable Member: Who? An Honourable Member: How much? Mr. Findlay: You will have to ask them. I am not aware of that information. It is part of the initial contract which they did on a subcontract basis. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Actuarial Report Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister in charge of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. Yesterday it was revealed that in 1992 and '93, well before the election, the MPIC had failed six of eight crucial solvency tests, and yet the minister still went ahead with the rate reductions for election purposes. Can the minister confirm that the board of directors would receive copies of the actuarial reports? *

(1350) Bon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, the member neatly ignores the tact that the TRAC organization, in the report that he is so anxious to quote, includes a disclaimer in its references to publicly owned Crown corporation insurance companies because they run at cost for the service of the public and they do not need to set aside the same number of reserves for the profit of the shareholders.

I cannot understand why it is that he believes he wants a 3 0 percent increase in the rates so he can have the reserves he is worried about. Mr. Maloway: The minister did not listen to the questio n. The question was, can the minister confirm that the board of directors would get the copies of the reports from the actuary? We want to know who gets the actuarial reports. Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, they work their way up through the organization, and if the member wants a

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2837 chronology on how they would flow through the organization, I will be more than pleased to provide that. He continues to ignore the fact that private insurance companies return about 76 percent of their premiums back to their customers in terms of claims monies paid out. In this case, a publicly owned firm does not need to build up the reserves which are taken out of that next 25 percent. Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation is able to return at least 90 percent, and with the earnings from the interest on their reserves are even able to exceed that.

It is just ridiculous that he believes differently. Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, the minister has been the minister for eight years and he expects the public to believe that no one gets these actuarial reports. Nobody wants to admit that they get them. I would like to ask the minister, can the minister confirm that Mr. Peter Wintemute, who sits on the audit committee plus the executive committee of the board and has been a long-time business partner of the Premier (Mr. Filmon), has he received copies of the actuarial reports, and if he does not get them, who does? Mr.

Cummings: Madam Speaker, the list of directors is a public list. I mean, let us begin with that premise. Secondly, the member should not imply that no one is reviewing the actuarial reports. They are an important aspect of the operation of the corporation. That is exactly the information that is placed in front of the Public Utilities Board. I mean, how much more public can it get? Mr. Maloway: I have a new question to the same minister. Yesterday this minister confirmed that David J. Oakden with Tillinghast in Toronto is the actuary who worked on the $49-million provision for the tort losses.

What I would like to know is where do the reports go from this man? We cannot pin this government down. This government has been sitting on these reports, sitting on the financial statements and refuses to tell us who gets these reports. If the board does not get them, who does? Mr. Cummings: Madam Speaker, the internal actuaries work with the outside contracted experts to develop the forecasts for the required funding of the exposure that the corporation has, and of course the information flows up through the corporation. I do not understand why he thinks it would not.

Of course it flows up through the corporation, and it is put in front of the Public Utilities Board. I mean that is- An Honourable Member: Every year. Mr. Cummings: -every year, the opportunity for the public and anyone else including the members of the oppositi on, but they do not normally attend the Public Utilities Board hearing. *

(1355) Pharmacare Reductions-Impact on Diabetics Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, the Canadian Diabetes Association has launched a campaign, a letter-writing campaign as well as a card campaign, asking the government to stop its Pharmacare changes. In fact, they say, and I quote: The recently announced changes to Pharmacare will put many Manitobans with diabetes in a very difficult and dangerous position, and this program of cutting Pharmacare will raise the risk of life-threatening complications and will be devastating on the people who have diabetes.

Madam Speaker, since people with diabetes have a two to five times percent higher rate of medical costs than other Manitobans and since the rate of diabetes in Manitobans is up by 16,000 since 1986, can the minister show us any reports or studies that justifY your cuts to Pharmacare and the dangerous impact it is going to have on diabetes, anything that you did before you made this massive cut to Pharmacare? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I do not need any report to tell me that it is the right thing to do to protect people who need protection most and to provide them with the highest level of protection. Does the honourable member suggest that we pay millions of dollars to their friends over there at Price Waterhouse, or something like that, to tell us we should or should not protect people who need protection the most? Those who have highest drug usage and those who have the lowest incomes are the ones who get the most protection under the new Pharmacare system. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister can tell me where he is coming from on this when in fact

2838 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 the Diabetes Association says this could cost potentially $5.5 billion, to people with diabetes, in health care costs as a result of the government reducing the lower cost pharmaceutical care as opposed to putting people in hospital who are getting more complicated treatment. Does the minister realize that Pharmacare and these drug costs and these other things decrease the cost and improve the value of life, not increase costs? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, yes, we realize that the appropriate use of prescription drugs can have all kinds of positive implications for patients and people with diabetes, people with other conditions that require prescription drugs. Again, I say to the honourable member, the program takes greatest account of those who need large amounts of prescription drugs and also those who are at the lower end of the income spectrum are the ones who get the greatest benefit. What is the honourable member's problem? Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my problem is the same as other Manitobans and the Canadian Diabetes Association: To get the minister to explain why- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Chomiak: Thank you. My question for the minister is, why did the minister not talk with the diabetic association or other Manitobans with chronic illnesses before he put in place this dangerous and devastating-to quote the Diabetes Association-policy of cutting these therapeutic drugs that help prevent illness? Mr. McCrae: No one is cutting anybody's opportunity to access required prescription drugs, Madam Speaker.

In fact, those who need greater amounts of prescription drugs get more protection; those who have lower incomes get more protection under the new program. It fits very nicely into the concepts that the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and I discussed a week and a half ago. Youth Crime Parental Responsibil ity Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Madam Speaker, the members of the Liberal Party believe that the vast majority of kids in Manitoba are good. Today, 200 students from Maples Collegiate marched to the Legislature to raise awareness about the problems of racism.

This is not an untypical type of action by the youth of Manitoba, yet this government wants to feed the mis conception that the kids of today are out of control and running wild and it is the parents fault. My question is for the Premier. Does he believe that the youth crime is caused by the acts or omissions of parents? Is he saying that whenever a kid commits a crime it is because of bad parenting? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): No, Madam Speaker. Beadingley Riot Minister of Justice Responsibility Mr.

Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Will he use the same criteria of making parents responsible to make his Justice minister responsible for the damage done by her charges in the recent Headingley riot? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I think that is a facetious question and I do not think it ought to be answered. *

(1400) Youth Crime Reduction Strategy Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Is his government willing to put as much effort into helping families prevent crimes rather than trying to help victims after crimes have been committed? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the answer, of course, is yes, but is he suggesting that it is wrong for us to do things to help the victims of crime? Children and Youth Secretariat Funding Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, during the election, the Plan Manitoba-the Filmon election promises-identified the Child and Youth Secretariat as one positive step toward improving the quality and accountability of Child and Family Services. We know that $144,000 has been budgeted for the operating of the secretariat and we also know that additional monies are going to be redirected from at least five other departments.

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2839 I want to ask the Minister ofFami1y Services, since the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), during Estimates, acknowledged that money has been identified from the Department of Health for the Youth Secretariat, will she tell us where this money is coming from and how much money will be reallocated from the Department of Health? Bon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it was under this govenunent's initiative that we looked at co-ordination of services among departments so we were not working in isolation of each other and that different departments and different programs were not dealing with different pieces of children and families.

As a result of the Children and Youth Secretariat being put in place, we now have co operation, we now have information on the kinds of dollars that are being spent in different areas providing services to families and children. We will, as we continue to identity where the overlap and duplication is, look at streamlining the service and ensuring that the dollars are going in the best manner possible to meet the needs of those families and those children who need our support. Ms. Cerilli: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question for the Department of Health.

Perhaps she will answer the question for the Department of Education since, during the Estimates, the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) directed me to ask this question ofthe Minister of Family Services. Will she tell the Ho use how much money will be redirected from the Department of Education for the Youth Secretariat in this province? Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I thank my honourable friend for that question because, as we develop new ways of delivering service in a more co-ordinated approach, the dollars will move between departments.

A prime example was the initiative that was undertaken for those who have medical problems in our school system and there was money taken from the Department of Health. It was $650,000.

Madam Speaker, $200,000 came to the Department of Family Services to Children's Special Services to train paraprofessionals in providing support to students who did not need medical procedures performed and another $400,000 was redirected from the DepartmentofHealth to the Department ofEducation so that those with expertise in delivering medical services to children in need in the school system would be delivered by those professionals. So, Madam Speaker, as we identity those issues, money will be redirected interdepartmentally to deal with the issues. Ms.

Cerilli: Madam Speaker, can the minister tell the House if the time line for the Youth Secretariat plans is on

schedule when it says that 2 percent of existing approved resources from five departments should be identified by January 1996? Is that on target, and how much money has been identified from each of those departments? Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I thank my honourable friend for that question, because it does provide me with the opportunity to say that the Children and Youth Secretariat has been doing very valuable work, and there are five different steering committees-[interjection] Madam Speaker- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mrs.

Mitchelson: Thank you, Madam Speaker, because I did listen very carefully to the question and I would appreciate the same kind of consideration from the opposition when I am trying to respond to the question. As I indicated earlier and as I will say again today, the secretariat has developed five priority areas. They have five steering committees that are doing their work presently. We are anticipating or expecting that the work of those steering committees, which are comprised of members of the conununity plus employees of government, are trying to deal with the issues of high priority that we have identified.

Madam Speaker, as that work is completed and as those committees report, we will then be able to determine how the monies can be allocated. Red River Community College Youth Care Worker Program Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows.

2840 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Thank you, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me for a question because it gives me the opportunity to remind the Minister of Family Services that on at least five separate occasions since June 1, 1992, her government has promised a full time youth care worker training program at Red River College and as recently as June 26, 1995, she indicated the program could be up and running by January '96.

Given that the Youth Secretariat, the Children's Advocate, the government's own Suche report, the Child and Youth Care Workers Association of Manitoba, both associations of the operators of residential settings and Red River Community College support the two-year program, is there a reason why this government does not want people working with high risk children to have basic pre-service training? Bon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): Madam Speaker, in the spirit of co-operation I do thank my honourable friend for that question, but I do want to indicate to him that I believe I probably thanked him through the Estimates process when he asked that same question. I think, if I remember correctly- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Family Services, to complete her response. Mrs. Mitchelson: Very briefly, I think I committed to my honourable friend that we are anticipating a start-up date of September of this year. Mr.

Martindale: Can the nuruster provide some assuran ce that it is actually going to happen in September since we have had repeated promises by this government to start in September? What is different about the Estimates process this year from last year, and when is she going to come through and deliver this program? Mrs. Mitchelson: Soon. Mr. Martindale: Does this minister expect us and the youth care workers to believe this government when they have repeatedly promised this program or does she want people to get certification with no pre-employment training?

What assurances can she give that there actually will be a program in September? Mrs. Mitchelson: Madam Speaker, all I can say to my honourable friend is, trust me. Legislative Building/Grounds Camping Permission Ms. Diane McGiff ord (Osborne): Madam Speaker, today approximately 500 women who are marching to Ottawa to protest the poverty of Canadian women will arrive in Winnipeg.

These women, I understand, have been denied permission to set up their tents on the west side of the Legislature grounds, although let it be granted, they, believing that the grounds are public property, did not formally request permission, or so I understand. I want to ask the Minister of Government Services if it is necessary to obtain official permission to tent on the Legislature grounds and if all past tenting groups have obtained this permission. Bon.

Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, this may come as news to members opposite, but the Legislative grounds function in a wide variety of ways to serve the people of this province, and I think it would be inappropriate of me to not welcome the wagon train to our province and say hello to the tourists who have come here and thank them for coming here on their way to Ottawa. But I do want to point out to members opposite that though it is many things to Manitobans, it is not a campground. * (1 41 0) Ms.

McGiff ord: Given that past groups have indeed camped on the grounds of the Legislature, will the minister now take the high road, honour the spirit rather than the letter of the law and allow these women, who are working to overcome poverty and promote economic justice, to set up their tents, just as the federal government has promised to do in Ottawa? Mr. Pallister: This particular question, I believe, sets a new low in revealing the feeble-minded attempt of members opposite to garner attention for themselves at the expense of others.

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY�O�F�M��AN�IT�O:.:::B ::..:A� ________ 2 _84_1 Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, the question that was asked was very straightforward. On Parliament Hill the women who were protesting against poverty had been given permission to camp and the question was why this minister who in his arrogance obviously shows no concern for this issue, will not give the same opportunity to those women to camp on the Legislative grounds that has been given to many other people in the past. Why is this minister not listening?

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind all honourable members that this House now is degenerating to the same extent it degenerated most recently which was most appalling and disgusting to the public at large. I would suggest that all members pick and choose their words most carefully. The honourable Minister of Govermnent Services order, please. There is no room for name-calling in this Chamber. An Honourable Member: Then look at the Minister .... Madam Speaker: I am looking at both-order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I would caution the honourable member for Thompson not to name call and call people "arrogant" and other such terms. I would also remind-order, please. I am not fmished my ruling. Order, please. I would remind the honourable Minister of Govermnent Services to pick and choose his words carefully and to respond to the question asked. * * * Mr. Pallister: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I believe in terms of tolerance for others' views, this govermnent and certainly my department and my staff have illustrated their tolerance repeatedly.

For example, over the last month with regard to the home care strike, our staff worked in co-operation with those who were freely expressing their views. Though they were contrary to the views of many, they were their views and I respect that fact. Our department again is working-[interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Pallister: We are away ahead of the members opposite on this.

It appears that they are not aware that we have been working in co-operation with those people who have travelled to our province for their protest and that they are in fact going to be camping on Legislative grounds, and that they are presently set up and will �e continuing to set up on Legislative property at Memonal Park. So we accommodate these people. We continue to accommodate them despite what members opposite may say. Their protests come out of ignorance yet again. Point of Order Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I used the word "arrogant" in reference to the Minister of Govermnent Services, and I would like to ask for your ruling whether Beauchesne's Citation 490, which indicates that "arrogant" has been ruled parliamentary, appl�es �r indeed whether we are setting a new precedent m this province.

I chose my words very carefully and the word "arrogant" is not unparliamentary, and I believe it does apply to the kind of approach taken by this minister in calling our member and members on this side feeble minded and making other condescending comments. So I would like to ask for a ruling on whether "arrogant" is now being ruled as unparliamentary when indeed it has been parliamentary. Madam Speaker: On the point of order, I will take the point of order under advisement to review exactly w� t was said and the context and tone with which it was satd.

I believe, on the original point of order raised by � e honourable member for Thompson, I indicated to him that he should pick and choose his words carefully. I also cautioned the honourable Minister of Govermnent Services to pick and choose his words carefully and to respond to the question asked. * * * Ms. McGiff ord: Madam Speaker, I ask the Minister of Family Services (Mrs Mitchelson), who is responsible for

2842 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 social services and who is well acquainted with the economic struggles of Manitoba women, if she will advocate for these women and attempt to persuade the Minister of Government Services to give them their place on the Legislative grounds, the place where they wish to be. Mr.

Pallister: The member opposite may not be aware of some ofthe shortcomings that the Legislative grounds offer in terms of providing camping facilities for Manitobans or for tourists, but the Legislative grounds are not able to accommodate, with safety and with reasonable protection, the people who choose to camp here.

So in the best interests of those who would choose to try to seek media attention, which is a legitimate and honourable intention, I am sure, of the caravan that is travelling across our country, it would not be in their best interests, nor in the best interests of the children who are with them, to be exposed to the excessive amount of traffic that is in this facility, the inability to access washrooms on a 24-hour basis, and the lack of electrical hookups. There are practical and good common-sense reasons why people do not choose to come here and camp out This is not a campground.

Neither is Memorial Park, for that matter, but it does have better services for those people and does give them the visibility they seek. I think it is a good solution for these people, but I would urge future people who wish to come to the Legislature to camp to choose one of our many qualified campgrounds in this province. Manitoba Telephone System Layoff-Ro ger Page Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): How a government treats its least fortunate citizens is an important message to all in our society. Mr. Roger Page, 49 years old, had worked for MTS for twenty-one and a half years until he was laid off last fall. Mr.

Page is disabled with multiple sclerosis, since 1984, and has not taken a sick day in the last nine years. I want to ask the Minister responsible for MTS to tell Manit obans what message he is sending to our communities and to people with disabilities when he laid offMr. Page and then replaced him with an ISM contract employee. Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible fo r the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, MTS handles its employee relations.

It has agreements through union contracts and my understanding is they are following those agreements in the process of dealing with their employee circumstances. *

(1420) Mr. Reid: On behalf of Mr. Page, I want to ask the Premier, did the Premier not say during the last provincial general election that cuts would not be made at the expense of the disabled, the sick and the elderly in our society? Did the Premier not say that last year in the provincial general election campaign? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I am not aware of the concerns and conditions that prevail at the Manitoba Telephone System in making this decision, and I certainly could not be in a position to respond to that specific question. Mr.

Reid: Well, then, I want to take my question back to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. What can this minister offer to Mr. Page, who has lost his job, who has lost his long-term disability insurance, lost his life insurance, lost his dental plan, lost his accrual on his pension benefits, together with a very bleak employment prospect future? What can he offer to Mr. Page? Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, on behalfofMr. Page, I will review it with MTS to see what all the details are and see if there is any other process they could use. Brandon General Hospital Laparoscopy Services Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. About a year ago, our Minister of Health publicly stated in Brandon, and it was reported in the Brandon Sun, that he would personally ensure that the Brandon

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2843 General Hospital would be able to offer laparoscopy services. This has not yet occurred, and I now learn that the Department of Health has indicated to the hospital that funds would not be forthcoming for this purpose. I want to ask the minister, can he tell us why he has reneged on a public promise to provide funds to the Brandon General Hospital for these services? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, Brandon General Hospital has a proud history of service to the people of western Manitoba and will have a proud history of service to the people of western Manitoba certainly for as long as the honourable member is going to be around and many other people as well, including future generations. I will take the specifics of the laparoscopy question as notice for the honourable member and get back to him . Speech Therapy Services Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister could indicate whether monies or funds will be forthcoming for speech therapy services at Brandon General Hospital so it can continue to offer this very important service, this very important program, that many people in Westman are concerned about. Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, this question has been asked and answered.

How ever, I will repeat that, should Brandon General Hospital wish to go ahead with a proposal to remove speech therapy services from its facility, those services have to be available somewhere else in the community before I would agree. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, because of continued uncertainty around this question and because of the many organizations, including parents, teachers and many groups who are writing to me and I am sure the honourable minister, can he make a defmitive statement and guarantee to the Westman community that indeed speech therapy services will be maintained in the Brandon comm unity so that the parents, the children and everyone affected and adults affected will have the proper communication therapy services? Mr. McCrae: I have done that many times over the past number of weeks and do so again today.

Public Accounts Meeting

Schedule Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance made commitments in the Public Accounts committee in an agreement reached in committee and a letter which I will table, the amended paragraph agreed to in the meeting of Aprill6. During the House the other day, the minister indicated that he was breaking that agreement.

I want to ask him why, after a very good discussion and a very frank discussion that was well thought of by all of those in attendance, he does not think it is important enough to honour his agreement to continue to meet with Public Accounts so that we can deal with 1994-95, get them passed and get current on this very important issue. Hon. Eric Stef anson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, the member for Crescentwood and I discussed this just the other day. I am not breaking any agreement.

I hope he is tabling both the original letter he sent to me and then a revised paragraph that I provided to him that he agreed with that outlined very clearly how we would fun ction. I do not believe that we functioned that way entirely. We have made some progress, I will acknowledge. We have had two reasonably constructive meetings, dealt with a series of issues, cleared some reports off the books, but we did not live up to the full and complete intent of our agreement. Madam Speaker: Time for Orhl Questions has expired. Speaker's Rulings Madam Speaker: I have three rulings for the House. Order, please.

During Question Period on May 1, 1996, I took under advisement a point of order raised by the opposition House leader (Mr. Ashton) about language used by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). The words were, and I quote, "so the allegation is one of the typical smutty ones that is brought out by the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale)."

2844 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 Webster's dictionary has the definition of the word "smutty," the synonyms "obscene" and "indecent." Beauchesne's Citation 49 1 advises that language used in the House should be temperate and worthy of the place in which it is spoken and that a word which causes disorder can be ruled to be unparliamentary. I note that the phrase was directed at an individual MLA rather than a group. Therefore, I must rule that the language used by the First Minister was unparliamentary and request that he withdraw it. Bon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, in respect of your ruling, I would be happy to withdraw that comment. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable First Minister. * * * Madam Speaker: The government House leader (Mr. Ernst) on May 14, 1996, raised a point of order about actions of the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) in approaching the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) at his seat in the Chamber and having an exchange of words while shaking her hand and fmger at the minister.

I would like to draw to the attention of the House Beau chesne's Citation 485.(2) which states that the proper time to raise a point of order is when an event occurs and not afterwards. There was a considerable period of time between the incident referred to by the government House leader and his raising a point of order about the matter. Therefore, there is no point of order. I realize that emotions run high, but we members must behave in a manner appropriate to elected members.

People in the gallezy are watching and I would encourage all honourable members to conduct themselves in a way appropriate as leaders of this province. * (1 430) * * * Madam Speaker: I took under advisement a point of order raised on May 14, 1996, by the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) about words he said were used by the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). Having checked Hansard I find that the government House leader asserted that the member for Radisson from her seat referred to members on the government side of the House as fascists and nazis.

In speaking to the point of order the opposition House leader (Mr. Doer) claimed that what the member for Radisson had said was: How would you like it if we called you nazis? Hansard does not attribute any remarks relating to this matter to the honourable member for Radisson. Further, the point of order was raised well after the alleged incident took place. Beauchesne's Citations 31 9 and 32 1 clearly indicate that a point of order must be raised as soon as an irregularity is perceived in the proceedings of the House.

Therefore there is no point of order. * * * MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Cultural Activities-Pembina Constituency Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I wish to inform the House of two unique events which I had the pleasure of attending in my constituency this past weekend. On Sunday, May 26, a spring concert was held at the J.R. W alkof School in Winkler which featured the Brass Angels Handbell Choir, the Southern Belles Handbell Choir and the Sweet Harmony Male Quartet.

These groups combined to provide an afternoon of diverse and rich music, ranging from inspirational numbers such as He Leadeth Me to the more haunting sounds of The Phantom of the Opera. Their unique sound and presentation is one which will not soon be forgotten. I would like to thank all the organizers of this event and in particular Karen Kuhl, as well as all the participants who helped fill a wonderful spring afternoon with music.

Also on the weekend, the talent of many of the areas qui lters and crafters was on display at the Bam Swallows, more simply known to area residents as The Bam, for the annual Barn Swallows quilt and craft show. This show is renowned for the fmc crafts it produces in general but has gained particular attention for the high quality of quilts it displays and sells year after year. Madam Speaker, these events are just an example of the diverse and culturally enriching activities that take

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2845 place in the constit uency of Pembina virtually every week. As we have fmally reached the end of a long and trying winter, I would like to invite all the members of the House and all Manitobans to come out and experience first-hand the many events that my constitu ency has to offer. Thank you. British Columbia Election Results Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I rise to offer congratulations to the new Premier of British Columbia and to extend to him and his new government our best wishes for their second term of office. This election was close.

Premier Clark recognized this in his acceptance speech as he, like other Premiers in similar positions , made his commitment to a government of all British Columbians . Premier Cla rk leads a province which faces serious issues. Some of those we might look on enviously from Manitoba. British Columbia has an expanding economy, rapid immigration, a young and highly skilled population, a wealth of natural resources, a healthy industrial and tourism sector. These are challenges any government would envy.

But the new government also faces the problems of the long-term historical divisions within British Columbia, and some of those economic divisions were reflected in the election results . Others are the serious unresolved issues facing First Nations and the many daily problems associated with the rapid formation of a visibly multicultural society. This is, however, an historic occasion.

The return of the Clark goverment in British Columbia confirms social democracy in Canada as the alternative government, not just in the cruci bles of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, not just in the Yukon and Ontario but also in the prosperous and populous Pacific Rim provin ce.

It is in part a testimony to the work of Premier Clark and his cabinet, to the enormous expansion of post-secondary education, to the creation of three new unive rsitie s, the real success in science education at all leve ls, the historic negotiations of a treaty with Nisga'a, an innovative forest policy, development in community health, which are of national significance .

It is, of course, Madam Speaker, part of a long tradition in British Columbia where Canada's earliest social democratic MLAs and M.P.s were elected, and where in mid-century Premier Dave Barrett led a government, a progressive provincial government. Finally, Madam Speaker, this was an important election for Canada. It demonstrates that our fellow citizens have confidence in a co-operative and fair vision of our country. It demonstrates that Canadians will and can reject the harsh, mean, and divisive world created by Harris, Klein and Filmon. Some Honourable Members: Here, here. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

Hutterite Educators Conf erence Mr. Mike Radcliffe (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I beseech the honourable members of this constituent assembly for their attention. I would like to advise them that I had the opportunity on Monday of this week to attend the fourth conference of the Hutterite educators which was held this year in Brandon, Manitoba. This is the first time this conference has been held in Manitoba. Previously it has been held in Alberta and in the United States. The conference brought together educational professionals from throughout North America.

These people teach on Hutterite colonie s, and a number of people from the colonies themselves who have an interest in the future of educational development in their communiti es also attended. I valued the opportunity to be a part of this very special ass embly and to bring greetings on behalf of the Honourable Linda Mcintosh, Minister of Education. I had the opportunity to meet many people who are on the front lines in the Hutterite educational system. Madam Speaker, members of Hutterite colonies in Manitoba have been instrumental in the involvement in distance education and interactive learning.

These leaders recognize the essential need to educate their child ren, our next generation of leaders in Manitoba, which involves technology, world events, as well as the traditional core topics of education. The sing ular challenges facing many of our rural students of distance and isolation are being overcome by many of the people in these communiti es. The Hutterian educators are also vigorously recruiting many individual s from their own communities to participate in education

2846 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 deli very to these stude nts. Congratulations to the organizers, the participants, and the supporters of the Hutterite educators in Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker. 1r (1 440) Low Income Housing Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, the treabnent of this government for the women's march against poverty is indicative of the way they are trying to deal with poverty, to simply push it out of sight and out of mind, and it is imperative that they recognize that there are many social programs that are neces sary for us to combat poverty, the widenin g gap of income in our community. We know that if you want to deal with poverty and the stress on low-income families, you have to deal with the access ibility of housing.

Housing is the single largest budgetary item of any family, and there is an increase of 29 percent of the households in Canada in core need. Over one million, 1. 6 million households in Canada are in core need of housing. I am raising this today because the fe deral government is walking away from its respo nsibility for public and social housing, and we have not heard one peep from this government about their plan for ensuring that there is a strategy for low-income housing in our province.

Other provinces, especially British Columbia, which has picked up and replaced the $2 billion that is being cut from social housing across the country, is the only province that has undertaken that, and I think it is important that the Province of Manitoba will come forward with some strategy with especially the fe deral government now offering the provincial government to take over responsibility for managing social and public housing. We know that other provinces are looking at selling the public housing stock in their province.

We know that other provinces are going to simply allow social housing to be eliminated as a program in our country, and we want to ensure that that does not happen in Manitoba. So I would implore the government, in closing, to come up with a strategy to ensure that low-income Manitobans are going to have adequate, decent, and safe housing. Carol Shields Chancellor of University of Winnipeg Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Today I am pleased to rise and offer congratulations on behalf of my caucus to Carol Shields named yest erday as the chancellor at the University of Winnipeg.

We offer congratulations as well to the University of Winnipeg for its timely and brilliant choice. As the NDP critic for the Status of Women, it warms my heart and gives me hope to realize that both the University of Winnipeg and the University of Manitoba have presidents who are women and that now the University of Winnipeg has a fe male chancellor. A strong fe male presence is absolutely essential to complement the univers ity's passage into the new millennium. Carol Shields, our very own Pulitzer Prize winner, is, of course, an internationally respected nove list and short story writer .

She is a well-respected teacher of creative writing who has taught at the University of Manitoba and who has been the �Titer-in-re sidence at the University of Winnipeg. Perhaps most important, Carol Shields has a reputation among v.riters and students for her intelligent, empathetic support and serious commibnent to the craft of writing, to the arts community and to people. As a chronicler of the human condition, Carol Shields is insightful. As an artist, she is creat ive. As a teacher, she knows the university and is closely connected to this institution.

As an artist and member of the arts community, she is a conscientious , responsible and dedicated citizen. The University of Winnipeg has chosen well. My caucus is delighted "'1th her appoinbnent. Finally, we congratulate Carol Shields too on her honorary Doctor of Letters to be presented at the University of Winnipeg Sunday convocation. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have a fe w items of House business. Firstly, I wish to announce the Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet Tuesday, June 4, 1996, at 10

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2847 a.m. until 12 noon in Room 255, to which will be referred a review of the Children's Advocate legislation and the Judicial Compensation Committee report. With respect to the Estimates sequence for today, in the House the Justice Estimates are set aside and will be replaced by the Department of Urban Affairs and, if time permits, the Seniors Directorate. Continuing in Room 254 are Highways, and Culture; and in Room 255 will be Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Sport.

For Thursday, at 9 a.m. in the House will be the Committee of Finance; Community Support Programs; Canada-Manitoba Enabling Vote; Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations; Emergency Expenditures; Internal Reform; Workforce Adjustments and General Salary Increases; Urban Economic Development Initiatives; Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Program; and Employee Benefits and Other Payments. That is in the House. In Room 254 will be the Department of Rural Development and Decentralization Initiatives.

In Room 255 in the morning will be the Department of Gov ernment Services and in the afternoon will be the Department oflndustry, Trade and Tourism. For Friday this week we have two committees. In the House will be Government Services if they do not finish tomorrow, followed by Northern and Native Affairs. In Room 255 will be the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism. Madam Speaker, would you call the following bills for second reading: Bill35, Bill26, Bill 57, Bill 52, Bill 53 and Bill45.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave for all the changes proposed by the honourable government House leader for the sequence of departments to be considered in the Committee of Supply? [Agreed] Do you have another item of House business before we commence second readings? Mr. Ernst: Considering the hour, Madam Speaker, I think we will call for second reading today only Bills 35 and 26. The other bills will be deferred. SECOND READINGS Bill 35-The Child and Family Services Amendment Act Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Edu�ation and Training, that The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les services a l'enfant et a la famille), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mrs. Mitchelson: This bill is a major step forward in protecting Manitoba's children from abuse. It is a fundamental part of the government's commitment to deal seriously with people who abuse our children. These amendments to The Child and Family Services Act will ensure that anyone guilty of abusing children will be listed on Manitoba's Child Abuse Registry.

The bill seeks to increase protection of children from abuse by expanding the scope of the provincial Child Abuse Registry. Experience in administering The Child and Family Services Act has shown that its definition of abuse is too narrow. At present it covers only parents and guardians and others caring for children. It does not cover third party offenders who are not in a position of trust or responsibility to a child. The expanded definition will now include third parties who do not have care, control, custody or charge of a child.

It will encompass anyone who sexually exploits a child, whether or not they are actually caring for a child. This will include pedophiles, dangerous sex offenders and users and procurers of children for sexual activity. * (1 450) This will make it possible to place the name of anyone found guilty of a crime involving abuse of a child on our Child Abuse Registry. As I have said, we intend to leave no doubt that abusers are abusers or that they threaten a child from within the family or from outside a child's family.

Bill 35 will ensure that there are no gaps in the reportin g of child abuse or the listing of abusers on the registry.

2848 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 The second major aspect of the bill concerns the obligation to report names for inclusion on the registry. In this area, one change applies to Manitoba courts. They will have to report the names of person found guilty or pleading guilty to an offence involving abuse of a child to the director of Child and Family Services for inclusion on the registry. Madam Speaker, the police will also have an expanded child protection role under our bill.

Once the police learn of the whereabouts of a child abuser in or moving to Manitoba, they will have to report that person's name for entry on the registry, except for those already reported by the courts. There is a critical aspect of this requirement to cover as many situations as possible. It will not matter whether an abuser's offence and/or conviction took place in Manitoba or outside the province. In either type of situation the name must be sent in for inclusion on the registry.

These changes to the Child Abuse Registry complement our government's earlier initiative of introducing community reporting of the presence of high-risk sexual offenders and establishing the Community Notification Advisory Committee to administer the procedure. With these amendments, we are ensuring that the names of abusers who have gone through the law enforcement and criminal justice systems will be sent to the registry as a consequence of their crimes. We want our children to grow up in an environment where they are protected from abuse.

In our society and in the policies of our government children and their care and protection are our highest priority. In this bill we are acting on our commitments to strengthen child protection and to deter child abusers. A more comprehensive Child Abuse Registry is one important tool with which to build a safer community for Manitoba's children. Madam Speaker, I know this bill will be supported by all members of this House and I ask for support to pass this bill before we rise on June 6. Mr.

Gary Kowalski (The Maples): It is a pleasure to rise and give support to this bill and we join the government in wishing this bill be passed as soon as possible, preferably passed and receive Royal Assent before we break for the sununer. As a police officer I know sometimes the difficulties in

interpretation of who really is in care and control of a child. This will remove any ambiguity in regard to that in that any person who has abused a child will now be put on the Child Abuse Registry and I think it speaks to the safety of our children. It also clarifies the obligation of courts to put people on the Child Abuse Registry and we think this will be a benefit for the children of Manitoba, so we ask all members of this House to consider passing this into committee and encouraging all members of this House and all parties to support this legislation and have it passed before we break for the sununer. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I, too, like the member from The Maples, would like in essence to complimc..1.t the minister on this particular bill. On going through the bill, my

interpretation or what has been explained to me, the part that I find-and I will be somewhat graphic if you like, there are pimps that are out there that take advantage with our children, and this is the type of bill that can address problems such as that. For that reason, I think the bill should warrant the opportunity even to receive Royal Assent before June 6. I know that the minister at least acknowledged that she would be prepared as gov ernment to have the bill go through its entire process and ultimately receive Royal Assent on June 6. The member for The Maples (Mr.

Kowalski), who is the critic for the Liberal Party re�r<ling Family Services, has already spoken to the bill and following his lead, my intentions are to be very short and brief and, in essence, to appeal to the New Democratic Party in reviewing this bill as quickly as possible and possibly agreeing at allowing this bill to receive Royal Assent primarily because I do think that this should be a relatively nonpolitical issue. It is something which the minister brought to our attention a while back and, after looking into the bill, we feel that the bill does deserve a lot of accolades.

For that reason, we support what appears to be the intentions of the bill and we would ask that the New Democrats do likewise and demonstrate-and it would not be the first time. I can recall a couple of years back when we had a bill regarding food distribution or the food banks, and it was more of a spontaneous gesture at that time where we saw all three political parties in the Chamber expedite

May 29, 1996 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2849 that particular bill, and it ultimately received Royal Assent. Madam Speaker, when we had appealed to the official oppos ition back then, they saw fit to allow it and, once again, we would like to appeal again to the New Democrats and hopefully see this bill receive Royal Assent before ultimately we adjourn or recess on June 6. Thank you. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 26-The Labour Relations Amendment Act Hon.

Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 26, The Labour Relations Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill 26,

an act to amend The Labour Relations Act. As I do so, I am sensitive to the fact that this House will be considering this legislation against a backdrop of unusual turmoil in some aspects of labour relations across Canada. This turmoil is marked not by unusual levels of conflict between employers and employees, but rather by an era of, frankly, partisan political conflict between governments and union leaders in many parts of Canada. In part, that is understandable.

In our neighbouring province of Ontario, the excesses of past governments have left the current administration with no option but to undertake massive and sudden downsizing of the public service. The employees affected in that province are naturally concerned. We have been fortunate in Manitoba that we have maintained and strengthened the management of our public affairs and never allowed it to sink to the levels that prevailed in Ontario under past governments.

So as we struggle to achieve a sustainable government, one that can meet its responsibilities at a cost that Manitobans can bear, we have faced few layoffs and have been able to manage the process with humanity and with consideration for the loyal men and women who make up Manitoba's outstanding public service. As members know, I am a former member of the Manitoba public service and I say that with pride.

Although our situation in Manitoba is very different than that of our neighbour, we are seeing much of the excessive rhetoric that has marked the Ontario arguments being imported by union leaders to our province. We are hearing extreme accusations and personal attacks, not from all quarters of the union movement, it is true, but from some. Abusive and unnecessary confrontation have no

part in our Manitoba tradition. They are simply alien and irrelevant to the values that Manitobans share, so I would hope that, as we debate this legislation, we can do so in a Manitoba way, that is, with civility and mutual respect. *

(1500) To begin with, I think that all of us in this House, along with a vast majority of Manitobans, can agree that organized labour and free collective bargaining play an important and largely positive role in the economy of Manitoba. Approximately 3 5 percent of all men and women in our provincial labour force belong to labour unions and, of course, the existence of this strong unionized sector influences wages, benefits and management practices across the economy as a whole.

The advocacy activities of unions have influenced the employment and workplace legislation that has evolved under successive Manitoba governments, contributing to the steady evolution of saf er, fairer and more humane employment practices. For the most part, collective bargaining has tended to work better and less disruptively in Manitoba than in many other jurisd ictions. Perhaps because of the strong sense of community that has always marked our society, we appear to be able to disagree without sacrificing mutual respect and basic civility.

As a result, we have enjoyed a labour relations climate that, in general, has been peaceful, orderly, and that has augmented both the fairness of our economy and the attractiv eness of Manitoba as a site for new job-creating investment. That is no accident. Many groups and individuals have worked in good faith to build bridges and mechanisms for

2850 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 resolving differences that reflect our uniquely Manitoban sense of community.

As laws affecting the workplace have evolved in Manitoba under governments of differing pol itical stripes, there have been fe w, if any, occas ions where either organized labour or management have been satisfied that their particular inter ests have scored a total victory, but in most cases, there has been a grudging acknowledgement that governments must strive to ensure that our investment climate remains attractive to business and to achieve continuous improvement in such key areas as workplace safe ty and health and overall employment standards.

In the process, we have evolved such unusual institutions as Manitoba's Labour Management Review Committee which provides an ongoing forum for labour and mana gement to work and reason together to provide government with advice about workplace legislation in gene ral. As a result of all of this, we have been able to achieve improvements in legislation and practice responding to chan ging precipitations and changing economic realities with a minimum of disruption.

It was in that spirit, for examp le, that Manitoba was able to achieve fmancial stability for a Workers Compensation Board without having to take the drastic measures that were needed in some Canadian province s. That spirit led to improvements we have made in maternity and paternity provi sions to better protect working parents and to ensure that our laws evolve in tandem with changes in the values and the real ities of our communities.

It lies behind the improvements we are making in The Pension Benefits Act and the strea mlining and improvements that we will be proposing for an integrated employment standards code. That same spirit animates the important modernizations we will be making with respect to technical safety. Compared to virtually every other ju risdiction in Canada, if not in North American, what has been outstanding about the evolution of labour relations and workplace legis lation in Manitoba has been that, in our province, the evolution has been characterized less by conflict than by consensus.

I stress these points as I rise in the House today to propose amendments to The Manitoba Labour Relations Act, the main piece of legislation that governs relationships between unions and employers and between unions and their memb ers, because it is important to say at the onset that our government's intention is not to alter the balance between unions and employers that exists in the current act. The current balance has, gener ally speaking, served our collective interests and the interests of those involved in the bargaining proce ss.

So the main focus of the amendments I am proposing today is not the relationship between unions and employers . Instead, those amendmen ts, like an important part of the amendments that were enacted under a New Democratic government in 1985, focus on the relationship between unions and their members and, like those changes , enhancing individual workers' rights. The changes I am proposing today aim to enhance individual worker s' rights by strengthe ning the accountability, the transparency and the perceived fairness of internal union operat ion.;.

It may be useful to members if I quickly describe the main impact of that earlier 1985 set of amendment s. The principle behind those changes in the law was described as the duty of fair representa tion. The most important substantive changes made at that time were a strengthened requirement for strike votes and for votes among employees as to whether to accept or rej ect managem ent offers. Those changes were not seen nor intended to be antiunion actions by the government of the day.

Rather, the main intention of the changes was to ensure that the internal democracy and accountability of labour unions was clear and visible to all, because unions can best play a positive role on behalf of their members and in the broader community if they are seen to be fair, open and democratic in their operatio ns. The changes I am proposing today arise from the same motivation.

I believe, by enhancing union democracy and the accountability of union leadership to its ov.n members, we also enhance the legit imacy and authority that unions can bring to the task of participating as pos itive agents of change within the industries where their members are employed and in the broader society of Manitoba. We also believe leaving more rather than fe wer matters to work out through free collective bargaining is the route we ought to follow in Manitoba.

Governme nt's role is to set the parameters, the basic and balanced legal context within which unions and emplo yers can meet their shared responsibilities for the

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 285 1 welfare ofboth enterprises and employees. Today, more than at any time in the recent past, that will require both unions and managements to respond to fundamental changes, to find new ways of relating, to innovate and to adju st to a new set of competitive realities that inescapably will affect Manitoba industries as they are affecting enterprises all over the industrialized world. Like it or not, changes in technology, and in the end, international terms of trade mean that the economy is changing in Manitoba, and we have to change with it.

Our enterprises and our entire economy have no choice but to respond to meet tougher competition in our export markets and here at home. Interprovincial trade barriers are coming down, so we will face greater competition for markets and for investment from other parts of Canada . International barriers are also coming down. At the same time , technology is transforming industries throughout the economy, leaving firms with no option but to modernize if they are to compete successfully.

And for unions and management, the need to respond to these changes implies a new and broader agenda that they have to deal with than in the past. That new agenda must include an understanding of the vulnerability of virtually all companies and virtually all jobs in the face of global competition. It must include a recognition that lifelong employment by a single firm will become rarer. Because that is undeniably true, an increasingly important new focus for the employer-employee relationship will be on finding ways of working and relating that will contribute to lifelong employability.

That will increasingly become the best way that unions can serve their members' interests. Playing a positive role in defining and addressing this new agenda will certainly stress some traditional union practices and operations. For example, where technology transforms a multistep process into a two-step process, that must change the rules of work just as it changes the skill and knowledge requirements for the people doing that work.

Successful competition will require that enterprises strive to reduce costs and cycle times and to improve quality and service that will demand greater workplace flexibility and more active and innovative union management relations than we have seen in the past. Many unions understand that. The amalgamations that have occurred within union ranks mean that more and more unions have the resources and the capabilities to analyze and understand these changes and to play an effective leadership role in what really amounts to a redefinition of the workplace in the face of worldwide competitive change.

But change is always discomfitting, and union members will need as much confidence as possible that their leadership is truly pursuing their interests as they become engaged in this process of change. In many ways Manitoba is fortunate in that we are facing these challenges at a time when for the most part our economy is experiencing steady and healthy growth. During 1995, we saw that growth in manufacturing, agriculture, banking, mining, transportation, retail sales and nonresidential construction.

The net impact of that steady growth against a backdrop, a weakness in the housing sector and of necessary but carefully managed downsizing in the public sector led to a very healthy increase of 2 percent in average employment in our provmce. * (1510 ) To put that gain in context, let me tell you that it was significantly above the national average and more than double Manitoba's average employment growth rate over the past 20 years. Farm cash receipts have grown more quickly than the national average.

Our mining industry is expanding with nonfuel mineral production up roughly one-third last year, and the long-term indicators are even healthier. Point of Order Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like you to call the Minister of Labour to order, please.

I believe the purpose of introducing this bill for second reading is to outline the principles of this piece of legislation, and I fail to see what the relevance of his current statements on the record have to do with the elements and the principles of Bill 26, and I would ask you to call him to order to deal specifically with what is in the legislation before us. Mr. Toews: That is exactly what I am doing, Madam Speaker. This is a very important piece of legislation and it is not always easy to put things in a simplified form that the member would like.

I believe I have a right in this House to outline exactly what the purpose of the bill

2852 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 is and what the essential elements of that bill are, and I would appreciate that the member opposite would respect my right to speak in this House and that when I speak for workers, she cannot just stand up and say that he has no right to speak. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I was listening to the Minister of Labour very carefully and he was discussing at some length the economic conditions in Manitoba. He was describing the economy.

He was clearly not discussing, at this point, for the last several minutes, the principles of the bill, and therefore I think the point made by the honowable member for Wellington should be very well taken. Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I understand the frustration, perhaps, of the members opposite in that their union bosses do not want to have this kind of legislation come forward.

The fact of the matter is, though, nothing impacts on organized labour more than the economy and the changes in the economy, and the context of the changes in the economy are exactly what the minister is talking about. They have a significant impact, and that context is what he has to provide in order to give the explanations with respect to the changes in The Labour Relations Act. So in my view the minister is on track, right on track, in talking about these issues. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if the member for Transcona (Mr.

Reid) and the government members on the other side that want to continue with this debate do so outside the Chamber. I thank all honourable members for their advice. On the point of order, regrettably, I did not hear the exact comments that caused the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) to raise the point of order, but I would remind the honourable minister that his comments, indeed, are supposed to be addressing the principles of the bill. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his comments. Mr.

Toews: As I was indicating, the principles of the bill are primarily designed to take aware of the economy that is occurring not just here in Manitoba, but the global economy that we face. We do not just work in Transcona; we do not just work in Rossmere; we work in a global economy. As I have indicated, we are fortunately at a time when the long-term indicators are healthy for Manitoba. Capital investment is increasing; key manufacturing is up four times the national average. Once again, this is no accident.

Government policies, including policies related to labour relations, have contributed to solid economic progr ess. Overdue actions at all levels of government in Canada to contain deficits and bring down total government indebtedness have helped to create a climate of lower interest rates and greater investment confidence. All this is good news, but it does not make the necessity for change to go away.

But healthy, growing enterprises operating in a stable fiscal environment are better able to mana ge and change and adapt to new kinds of relationships, just as the unions who represent the employees of such enterprises have an opportunity to take a longer view and begin to develop new goals and strategies to serve their members' long-term interests. That is the purpose of the main amendments to The Labour Relations Act that I am proposing today. These changes aim to strengthen, simplifY and make more visible the essential democratic nature of union organizations.

They aim to make sure that union members believe and understand that they control their unions and not vice versa and they aim to hand more responsibility rather than less responsibility to unions and managements to address the challenges of a changing workplace and a changing competitive environment. I am proposing six significant amendments to the act today. The first deals with votes relating to the certification of a new union. In the past, like much of labour relations law in Manitoba and elsewhere, these provisions have been relatively complex.

At some levels of support for certification, a vote of all employees has been required and at others it has not. We are going to make it simpler and more open by saying that in any case where an application for certification meets the threshold level of 40 percent of employees, there will be a government supervised secret ballot vote conducted under the auspices of the Manitoba Labour Board, and the vote must be held quickly. From the union standpoint, this new regime will ensure that all newly certified unions

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2853 will be seen as fully legitimate . From the standpoint of employees, unions and management, the quickness of the process will minimize disruption and uncertainty. The basic reference point here is clear. When in doubt, union members should decide in a fair and open way. That is the basis of democracy. It is accepted by people around the world and it reflects the values that Manitobans share.

There should be no objections to this amendment from anyone, because that basic reference point is clearly and patently democratic and fair. * (1 520) The second amendment we are proposing may on the face of it seem somewhat more controversial.

We are proposing to amend The Labour Relations Act to require that all unions file full financial disclosure with the Manitoba Labour Board each year, disclosure to their employees, which must include the salaries of all officers and employees of the union, the benefits paid to officers and employees, political contributions, all advertising and publici ty expenses, all gifts and grants. Any employee in any bargaining unit of the union will be able to obtain that information from the Manitoba Labour Board.

Now, I say that on the face of it this amendment may appea r to be a little more controversial than the requirement for certification votes, but all of us in this House have to live with the reality that the community knows how much we earn and they have a right to know that because our earnings come out of their money. Public Accounts put total spending decisions of government clearly in front of our electorate each year in great and sometimes uncomfortable detail.

If those who elect us, either as private members and as members of governments, are displeased with the way we are rewarding ourselves and the way we are husbanding their money, they have access to that information so that they can vote us out of office. It is a useful discipline and it is as it should be. The people who put up the money have a right to know how it is being spent. Madam Speaker, the same principle should apply to union leaders and employees.

Their salaries and other expenses the unions incur are made up of money that belongs to the people in their bargaining units, including union members and nonunion members alike.

Under the Rand Formula employees and unionized bargaining units are legally compelled to pay union dues as a condition of employment, and the principle applied, those who put up the money and are legislatively required to pay that money have a right to know how it is being spent when the Legislature gives that money to third parties, and their members have a right to know how that money is being spent by ensuring that this financial information is available to union members and all members of the bargaining unit.

This amendment will strengthen the legitimacy of unions as key institutions in our society, institutions that have obligations of openness that compare to those that other organizations have to meet. I think the reasoning is clear and that it is beyond argument, so I really do not anticipate a great deal of controversy around this amendment. The main reason for that, of course, is that I do not believe that there is systematic or widespread abuse within the union movement. There will certainly be some discomfort among union leaders as they move to comply with this new requirement.

Like you and me and the rest of us in this House, Madam Speaker, they will feel a certain reticence at the thought of making what they consider personal financial information available, but like me and the rest in this House, they will realize the essential fairness of the proposition, that when you are spending someone else's money, the people who have been compelled by legisla tion to pay their personal money to a non governmental agent have a right to know. I suppose the fair question might be can they not find out now, and if they can, why change the law?

Well, in theory, union members can find out all of this information, Madam Speaker. They merely have to go to union headquarters and ask for it, but that is an illusion. Unionized workers are dependent on their membership in good standing for continued employment. Even if we assu me, and for the most

part I do assume, that unions will not abuse this power, we have to acknowledge that the imbalance in power between those who spend the money and those who pay it is too great for this situation to be transparently fair. It is the same basic reason that has led governments to require publicly traded companies to file extensive financials with government. In fact, it is interesting to note that publicly traded companies have faced far higher disclosure requirements than unions, despite the fact that unlike bargaining unit members who are legally

2854 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 compelled to pay union dues, shareholders are always free to sell their stock. It is not the government's job to tell unions how they can spend their money, and that is not our intention as we bring this amendment forward, but we do want to make sure that union members and bargaining members can control how their dues are spent and are seen to be able to do so. So let us make it transparent; let us make it open.

As all of us in this House know, it is a useful and sobering discipline, and it is a discipline that union members and other employees in bargaining units across Manitoba deserve to be protected by. It is simple. In a democratic organization like a union, the people who put up the money have the right to know how it is being spent. They also have a right to a significant degree of control as to how that money is spent. The third amendment I am proposing goes to that principle. This change may, I suppose, have some potential, again, for controversy. It relates to union participation in politics.

Let me make it clear. This government does not object to such participation if it represents the will of bargaining unit members. In fact, Madam Speaker, the party I belong to would be pleased to receive support from any union that chooses to support us if their members wish to provide us with that support. The amendment I am proposing will provide any union member or other member of the bargaining unit with the right to say that his or her dues may not be used for political purposes but rather be redirected to a registered charity of the employee's choice. We are not altering the compulsory check-off system.

We are not limiting the ability of union organizations to contribute to support political parties that they believe share their views, but we are strengthening the ability of individual bargaining unit members to say, yes, I agree with that, or, no, that is not how I want my money spent. Once again, this amendment goes to a redress of the bal ance of power between union membership and bargaining unit members. Will many people use this new right?

Frankly, I do not know, but it is a right that any working man and woman in Manitoba ought to have because the money being spent is their money, and, again, this is the same reason that the fourth amendment I am proposing. The amendment will require that members of the bargaining unit vote in a secret ballot, government supervised vote, conducted by the board on the employer's final offer prior to any strike where it is in the public interest to do so. Ontario and British Columbia both have that legislation.

In fact, when the Ontario Federation of Labour asked the New Democratic governme nt to repeal that provision in Ontario, the New Democratic government said about the same provision, no, we will not, and in fact used it in a very effective case where the union leadership had lost touch with its membership. Will this amendment lead to fewer strikes in Manitoba?

Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I do not know, but I do know that it will create a situation in which there will be no strikes, in which the decision is made by anyone other than the people who ought to make it, the rank and file members of the bargaining unit. The last two amendments I am putting before the House today could be viewed as simple housekeeping, but I think they are both important as examples of the tradition of civil labour mana gement relations and free collective bargaining that has evolved in Manitoba over the years.

The Manitoba Labour Relations Act provides for a process called expedited grievance mediation arbitration. This process allows either party to refer a grievance to the Labour Board rather than working through the normal grievance process established in their collective agreement. In these cases, the board moves quickly to settle the grievance through mediation and/or arbitration. The original reason, if you go back to the NDP briefing notes of the day, was that time-sensitive agreements should be handled in that way.

That is why provisions of a collective agreement should be overridden, but we know that in too many cases, parties are calling for expedited process rather than working things out through the collective agreement, even though there is no particular urgency to the matters being referred. We continue to believe that in truly urgent cases governments should continue to be involved, through the board, to provide a speedy resolution, but we also believe that in the vast majority of disagreements between employers and unions, they should work that out through their own collective bargaining situation.

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 2855 The final amendment I am proposing relates to

Section 12 of the act dealing with reinstatement after strike or lockout. The intent of this provision has always been clear. It aims to ensure that no employee is exposed to punishment for exercising their legal rights under The Labour Relations Act, but this

section was never intended to mean that people would be unaccountable for illegal action simply because those actions occurred in the course of labour management disagreement. * (1 530) Recently, however, there has been a decision of the Labour Board that interpreted the provision in precisely that way. That decision seemed to say that if there was a strike in progress, people were free to break the law. That is not the intent of this section.

It never was, and it offends the values that Manitobans share, so we are simply amending the legislation to make it clear that this protection extends only to apply to legal activities and does not provide a licence to law breaking. If you break the law, you pay the penalty whether you are in labour or manageme nt, whether there could be a strike in progress or not. That is the kind of legislation Manitobans want, and I believe it is the vast kind of legislation that bargaining member people want as well. I said, as I began, that organized labour plays a significant and largely positive role in our economy.

The generally responsible history of Manitoba unions, like that of Manitoba employers, contribute to a stable labour relations climate, and that, in turn, helps to make Manitoba continue to be an attractive place to invest and create jo bs and opportunities and a good place to be either an employer or an employee. As our economy changes, unions face new challenges to learn to innovate, to provide leadership in the evolution of new relationships in the economy. Manitobans believe that kind ofleadership can be provided by organizations that are clearly and transparently accountable to their members.

The amendments I am proposing here today, by ensuring that unions are more open, democratic and accountable to their membership, will enhance their ability to meet those challenges and to serve the interests of their members across Manitoba. Thank you very much. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, I beli eve as has been my experience in past years in this House to have the opportunity to ask questions of the minister pertaining to legislation, so I am requesting leave for the opportunity to ask those questions.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Transcona have leave to pose questions to the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews)? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied. Mr. Reid: I do not know why the members opposite are refusing to give leave. I thought it was a practice ofthis House where this would be second reading of the bill- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona has the right to request leave. It is up to the House to decide whether leave will or will not be granted. I posed the question and leave was denied. Ms.

Becky Barrett (Wellington): I move, seconded by the member for Transcona, that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to recognizing the govermnent House leader (Mr. Ernst), I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Now, do I have the attention of all honourable members? Good. I would like to draw to their attention that there are thirty-five Grade 6 students from Melita School under the direction of Mr. Paul Witt.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of

2856 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a comrnitee to consider of Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a conunittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty, with the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation and the Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship; the honourable member for La Verendtye (Mr.

Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Urban Affairs. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION Mr. Chairperson (Gerry McAlpine): Would the Committee of Supply please come to order. This afternoon this

section of the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 254, will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Highways. When the conunittee last sat, it had been considering iteml5.1. Administration and Finance (

b) Executive Support (

I) Salaries and Employee Benefits, on page 80 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Chair, are we approaching the capital projects of the department? Mr. Chairperson: We are on 15. 1 .( b)(

l) on page 80, Executive Support. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Chairperson, actually I had a few questions that I want to ask before we start passing the lines. The first one was in regard to a constituent whom I met at our local McDonald' s. He was trying to get some inf ormation in regard to policy on truckdrivers, in particular regarding the logbooks. In one particular incident, I understand that there were two drivers, one was driving the truck obviously, one was the pas senger. The passenger was requested to provide a driving log.

I am wondering if the minister can indicate what oblig ations a passenger would have in terms of making available that kind of material. Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): When a vehicle or truck is stopped on the road by a compliance officer or the RCMP and they request the logbooks, the driver is required to supply the logbook. Ifhe does not supply it, he is in contravention. In numerous instances, they also would be asking for the book from the co-driver, and the normal process is the co driver would supply it.

In one particular case involving a particular co-driver and a particular company-! do not know exactly when that was-June of'95, the co-driver refused to supply the logbook. A subsequent court decision was that the

interpretation of the word "driver" was not clear enough such that legally the co-driver was not in violation by not providing his logbook. But the normal processes both do. In this case, strangely enough, later on when the logbooks were seen, both logbooks were in compliance. So there is a little glitch in the definition within our provincial legislation to be sure that the co-driver is also in that instance considered to be one of the drivers, so a small technical glitch, but the driver provided the logbook and the driver was in compliance. Mr.

Lamoureux: Is it then the minister's intention on bringing in some sort of amendment to the legislation if that would be required in order to resolve that glitch, or is the minister quite content with the current system and leaving it, because it seems if there is the one case, that it is not really a problem area. Does the department feel that it is essential that the co driver make available their log upon request? If the minister can just give some sort of indication of what the department's intentions are regarding it. * (1 540) Mr. Findlay: The issue that I have described does not happen on a rampant basis.

I am not aware of any other instance where a co-driver refuses to also offer his logbook for inspection, but there are a lot of other issues around driver hours and all that kind of thing. There is a major North American study that is going on right now on driver hours, driver fatigue. It has been

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2857 going on for three years. The results of that study will be available to transportation authorities in North America fairly soon, and in that context, I am prepared to look at it. But when we only have one incident where there was nothing in error anyway, where a person chose to be maybe a little obstinate in the process, that is not worth doing the changes because it is not a problem in the industry. It was not even a problem in that case, it was just a personality circumstance, I would suggest.

When we look at the overall picture of this study, looking at the broader issue of driver fatigue and hours and all that sort of thing, there will be broader changes likely that will be considered and we will deal with it at that time. But it is recorded and noted. Mr. Lamoureux: The report that the minister makes reference to, I would be interested-! have a number of truckdrivers actually in my area, as I am sure everyone does- I would not mind to be provided a copy of it when it becomes available if the minister would be able to do something of that nature. I do not know how public the document actually is. Mr.

Findlay: The study is funded by Transport Canada and trucking companies. I have no knowledge that it will not be made public, but the decision will be made by the people who paid for the research to be done. I think in the broader interest of public safety, concerns about trucks, it probably should be released. But I cannot commit that it will because I am not the person who will make that decision. But it is a North American-wide one, so it will have a lot of implication to a lot of people, and the people who commissioned it and who will m ake recommendations from it will make that decision. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Chairperson, I actually have the privilege of representing or at least a number of the trucking finns are located in my area and jointly with the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) in some cases. They tend to gravitate to that area and I am very much appreciative of that fact. The trucking industry as a whole, from what I understand, is in need of employees. I am wondering if the minister can ju st give the committee some sort of an update of the employee demands that are currently out there. Mr. Findlay: Employee demands. Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, for employees. I understand that there is- Mr.

Findlay: Or demand for employees. Mr. Lamoureux: --demand for employees. I understand that the job market is ac tually fairly positive in that area or a few prospects for jobs. Mr. Findlay: In the broader context of what is happening in terms of transportation, particularly truck transportation, there is an expanded activity in the trucking industry not only in terms of the big companies and the long-haul contracts that they have in Canada and outside of Canada, there is also a very active expanding trucking indu stry-small truckers--developing and expanding in rural Manitoba.

I think it was about a year, year and a half ago, maybe a year and a half ago, there was a fair bit of concern, a l ot of talk about the shortage of drivers. My understanding is a lot of that demand for drivers has been basically filled. I know there are private driving schools. I know that, through the Department of Education, we and the Manitoba Trucking Association were part of funding a driver training process. There may be some companies have a little more trouble acquiring drivers than other companies.

That probably reflects on how drivers are treated in companies, yet it might be a perceived shortage of drivers, but many carriers are having no trouble finding an adequate number of drivers. I do not think there is anything wrong with the nature and type and experience and professionalism of the drivers out there either. There is nothing to indicate there is any problem, that people brought in people who did not have enough education, training or experience. I do not see any evidence of that happening, so I think the market is being reasonably filled.

I would not say it is 10 0 percent filled, but reasonably filled. I think for a young person or anybody who aspires to be a driver and wants to take the training and get the proper licensing and has the appropriate clean driver's licence, job opportunities are very, very good. I know of many young couples who will go driving, two of them, for a period of years to put away a grubstake before they build a hous e, start a family and that sort of thing. So the opportunities are good for the committed and the professional drivers.

2858 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 29, 1996 Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Chairperson, before I go on to the other topic, the training programs that are out there, does the department monitor them? I am thinking in particular companies like Reimer that would have training programs for truckers, in particular, long-haul trucking. What role does the department play in terms of training? Mr. Findlay: There is one company, I believe it is Reimer's, that has a training school, and we certifY the company who in turn certifies their drivers.

That provision is available to any company if it wants to do it, but they are the only ones so far doing it. In terms ofthe private driving schools, trade schools, they have certain licensing under the Department of Education, not under us, but clearly before they get their licence they have to pass the license testing for DDVL. So that is our basic involvement.

Just on the broader question, it is clearly my understanding that every trucking company is very, very concerned about safety overall, not only with their rigs but their drivers, and certainly their insurance company makes them aware of the consequences of not having a good driving record, so there are a lot of checks and balances there.

I think we also have a program that allows the company to review the licence of a person who is applying for work so that, if there are any problems on his licence in another jurisdiction, we can make the company aware of that, so that they can cross-reference what the employee has said about the cleanness of his record. So there are a lot of checks and balances to ensure that we have good drivers with clean driving records, and I think the industry responsibleness to safety is very, very good. Mr.

Lamoureux: From the trucking industry I want to move on to the taxi industry, which is another very important industry, as most industries are, obviously, but I have a specific interest in this area because many of my constituents are also quite involved in that particular industry. A couple of years back there was some legislation that was passed, and the minister might recall the legislation. It was somewhat controversial; in fact, out of that legislation that ultimately did receive third reading, there was a commitment made by government to have some sort of a working group. I know the member for St.

Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) was quite involved; I was quite involved. There was the minister who expressed interest in terms oftrying to see if in fact the legis lation could be modified to take into consideration some of the things that were being stated. There were aspects of the legislation that were not going to be proclaimed until well after the bill receiving Royal Assent. I am wondering if the minister mi ght be able to give us some sort of an update in terms of that particular piece of legislation. * (1550 ) Mr. Findlay: Mr.

Chairman, through the discuss ion on that bill, it was about three years ago, the commitment to set up the committee was not a government commitment; it was an industry commitment to set the committee up. I am not aware that that working group ever got up and running, and the government was not to proclaim it until it was up and running and functioning. We have had no requests from the Taxicab Board that we should proceed with proclamation. My general

interpretation, things are working reasonably well in the industry; there is no need to do anything that might in any fashion upset that sort of status quo. Through the course of time and events, the conflicts of that point in time seem to have, as far as I am aware, been reasonably resolved. I am not saying fully resolved but reasonably resolved such that the industry seems to be functioning without the level of controversy, conflict, circumstance that existed at that time. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Chairperson, I would request of the minister at least some form of prior notification if it is at all possible regarding the future of that legis lation if at some point in time the government is looking at proclaiming. The reason why is that I have a number of good personal close friends to a certain degree that would be more than happy to be able to sit dov.n with departmental officials to explain from their perspective any thoughts-or, I should not say, any thoughts-any problem areas from within the industry because it is one of those issues which never takes too much in order to get people really wound up.

The minister was part of the process, Mr. Norquay was a part of the process, so they are fairly farnliar with what it is I am talking about. My role, I would like to think, in this particular area is just to ensure that there is more harmony within the industry. If there is, in fact, a need, or if the government does feel that there is a need for movement in that industry, I would welcome any

May 29, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2859 opportunity to make myself available for input and possi bly even some industry reps, who, I know, would have nothing but good intentions. Some might have questionable intentions within the industry, but there are a lot of fme, outstanding individuals within the industry who would do what is in the best interests of the industry. I will leave that and then go on to another area unless the minister wants to comment. Mr. Findlay: Mr.

Chairman, I will just receive that as honest and honourable input from the member and commit to him that I like harmony where it can be found and however it can be found, and currently it is there, as I understand it, and I have no intention of doing anything that would in any way disrupt that harmony. But, if circumstances change in the future, as we revisit it, I will remember what the member said and see how we can be sure we can find an avenue to harmony, and I know legislation often is not an automatic answer to harmony.

There are other ways, and with the member's contact with that particular community, are they willing to use his efforts in the future if a conflict should come up that would require further work? So I thank him. Mr. Lamoureux: I appreciate the gesture from the minister. The last issue I want to bring up was the one of asphalt purchasing. I had received a letter, and I believe it was from Saskatchewan, where I understand the province now is going to be purchasing asphalt from the States as opposed to Saskatchewan.

The concern, as expressed within the letter, was that preferential treatment is often provided to the person or the company that ultimately won the bid from within its own jurisdiction. So they feel that the bidding process might have allowed that company to be able to underbid the one in Moose Jaw, thereby potentially putting the viability of the company in Moose Jaw at risk in the long term, and, as a result, the prairie region could ultimately lose an asphalt plant. I am wondering if the minister is at all aware of the asphalt tender that went out or if he might be in a position to be able to comment on it.

Mr. Findlay: As I understand the particular circum stance that the member raises, we in the process of our Highways capital activity, we tender contracts. The people who bid on the tenders, particularly with asphalt, have all been Canadian companies. Where the company then gets the product from is a choice of theirs. We do not have any control over where they source the product from.

I think he is referring to one particular company that has an office of operation here in Winnipeg, bid from here as a Manitoba company, and a certain company in Saskatchewan is claiming that maybe that company had an unfair advantage because the source product is from the States. That company which laid the complaint and all the rest of Manitoba-type companies face this same preferential disadvantage across the U.S. border. We do not have control over where they source the product, have not had, but we deal with tenders that are Canadian based.

For the good of the taxpayer, we look for the best quality at the lowest price. That has been our process. If the member is asking that we should be more diligent to prevent product coming from the U.S., maybe we might be raising the cost of the product and then the cost of our tenders, and for $1 0 million of contract work at asphalt, we get less miles done. So there is a downside to it, too. It is secondary event that the company did. It was not an American company that bid; it was a Canadian company. *

(1600) Mr. Lamoureux: The reason why I bring it up is just more so to feel somewhat assured that the minister is aware of it, primarily because asphalt production is not something that every city in itself does. The concern that I would have is what more of a predatorial type of bidding that might take place in the future. In particular, if you have a company that is artificially lowering its price in an attempt to enlarge the market, and once it has the market, then it starts to put up the price. It gets a bit more awkward.

In the short term, there might some benefits; the long term would be somewhat questionable. I respect what the minister said, and, at that point, Mr. Chairperson, we are quite prepared to pass. Mr. Chairperson: Item 15.1.(b)(

l) Salaries and Employee Benefits $438,900. Mr. Dewar: I would like to ask the minister a number of questions related to roads and highways in the Selkirk

2860 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May29, 1996 constituency. There are two that I would like to raise today. One is the River Road, and I have calls from constituents every year at this time concerned about the dust problems of that particular road. I understand that the government has in the past put on some type of a dust retardant. Once again, I have received those calls, and I just would like to ask the minister what plans he has to deal with that particular problem on that particular road. This is the River Road in the Lockport-St. Andrews area. He is fam iliar with that. Mr.

Findlay: River Road, there are a couple of things happening there. One is, there is about three-quarters of a million dollars being spent on slope stabilization of a certain component along the Red River. Some of that was done last year, and the rest will be completed this year. The road receives dust treatment every year, but after the spring soft period, a certain little bit of deterioration happens in the roads, so bef ore dust treatment is put on every year, the road should be reshaped.

If additional gravel is needed, it is put on and the road brought up to an acceptable standard in terms of grading and gravelling. Then the dust treatment is put on. If you put the dust treatment on bef ore that, when you put the fresh gravel on, you lose the benefit of the dust treatment. So the normal process, when the spring softness is over, gravelling and grading happens and then dust control. That process will be used again this year, and I would imagine the department is either in or very close to the process of reshaping and gravelling and preparing for dust treatment. Mr. Dewar: Mr.

Chairman, a concern has been raised by a constituent, and it makes a lot of sense, that each year the department spends money on this particular treatment that you just described. Would it not cost less fo r there to be a long-term solution, either a paving or a seal placed on that road, so that there is a long-term solution to this problem? Mr.

Findlay: In terms of the overall geometry and circumstance of the road, I have already mentioned to the member that there is slope stabilization that is necessary to be done, and that should definitely be done bef ore any surf ace is put on the road because if the road slid, the surf ace would crack, break, and you would lose the investment you put in there. In addition to that, the road needs some work, particularly on some curves. The curves need to be softened, not quite so sharp, and that work should be done bef ore any surf acing is done.

But at the present time, the process of what we are doing is the least-cost option, but we are proceeding towards the longer-term plan, and that is once the slope stabilization is done, we will look very carefully at whether the road warran ts surf acing, but bef ore we do the surf acing, we want to do the curve softening at the same time. So there is a long-term plan to make it a better road, and I think, ultimately, it will end up with a surf ace on it thal everybody is happy with, a road that will last for a long time and curves that will be a little saf er in terms of curvature.

There are a lot of elements there, but the final element is the surf acing which from my understanding of the warrants would indicate that it should be done. Mr. Dewar: I want to thank the minister. As the minister is aware, this is a heritage road. It is a well travelled road, as well. I do hope that he will consider this in his long-term plans for capital investment in terms ofhi ghways and that t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-42a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 42a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	53c378a4c4ddce3b0f342ced4d26a625f7a232b0

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