LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA TUesday, 9 July, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Pres enting Petitions . . Reading and Rec eiving Petitions . . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTE ES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Commit tee on Municipal Affairs. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Your commi ttee met on Tuesday , July 9, 1985 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building. As Honour able Mr. Anstett had resigned as Chairman, Mr. Eyler was elected to replace him.

Your committee heard repres entations with respect to the bills before the committee as follows: Bill No. 83,

An Act to amend The Municipal Assessment Act and Various Ot her Acts of the Leg islature; Loi modifiant la

loi sur !'e valua tion municipale et d'autres dispositions statutaires: Mr. Murray Smith - Manitoba Te achers' Society. Your committee has considered: Bill No. 68,

An Act to amend The Mu nicipal Boundaries Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les limit es municipales. Bill No. 69,

An Act to amend The Municipal Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les municipalit es. Bill No. 83,

An Act to amend The Mu nicipal Assessment Act and Various Ot her Acts of the Legislature; Loi modifiant la

loi sur !'e valuation municipale et d'autres dispositions statutaires. And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for lnkster, that ·the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seco nded by the Member for lnkster, that the Report of the Commit tee be received.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motions . . . Introduction of Bills ... ORAL QUESTIONS French language rights - government policy on MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

Last ev ening, when the Minister of Health spoke and advocated that the government ought to proceed with a constitutional amendment and legislation similar to what was proposed in the 1983 Session of the Legislature with respect to French language rights, was the Minister of Health, when he spoke la st even ing, ind icating government policy? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker , I have made very very clear from the day that the Supreme Court handed down its decision that although the Supreme Court decision was a tough one, was a difficult one insofar as Manitobans would be concerned, that we would be obeying the Supreme · Court decision. An application would be made to the Supreme Court pursuant to the judgment itself or the appropriate time period in which we could be asking time in order to translate the statutes. The Minister of Health is in support of that approach, Mr. Speak er, and not in opposition to that approach as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Mr. Speaker , I'm not certain that the Premier and his colleagues and others on this side were listening to the same speech last even ing because clearly the Minister of Health was advocating that the government ought to proceed with a proposal similar to that which was rejected in 1983, that Is, a constitutional amendment on French language rights. Was the Minister of Health indicating government policy when he spoke last even ing? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I've responded to that question.

I've indicated what government policy is concerned and the Leader of the Opposition for his own purposes is not properly reflecting the position of the Minister of Health. MR. G. FILMON: We ll, Mr. Speaker, I will not reflect as to what the Minister was advocating last even ing. I will simply ask the Premier: was the Minister of Health indicating government policy when he spoke last even ing? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, how many times do I have to make it very very clear to the Leader of the Opposition whose research is obviously in some difficulty? lt's been reflected day by day in this House throughout the Session, that the statement I issued in 3719

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 this House - was it June 12th or 13th? - is government policy, that remains government policy, then application has been made to the Supreme Court of Canada and I gather the hearing will take place likely sometime in October or early November. We antic ipate the Supreme Court will be reasonable in response to that application that will be made to them in order to set an appropriate time period in which we can proceed with the translations.

As onerous as that may be, that is the will of the Supreme Court of Canada, the highe st court in the land from which th ere is no appeal and whether honourable members like it or not, we are obliged to follow the Supreme Court decision. The Minister of Health ind icated that he wished there was a different approach, a dif ferent alternative, that was available. We all wish, Mr. Speaker, that there was a dif ferent approach that was available and anybody in their right mind would wish there was a different alternativ e and approach. That is no longer a relative position, Mr. Speaker .

We will be proceed ing to the Supreme Court, as I indicated in this House some three we eks ago, that is government's position. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speak er, last even ing the Minister of Health took positions that apparently are different from the policy of the government of this province on issues such as the aid to inde pendent schools, such as the French language rights. How are the people of Manitoba to know when the Minister of Health is speak ing, whether or not he is speaking government policy? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health, in fact, indicated to me just a few moments ago, that he has ind icated already that any suggestion that might be ma de that we reintroduc e a consti tutional amendment would be asinine, Mr. Speaker. So the Lead er of the Opposition need not attempt to misrepr esent the position of the Minister of Health in this Chamber. The Leader of the Opposition has enough difficulty in his own ranks, Mr. Speaker, when we see them split votes in this Chamber on the basis of who supports who for leadership across the way. When only the other day, Mr.

Speaker, we saw the split in the ranks of the opposition when the education critic voted one way in an important matter per taining to education, the Leader of the Opposition voted another way by a vote of some 11 to six. So let the Leader of the Opposition reflect insofar as the problems that he is confronted with, Mr. Speaker. We have no problems on this side of the House.

The Leader of the Opposition is the one that has found him self and his party plunging in the polls the last few months. lt is the Leader of the Opposition that is nervous and is reflect ing that during the last thr ee or four days in this Cham ber. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had a member of my Cabine t call me naive, say th at I was inexperienced, say that I mishandled the matters before the House. Mr. Speake r, this Premier has.

My question is: in view of the fact of the highly unusual spectacle last ev ening of the Minister of Health standing up in this House and distancing himself from his Premier , is the Premier going to repu diate the statements of the Minister of Health if they do not represent public policy? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know again how many times it will be before the Leader of the Opposition will realize that he is misinterpreting the position of the Minister of Health in this House.

I pay tribute to the thinking that was expressed by a member of this House who sat in this House for 27 years as a Francophone member in this House, who represents a constituency that is mainly Francophone in respect to the waste involved in the Supreme Court decision. I associate myself with that concern as to the toughne ss of the Supreme Court decision. But, Mr.

Speak er, th at does not mean tha t all members in this House do not concur with the need to fulfill the dir ections of the Supreme Court decision, the need to make application to the Supreme Court in order to obtain the time frame that is required in order to translate the statutes. Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about his Prime Minister. He's concerned about COR. He's got a lot of irritants that are worrying him these days in respect to his own flanks, and I unde rstand his sensitivity and irritation in this Chamber. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier has indi cated that members of his Treasury Bench are free to express their own views, will he be allowing the Minister of the Environment to express his views on this issue? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I find the Leader of the Opposition's questions really so silly that they are not worthy of a response in this House. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Health has been allowed to exp ress his views ind ependently of those of his Cabinet and government on a major issue in this Legislature, and in view of the fact that others apparentl y have issues that contradict those of his administration, how many other Ministers in his government disagree with his stand on the French language issue? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me again repeat, because the Leader of the Opposition - (I nterje ction) - Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if we could find some hearing aids that might be circulated freely to members of this Chamber, particularly to honourable members across · the way. I have ind icated - I believe this is for the third or fourth time- the Minister of Health supports government policy in respect to the application to the Supreme Court in reg ard to our resp onse in regard to the decision by the Supr eme Cour t of Canada. There is no disagreement in respect to the position of the Minister of Health in this government, except in the imagination of the Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, clearly last ev ening on the reco rd, the Minister of Health said he disagreed with his government on full recog nition to inde pendent schools, on abortion, and 0" the issue of the handling 3720 on

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 of the French language matter in this province. He said that he did not agree with going along with the Supreme Court decision, that he preferred to have a negotiated settleme nt. Will the Premier be re pudiating the remarks of the Minister of Health or asking for this re signation? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Health on a point of order. HON. L. DESJARDINS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker . I think it is the responsibility of the members of this House to not misquote or misrepresent what has been said by any members.

I want to say for the edification of my honourable friend that I said I will continue to fight for the things I was elected for. I will always ask for more. I have never said that I was against the policy of the government in any of the points that you said. I said that I agreed with what the government had done. I said that we showed that we had inexperience; I said that. I also said tha t we should keep on finding someth ing that will be acceptable. I will continue to do that. This is my role and it is not my honour able friend that will deter me from that at all. MR.

SP EAKER: The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker , specifically, the Minister of Health said, in referring to hi s preference for proceed ing with a constitutional amendment as a solution - yes, the constitutional amendment as a solution - "If two years ago we thought this was the right way to go, I think we should at least look at it again." That's what he urged his Premi er. Is that not different from the position that this Premier has taken? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: What I can is explain why we felt that they should be guaranteeing the law because these rights have been taken away by duly elected members on two occasions. I said that we brought in some services the last time that we should look at it again right. I think we should and I'll always advocate that. I'l l work within the government and in any other way; in caucus, I'll do the same thing. I don't want this to finish there.

I want us to get something that will prevent, first of all, this lunacy of spending millions of dollars that are not wanted, that are a waste, that we cannot afford and bring some services to these people to really look at the real character of this country. MR. G. FILM ON: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Health denying that he is advocating that we ought to be providing French language services by legislation or constitutional amendment in this province? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I'm not denying that you stopped us from doing that while your misrepre sentation in scaring the hell out of the people of Manitoba.

What I am saying is, fine, that couldn't be done the way we chose. I'm saying that we have to find a better way, another way, of prev enting all this waste of money and to bring in some services in re cognizing the right of the Franco-Manitoban. That is exactly what I am saying. Gov't position vs personal position MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, we have had a number of situations now during the past couple of years where Cabi net Min isters have spoken out contrary to government policy and subsequently had their views repudi ated by the Premi er.

Will he advise members of the House and the public how we should know when members of his Cabinet are speaking government policy and when they are speaking for themselves? MR. SPEAKER: Order Please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Conservative Party federally, provincially, that is not a problem on this side of the Chamber. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the First Minister. Can mem bers of the public assume that any statement made by a Minister of the Crown, such as the statement made by the Minister of Health last night, is indeed government policy? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me be very very clear because, again, apparently the Leader of the Opposition and the Memb er for Turtle Mountain prefer purposely not to understand what took place last night, what took place as a result of the last 10 or 15 minutes. The Minister of Health (

a) has not ind icated any di sagreement in respect to the decision by the government; in fact, it isn't a decision. We have no alternative, no alterna tive - and I look to the Attorney­ General - but to obey the finding of the Supreme Court of Canada. We are making the application to the Supreme Court as pursuant the decision by the Supreme Court of Canada which is the highest court in the land. Mr. Speaker, I indicated and all the members of this side, even though the Leader of the Opposition doesn't grasp it, realize that is a tough and difficult decision, but that is the decision of the Supreme Court.

We are going to obey that decision despite the fact that we kno w that we'll be tran slating hundr eds, inde ed thousands of statutes that will incur millions of dollars in expen diture, an expenditure of monies that we on this side did not invite, we did not want. We are prepared to accept rather than poison the waters - as honourable members across the way have done - we are prepared to accept the decision of the Supreme Court to proceed on with the translations that are necessary and, Mr. Speak er, honourable members can't have it both ways. They were the ones, Mr.

Speake r, who wanted this matter to go to the Supreme Court . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. 3721

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 May I remind members that the answer to a question should not become a speech. The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My specific question to the First Minister had to do with how we in this House and how members of the public can recognize when a Cabinet Minister is making policy statements and when he's simply expressing his own views.

So my question to the First Minister was: can we assume that whenever a Cabinet Minister speaks with respect to matters of public policy that he is voicing the opinions of the government? lt's a fairly direct question I believe, Mr. Speaker. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I guess we have to assume that the Hansard isn't already out, but my recollection is that the Minister upon rising in his place, which is the right of every member in this Chamber - unl ess honou rable members would like to deny certain members the right of rising on a grievance - the Member for St. Boniface . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, they're really smarting over their plunge in public opinion polls. That's very clear. The faces of desperation across the way on the part of honour able members across the way, and the greatest look of desperation is on the part of the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Boniface in rising in his place, indicated he was speaking as an individual, was speaking as a Member for St. Bon iface. At no time did the Member for St. Boniface, the Minister of Health indicate that he was disagreeing with the government position.

His remarks were very clearly - and I wish I had the Hansard here - prefaced by the fact that he was speaking as the Member for St. Boniface. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. B. RANSOM: Since Cabinet Ministers appear to be free to speak their minds in a fashion that is contrary to government policy, Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. Is the Minister of the Environment fully supportive of the government's stand on the French language issue? HON. A. ANSTETT: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I should have risen earlier on a point of order. The question of administrative responsibility with regard to the portfolios and other responsibilities of each individual Cabinet Minister is well understood.

The Premier is responsible for government policy respecting the matter being discussed in question period today, and those questions are appropriately directed to the First Minister, not to the Member for Radisson as Minister of Environment, or to the Minister of Health. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside on the same point. MR. H. ENNS: No, Mr. Speaker, a question. French language rights - government policy on MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the First Minister. 1t follows on the questions that have been asked and the difficulty that the opposition and Manitobans will have in trying to determine when government policy is being stated; and whether the opposition members or the government members believe it or not, I do like to run a relatively honest election campaign. My question to the First Minister is: will I be honestly portraying the government's position when I suggest to my constituents that NDP Minister or Ministers - because I think there must be more Ministers - urge revival of French bill?

Will that be an honest presentation of the government's position as we go into this election? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I don' t think what the Hono urable Member for Lakeside says in an election campaign is within the admin istrative res ponsibil ity of this government. Perhaps the honour able mem ber would wish to rephrase his question. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, surely one of the more important things that we try to do is to accurately represent the positions that different members and parties take in this House.

I am asking the First Minister a simple direct question. Will I be misrepresenting his government, his party's position with respect to this issue if I suggest to my constituents that NDP Ministers, in plural, urge revival of French bill? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That is the same question. Would the honourable mem ber wish to rephrase his qu est ion to seek information on a matter which is in the administrative com petence of the government? Order please. The question was out of order. Order please. The question was out of order. MR. H. ENNS: I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker.

RentaiStart Program - status of approvals MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. 3722

Tuesday, 9 July, 1i85 MR. P. EYLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I notice that there has been a RentaiStart project approved in the River East area. I wonder if the Minister can report on the status of project approvals for the RentaiStart Program provincewide. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Ye s, thank you, Mr. Speake r. I would like to thank the member for that question.

In fact, the RentaiStart Program has been one of the most successful programs within Manitoba housing, and one of the best examples of the Manitoba Jobs Fund at work. I should ind icate that under the fi rst ph ase of Rental Start - RentaiStart 1 - we have committed some $25.5 million for projects, quite a number in Winn ipeg and in rural areas such as Boisseva in, Steinbach, Winkle r, Minnedosa, Carman. Portage la Prairie, St. Adolphe. Under the RentaiStart 2 Program we have approved $20 million for the North Portage development for some 400 units of housing.

In the last week or so we have committed an additional $23.6 million for RentaiStart projects, the most in Winnipeg, about five or six large projects including one in River East and projects in Swan Riv er, Sto newall and Wi nkl er, Manitoba, for a total of around $60 to $70 million worth of projects. Manitoba Hydro - tenders re turbines MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pem bina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Energy. In recent months with the Limestone development the Minister and Manit oba Hydro have chosen tenders, which were not the lowest tenders, in cement.

They have negotiated a contract on turbines. Could the Minister indicate to the House whether Manitoba Hydro is dete rmining bidders on contracts worth as little as $200,000 and exer cising the right to arbitrarily choose other than the lowest presented tender? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Hydro advertises for tenders indicating that it has the right not to award to the lowest tenderer and it gives reasons why it doesn't award to the lowest tender if that's the case. That's been policy for some time. MR. D. ORCHARD: Then, Mr.

Speak er, would the Minister of Energy and Mines consider it fair that Manitoba Hydro arbitrarily chose a window supply contract ... MR. SPEAKER : Order please. order please. The question seeks an opinion. If the honourable member wishes information, would he so frame his question? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker, is it the policy of Ma nitoba Hydro to arbitrarily choose on identical windows, in terms of meeting the standards set down by Manitoba Hydro, to arbitrarily choose one supplier of those windows at a $5,000 greater cost than another Manitoba supplier who is approved by Manitoba Hydro and with whom the contractor wished to deal, but Manitoba Hydro refused to let the contractor deal with the second supplier in preference of another supplier at $5,000 more money? HON. W.

PARASIUK: If the member had given me advance notice of the question, as I can recall doing to members of the Treas ury Bench when the Conservatives were in office, I certainly would have the specifics of that question. If he wants to give me the specifics I'll look into the matter, Mr. Speaker. I'll take it as notice and get back to him. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Speaker , what I am trying to elicit from the Minister is if this policy of arbitrarily choosing tenders extend down to tenders and contracts worth $200,000, where Manitoba Hydro can exercise the right to pick and choose between Ma nitoba suppliers at the whim of Manitoba Hydro with no justification for choosing one over the other and costing Manitobans, through Limestone project, more mone y, is that the policy? HON. W. PARASIUK: The policy of Manitoba Hydro is to bring on the Limestone project efficiently and on schedule. And, Mr.

Speaker, by following that policy I believe that Manitoba Hydro has indeed achie ved a saving of some $420 million to date, which I think Is a pretty significant saving - a very significant saving. Manitoba Hydro, when it assesses the contracts, takes into account the past performance, the quality - I don't know the specifics of the case - I certainly ind icated that I would be willing to look into the matter and have Hydro give its reasons. But, Mr.

Speaker, the interesting thing is that I have heard no comments from the opposition as to, In fact, supporting Manitoba Hydro for saving the people of Manitoba $420 million; but they try and talk about somehow the lack of integrity and credibility and profes sionalism on the part of Manitoba Hydro about a $5,000 specific, Mr. Speaker. Let them, in fact, say whether they would still be opposed to Limestone now that we 're finding that the people of Manitoba are being saved some $420 million. ERDA Agreement - attempt to alter MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The paper recently reported some attempt on the part of the Federal Government to alter the Economic Regional Develop ment Agreements with Manitoba. I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tec hnology as to whether or not he can confirm this federal attempt to alter the agreem ent, the ERDA agreement? 3723

TUeact.y, 9 July, 1915 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. No, I can't confirm that the Federal Government is attempting to renegotiate the previously agreed to federal-provincial ERDA agreements. We have had numerous meetings with the Federal Minister responsible for the federal ERDA agreements, Mr. Sinclair Stevens. In fact, as recent as last April there was the annual meeting of the Manitoba-Canada ERDA Ministers meeting in Gillam where Mr. Stevens reaffirmed the Federal Government's commitment to the previously negotiated ERDA agreements.

In fact, there was a commitment on specific cash flows for this year. So I, too, was quite surprised at the statements that appeared in the paper indicating that there was a Cabinet document that indicated that there was to be a renegotiation of those agreements, because we have not in any way, been notified of any atte mpt to renegotiate those agreements. MR. C. SANTOS: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. What measures or steps is the Minister taking, or planning to take to ensure that the ERDA job creation agreement will stay in Manitoba? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I thank the member for that que stion. 1t is certa inl y our intention to go on implementing the federal-provincial ERDA agreements because they are going to and are having a significant economic impact in the Province of Manitoba. As a result of those comments of last Friday, I have attempted to contact the Federal Minister, Mr. Stevens, to find out whether or not that is the intention of the Federal Government; and I would anticipate that I will be in contact with him in the very near future, if not by phone, then in person.

But it's certainly our intention to ensure that those agreements stay in place because they were negotiated, looking at various aspects of the Manitoba economy, particularly looking at areas like transportation. The one area, though, I think we do have some concerns is with regard to the Churchill agreement because there has been persistent rumours of some lack of federal commitment to Churchill.

In fact, in that regard the Minister of Transportation and myself met directly with a numb er of Federal Min isters to reaff irm our commitment and to ensure that there was a continuing federal commitment to the Port of Churchill. However, we have also seen some and heard some rumour of cutback in terms of the federal commitment to the Port of Churchill. ERDA job creation program - steps to maintain MR. C. SANTOS: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the remarks of the Minister of Ind ustry, Trade and Technology, I would like to direct another question to the Minister of Transportation, whether or not he is taking any step at all to maintain the job creation program created by ERDA with regard to the transportation agreement with respect to Churchill? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN� Well, yes, Mr.

Speaker , our comm itment certainly is there and we are doing everything possible from the provincial jurisdiction to ensure that all of the aspects of the agreements are implemented as they were intended, both to the spirit and letter of the agreements.

However, even though we had ini tial positive responses from the Minister of Transport when I met with him since the federal election, since the meeting we had on May 1st with a num ber of Federal Ministers, we had encouraging responses with regard to the subagreements, particularly with regard to Churchill; development since that time has caused a great deal of concern for me, Mr. Speaker.

We are finding that there are significant delays by the federal jurisdiction with regard to the Boxcar Rehabilitation Program that was agreed on May 1st; we are finding that Ports Canada is now coming with delays with regard to the tug construction, the dredging in the port that was intended to go forward this summer; we have had delays from Transport Canada with regard to the air terminal renewal at the Port of Churchill; we have had delays as well with the agreements that are supposed to be worked out with the federal agencies with regard to hydro-electric power as a result of the line that we are putting into Churchill; and we have had also delays and inaction on the part of the Federal Government with regard to the season extension that was a full commitment at the May 1st meeting that we had to move forward.

We are finding that the monies federally are not being allocated, the decisions are not being made, and what we are seeing instead, Mr. Speaker, is a lot of rhetoric and talk but no action. Engineers, Province of Manitoba - conciliation officer re dispute MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct my question to the Minister of Labour and would ask him if he could inform the House whether his department is still providing a conciliation officer in the labour dispute between the organization of professional engineers employed by the Province of Manitoba and the province? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. R. BANMAN: I wonder if the Minister could confirm that the organ ization of professional engi neers employed by the Province of Manitoba have voted 90 percent for strike action. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

I am not sure whether that su bject matter is withi n the ad min istrative competence of the government. Perhaps the honourable member wo:.�ld wish to rephrase his question. MR. R. BAt�MAN: Well, Mr. Speaker, sinc e the organization of professional enqineers are dealing "th 3724 with

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 the Province of Manitoba, who is their emplo yer, and since th e Mi nister of Labour has put forward a conciliation officer to deal with it, I think that I would like to know whether or not the Minister could report to the House whether or not the org anization of profes sional engi neers emp loyed by the Province of Manitoba have voted 90 percent in favour of strike action? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. That is the same question and has the same objection. Wo uld the honourable member wish to rephrase his question to seek information? MR. R. BANMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Labour could then inform the House whether or not the organi zation of professional engin eers emplo yed by the Province of Manitoba have filed an unfair labour practice document on behalf of their association against the Province of Manitoba. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, I am advised that the engineers association has been bargaining with government; there have been an extensive number of meetings; there still hasn't been a resolution of the differences that exist between the enginee rs and the government.

I expect that the engi neers will exercise whatever initiatives they feel are appropriate and that is fair under The Labour Relations Act. I am not aware of any action that is being taken. I will be apprised of that if such is the case. I know that they have engaged the services of a former member of the Legislature, and I am sure that he is going to advance their cause as they think best. Drugs, federal tax on - cost to Pharmacare MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health. Mr.

Speaker, when the Federal Government brought in their disastrous Budget in May, the Minister undertook to review the impact of the new 10 percent federal tax on drugs and to see if some of the prescription drugs would also be covered under that. Has the Minister received a report from his department on the cost to Manitoba of this new federal tax on drugs and the added cost to our Pharmacare Program? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Health. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside on a point of order. MR. H. ENNS: Ye s, Mr. Speaker.

I don't mean to interrupt the Minister of Health from respo nding to that question, but it would be helpful if he would ind icate before answering whether he was speaking as the MLA for St. Boniface or as the Minister of Health. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I believe the honourable member is quite aware that is not a point of order. The Honour able Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, he has been in this House long enough and should know that when somebody gets up to answer a question it must be as a Minister ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. A. ANSTETT: What preposterous nonsense! HON. L. DESJ ARDINS: You got permission from Seec h? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Health. A MEMBER: Or Gil Roch. HON. L. DESJARDINS: In fact, I've got a lot of other comebacks, a lot of them. I can talk to you about Gil Roch, what he said. Are you going to throw him out? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. L. DESJARDINS: I can tell you what Abe said on the steps of the Legislature. Do you want that comeback?

I know that you are too interested in that resolution to bring in legislation to prevent the abuse to the seniors, but you don't want us to talk about that, but we will tell you anyway, as Minister of Health, my dear friends. I'll say, Mr. Speaker, that this new policy of the Federal Governme nt - I haven't got all the figures - but it should cost us in excess of .5 million. There is a 10 percent tax on drugs that are not prescribed; now the seniors will pay for that thems elves because that's not covered.

On the covered drugs, there are a lot of drugs that are prescription drugs here, about 300 or so drugs, but are not listed in Ottawa. Of course, that, the taxpayers of Manitoba will pay, because as you know there is 80 percent of the cost after the deduc tible of $50 for the senior citizens and $100 for tho se under 65. So it will be a fair amount that will look somewhat as a hidden tax. MR. D. SCO TT: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker , a supplementary question to the Minister. Has the Min ister received any indication whatsoever from the Federal Minister of Health, Mr.

Jake Epp, as to whether he will ende avour to make sure tha t Manitoba is compensated for this increased cost in our health delivery program by an increase in the Established Programs Financing funding towards the Province of Manitoba or in exempting those drugs which are included in the Manitoba Pharmacare list but that are included as well in the Government of Canada's list of which drugs shall be taxed? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The second question could be taken as a suggestion and that could be discussed with 3725

Tuesday, 9 July, 1915 the Minister. As far as the cost-shar•ng and the financing of the program, that already was made very clear that this would not change from the present policy of the government. French language services - Extension of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the First Minister who has indicated a number of times that in spite of the cost of translating statutes and in spite of the Supreme Court ruling in that regard that he will be proceeding to add to and extend French language services, can he confirm this publicly stated position in the House? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, if it's already been made public, then I don't know in what way I am confirming already what is a public position, yes. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, can the First Minister be specific with regard to which new services will be introduced, which services will be enriched, and does he have any cost figures attached to these expansions? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know where the honourable member was last evening. He was in the Chamber when we dealt with French language service.

Under my particular Estimates last evening, that item went by without a single question being raised in this House; not a word from the Member for Elmwood and yet today he rises in question period , after ignoring the opportunity to raise this question last night, and ask the question again today when he was silent last night, Mr. Speaker.

We will be providing, as we do insofar as government services are concerned; whethe r it be Insofar as language services to the Francophone community; whether it's language services to other groups that require services; whether it be by way of health; whether it be way of add itional social services ; those announcements will be made in order to ensure that we satisfy a need that exists to the best of our ability. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CH ANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a couple of committee changes before we proceed with the House business. On the Standing Committee on Private Bills, the Member for Thompson will replace the Member for St. Johns; and on the Standing Com mittee on Ind ustrial Relations, the Member for Springfield will replace the Member for Logan. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a change in the Committee of Statutory Regu lations and Orders: the Member for Arthur for the Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if there is leave to introduce Bill No. 28, Manitoba Heritage Resources Act which was distributed yesterday; and Bill No. 65, The Statute Law Amendment Taxation Act, 1985. If there Is, Sir, we'd move with the introduction of those two bills first and then proceed with the adjourned debates. MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave to introduce Bills 28 and 65? Leave having been granted - the Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, would you please call Bill No. 28?

Although it stands in the name of the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, the Acting Mini ster the Minister of Labour will be introducing the bill tod ay. SECOND READING BILL 28- THE MANITOBA HABITAT HERITAGE ACT; LO I SUA LA PROTECTION DU PATRIMOINE ECOLOGIOUE DU MANITOBA HON. A. MACKLING presented, by leave, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, Bill No. 28, The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Act;

Loi Sur La Protection du Patrimoine Ecologique du Manitoba, for Second Reading. (Rec ommended by Her Honour the Lieutenant ­ Governor) MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my honourable colleague, the Minister of Mun icipal Affairs, for encouraging me in setting out to do my utmost to explain to the satisfaction of all of the members of the House the worthiness of the bill that has been introduced by my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources.

I am not unfamiliar with the policy thrust contained within this bill because, as you know, I had some interest in the pursuit of the principles that this bill contains while I was Mini ster of Natural Resources. Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to set the proposed Manitoba Habitat Heritage bill into the context of efforts to preserve and expand wildlife habitat elsewhere in the world. Statistics indicate that approximately 70 percent of world extinctions - now these are animal extinctions, 3726

TuHday, 9 July, 1885 not human extinct ions- are due to habitat loss. Although I might digr ess to say that when you lose habitat, it affects humans as well. We are now losing species at the rate of at least one per day. By the late' 80s scientists estimate the rate will be one per hour. With this in mind the World Wildlife Fund International was founded in 1961 and the World Wildlife Fund Canada in 1967, they are dedi cated to the conservation of wild animals and plants and their habitats for their own sake and the long-term benefit of humankind.

In early 1984, Wildlife Habitat Canada was formed to deal with the growing problem of habitat destruction and deteriora tion. Since its inception a number of habitat projects with funding of almost $1 million has been approved. These projects span the country from British Columbia to Prince Edward Island and are mostly wetlands related.

A loss and deterioration of habitat is one of the most serious factors affect ing the abundance of fish in wildlife populations in Ma nitoba , particularly in th e more populated southern portions of the province. it has been estima ted that Manitoba's losing wooded habitat at rates in excess of 200 square miles per year and wetlands at the rate of 50 square miles per year. it is predicted that if these rates of loss continue, deer and duck populations will decline by 33 percent within the next 15 years.

In addition many other species of wildlife, including rare and endange red species, birds of prey, colonial nest ing birds and songbirds are bei ng negatively impacted. From a fisheries standpoint, nutrient enrichment, pollution, channelization and drainage, erosion and sedimentation and obstruction to fish movements, have detrimentally affected fish populations.

This Manitoba Heritage bill, to establish the Manitoba Heritage Corporation, will be a non-profit enti ty, aimed solely at meeting its objectives and capable of receiving income ta x ded ucti ble dona tion s from pri vate organ izations or individuals. lt will be initially funded primarily from funds granted by the Legislature through the Estimates process. Members will recall that a fund was set up in 1984 and 1985 at the $250,000 level and is continued at this level in the Estimates that were processed during this Session of the Legislature.

Objectives of the Corporation will include promoting and engaging in the conservation and restoration and enha ncement of fish and wildli fe habitat in the Province of Manitoba, to provide a mechanism for collecting and disbursing funds for the conservation and enhancement of fish and wildli fe habitat, and to foster co-ordination and leadership in the conservat ion, restoration and enhancement of fish and wild life habitat.

The Corporation will have power to: (1) accept financial grants and contributions; (2) accept and hold bequests of real and personal property of all kinds; (3) acquire by purchase, lease, exchange or otherwise, any real property or any inte rest or rights therein; (4) hold, manage, improve, develop, exchange, lease, sell, or otherwise deal with real or personal property; (5) enter into agreements with any person or authority to further the Corporation's purposes and; (6) donate money or property to any person or authority on condition that such money or property is used entir ely in support of the pu rposes of the Corporation.

I believe that I have absolutely no difficulty, Mr. Speaker, in obtaining the support of all members for this measur e, since I know that so many have a deep interest in wildlife resources. Mr.

Speaker, this measure is designed to facilitate and co-ordina te the efforts of government in respect to the conservation of necessary wildlife and fish habitat. lt will be complementary to initiatives by Wildlif e Canada and by local organizations who, like the Manitoba Wildlife Federation, have done excellent work in respect to obtaining and preserving habita t. - (I nterject ion) - Well, the honou rable member opposite says, the organization I resigned from.

If the honourable member would do more research in respect to his work as a critic, he would find that I'm a member in good standing of the Manitoba Wildlife Fe deration. Mr. Speaker, there are many people in this province who appreciate the value of wildlife and, I think are prepared to see vigorous leadership on the part of government to ensur e that collectively the people of Manitoba, not merely those who hunt and fish, but those who love wildlife for wildlife's sake, have an opportunity to be involved in the preservation and In some cases, even the rest oration of wildlife that has been endange red. So, Mr.

Speaker, during the course of the Committee Stage hearing, I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, and certainly I, will be prepared to enlarge on any further details in respect to the makeup of the Corporation. The Corporation will be reflective of the broad interest of farmers, of people who fish, people who hunt and people who love wildlife generally, and that Corporation will be dedicated to the interests of all Manitobans, and dedicated to the inte rests of preserv ing wildli fe and fish habitat in this province. So I commend this legislation, Mr.

Speak er, to all members of the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speak er, I move, seconded by the Memb er for Virden, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 65 -THE STATUTE LAW AMEND MENT (TAXATION) ACT (1985); LOI DE 1985 MO DIFIANT LA L�GISLATION RELATIVE A LA FISCALIT� HON. V. SCHROEDER presented, by leave, Bill No. 65, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act (1985); Loi de 1985 Modifiant La Legislation relative a La Fiscalite, for Second Read ing. MOTION presen ted. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: The bill provide s the legislativ e authority for the tax changes announced in the Budget together with a number of housekeeping changes. The tax increases provided are limited to thr ee areas, fuel, 3727

Tue.ctey, 8 July , 1885 tobacco and water power rental rates. I should say that coloured farm fuel continues to be fully exempt from provincial fuel taxation. The Manitoba Manufacturing Investment Tax Credit introduced last year, and which was due to expire at the end of the year, Is extended for a further one year. The credit applies to investments in new buildings, machi nery and equ ipment which are used in a manufacturing or processing business in Manitoba. The recommended fuel for unvented kerosene heaters , type 1K kerosene is exempted from tax.

In addition, there are a number of technical changes to various taxation statutes. Substantive changes are being made to the Gasoline Tax Act and Motive Fuel Tax Act in regard to record keep ing. Changes will assist fleet operators in maintai ning records for fuel taxation purposes in line with the provisions of the new Canadian agreement for vehicle registration. We've had requests from the Manitoba Propane Dealers' Association for some changes - cylinder fills of propane formerly taxed at two rates based on literage are now to be taxed at a single rate, based on weight.

Most of the amendments to The Income Tax Act are being made at the request of the Federal Gover nment. Under the terms of the Canada-Manitoba Tax Collection Agreement the province is required to maintain its legislation in parallel fashion to the Federal Act with a few specified exceptions in the case of provincial income tax programs which the Federal Government has agreed to admi nister on our behalf. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Memb er for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker , I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you please call on debates for Second Reading, Bill No. 58, Bill No. 60, Bill No. 74, Bill No. 85, Bill No. 90 and Bill No. 94? ADJOURNE D DEBATE ON SECO ND READ ING BILL 58 • THE MORTGAGE ACT; LA

LOI SUR LES HYPOTH�QUES MR. SPEAK ER: On the proposed motion of the Hono urable Attorney-General, Bill No. 58, the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: I've had a chance to review the bill and there are some questions that I have, but I think perhaps the technical detail that some of the concerns I have can best be resolved in committee and I will reserve some of th ose comments to that time.

I understand the reason for this bill basically because there was a change in the old Mortgage Brokers and Mortgage Dealers Act and they request in that act certain information that had to be supplied or given to anyone who took out a mortgage. I have been advised by an individual who is involved in this industry that that form was seldom, if ever, used. There were other forms of information con veyed to the pote ntial borrowers that pretty wetl provided the information that was needed.

The new act deals with a couple of specific areas of saying, before a borrower signs any docume nts certain information must be sent out to them. Primarily, what is the cost of any fees or expenditur es or payments that they might have to face; whether or not they're getting the full value of the mortgage or some amount that is less; also some figure has to be set out as to what costs will be associated with that mortgage. The two areas of concern that I have in here is in relation to how far these costs relate.

I think it is perhaps one of open or perhaps loose drafting rather than the improper drafting because there is a phrase that says, "any disbursement, expenditure, payment or cost in respect to the mortage to be charged or will be charged in effect in the future." The question really here is, at what time does this commitment stop? Because, if cert ain consequences flow, that if you are not falling within the intent of this particular

section of the new proposed act then either certain costs will flow to certain parties or in fact the mortgage contract can be breached.

The concern here is, I think if there is going to be some uncertainty introd uced into the mortgage market and the type of documents and arrangements tha t are being referred to In this particular proposed amendment affect every person who has a mortgage; that to ensure that the mortgage Industry remains in its healthy viable state and the consumers are getting the best interests protected and they are getting the best supply and sufficient supply of funds, that somet hing doesn't dry them up or inhi bit the good working market that is out there. lt is these concerns that were, in fact, at what point or when does the amount of costs, stop?

Because we can get into an area of renewal without registering the mortgage. We can merely sign a contract to extend the mortgage or those costs would be referred to. I don't think they do, but in fact, I think the wording as ind icated here, may very well include them. I have no quarrel that the borrower should know exactly how much money he Is going to receive or how much he has to pay or the rate of interest or anything like that. I think that is a good concept, and it is a concept that every borrower should be prepared to understand.

So at some future date they can't say that they didn't know when they entered into the contract. Certain things flow from it, that if the itemized amount of mone y tha t is being borrowed and the costs associated with it or the estimated costs associated with it don't flow then there is either a repayment or a rebate to the bor rower, or there is a possibility if certain information or procedures are not followed that the mortgage itself can be cashed out at no penalty or cost.

There is nothing serious with this eith er, providing that it does not impact unto the provision of funds provided by the mortgage industry. I don't think it Will. The key comes in though and the concern one has is when one refers to a certain clause where it says 3728

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 certain liabilit ies or accountability will flow should there be any omissions or should any of those errors occur that the act is trying to prevent. lt says that not only is the institution liable for those costs or repayment of those costs but also the people who induced you to enter into that contract. My reading of the proposed legislation would include, any real estate agent would also become potentially liable for anything dealing with the creation of the mortgage. Now, in most sales today I think one of the key things is to arrange financing.

A lot of agents, in fact, that is where the skill comes in, is to arrange the financing so that the vendor and pu rchaser can consum mate their proposed contract. The concern here is that the real estate agent or industry may not be aware of this role or this potential problem and I don't think quite frankly that it was the intention to extend it this far. lt seems to me that if there is the requirement for financial disclosure and penalties flow from the failure to provide that financial disclosure, it should fall on the money lender or the institution.

I really question what is involved by saying there should be extra parties, whether they be a solicitor, a mortgage dealer or an agent. That seems to me is saying you're giving them extra insurance or an extra guarantee. lt perhaps may be argued that that is just putting those parties on notice that they make sure that the borrower knows in fact what they are getting into. Un less we can either tighten that up, it would seem to me that it is the institution or person lending the money that should really bear the consequences of not ensuring that the consumer knows the true cost.

So, with those few concerns, and I know we can deal with them more specifically in the Com mittee Stage, I'm prepared to conclude debate and have this matter referred to committee. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Attorney-General will be closing debate. HON. R. PENNER: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to put on record my thanks to the member for raising some very constructive points. I hope to be in a position to deal with them when we reach committee stage. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. COMMITTEE CHANGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Speaker, thank you very much. I've had a request to fill a vacancy in one of the comm ittees. In the Private Bills Committee, the Member for Niakwa for a vacancy that was on there. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 60 - THE STATUTE LAW AMEND MENT ACT; LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES HYPOTHEQUE S MR. SPEAKE R: On the proposed motion of the Honou rable Attor ney -General, Bill No. 60 - the Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned the debate. On behalf of other members who may wish to have some comments, then I understand the Member for Sturgeon Creek wishes to do so, and he will be passing it on to committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I just have one point to bring up to the Attorney-General, and the Attorney­ General cert ainly has been very aware and very interested in comments from this side of the House and has taken action when he felt it was necessary. I would bring one item of this bill, in The Manitoba lntercultural Council Act, which is 15 5 of the Statutes and the principle of this change is to sort of take the ropes off the lntercultural Council as far as dealing with other organizations are concerned.

But in the explanation of the section, I would just refer to the last sentence of the Minister's explanation. lt says, conversely there are very few organizations which have proposed purposes similar to those of the council and the restrictive words in

section 19 are being deleted out so that the council may do business with virtually anybody. I think that is rather a very free privilege that they are giving this lntercultural Council. I can understand that there aren 't many organizations with the same purpose, Mr. Speaker, but there is in the Estimates of the House, an item of $1 95,000 which is adminis tered by the Manitoba lntercultural Council.

I would suggest to the Minister that if he could look at the wording from the point of view that they couldn't deal with virtually anybody that they should have some reins on their dealings when they are handling that large an amount of money for the Province of Manitoba, or the people's money, that it should be a little tighter than it is, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL 74 - THE EQUAL RIGHTS STATUTE AMENDMENT ACT; LE DROIT STATUTAIRE AFIN DE FAVORISER LEGALITE DES DROITS MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Attorney-General, Bill No. 74 - the Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, there are two areas that I wanted to comment on in connection with this bill. I am now looking at the press release distributed by the Attorney-General mentioning that they are going to eliminate so-called sexist language and discrimination based on sex and so on in this bill. Then, of course, there is also a provision for paternity and adoption leave for the first time in Manitoba.

I want to just say, in general, in context, that I am one of those who is very bored and sick and tired of 3729

TUeaday, 9 July, 1985 listening to all this talk about sexist language. I think if ever there was a trendy thing in our society that is being overdone, that is it. lt would be very interesting to hear some of the explanations that the Attorney­ General might provide of some of the pain and suffering that is being caused in our society because of "sexist language". We know, Mr. Speaker, that this is a great fad of the 197 0s and the early 1980s, and we have people in this Chamber who are examples of those trendy types who learn a new vocabulary or patter and then use it ad nauseam.

So we have all heard, starting in the old days, of the aggressive feminist movement, all this talk about "male chauvinist pig" and other insulting chatter such as that. Then we moved on to the more enlightened phase where people could not, under mortal pain and agony, say the word "man" so that we no longer could have the expression "chairman ". The mere mention of such a thing caused some people to faint or go into a rage because of the sexist connotation and the terrible ramifications of using a comment such as that.

So have this evolution of, well, we can't have the word "chairman" so we will then move on to the word "chairperson" - this wonderful expression used by the Member for lnk ster and used by many many members on the other side who are travelling along, picking up the latest jargon, trying to be with it, trying to learn the newspeak and the new language and the new nonsense of our time. Well, "groov y", except I guess there are different words. Groovy is from the '50s and the '60s, so there must be something else, something from the'80s.

The Valley Girls in Los Angeles, they are the ones who could give us the latest in that regard. So we have the evolution taking place - this is called "progress" - it's called making people more sensitive or sensitizing and so on. I think it's a step backward, Mr. Speaker. I think the attempt frequently to eliminate sexist language is sexist in itself. All this nonsense about from "chairman" to "chairpers on", now we have "chair".

Of course, we have people who realize that chairperson is a bit, as the young generation would say, "yucky", so we won't have that; we'll now go to "chair" because that will sound much better. Well, I see the Honourable Member for Burrows smiling. I don't know what he is called when he sits in the chair. He is probably called chairman from the Conservatives and chairperson by the New Democratic Party and chair or chesterfield by some of the women members in the New Democratic Party. The Member for Burrows - I don't want to revive an old debate, Mr.

Speaker - but he got himself into a bit of a flap because he once made a very very very mild comment in this Chamber and, good heavens, the Member for Wolseley, she just about passed out. Mr. Speaker, I happened to be in the caucus room at that time. The Member for Wolseley came in. She was so upset, she was so distraught, I kid you not, that she had to lie down in the back room of the caucus, in the coffee room. She was helped into the back room, almost required first aid because of the fact of a terrific onslaught by the Member for Burrows.

Now the Member for Burr ows, unfortuna tely, didn't realize he had said anything wrong and neither did I and neither did anybody else, but, boy, the Member for Wolseley, she sure felt it. lt just "freaked" her out - "freaked" her out, if I might be allowed a trendy expression, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we are now getting some other nonsense verbal in our time. In the old days we had people who were normal, then we had people who were abnormal, then we had people who were perverted, then we had people who were homosexuals and so on. I won't name some of the derisive terms that could be applied to that group.

But now we have talk, of course, of sexual preference. Well, it's all a matter of sexual preference, you see. lt doesn't matter whether it's a man or a woman or an animal; it's just a matter of preference, whatever it turns you on. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that to me is a sick concept, and behind it is an attitude on the part of certain people who are grinding axes on behalf of certain sectors of our society and that talk of sexual preference to me is a cover for a great deal of sickness in our society. lt's very interesting to watch the Attorney-General and the Premier who are being pressured from these people in our society, who are starving - Rick North and all the other people - who are only asking for equal treatment and equal rights and the fact that they just have a slightly different sexual preference and they don't see what's wrong with that.

I am glad that at least to this point I will give the Attorney-General credit for standing up on that particular issue and not caving in. Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't have called you , Mr. Chairperson, at any rate, Sir. I would only by accident have called you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Speaker, the trendy vocabulary is all around us. lt is just so rife in the NDP that it's enough to make a person ill. If we took away certain words from some of the members of the New Democratic Party at their conventions and in their caucuses and in the women's movement, they wouldn't know what to say, Mr. Speaker.

They would not know what to say. If you took away the words "sharing" and "caring," I'll bet you that they could not commun icate at all, because those are the trendy catchwords of certain members' dialogue. I don't know all of them. I know that the Deputy Premier who is a very nice person or a very nice women, and I like her personally - Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Premier, if you took the words "sharing" and "caring" away from her, she wouldn't know what to do. She wouldn't be able to express herself. Isn't this the corny jargon that comes up from California? I mean, we all know what the word "sharing" means.

We know what it is to share, and we know what it is to care ab out someb ody, but it becomes a catchwo rd. lt becomes a me aningl ess slogan, it becomes a trendy word of our time and it destroys a lot of good English words, Mr. Speaker. You know, in California I think they have a little joke that puts this into perspective, that in California and LA., it requires 21 people to change a light bulb? Why? Well, first of all, one person has to get the ladder and take the light bulb out, and the other 20 share the experience. I'm glad you never heard that before, Mr. Speaker, but that's ... HON. R.

PENNER: I hope you 're proud of your audience, Russ. 3730

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 MR. R. DOERN: I am proud of my audience, Mr. Speaker . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. R. DOERN: So I'm saying, Mr. Speake r, wait for it, wait for it. Mr. Speaker , I simply say that a lot of this stuff has become trendy talk that has found its way up north and, of course, people quickly latch onto new expres sions. In this case, they're trying to force us to use these expressions. I can tell you right now, Mr.

Speak er, I will not use the word "chairperson ." it's going to be very interesting someday when the order comes from the government that you must use the word, "chairpers on." Otherwise you'll be ejected from the Legislature and ejected from committee, because we're not taking any more of that sexist chairman stuff in this Chamber and in this province. Then another trendy word that we have that we are so fond of on the part of the women in the New Democratic Party and a few of the men is a "gutsy woman." Boy, I really like that one. That one really gets me. I too understand what it means to be gutsy, Mr.

Speaker. I understand what that expression is. But what does that mean today in 1985? I'll tell you what it means. 11 means somebody who - not all - but it is a cover again for somebody who is rude and aggressive and offensive and ill-man nered . That's what it is often a cover for, somebody who grunts and groans and yells and screams - that's considered gutsy. lt is also considered poor manners, Mr. Speak er. That's another thing that it's considered. We have, of course, examples of that quite frequently in this Chamber. Then we have other words. I don't want to get into this, but I'll simply mention in passing.

We had the word "bigot" which came out in the French language debate. We heard it over and over and over and over again from the Minister of the Environment and a few other people on that side. What did that mean, Mr. Speaker? 1t meant, "a perso n who does not support the government's French language proposals." That's all it meant. lt didn't mean anything more than that. 11 was an attempt to silence the opposition, to scare the opposition, to frighten the opposition, and it's not very nice to be called certain words.

I was in the New Democratic Party for a long time and, on rare occasion, somebody would call me a communist, a rare occasion. I always thought that was very funny. I remember a little old lady or a little old person one time - I knocked on an apartment door in Elmwood in my first campaign, 1966. There were two elderly ladies in that apartment, and they were real ladies I suppose, Mr. Chairman - because I want to also say, by way of interruption, that the word "lady" is another one. I mean, that's a trendy term. If you're a fem ale, you are a lady now. You're no longer a woman.

You're no longer a girl - (I nterjection) - no, there are people who say "lady." There is a group that says "lady." All that means is it's sort of a compliment. But I say in the old days, back in the '50s when I grew up, back in the '50s and '60s, a lady was a female or a woman who had some class and some manners. lt was a sort of a category. I think that was a well- understood expres sion, somebody with class. Now it just means that you're a female. So that word has sort of changed as well - (Interjection) - well I have to finish the communist story, as the Member for River Heights insists.

I knocked on the door in an apartment in Elmwood. There were two elderly ladie s - in the old sense of the word. One of them came to the door, and one was sitting farther back in the apartment. She was a little hard of hearing. So I said to this lady , "My name is Russ Doern.

I'm the New Democratic candidate in Elmwood ." The person at the back, the lady at the back said, "What did he say?" The woman at the door turned around and said, "He said he's with the NDP." The little old lady at the back kind of shriveled up and looked at me with a steely look through her round glasses and said, "Communist!" As a result, I said to her and I laughed, "Madam, I am no communist." I simply left and walked away - (Int erjection) - he says I was a communist. Mr.

Speake r, the point that I'm making is - and I remember saying to people many times - if somebody actually believes that, if they really believe that, don't waste your time on them. Don't go back and try to persuade them. Somebody who has had that conviction about the CCF and the NDP since the 1930s, you're not going to persuade them with some interesting verbal gymnastics and some potent arguments about the dif ferences between democratic socialism and the Soviet Union, etc., you cannot do it, Mr. Speaker.

But nowada ys, since I no longer can suppor t this government and this party, because of their incompetent handling of the French language quest ion, now the word comes back from that side to me that I'm a fascist. Wel l, Mr. Speak er, I simply say well I'm no fascist and, of course, the mem bers of this side are used to that term, that's a derisive term that is thrown to the members of the Conservative parties and others. Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately this is the wrong topic but, if it were, I would say to the Attorney-General that I would like to debate him sometime because he's the one who said that, not too long ago, that I was not a very good historian. I said of him, just ye sterday, and unfortunately he wasn't here so I didn't say very much, that the trouble with his understanding of history is that it is limited. lt is not, unfortunately, steeped. He has not spent enough time reading and learning and understanding Manitoba history for number one, and Canadian history for number two.

Because a lot of his interests all his life has been European, it has been Eastern European and it has been Soviet history. I will not fault him for that and I will not say that that is a deficienc y, but it is a deficienc y in the sense that a lot of his unde rstanding of history is not Canadian. MR. H. ENNS: Which Masters program was it they threw you out of, Russ? MR. R. DOERN: Well, I'm sorry but I was never in any Master's program in History and I've never been thrown out of any program; I don't know about my honourable friend. But, Mr.

Speaker, I simply say, in general, that when I hear people recoi ling, they're running around deciding what to do next. Now, what was one of the stupidest things we've ever seen? lt was a letter in the Free Press about a week 3731

Tueadey, 9 July, 1915 ago, or on the weekend. There was a little letter to the Editor with a flag and underneath was some poor distraught woman or person who wrote a letter to the Free Press because, by George or by Sal ly, she was listening to the National Anthem one day, Mr. Speaker, and did you know there is sexist language In the National Anthem. Now I forgot that, and it says something about our sons. - (Interjection) - That's right; it has the word "sons". Well, Mr.

Speaker, that has to go and this lady is going to start a movement and it's going to be seconded, I am sure, by the Member for River East because he's trying very hard to be trendy and he, I am sure, will bring in a bill next time to recommend to the Federal Government to change the words of the National Anthem to persons, instead of sons; "for we are sons and daughters, stand on guard for thee". Well, Mr. Speaker, this nonsense knows no bounds. There's the people that are worried about the Museum of Man and Nature.

They're worried about expressions about man-made; that's a terrible sexist remark. - (Int erjection) - You better believe it. My honourable friend is absolutely right. He says that there are people who are worried about the word "person" because it has son in it, and do you know that woman and women have the words "man" and "men" in it. So what do the trendy types do in the United States, those great women's li bbers, those outstanding feminists, they change the spelling. Yes, maybe you don't know that.

They have changed the spelling of the word women and you can see in some publications, it's spelled w­ o-m-y-n, or w-i-m-m-i-n; it's like swimmin and women. Mr. Speaker, we cannot have men even in the word women, we cannot have that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speak er, we had the young im pressionable Minister of Labour came back from Washington. You know, big "L" goes to Washington and then he comes back and what does he tell us. He says that he had a meeting with Congress persons; remember, he met with American congr ess persons, because he wants to be with it.

The trouble with us Is we're all getting older and we want to have the trendy vocabulary if we can't keep up with the latest thinking. We want a sound with it and so he's got Congr ess persons in Washington. Mr. Speaker, the silliest example I ever saw, I believe, was two or three years ago in Ottawa or Toronto. lt was in the springtime; it was the end of winter, there was still snow on the ground and two young ambitious young children got together.

There was some nice wet snow and they rolled up a couple of big balls of snow and put together this figure and, right on the front page of this Ottawa paper, or this Toronto paper, were two young children who had built a snowperson; yes, a snowperson. I mean none of this old guff and garbage that some of us, unfortuna tely, have learned over the years about snowmen; none of that stuff, boy, that is out.

So you have to have snowpersons and cong resspersons and chairpersons and wimyn and you have to go back to school or go to Success, Angus Commercial College and take a course in spelling and learn how to spell and how to talk because you have to be recycled into the newest cliche-ridden period that we live in. Well, Mr. Speaker, I could speak at greater length but I think I've made my point, and the point is that there is just a lot of total nonsense behind this concept of sexist language. In the old days, it used to be he, she, and it, and now, Mr.

Speaker, the he's are silent; the she's are noisy, and the it's are demonstrating in the streets. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honour able Attorne y-General will be closing debate. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, my remarks in closing will be brief.

I would like to note at the outset that it is a sad day when a member of this Legislature, in addressing one of the most important bills to come before this Legislature, not only in this Session but In this Legislature, having to do with something that the vast majority of Canada and Canadians cherish, that is the notion of equality rights, can do no better than trivial lze that bill with jokes that Ill ustrate, I would say, how despicable that person has become in addressing some of the mandates of the Charter. Yo u know, Mr.

Speaker, the question of sexist language is not a joke. it's not the most Important thing in this bill, but the question of sexist language has become a symbol of the exploitation of women In our society. lt is not baloney in the fact that all of those members over there, including the Member for Gladstone, thought it was all very fun ny, ill ustrates how serious the problem is when 51 percent of our population who have and continue to be exploited in our society in every way. That exploitation is carried as much cultu rally, as much by image, as much by the put down of language, as in any other way.

Language is the carrier of attitudes. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand anything. lt is not, I would think, trivial for someone who is a woman to say that I would not like to be called a chairman, I am not a man, and the "man" in "chairman" means man. I would like to be called a chairperson because it is my dignity which is at stake. To say that that is all very funny and trendy is to show how far this mem ber has fallen from any un derstanding of equality issues.

Indeed, I find it shocking that the members of the opposition, other than that member, should .indicate how antediluvian they are. They will be exposed in the next election for how reactionary they are in this as in every other respect. They should talk to their own Prime Minister. I have a lot of criticisms of the Prime Minister of this country but I will say that on this issue he has shown himself to be a leader.

He has shown an example that this bunch of right-wing, red-necked Tories will never be able to emulate and that is why they live in the shadow of Manitoba history and they will continue to live in the shadow of Manitoba history and their defeat in the next election will make their defeat in 1981 pale in comparison. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is cheapness in the extreme, having a difference, as the Member for Elmwood did, with the notion of sexist langua ge to treat this whole bill with petty sarcasm and California jokes. I say no more about it than that.

He made one remark incidentally about myself in history which shows that he is here, as elsewhere, used to making statements about people and things without any research. Yes, it is true, Mr. Speaker, I have taught 3732

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 history. The only history I have ever taught is Canadian history, and I taught it well. I taught about the traditions of this country, and I taught about the explor ers of this country. I have taught about the founders of Manitoba, and I know more about the history of this country than he will ever know. The reason why he is incapable of knowing about the history of this country is because he is incapable of thinking in a principled way. My only other remark, Sir, has to do with some criticisms which are made of the bill in terms of the provision with respect to paternity leave.

I would just like to, read ing from the record, note a remark made by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye and the Member for Minnedosa. The Member for La Vere ndrye, in Hansard, on Frida y, the 5th of Ju ly, 1985, Page 3633 said, "For a male to get six weeks off, if his wife has a baby, Mr. Speak er, by law, is absolutely ridiculous." - (Int erject ion) - We ll, I'm not misquoting you. "I cannot support that

section at all, and I can't understand the thinking of members opposite. lt shows they do really live in some kind of a cocoon and rea lly don't know what is happening out there in the real world." That's quote No. 1. Quote No. 2 from the Member for Minnedosa: "I 've had calls already as a result of the headline that they've got in the paper, that the average guy out there just thinks this is absolutely ridiculous to even consider it." First of all, if I may, Mr.

Deputy Speaker. to point out in answer to the question thrown from his place by the Member for Sturgeon Creek that they've had this - (I nterject ion) - if you wouldn't mind -i n Saskachewan and have it in Saskatchewan. which is open for business. Remember? Saskatchewan, open for business, has paternity leave and has had it for several years. lt has proved a success and no one is criticizing it there. lt hasn't disrupted all of the little businesses that the Member for La Verendrye said that it would. lt hasn't. But to go back to the two quotes, the assumption that is made is that this is something for the guys.

The guys can hardly wait to get their wives pregnant so that at the appropriate time they can get this unpaid leave for six weeks. What palpable nonsense. You know. it is as if there is some sort of a population explosion that is going to be perpetuated by this bill so people can get off work for six weeks. This same kind of argument that the Member for La Ve rendrye gave about the disruption of business was given time and time again when thi ngs like paid vacations and sick leave were argued - (In terje ction) - yes they were.

The same kind of "Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war," the same kind of doom and gloom. The point that I would like to make is that paternity leave - (Interject ion) - would you just listen for a moment - paternity leave is not for the guys. Paternity leave ... HON. MEMBERS: Bye-bye Rolly. HON. R. PENNER: You should live so long. I'll be back in this House. Oh, yes, I will. I'll be back in this House and on this side of the House when a lot of you are down there back on the farm on the back 40, wondering what the hell it was all about. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, D.

ScoH: Order please. Order. HON. R. PENNER: Paten1ity leave is not for the guys. Don't you remember what it's like for a woman coming back from the maternity hospital, having to come home, and all of the pain and the suffering that she has to go through, maybe looking after other kids.

If there is any possibility that the man in the house can fulfill his responsibility as a caring parent - and I'm not ashamed of the word "caring" - and be able to come home and help. lt is not for the guys. lt is for the women who suffer the pain and suffering of childbirth and have to come home to the house chores and to the family chores. We're not talking here about those who live in extended families. A MEMBER: Ask some of the women about it? HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, I have. I know that I talk to, I meet with, I mix with a lot of young parents and I know what the situation is.

Paternity leave is widely accepted. lt functions well. There was no need to get up there as the Memb er for La Vere ndrye did in semi­ hysterics and worry what would happen if that mechanic in his repair shop . . . A MEMBER: You seem to forget we're all fathers over here. HON. R. PENNER: No, you've forgotten, I haven't forgotten. A MEMBER: We've all been through it. HON. R. PENNER: Ye s, and so have I, and still am. You are the ones who have forgotten, I haven't forgotten. No, what you are reflect ing is your one and only concern, the concern for the empl oyer. That's the only concern you have.

Your humanism is as narrow as that. Mr. Speaker, in closing debate, I simply wanted to say that the fears that have been expressed with respect to paternity leave are misplaced. Paternity leave has been misunderstood. I think that simply shows that, in this respect as in so many other respects, they don't do the resear ch. lt's all knee-jerk react ion. They've got a bunch of sort of one liners there about socialism or communist boards or all the rest of it.

The Member for Elmwood is a ridiculous member in this House whose sole contribution to debate is that of turning everyt hing into a joke in the hope that one day the press will finally pay him some attention, instead of treating him, as he deservedly should be treated, as somebody who has been thrown into the ashcan of history. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL 85 -THE HEALTH SERVICES INSURANCE ACT (2); LA

LOI SUR L'ASSURANCE-MALADIE

(2) MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hono urable Mr. Des jardins, Bill 85,

An Act to amend 3733

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 The Health Services Insurance Act (2); Loi modifiant la

loi sur l'assurance-maladie (2), standing in the name of Mr. Enns. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate for my honourable friend, the Member for Pembina. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a few remarks to Bill 85 now which was introduc ed with very little comment by the Minister of Health. His remarks were incisive and to the point, and probably couldn't be classified as hot air when he introduced this. But, Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Health didn't exactly explain very much to the House on how he came to the realization for the need for this kind of legislation. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Health did not do the normal consultative homework that a Cabinet Minister of his seniority and his experience usually does in introducing this kind of legislation. I am finding that there are substantive concerns with this legislation in groups of people that I've talked to regarding the implications of this particular bill. Now, first of all, Mr. Speaker, we have to realize what this legislation is.

This legislation is restrictive legislation. lt confers to the Health Services Commission, and ultimately to the Minister, a number of abilities of regulation and standard setting in two areas, that of personal care home operation and the operation of diagnostic labs. Now, Mr. Speaker, some of the abilities of this legislation are currently contained in regulations; for instance, the personal care homes regulations under The Public Health Act currently provide a lot of the capabil ity that the Minis ter is conferring to the Commission and to himself with some changes. Now, Mr.

Speaker, one of the things that - and I'll deal with the personal care home aspect of this legislation first off - is given in this legislation is the ability to determine the need for a personal care home and, where it is deemed by the Commission that the need exists, then a licence will be granted. Following on that are enabling clauses which will allow standards to be drawn, standards which currently exist in the operation of personal care homes, presumably for the protection of the residents that will be living in those personal care homes. Mr.

Speaker, the legislation also provides, by the amendment here, the ability of the Minister to revoke an existing approval. Now, Mr. Speaker, that existed under The Public Health Services legislation and is being formalized here and, I believe, the ability for the Minister to make the decision is being tightened up and being made more central ized within the Commission and within the Minister of Health's office. Now that is sold presumably to the public as being necessary for the protection of the residents, who often are unable to care for themselves, of personal care homes.

From that standpoint, most Manitobans would agree that ability to revoke the licence should lie with the licensing body and with the Minister. But, Mr.

Speaker, as was mentioned in the committee hearings this morning to The Ambulance Services Act by the Association of Rights and Liberties, the one flaw in this legislation - I'm sure if they are aware of this bill, Bill 85, they will be probably be at the committee hearings to present the Minister with the same concerns - is that the Minister's decision does not have, by statutory amendment that he's presenting, any method of appeal; the Minister assumes the final say.

Once aga in, the Mini ster can justify that - the Attorney-General tried to justify it this morning to the Association of Rights and Liberties why it should exist. But, Mr. Speaker, in Manitoba right now, we have a system of both publicly-owned and funded personal care homes and private personal care homes. This government, the New Democratic Party, their party platform says that they do not agree with the private ownership of personal care homes. That is a standing party policy.

This ability the Minister has now enshrined in Bill 85 to revoke an approval, without the mechanism of appeal to an impartial third body, could be arbitrarily used. For instance, and I will use an example, in the instance of a protracted labour dispute at a privately owned personal care home; to settle that dispute this legislation could be triggered with the Minister pulling the licence, or threatening to revoke the licence, of that owner of the personal care home. Mr.

Speaker, there is no mechanism for appeal, and there are such words as "need" and "where the granting would not be contrary to the public interest". Well those are very broad and very wide legislative requirements or mandates. There is, once again, no definition of "need ." There is no definition of what would be contrary to the public interest. So, Mr. Speaker, this is not unusual, it happened before.

But today in the era of the Charter of Rights which the Attorney-General just gave us a mini-lecture on, there are very wide-ranging powers in here that the next Minister of Health is going to faced with, as to whether they will be abused by himself and by the Commission. But, Mr. Speaker, those areas in terms of the personal care homes are not the major areas of concern. The major areas of concern that I have with this legislation is in the granted authority under this legislation to the Commission, and ultimately to the Minister of Health, the ability to license diagnostic labs.

I guess one has to again reiterate to the Minister and to his caucus, who may not be aware of some of the abilities contained in Bill 85, this is restrictive legislation. This is not enabling legislation; this is restrictive legislation. Mr.

Speaker, it appears from the Minister's opening remarks of June 12th, Page 2905 in Hansard, it appears as if the prime target of this restrictive legislation will be the private diagnostic laboratories that operate in the Province of Manitoba and are providing services to various hospitals, to various health care institutions, to various doctors in the Province of Manitoba in their efforts to deliver quality health care to the people of Manitoba, because it is only in the Minister's opening remarks that he deals solely with the monies expended to private diagnostic labs that he offers as justification for this legislation. 373-' Now, Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Health that in the course of developing this legisla tion, were 3734

TuHclaJ, 9 JUIJ, 1885 the various groups that are now currently involved with assuring quality services in our diagnostic labs, whether they be publicly owned and within the hospitals or within the clinics, or private free-standing diagnostic labs, were the people that are involved with them consulted as to what the Minister was proposing in legislation? Was the College of Physicians and Surgeons consulted? Was the MMA consulted? The Manitoba Association of Lab Tec hnologists who by and large perform a lot of the laboratory operations, were the y consulted?

The physicians whose specially is laboratory diagno sis, were they consulted as to the implications and the new powers conferred on the Commission by this legislation? Furthermore, do they have any concerns? I think, Mr. Speaker, we will find out that they do have concerns. Now, Mr. Speak er, what is provided in terms of diagn ostic laboratory licensing is the ability for the Commission to license and, once again, the Commission determines whether there is a need. And what is the defi nition of need?

What criterion does the Commission, by dir ection of the Minister of Health and his gover ning party, use to determine need? There is no question there is need for ultrasound diagnosis throughout the Province of Manitoba, there is no question that there is need for CAT scanning capabilities in the Province of Manitoba, but yet those are currently not being fulfilled. There is another

section in the bill which says that the Commission, in granting the approval, must assure themselves that this approval would not be contrary to the public interest. Well what is the public interest? I think, if we all think about it, we would have to agree that the public interest is in providing the best possible health care services that we can. But by conferring to the Commission and this Minister the licensing of labs and the ability to revoke them, we are sett ing with the Commission and the Minister of Health and the funding body the ability to determine need. I suggest, Mr.

Speak er, that what we have in this legislation is the granting and the conferring of the ability to ration di agnostic lab services in an effort by the Commission to control budget costs, and the need will be the need of the Commission to meet their budget and not necessarily the need of Manitobans to avail themselves of qual ity health care services and diagno stic procedures.

This is not unique because the government, through the Health Services Commission, through budgets, are right now rationing services in the medical field and this legislation will enable them to ration further the availability of diagnostic services. Mr. Speaker , what is the process right now by which our diag nostic labs are controlled, if you will, or monitored to assure that proper standards are achieved, to assure that Manitobans get good laboratory tests and results so that their physicians can make proper diagn oses?

Wel l, right now the College of Physicians and Surgeons sets the standards and maintain and assure that those standards are met throughout the labs. There is a constant monitoring. There are standard blood samples and cultures that are sent out to the various labs for identification and those results come back and they have to be correct or that lab is subject to investigation. I am given to understand, Mr.

Speake r, that right now in Mani toba we offer through that system, admini stered and watchdogged, if you will, by the Col lege of Physicians and Sur geons, we have in Manitoba probably as high a standard in our diagnostic labs as exists anywhere in Canada and may well be as high as exists anywhere in North America. lt is a good and functioning system. Mr.

Speak er, this legislation now - and I will deal with the process a little further - quite often when you have a new di agnostic procedure, the diagnostic labs, if that procedure is not covered by the Manitoba Health Services Comm ission fee schedule, has not been approved for payment by the MHSC under the Medicare plan, often those procedures will be under taken for several years, either absorbed as part of the cost of providing health care services or they will be charged nominally to the patient for whom the procedure and the test is being done, but often it's a number of years before those procedu res are approved for payment by MHSC as part of the Medicare plan, and those tests go on.

Mr. Speak er, the College of Physicians and Surgeons make sure in those cases that the procedure and the test is working, that it is a good procedure and a good test, but now, Sir, all of those regulatory and monitoring standards will be switched over to the Health Services Commission. Now, Mr. Speaker, here is the danger in doing that, and I am sure the Minister must recognize it now. The danger is that MHSC is the paymaster; they are the people with the budget. They are the people who pay the bills to the diagnostic labs.

Now you are going to have the paymaster set the standards and determine which labs shall and shall not be licen sed and they shall dete rmine also ultimately now, rather than the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which tests will be approved, which new diagnostic procedures will be approved. So here we have a conflict of inter est, if you will, in which the paymaster now becomes the one who is se tting the standards for what they are paying. Mr. Speaker , in the era which we are in now - and this Minister of Health will not deny it -w e do not have unlimited dollars to spend in our health care syste m.

We have limited dollars. The next government, our government, will be faced with those same limited dollar problems. I ask the Minister, is this the appropriate time to be removing from a quasi-independent body, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the responsibility for the monitoring of diagnostic labs, the personnel in them, the standards they live by, and the procedu res they unde rtake, and removing it from an independent body and putting it in the hands of the paymaster in a time of restricted budgets? I don't think that this is the time to be doing it. lt is fraught with problems, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't think the Minister realized when he brought this legislation forward - and obviously it was drafted by the Health Services Commission - the kind of conflict of interest that he was proposing in this legislation. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to ask ou rselves when we are debating this legislation whether we want the paymaster to be determining the need for a new lab when they are applying for licensing. We have to ask ourselves whether we want the paymaster, the Manitoba Health Services Commission, to be determining where those labs shall be. Bearing in mind that many of us 3735

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 are from rural Manitoba, will the Commission say that it is more efficient and cost-effective to have all those labs in the City of Winn ipeg to the detriment of rural Manitoba? This legislation would allow it, Sir. Are we now doing the right thing by conferring to the payma ster, the MH SC, th e abili ty to set the standards in those labs when they are faced with limited budgets and efforts to cut costs? Mr. Speaker, are we doing the right thing by conferring to the paymaster the total ability now to determine what tests and what new procedures will be covered under the Medicare plan?

I suggest not, Mr. Speaker. We need that impartial third body as exists today and which has provided us in the College of Physicians and Surgeons with a very excellent standard of laboratory services in the Province of Manitoba. So, Mr. Speak er, this legislation gives the paymaster the right to determine in what facility, where that facility is, and by what standards those procedu res will be unde rtaken.

I say that this may well be interpr eted by anyone who is an objective, outside observer as the first step the government is taking to enable them to ration and control their budget and ration the medical diag nostic services available in the Province of Manitoba because of budgetary constraints. This legislation confers it on them. Mr. Speaker, there is another area that I want to deal with very briefly with the Minister. This is an area that was menti oned to me by the Ma nit oba Lab Te chnologists Association. There are exemptions in this legislation, Mr. Speaker .

Excluded from the requirement of a licence as conferred by the MHSC, are offices of a medical practitioner , offices of a dentist and offices of chiropractors. Now that, Sir, is presu mably to allow them to carry on with their normal X-raying in a chir opractor's office, the dental X-rays in the dentist's office, and certainly a lot of doctors' offices and major clinics have diagn ostic labs as part of their facilities. So that will be all owed to continue. But here is a concern that the lab technicians have mentioned to me that I wish the Minister would add ress.

Within the doctor's office, within the office of a medical practitione r, the lab will be excluded from the licensing requirements - and I suppose one could take it on further in terms of the inspection facilities, etc., etc., although I don't think that that is the intent - but the labs associated with the office of a medical practitioner are exempt from licensing providing they follow the short list of diagnostic procedures and laboratory processes which are currently in effe ct.

What the lab technicians are concerned about is whether the short list which is established by the College of Physicians and Surgeons will ever be expanded. I don't know whether this is a legitimate problem - I understand that it may well be going the other way - but this legislation allows this to happen. lt allows an expansion of the short list of laboratory procedu res which can be undertaken in a diagnostic lab exempted from these legislative provisions.

The lab technicians make the case that that takes it beyond any sort of reasonable input they might have in sugge sting to the government what standards should be prevailed and whether those standards are being ad hered to. lt's a concern they have; it's a concern that the Minister should be aware of; it's a concern the Minister should address. Mr. Speaker , the Minister has conferred upon himself the abilit y, by

summary conviction once again, to levy fines of not more than $1,000 per day tha t an offence is deemed to have taken place. This whole process, once again, Is in-house in the MH SC, the Manitoba Health Services Commission. They are the people who pay the bills, who now license the labs, set the standards in the labs, determine the procedu res that are to be done in those labs, and now confer upon thems elves the ability to determine whether any of those labs are offending those standards and that licensing and those procedures. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is a complete in-house activity of the paymaster from start to finish - court, jury, judge, policing officer, arresting officer and the judge who assigns the fine, all in-house, all given to the Manitoba Health Services Commission.

And I will stand corrected if the Minister can tell me where the method of appeal is in this legislation other than to the Health Services Commission and presumably to the Minister. lt's a problem that the Minister listened to this morning being add ressed by the Association of Rights and Liberties in The Ambula nce Service Act this morning in committee, and that same criticism can be levelled here tod ay. Mr.

Speaker, I want to further remind the Minister of an anomaly that he add ressed when we talked about - it originally started out as Bill No. 2 and I don't know what it switched to, I think it was 56 - the extra billing legislation, the legislation that banned extra billing. I asked the Minister - and this is very important when we consider this legislation now because extra billing now is illegal in the Province of Manitoba - whether Bill No. 2 allowed the Min ister of Health through

summary conviction, to put Morgentaler out of busine ss because Morgentaler is providing an insured service, an abortion, which is available through hospitals in Winnip eg and in rural Ma nitoba; and because Morgentaler charges much in excess of the Manitoba Health Services Commission's prescribed fee - whether this allowed the Minister of Health to shut Morgentaler down. The answer the Minister of Health gave me was no, because Morgentaler is not operating in a licensed facility. · Now, Mr. Speaker, that was interes ting. I believe it was something of a - (Int erject ion) - oh yes it was; you check Hansard. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister said it was not an insured service, but Morgentaler is providing an insured service. There is where the problem is; it is an insured service that is paid for if it's done in a . hospital. The Minister cannot and does not have the abilit y by th e extr a billing legislation to ban Dr. Morgentaler from perfo rming abortions at a rate greater and far in excess of the MHSC fee schedule. Mr. Sp eak er, the Mi nister said he can't touch Morgent aler.

Then with this legislation, he will not be able to touch a private diagnostic clinic who operates presumably without a licence and, for instance, moves in as they do in California with a semi-trailer , with a complete diagno stic lab in the back of that semi-trailer which provides CAT scanning, ultrasound diagnosis. Remember , those two services are in demand in Manitoba; the waiting list is anywhere from four to eight weeks. We have Manitobans going to North Dakota to receive those kinds of services. 3731: 3736

TuHday, 9 July, 1985 This legislation, because the Minister cannot deal with Dr. Henry Morgentaler in his unlicensed clinic - presuma bly, this legislation would not prevent an entrepreneur - it could even be somebody from California whose business is now dwindling in the shopping centres in California - from moving that trailer up and locating in the Polo Park Shopping Centre, sett ing up a booth in the middle of the lobby or in the aisleway in Polo Park Shopping Centre and having people go through for a CAT scan.

They may well desire to do that, and pay the cost, and charge in excess of what MHSC prescribes as a prescribed and payable diagn ostic fee for that CAT scan. So, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister says that that diagnostic lab, as I have described it, cannot possibly operate in Manitoba, he cannot have his cake and eat it too.

He cannot sit on his picket fence and say that the diagno stic lab that is going to provide health diagn oses and save lives in Manitoba cannot come into Manitoba while, on the other hand, he says that his extra billing legislation still doesn't allow him to get at Morgentaler who is taking life in Manitoba. So, Mr.

Speaker, one way or the other, if his statement applies in Bill No. 2 in extra billing that is he is powerless to control Morgentaler, then he may well be powerless in this legislation to prevent the diagno stic lab coming into this province and providing a needed health care service to people in Manitoba who want to pay for it, because they don't like the del<i!Y of four to eight weeks through the paid-for Medicare system in the Province of Manitoba. Mr.

Speake r, in closing my remarks, I only reiterate that the Minister never mentio ned one single word about standards, about quality of service in the diagno stic labs. The only thing he mentioned was the costs and the escalating costs paid to private diag nostic labs in the Province of Manitoba. lt would be fair to conclude from any impartial observer that this legislation is designed for this government which is anti-pri vate enterprise to devise a means to get at tho se private labs th at are curr ently provi ding a service to Manitobans, to the physicians, to the hospitals in Manitoba.

He didn't mention any other diagnostic lab except the private labs. If this is one more piece of legislation tha t ena bles this New Democratic Government to declare war on the private se ctor then, Mr. Speak er, no thinking Manitoban could support this. The Minister offered no other explanation. He did not say that the standards in tho se labs were below an accepted leveL He did not say that they were in violation, that there were problems. He just mentioned the cost.

That, Sir, is why I come to the conclusion, in reviewing this legislation and the Minister's remarks and in discussion with other individuals who are dir ectly involved in the provision of laboratory services in the Province of Manitoba, this is enabling legislation for this government to ration diagnostic services to the need, as is said in this legislation, and the need being the budget of MHSC, not the need of health services of the people but the need to meet the government's budget in MHSC. If that's the case, Mr.

Speaker, we do not need this kind of rest rictive legislation impacting upon health care in the Province of Manitoba. There are enough problems without further complicating it with arbitrary legislation conferring arbitrary powers with no appeal to a body that is going to sit as licensing body, standards body, review body, prose cuting body and fine-collecting body - with no appeal, Mr. Speaker. So, Mr. Speaker, the Minister, in closing debate, will no doubt attempt to clarify some of the concerns I have.

I ask him to do so, and I ask him also whether this legislation has been discussed with the various parties who are involved in provi ding the current laboratory services such as the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Association of Lab Tec hnologists, and the MMA. Until the Minister can answer those kinds of questions, he cannot justify why we should be passing this legislation in undue haste as we are being asked to do tod ay. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Mem ber for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had not originally intended to speak on this bill, but I was stimulated to rise when I heard some of the comments made by the Member for Pembina. I realize he's new to his job and I realize I don't know all there is to know about Health, but I think that perhaps it would be useful for him to investigate some of the problems which do exist in the diagno stic services in this province today insofar as standards are concerned. The Member for Pembina says that he is not aware of any problems with standards in the private labs.

He says there is no reason that the Manitoba Health Services Commission should be involved in setting standards in private labs. Ye t, I know for a fact that there is every reason to do that, Mr. Speaker. In the one example that I am familiar with, which is the cervical cancer screening program in this province, I can tell you that the standards are a mess, and they've been a mess for quite some years. This has been one of the more or less secret causes that I have been embarked on over the last two or three years now. The wheels of government turn slowly, but they are turning.

I am pleased to see that there is going to be some sort of improvement in the standards in the cervical cancer testing programs in this province. The problem basically is that there are no real standards set for Pap smears in the cervical cancer tes ting program. The College of Physician s and Surgeons sets th ose standards, but th ose standards are, if I could be frank, abysmally lax. They are not up to standard. They are not up to North American medical standards.

There was a Manitoba Quality Assurance Program study done of the Pap smear testing program in this province a year ago. lt found that, while we know that statistically some 3 percent of the women who have Pap smears tested will have some abnormality detected which should be either closely monitored or immed iately looked after, we know that there are labs in this province which do 10,000 cases a year and find none. Statistically, there should be 300. That's how bad the standards are in some of the labs. Now in the study that I saw, the labs wer en't broken down into what is private and what is public.

They were simply Lab A, Lab B, Lab C, but the standards are not there. 3737

Tuesday, 9 July, 1985 The Health Sciences Centre, for example, does a 10 percent rescr eening of each Pap smear whic h is presented to them for testing. That means that, if they do 100 smears, then someone else will come by and check 10 of them. The private labs don't do that, because they get their money based on the volume that they put through. There is no College of Physicians and Sur geons standard req uiring a 10 perce nt rescreening, and they get mistakes that way.

The results of this study, while the study was not exactly the most medically rigid and scientifically precise study of the standards for Pap smear testing in this province, I think it would be fair to say that, nevertheless, based on the statistics for 19 83, there were some 500 women in Manitoba who were tested and not found to be having a problem which should be watched when, in fact, they should have. That means there are about 500 women who are at risk because of poor standards in the cervical cancer testing program in this province. Now, I believe that things are happening. There was an

article in the American Journal of Gynecology in March of'84, I believe it was, or April, which seriously took this province to task for not having adequate standards in this particular program. Throughout the medical literature, you'll find people not happy with what's happening in Manitoba. We once had a registry where women could have their Pap smears registered, and a central registry would be ther e for future reference. That was elimina ted almost 10 years ago, over ten years ago, that should be re-introduced.

These are things which must be done if you're going to have a logical and a rational and an effective screening program in this province. That is one of the things that this bill is geared towards. lt's a major problem; there may be some cost savings, but the real savings is in lives. The fact that you have a province which is willing to lead the college may be dragging its feet. lt's known about the problem for some years now, but the province, the government, which is leading the college, dragging its feet into setting better standards in these labs, and that's what's necessary.

I think that just because you have a group of doctors who say that they're not the MMA, they're on the standard side of things, that there's no conflict of interest; I don't believe that. I don't believe it for one minute that a doctor can sit off on the side in the College of Physicians and Surgeons and not have a conflict of interest necessarily. lt's human nature, I think it can happen, you can't just rule it out. I think that's what's happening in this case, the College is simply protecting a lot of these doctors with their labs and not setting effective standards. I just simply want to add those few remarks.

If I'd known that I was going to speak, I would have had a much better presentation today but it came out of the blue and I want to get these remarks on the record for the Member for Pembina so that he knows that there are serious problems in some labs, in some areas, in some kinds of testing. The fact that hundr eds of people can go undetected is not something which should be left unattended and left up to the College of Physicians and Surgeons to mull over year after year, after year.

They have to be lead and it's the role of the government to ensure that effective standards are set for the diagnostic services labs in this province. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to take this opportunity to relate to the Minister a concern that I have, and a problem that seems to be developing in this province in the last little while, and maybe it's something that the Minister is looking into.

But, having listened to the Member for Pembina speak ing and knowing that my colleagues in the Legislature many are receiving the same calls I am with regard to the CAT scan waiting lists, I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that this type of legislation will not put any further restrictions on the people who wish to have CAT scans. Mr. Speaker, I think we find, as members of the Legislature, ourselves, in pretty tight spots sometimes when advising people on what to do.

Someone with a brain tumor who is asked to wait five weeks or four weeks for a CAT scan, the mental anguish that that person goes through is something, I guess, that I can't really relate to a personally because I've never had it. But I know that people are really troubled by it. We find ourselves, as legislators now, instead of being able to say, well listen maybe you can get it a little quicker, or there's something else we can do to help you, Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves saying, well if you go to Grand Forks you can get it done in a day, but you have to pay for it.

But I want to tell the members opposite, that that in itself already tells me something, that we are slowly losing the access and the ability to move on some of these health care problems very quick ly. I have no hesitation in saying, Mr. Speaker, that if I were suspected of having a brain tumor and I had to wait four to five weeks to get a CAT scan done, I'll tell you, I'd spend that extra $75 or $10 0 to go down to Grand Forks and get it done the next day just to have the peace of mind and to know what was happening.

I say to members opposite that I don't pretend to be an expert in that field, but it is starting to be a real problem, because I think in the last month, I had three people who came to ask about the long waiting list for the CAT scan and so I say to member s opposite that there is a problem developing. lt seems to have become, I don't know if it's because of the higher incidence of cancer being detected these days, but I want to say to members opposite, that I can talk to almost everyone of my colleagues who, in the last month or two, has received a call concerned about the waiting period and the use of the CAT scan, and I say it to members opposite that if some of these people who are really desperate to have it done and want to kn ow where they're at, the only option that the members of the Legislature have in dealing with this is to refer them to the United States.

And I think that's a pretty sad commentary of what we're headed and I hope the Minister will take that into consideration and provide us with some explanation as to how that problem can be alleviated. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't intend to re-open all the debates in the Estimates in 3738

TUesday, 9 July, 1985 the Department of Health. Many of the things such as the concern of the last spoken were covered during the Estimates of the Department of Health. I will try to come dir ectly to the point and explain what this is all about without playing games at all. I think that some of the points that were made are absolutely true; some others are not quite true. The situation on this is that we've had an Adv isory Committee who have discussed this with the people concerned.

There is in the standards, actually I must di sagree with my colleague s th at talk about the standards, I think that the College of Physicians and Surgeons has done, not a perfect job, but I think we must try to improve the situation and to improve standards as much as possible. I think that they've done a pretty good job. I should say that one of the reasons I didn't say too much about the standards at the time, is that we are in the process, I was advised by our legal adviser, that was after the Act was printed, that it might need some amendments. There's no doubt; we're not trying to take that away at all.

We 're going to supervise and make sure that ever y1hing goes well, but the standards are the resp onsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. lt might be that we'll have, as I say, some amendments for that. That has been discussed with the College of P hysicians. I know, as I say, we might have an amendment on that, that's one of the reasons I didn't say too much.

I'll make no bones about it, tt]e standards are still the respo nsibility of the College of Physicians and Surgeons. lt doesn't mean that we can't work with them on that and make sure that this is done, but we don't intend to take that away, somet hing th at was gi ven by legislation to the College of Physicians, and they're doing it for the public. The situation of CAT scan, as I sa