Manitoba Hansard — 5 November 1996 (Sitting 76, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-76

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba .. • .. . : · .. .. ·· :··,�_;_:: .• J.J �� .• .... :,.. DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 76- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 5, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-8ixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Coostjtuency J>a.J1)' ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATH LIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Ross mere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D P

4737 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, November 5, 1996 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Guaranteed Annual Income Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Rhonda Chorney, J. Bonnie Caldwell, Otto Schelberger and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson) to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which pro vides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care, that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families. Manitoba Telephone System Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St.

James): I beg to present the petition of Paul Phillips, Will Seymour, T. MacDonald and others requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Gordon Warren, John K. T. Almdal and John G. Bays requesting that the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of M.

MacHutchon, Jim Holt, Walter Domanski and others requesting that the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Louise Proven, Keith Proven, Morgan Proven and others requesting that the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Ruth Allbutt, Jac P. Siemens, M.B.

McGrath requesting that the Premier withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. Selkirk and District General Hospital Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Robin Gambler, Jean Sutherland, Diane Fidler and others praying that the Legi slative Assembly urge the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to halt the proposed nursing deletions at the Selkirk and District General Hospital. * (13 35) READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Guaranteed Annual Income Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).

It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and

4738 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 IHAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUlvfBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legisl ation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safo, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

Manitoba Telephone System Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read. Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the Wtdersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years providing province-wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America and thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, with nearly 4,000 employees including more than 1,000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and THAT the pro\-incial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Leg islative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Law Amendments Ninth Report Mr. David Newman (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its Ninth Report.

An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Monday, November 4, 1996, at 9 a. m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills reforred At that meeting, your committee elected Mr. Laurendeau as its Vice-Chairperson. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 4-The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d'assurance publique du Manitoba

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4739 Nap Gagnon -Private Citizen Bill 76-The Gaming Control and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia Commission de regie du jeu et apportant des modifications correlatives Doug Chernichan -M anitoba Hotel Association Sheldon Turbovsky - Winnipeg Bingo and Gaming Magazine David Brant- Four Winds Founders Larry Desjardins - Private Citizen Your committee has considered: Bill 4-The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d'assurance publique du Manitoba Bill 59-The Powers of Attorney and Mental Health Amendment Act; Loi concernant /es procurations et modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia sante menta/e Bill 61- The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1 996; Loi de 1996 modifiant diverses dispositions tegislatives and has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your committee has also considered: Bill 55-The Financial Administration and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant Ia gestion des finances publiques et apportant des modifications correlatives and has agreed to report the same, with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT subsection 6(1) of the Bill be amended by striking out "clause 7(b)" and substituting "clause (2)(b)" . MOTION: THAT the following be added after clause 44(2)(d): (d. 1) the Chief Electoral Officer; MOTION: THAT

section 82 be struck out. MOTION: THAT the following be added after

section 93 of the Bill: Consequential amendments, C. C. S.M c. F85 93.1 Subsection 9(1) of The Fiscal Stabilization Fund Act is amended by striking out "four" and substituting "six". MOTION: THAT

section 99 be struck out. MOTION: THAT the following be added after

section 108 of the Bill: Consequential Amendments, C. C. S.M c. S185 108.1 Subsection 24(1) of The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act is amended by striking out "1 20 days" and substituting "six months". MOTION: THAT

section 113 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted: Coming into force 113(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), this Act comes into force on a day fixed by proclamation. Coming into force: sections 93.1 and 108.1 113(2) Sections 93. 1 and 108. 1 are retroactive and are deemed to have come into force on July 31, 1996. Coming into force: certain consequential amendments 113(3) Subsections 83(1) and (2) and sections 84 to 93, 94 to 98, 100 to 102, 104 to 108, 109 and 110 come into force on the day this Act receives royal assent. MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal reftrences necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee.

4740 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 Your committee has also considered: Bill 75-The Commodity Futures Act;

Loi sur les con/rats a terme and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT the definition "margin" in subsection 1 (1) be amended in clause (

b) by adding "during or at the end of a day by a member of the clearing house" after "must be deposited". MOTION: THAT

section 18 be amended by adding "futures" after "registered commodity ". MOTION: THAT subsection 22(1) be amended by adding "registered" after "Each". MOTION: THAT

section 41 of the English version be amended by striking out "his or her" and substituting "his, her or its". MOTION: That subsection 44(3) be amended by striking out "commodity or option" and substituting "contract or option". MOTION: THAT subsection 48(1) be amended (

a) by striking out the

section heading and substituting "Restrictions on trading in contracts"; and (

b) by striking out "or" at the end of the clause (a) , by adding "or" at the end of the clause (

b) and by adding the following after clause (b) : (

c) using electronic mail. MOTION: THAT subsection 69(2) be amended by striking out "or agents" and substituting ", agents or directors". MOTION: THAT the proposed

section 79 be amended in the French version by adding "de marchandises" after "a terme". MOTION: THAT the title be struck out and the following substituted: THE COMMODITY FVTU RES AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ACT Your committee has also considered: Bill 76-The Gaming Control and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia Commission de regie du jeu et apportant des modifications correlatives and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT

section 1 of the English version be amended in the definition "Commission" by striking out "The" and substituting "the" MOTION: THAT subsection 6(4) be amended (

a) by striking out "licensing"; and (

b) by striking out "licences and". MOTION: THAT subsection 9(1) of the English version be amended by striking out "he should see fit"and substituting "the Lieutenant Governor in Council considers appropriate". -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4741 MOTION: THAT subsections 1 0(4) and (5) be struck out and the following substituted: Role of Executive Director 1 0(4) The Commission may exercise its authority under subsection (1) such that the Executive Director shall determine all applications received by the Commission in the first instance. Directives as to criteria 10(5) The Commission shall establish policy directives as to the eligibility criteria upon which all applications shall be determined. MOTION: THAT

section 11 be amended by striking out "the determination of the Executive Director" and substituting "a determination". MOTION: THAT subsection 14(1) be amended by adding "with" after "the Corporation or". MOTION: THAT clause 42(/) be struck out and the following substituted: (

f) require the Executive Director to provide written reasons for any determination of the Executive Director which is under appeal; and (

g) determine the procedures to be used at a hearing. 52(1) Where a lottery scheme is being conducted and managed by the government through the Corporation, either alone or in conjunction with the government of a province other than Manitoba, the Corporation shall be guilty of an offence where it: (

a) knowingly purchases, acquires or receives tangible personal property or services from a business entity or a body or an association of persons where registration has not issued to that business entity or body or association of persons under this Act; (

b) knowingly employs any individual where registration has not issued to the individual under this Act: (

c) knowingly binds itself to an agreement with a siteholder where registration of said agreement has not issued under this Act; (

d) knowingly operates any slot machine, video lottery terminal or other gaming device where registration of the slot machine, video lottery terminal or other gaming device has not issued under this Act. Offence to act as supplier 52(2) A business entity or a body or an association of persons shall be guilty of an offence lf it acts as a supplier when it is not a registrant under this Act. Offence to be employed 52(3) An individual shall be guilty of an offence if he or she accepts employment with the Corporation when he or she is not a registrant under this Act. MOTION: THAT clause 52(4)(

d) of the English version be MOTION: amended by adding "subsection" before "48(2)" . THAT subsection 45(2) be amended by adding "of MOTION: Queen's Bench" after "Court". MOTION: THAT subsections 52(1), (2) and (3) be struck out and the following substituted: Offences by the Corporation THAT

section 53 be struck out and the following substituted: Fine in case of offence by Corporation 53(1) If the Corporation is found guilty of an offence under subsection 52(1) it shall be liable to a fine of not more than $250,000.

4742 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Novem ber 5, 1996 Fine in case of offence by others 53(2) Every individual, business entity or body or association of persons found guilty of an offence under

section 52 shall be liable to a fine of not more than $250,000. Liability of principals 53(3) Where the Corporation or a business entity or body or association of persons is found guilty of an offence under

section 52, every principal of the Corporation or of such business entity or body or association of persons who knowingly authorized, permitted or acquiesced in such offence is also guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of not more than $250,000. MOTION: THAT clause 60(

q) be amended by striking out "74 and 75" and substituting "73 and 74". MOTION: THAT

section 66 be amended by striking out "Part 9" and substituting "Part 7". MOTION: THAT subsection 75(2) be amended by striking out "34" and substituting "43 ". MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honou rable member fo r Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. *

(1340) Standing Committee on Law Amendments Tenth Report Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I would seek leave to present the Tenth and Eleventh Reports of the Standing Committee on Law Amendmen ts. Madam Speaker: Does the honour able member fo r Riel have leave to present the Tenth and Eleventh Reports of the Standing Committee on Law Amendmen ts? [agreed] Mr. Oerk: Your Standing Committee on Law Amend ments presents the fo llowing as its Tenth Report. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

Your committee met on Monday, October 21, 1996, at 7 p. m.; Wednesday, October 23, 1996, at 7 p. m.; on Friday, October 25, at 10 a.m.; on Wednesday, October 30, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, October 31, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. ; Friday, November 1, 1996, at 9 a. m., and Monday, November -1, 1996. at 3 p.m. m Room 255 of the Legislative Building, to consider bills referred. At the meeting of October 21, 1996, your committee agreed, by motion. on a counted vote of 6 Yeas, 3 Nays, to establish a time limit of 10 minutes for each presentation and five minutes for questions and answers after each presentation.

At the meeting of October 23, 1996, your committee elected Mr. Laurendeau as Vice-Chairperson of the committee. At the meeting ofNovember 4, 1996, your committee elected Mr. Dj·ck as Vice-Chairperson of the committee. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bi/132-The Council on Post-Secondary Education Act;

Loi sur le Conseil de l'enseignement postsecondaire William Bruneau - Canadian Association of University Teachers Robin Giles - Brandon University Faculty Association Erik Blaikie and Norine Barlow - Brandon University Students Union William R. Eichhorst-Providence College Lewis Layman -Private Citizen Dr. Dennis Anderson - Brandon University Senate Gerard Bashforth - Assiniboine Community College Trevor Lines and Jason Wiebe- University of Manitoba Students' Union -

November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4743 Edward Lipsett- Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Earle Ferguson, President, and Sylvia Jansen - University of Manitoba Faculty Association Marsha Hanen - Council of Presidents of Universities in Manitoba Susan Kushneryk, Darcy Rollins, Cheryl Herda and Michael Crowley - University of Winnipeg Students' Association and Red River Community College Students' Association Jim Clark-Private Citizen Claudia Wright-Private Citizen Alden Turner - University of Winnipeg Faculty Association Allen Mills - Private Citizen Shannon Slater - Canadian Federation of Students (Manitoba) Danny Blair - Private Citizen Chris Dooley - CHOICES Mark Golden - Private Citizen Colin Murray- Private Citizen Vac/av Linek- Private Citizen Elliot Levine -Private Citizen Kern/in Nembhard- Private Citizen Linwood Delong - Private Citizen Douglas Arrell - Private Citizen Ed Byard- University of Winnipeg Senate Keith-Louise Fulton -Private Citizen Dr.

Richard Noble -Private Citizen Blake Taylor- Private Citizen Brent Stearns - Private Citizen Jim Silver- Private Citizen Donald Bailey - Private Citizen William Seymour - Private Citizen Jennifor Suss -Private Citizen E.L.

Carlyle -Private Citizen Don Sullivan - Private Citizen Paul Phillips -P rivate Citizen Shannon Slater - Private Citizen Tim Babcock - Private Citizen Robert Chernomas- Manitoba Organization of Faculty Associations Sara Malabar- Manitoba Young New Democrats Ed Janzen -Private Citizen Michael Amirault - University of Manitoba Student Action Coalition Henry Heller - Private Citizen Peter Laznicka - Private Citizen Brian Kelcey - Manitoba Taxpayers Association Jennifor Nembhard-Private Citizen William Martin -Private Citizen Mark Gabbert - Private Citizen Elizabeth Johannson -Private Citizen Christopher Leo -P rivate Citizen Wesley Stevens - Private Citizen Dr.

E.J.E.

Szathmary- Private Citizen Neil Tudiver-Private Citizen Caterina Reitano - Private Citizen Murray Evans - Private Citizen Rolland Gaudet - Private Citizen Bruce Daniels -Private Citizen David Markham- Private Citizen Tom Booth -Private Citizen Steven Holborn -Private Citizen Michael Shaw -Private Citizen Jim Forrest- Private Citizen John Whiteley -Private Citizen William Koolage - Private Citizen Robert Glendinning - Private Citizen William Pruitt - Private Citizen Maggie Ross - Lesbian and Gay and Bisexual Collective, University of Winnipeg Alistair Cameron -Private Citizen Joseph Donatelli - Private Citizen Richard Orlandini -Private Citizen Written Submissions Reuben Kaufman - Association of Academic Staff, University of Alberta John Malle a - Brandon University Your committee had considered: Bi//32-The Council on Post- Secondary Education Act;

Loi sur le Conseil de l'enseignement postsecondaire and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT

section 1 be amended by adding the following definition in alphabetical order: "student" means a student of a university or college; ("etudiant")

4744 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 MOTION: THAT subsection 3(1) be amended (

a) by adding "and accessibility to" after "excellence in"; and (

b) by striking out "avoids unnecessary duplication of effort and expense" and substituting "promotes fiscal responsibility". MOTION: THAT subsection 3(2) be amended (

a) by striking out "Subject to the power to regulate programs under

section 14, in" and substituting "In"; and (

b) in clause (a), by adding "policies and" before "standards". MOTION: THAT

section 4 be struck out and the following be substituted: Relationship to government 4 In carrying out its mandate, the council shall (

a) act as an intermediary between post-secondary institutions and the government; and (

b) operate within a framework of accountability established by the minister, who may give the council general direction on matters that relate to its mandate and that are, in the minister's opinion, of significant public interest. MOTION: THAT clause 11 (

b) be amended by adding "and after consultation with the universities and colleges and with students" after "framework established by the minister". MOTION: THAT clause 12(

e) be amended by adding "in consultation with the universities and colleges and with students, "a t the beginning of the clause. MOTION: THAT

section 14 be amended (

a) in subsection (1) . by striking out the definition "reduce"; and (

b) in subsection (2). (

i) by striking out "new or expanded" in the

section heading; and (ii) by striking out "expand or reduce" and substituting "make significant modifications to, or cease to provide". MOTION: THAT the following be added after subsection 21 (1): Consideration of grants in lieu of taxes 21(1.1) Amounts paid under subsection (1) shall take into consideration the obligation of universities and co/leges to pay grants under

Part 10, Division 7 (grants in lieu of taxes) of The Municipal Act. MOTION: THAT the following be added after

section 24: Restrictions on incurring liability 24.1 Notwithstanding any other Act, a university or co/lege shall not incur any liability or make any expenditure in a fiscal year beyond (

a) the unexpended amount of the grants made to it by the council; and (

b) its estimated revenue from other sources to the end of that fiscal year; unless an estimate of the liability or expenditure has first been submitted to and approved by the council. MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4745 M0110N: THAT the

Preamble be amended (

a) in the first paragraph, by adding "in an atmosphere of open and critical thought" after "knowledge"; (

b) in the third paragraph, by striking out zs acces sible and effective" and substituting "provides choice and accessibility for students"; (

c) in the fifth paragraph, (

i) by adding ", in consultation with universities and colleges," after "coordinate", and (ii) by adding "that is nationally and internationally competitive" after "province". Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I move , seconded by the honourab le member fo r Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the reports of the committee be received, that is, the Tenth and the Eleventh repor ts, the Tenth Report to be received first. Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourab le member fo r Riel (Mr. Newman ), seconded by the honourable member fo r Pembina (Mr.

Dyck), that the Tenth Report of the Standing Comm it tee on Law Amend ment s be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Law Amendments Eleventh Report Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Law Amend- Bill 57-The Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Act;

Loi sur Ia divulgation de Ia remuneration dans /e secteur public Fred Veldink- Private Citizen Alice Young- Private Citizen Brian Kelcey -M anitoba Taxpayers Association Dan Kelly - Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) Murray Grafton- St. Boniface Teachers' Association Ian Mcintyre- Manitoba Teachers' Society Henri Peloquin -Private Citizen Terry Voss- Human Resources, University of Winnipeg Sue Loney - Private Citizen Gail Atkins - Private Citizen Peter Narth - Manitoba Association of Principals (MAP) Written Submission June LaPlume -Manitoba Medical Association Bill 58-The Parental Responsibility Act;

Loi sur Ia responsabilite parenta/e Gly nis Hart -M anitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Marvin Mirochnick- Private Citizen Jim Clark-Private Citizen Victoria Lehman -Private Citizen Norma McCormack- Private Citizen Rosella Dyck - Coalition of Custodial Parents Written Submission Russ Wookey- Private Citizen ments presents the fo llowing as its Eleventh Repor t. Your committee has considered: An Honourable Member: Dispense. Bill 58-The Parental Responsibility Act;

Loi sur Ia responsabilite parentale Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Monday, November 4, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Assembly to consider bills reforred. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: and has agreed to report the same, without amendment. Your committee has also considered: Bill 57-The Public Sector Compensation Disclosure Act;

Loi sur Ia divulgation de Ia remuneration dans le secteur public

4746 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT

section 2 be amended: (

a) by adding "or calendar year" after "each fiscal year" (

b) by adding "or in the calendar year" after "provides in the fiscal year"; and (

c) by renumbering the

section as subsection 2(1) and by adding the following as subsection 2(2). Consistent reporting required 2(2) A public sector body that discloses che information required under subsection (1) on a calendar year basis shall continue to disclose the information on a calendar year basis. MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I move. seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received. This would be the Eleventh Report. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report, 1995- 96, of the Manitoba Labour Board.

Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon forty Grade 11 students from the Neepawa Area Collegiate under the direction of Mr. Bob Ferguson. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Manitoba Telephone System Printization-Tax Ruling Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on Thursday in this Legislature, October 31, I asked the Premier a number of questions about whether the gov ernment had considered tax changes dealing with the Mani toba Telephone System as it moved from a public corporation to a private profit corporation. The Premier took the question as notice. then he said we had different scenarios. then he said he did not know if we have an advance ruling from Revenue Canada.

I would like to ask the Premier, has the government provided any analysis of the tax changes and the tax impact on the changing status of the Manitoba Telephone System and its impact on the ratepayers in the Manitoba Telephone System in the province of Manitoba? Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I can confirm that the government re\·iewed the opportunities available for various tax rulings from the federal government and because of tax changes that have taken place since the Telus sale, there was a new set of rules that prevailed that indicate that the maximum that assets can be valued at for depreciation purposes are fair market value. So a tax ruling was not sought on that since it implied no change and certainly any transaction with respect to the telephone system will be predicated on that knowledge and mforrnation.

With respect to the transference of pension funds which also required a tax ruling, that ruling has been sought and favourably obtained from the federal government, is my understanding. On both those bases, the circumstances are kno\\n and will be kno\\n to prospective investors. With respect to any impact that might be had on the rates. I have mdicated that there are a number of things that would have a positive impact on the rates and other things that -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4747 could in fact contribute othe rwise to the rates. We have discussed the fact that no interest at, say , 8 percent being paid on hundreds of millions of dollars of debt would have a positive impact on the rates. The fact that a return on investment would be calculated would be a negative impact on the rates but would be more than offset by the fact that they no longer had to pay a substantial interest rate on the debt.

The fact that they had to pay some taxes if they made profits would of cou rse have an impact on the rates, but those can be seen to be calculable and assuming that the company would not necessarily be making any mo re profit than would be allowed fo r unde r CRTC would not necessarily be anything that would not be offset by the gains that they would make in greater efficiency unde r private ownersh ip, Madam Speaker. *

(1345) Privatization-Impact on Rates Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would challenge any Manitoban to try to determine an answer out of the Premie r's ba fllegab there, Madam Speaker. On May 2 of this year in this House and at his press conference, and Octo ber 31 of this year in this Chamber, the Premier repeatedly said-and we have raised the issue ofTelus in Alberta , CRTC decisions three weeks ago in this House -on the record that there is absolutely no difference between a publicly owned cor po ration and a private cor po ration fo r purposes of determination of the rates.

Would the Premier please table in this House the impact of the change on rates moving from a public nonp rofit corpo ration to a private corpor ation with the unfavourable ruling that the gove rnment is anticipating from Revenue Canada on taxation and the othe r factors that would lead to rate increases? Is the Premier still maintaining they will have no impact on the rates here in the province of Manitoba? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mada m Speaker, I am not anticipating an unfavour able ruling from tax Canada. I said, a favo urable ruling has been received with respect to the transfer of pension assets.

I said that the assets would be moved at fair mar ket value , which is Revenue Canada's positi on on this kind of transaction at the moment. I took time earlier-! know that the member has a short attention span, as sho rt as his no rmal clips are fo r television, but I took the time to give him an indication that there are a number of factors on each side of the equation, some of which could have an influence towards decreasing rates and others which could have an influence towar ds increasing rates, and the net effect to the best judgm ent and ana lysis that we have is it would be a wash.

There would not be any tendency towards an increase in rates just by vi rtue of privatization. Mr. Doer: Maybe the Premier would like to put his clip on the record again about , I will not sell the Manitoba Telephone System if I am elected. Read my lips, Madam Speaker, says the Premier. I would like to challenge the Premier to table his analysis. I know he had a study done by brokers that are now getting comm issions fo r selling our telephone system to private investo rs.

I challenge the Premier today to table in this House his so- called analysis that says that there will be no impact on rates moving from a public nonp ro fit corpo ration to a privatel y owned corpo ration. I challenge him to table it in this House today because he has maintained that position from Day One, from May 2 on: There would be no change. Table your analys is. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, it is not as though the business of operating a telephone company is something that is mired and fixed in place in 1906 or 1905, as members opposite would have you.

There are continual changes that are occurring within the business environment that the telephone company will oper ate.

As I indicat ed, Madam Speaker, in that continuous changed business environm ent, there are a number of pressures that would direct towards increasing pressures on rates and othe r fo rces that would indicate towards decreasing pressures on rates, and the best analysis that we have is that there would be a wash, and that the rates, there would not be an ongoing tendency to have any oth er increases in rates othe r than those that the company would have unde r public own ership, which are the same inflationar y pressures that would occur in the marketplace no mat ter who owned it, public or private . Mr.

Doer: With a new question , and I do not know why anybody in the public would want to believe this Premier after he promised he would not sell the Manitoba

4748 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 Telephone System in the last election campaign. The Premier does not have an analysis. I went through his press kit and his advertising campaign and his public relations brochures, but he still has not provided an analysis to the people of Manitoba for a $1.2-billion asset that he is proposing to sell contrary to his election promise. I will table an analysis that has been produced by an economist who has been doing a lot of work in the privatization issue of Ontario Hydro.

Ontario Hydro, of course, has been put on hold for privatization because of this tax issue. This analysis says that moving from a public nonprofit corporation to a private corporation will mean at minimum a 9.75 percent increase to the ratepayers of this province. I would like to ask the Premier: Where is his analysis to counter this argument and where is the proof of his argu ment? Rather, do we have to just rely on his brokerage friends that are going to make tens of millions of dollars out of this sale? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I note right off the bat that the analysis refers to higher financing costs, and it suggests that Manitoba Telephone System would have to pay more money for capital than they do at the present time. I indicate to him that the very study that he put on the table a couple of weeks ago, which was the CRTC decision with respect to Alberta, said that they could have a return on equity of 6.4 percent versus currently paying 8 percent interest on that same capital. So they in fact are being awarded less as return on investment than they are currently paying as interest on the same debt.

He can produce any analysis he wants, Madam Speaker- Some Honourable Members: Oh. oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First Minister, to complete his response. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, he can produce any analysis that he wants, but the fact of the matter is that he is looking for anything that supports his arguments. I am telling him that the best information that we have is that it will have absolutely- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, they do not want to hear the answer to the question. *

(1350) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we look forward to the analysis that the Premier should have tabled with Manitobans before they broke their election promise, before they broke their word and before they broke their commi tment to the people of this province and all their candi dates and all their MLAs promised not to sell the Manitoba Telephone System. I would like to ask the Premier, has the Manitoba Telephone System requested a special factor to be included in a price cap regime due to the costs related to privatization that are not kno\\n?

Can the Premier please answer whether and when Manitoba Telephone System has applied to the CR TC for this special factor increase to deal with privatization costs? Mr. Filmon: I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay). Mr. Doer: Why did the Premier not inform Manitobans that they have applied for a special increase in rates to deal with the unpredictable parts of privatization? Did the Premier tell his cabinet? Did the Premier tell his caucus? Did the Premier tell Manitobans?

Madam Speaker, why does he keep with maintaining a position that privatization \\ill not affect the ratepayers when seniors, the Manitoba union of municipalities and independent analysis all say the Premier again is not telling the truth to the people of Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: It is absolute nonsense what the member is putting forward. He can put all of his ideological blinders on and come in here every day and try and fill the public with his fear and loathing and doom and gloom and it is absolute nonsense, Madam Speaker, absolute nonsense. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization--Impact on Rates Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, the way in which the government is dealing with the selloff -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4749 of MTS is nothing short of scandalous. The same Premier, who said in the election he was not going to sell offMTS, said on May 2 when he broke that promise, he said at the time, there will be no impact on rates due to the privatization.

I want to ask the Premier, since we know that MTS did not do a single study, since we know that he received a report from the three brokerage firms that did not deal with that aspect, will he now admit to what everyone knows in Manitoba and what this analysis shows and that is that we are looking at a minimum of 9. 75 percent and, in fact, in rural areas the increase could be substantially larger than a 9. 7 percent increase strictly because of the cost of privatization? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): That ts absolute nonsense. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question. Mr.

Ashton: What does it take for the Premier to tell the truth to Manitobans, that rates are going to increase? When will he start telling the truth and, for example, explain the July 1996 application to the CRTC which builds in a factor to pass on unforeseen costs to privatization? Madam Speaker, 9.7 percent is going to be the minimum. When is he going to admit it is going to cost even more than that to the ratepayers of Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I repeat that the CRTC will make their decisions based on the business case put fo rward by telcos, as they do today.

Regardless of whether it is publicly or privately owned, it will not make a diff erence in terms of the manner in which they conduct their analysis. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a new question.

I would like to ask the Premier if he does not believe the study and does not believe the Manitoba Society of Seniors, the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and others, will he at least acknowledge that even Peter Holle from the Prairie Centre, formerly with the taxpayers federation, admitted that there will be income tax liabilities that will be incurred by the newly privatized company and, in fact, the change in the tax status alone will lead to a substantial increase in rates under a private company? When will he face facts and tell the truth to Manitobans? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, as we have indicated before, the mere fact that the telephone system will save some $30 million a year in interest that they do not pay on debt that they would have, along with the potential for them to operate more efficiently than they do in the public sector, all of which will more than offset those factors. Privatization-Withdrawal Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Well, Madam Speaker, if the Premier is insisting that Manitobans trust him after he broke his word on MTS, will he not do the right thing and table Bill 67 and put the issue of the sale of MTS to the shareholders of MTS, the people of Manitoba? Let them decide. Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the matter will be decided here in the Legislature by people who represent all Manitobans. ...

(1355) Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Impact on Rates Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, I want to quote from this study. In particular the study states: Stentor has proposed that some rates be permitted to increase by up to 18 percent per annum, Stentor representing MTS and others. As another example, the recently privatized Telus, former AGT, is applying to double most residential rates by 1997 and more than double rural residence rates. Therefore, for residence ratepayers in Manitoba, especially in rural areas, the average increases of 9.75 should be viewed as a minimal potential impact.

Madam Speaker, my question for the Premier: If he is, for a change, to keep his word that rates would not increase, how many employees will have to be laid off? How many wages will have to be rolled back by what level? How many services to rural residents will have to be cut to keep this Premier's promise for a change? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, the Manitoba Telephone System had its employment reduced

4750 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 from in excess of 5,300 to something just over 3, 700 in the past five years, so public omtership of a telephone company is no guarantee of employment in the most rapidly changing field of technology anywhere in the world. The comparisons are absolutely invalid because a telephone company will do what a telephone company has to do in order to remain competitive, whether it is publicly or privately omted. It has 70 percent of its revenues currently in competition with other companies.

That is why it has reduced from 5,300 to just about 3, 700 in the past five years. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, can the Premier tell the House why, if Manitoba Telephone System is not sold for more than book value, this independent consultant suggests that average utility rates will have to increase by 9. 75 percent as a result simply of privatization in order to cover the increased capital costs? How many jobs will go to keep those rates to zero, as the Premier has talked about? Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Crescentwood, a question is to contain a single question. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, as usual, the question is based on a hypothesis, but in addition to that, the telephone company will continue to provide services to the people of Manitoba. That is the way it will continue to do business here, and that is what it will have to do in order to do business in a very competitive world. Mr. Sale: Madam Speaker, can the Premier tell the House where Manitobans are supposed to find the extra $25 million that is implied by a rate increase of 9. 75 percent?

Where are rural and northern and poor people, where are small businesses supposed to fmd 25 million extra dollars so his friends can get a bigger return on their capital? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I have indicated before that the Manitoba Telephone System's rates, whether they are publicly or privately omted, will be evaluated on the same analysis by the CRTC. There will be a number of pressures that will allow Manitoba Telephone System to operate at less cost, including the fact that they will not have to pay the substantial interest that they currently pay on debt.

They will have to pay a lesser rate for equity. They will also-[ interjection] Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, they do not want to listen. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Manitoban Ownership Mr. Ke,·in Lamoureux (Inkster): When the Premier was at the press conference announcing the sale of MTS, he tried to give the impression that Manitobans as a whole will benefit in the sense that Manitobans are going to be the ov.ners of this new privatized corporation when in fact, of course, all Manitobans today ov.n MTS, but unfortunately within two days that will not be the case.

My question to the Premier is, when AGT went through privatization, within weeks it was 1egistered with the Toronto Stock Exchange. Does the Premier today believe that Manitobans will still ov.n more than 50 percent of MTS one year from today') Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): am more than confident that Manitobans ,-.,ill purchase the vast majority of shares in the privatized Manitoba Telephone System. #r

(1400) Mr. Lamoureux: Because of the way in which the shares are being issued, a majority of Manitobans will indeed ov.n MTS. The question is, a year from today, does the Premier believe that a majority of the omtership of MTS will be ov.ned by Manitobans or by residents outside of the prmince of Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: That is not a question to which anybody can give an answer. It could be that Manitobans would have even more of a percentage of the shares a year from now than they did at the time of issue.

But that is one of the things that would be predicated on how people react to the issuar1ce of shares and what people choose to do with those shares. Mr. Lamoureux: The question, quite specific, is: Does the Premier not believe that, by issuing out these shares, -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4751 there is going to be a very good likelihood, much like in the province of Alberta where it went to the Toronto Stock Exchange, that it is only a matter of time before Manitobans do not have a majority share ofMTS? Mr.

Filmon: The fact of the matter is that Manitobans want to be assured that they will receive the best possible service from their telephone company at a reasonable cost, and they want to ensure that that company continues to be a very positive player in the Manitoba environment with respect to bringing in and being conversant with the most rapidly changing technology of any sector of our economy anywhere in the world.

You have innumerable examples of companies that are privately owned in the telephone area, including in Canada: New Brunswick Tel, who are lauded not only for their efficiency, their effectiveness, but for the very strong role that they play within the province of New Brunswick in attracting business, attracting investment and attracting jobs for the province of New Brunswick. On all counts, I am confident that the telephone company will continue to contribute very substantially to what the people of Manitoba want it to do. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Impact on Rates Ms.

Diane McGiffo rd (Osborne): Madam Speaker, for the one out of 10 Manitoba women who live in abusive situations, the telephone is central to personal safety plans, a lifesaving device and a lifeline with the outside world. The reasonable rates of a publicly owned utility make the lives of these women possible, and I mean possible in both senses of the word. Now that the truth is out, I want to ask the Premier what steps his government has taken to protect the lives of abused women when MTS is sold and the rates soar a minimum of 10 percent, making telephone service impossible for many. Bon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I have indicated before the reasons why I reject her arguments on the increase in rates. Ms. McGiffor d: Then will the Premier guarantee us today that abused women and their children living on social assistance, once MTS is sold, will have telephone services in their homes? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, if people are going to be investing over a billion dollars in the telephone system, they are not going to be withdrawing services. They are going to be investing for the purposes of increasing services so they can increase their revenues. Privatization-Impact on Services Ms.

Diane McGiff ord (Osborne): Now that the Premier has not answered that question, I will try again. I want to ask the Premier to guarantee that lifesaving services for abused women, like unlisted numbers and number blocking, will under privatization remain free and accessible to abused women in Manitoba- An Honourable Member: Like they are now. Ms. McGiffor d: -as they are now. Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I would just point out to the member opposite that those are services that do not just occur in Manitoba. They occur right across Canada.

I point out to her that there are only two telephone services in Canada that are currently under public ownership, that is, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Yet those services occur in all provinces in Canada. Manitoba Telephone System ManGlobe Role Bon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, yesterday I took a question as notice from the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). I want to make a correction to my answer. I believe I referred to the funding that came to ManGlobe as coming under MIRI.

It did not come out of the MIRI program but came out of the Canada Manitoba Communications Agreement, the program which it was funded under. It is to the tune of $5 00,000 for the creation of jobs and it is not a loan. I want that corrected. But, Madam Speaker, in my taking of notice of the question, the member again put information on the record

4752 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 that was again so far out. He put on the record there was some $60,000 in travel. That is an incorrect number. I believe the numbers are som ething about just over half of that, but that was for the total activity of the travel of that operation. Manitoba Telephone System Diff erential Education Rates Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, several weeks ago the CR TC ruled that Canada's telephone companies may apply differential rates for nonprofit educational purposes.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education whether she has yet applied to the Manitoba Telephone company for a ruling on special educational rates for Manitoba's educational institutions. Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I believe that I indicated to the member on numerous occasions in the past that MERLIN, our special operating agency which works independently and has been doing some excellent work on behalf of distance education and technology in Manitoba, has been working consistently and constantly on an ongoing basis with Manitoba Telephone System, CRTC, to do everything that it can to help bring rates down for educational services.

I can take the details of her question in terms of the last communicatio n-[inteijection] Well, she is asking for the latest communication and, to be perfectly frank, in the last couple of weeks I have been tied up in committee till two, three, four in the morning and I have not had a meeting with MERLIN in the last week or so, but I \\ill check the details of that. I indicate, though, it is one of their prime things that they do. I do not know if they have had responses back from people, but I will check and let her know. Ms.

Friesen: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could tell us whether it is the intention of his government to grant differential educational rates before MTS is sold so that at least that public obligation is transferred to the new private for-profit owners. Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I do not grant those rates. Ms. Friesen: Would the Premier then confirm that under the new ruling of the CRTC it is indeed the Manitoba Telephone System which does grant those rates? The Premier is responsible for it.

Would he tell us whether it is his intention to grant differential educational rates for Manitoba's educational institutions ? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, if the member already knows the answer to the question, then she does not have to bring it here to ask it. 1t (1410 ) Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Rural/Northern Manitoba Ms.

Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Spea ker, under this government we have seen a deterioration of services in rural and northern Manitoba, deterioration in health care services, deterioration in transportation sen ices, and now this government through its decision to privatize MTS is putting at risk the very lifeline for many northern and rural Manitobans. Will the Premier give people of northern and rural Manitoba the assurance that their services will not be on the chopping block and rates will not be increased to a level where people in the North and rural Manitoba cannot afford a phone') Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Why would investors invest over a billi on dollars to purchase the assets of the telephone system, which includes fibre optic cable and digital switching, so that they can service customers in all of the towns, villages and hamlets of this province-once they have that invested and sunk cost, their great incentive is to increase the use of the system, not to decrease it and cut off service. This is an absolutely ridiculous suggestion on the part of the member for Swan River. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Swan River, \\ith a supplementary question. Ms.

Wowchuk: Will this Premier admit that his government is prepared to sacrifice jobs in rural Manitoba, opportunities for education and the very lifeline for people in the North and rural Manitoba? Will he admit that this is absolutely foolish and withdraw the -

November 5, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4753 bill and go back and listen to the people or at least listen to the people in committee? Mr. Filmon: Absolutely not, Madam Speaker. I reject categorically the silly suggestions put forth by the member for Swan River. There has been no government in the history of this province that has done more to create jobs in rural Manitoba than this administration. Every time that we worked hard to create jobs in rural Manitoba that member actively undermined and worked against Louisiana-Pacific-400 jobs for her area. She fought it every single opportunity.

Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, Madam Speaker, Beauchesne Citation 417 is very clear that answers to questions should be as brief as pos sible, deal with the matter raised and should not provoke debate. Madam Speaker, if the Premier would for once admit that he cannot answer the questions about the impact on rural Manitoba of the privatization ofMTS, let him do so instead of getting into the kind of irrelevant diatribe we have seen from him .

Let him answer the questions for rural Manitobans about the impact on their phone rates and phone service from the privatization of MTS put forward by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order. Mr. Filmon: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, the member for Thompson may think that jobs for rural Manitoba are irrelevant; we do not. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Impact on Rates Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin): This government has no mandate to sell MTS, and they have not got the courage to come out to rural Manitoba and tell us. This government has no- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Dauphin was recognized to pose a question. Would the honourable member for Dauphin please pose his question now. Mr. Struthers: The government has no studies saying that rates will go down. Everything points to rates going up in rural Manitoba. Take a look at the facts.

Will the Premier confirm that the MTS has requested special consideration for further price increases due to any costs related to privatization? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, with such a lengthy

preamble, I must admit that I missed the question, so I wonder if the member could please ask the question. You can skip the

preamble; just ask the question. Madam Speaker: Would the honourable member for Dauphin please repeat the question. Mr. Struthers: I can skip the

preamble, but the Premier should not skip the answers every time we try to get something out of him. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member for Dauphin please comply with the request to repeat his question. Mr. Struthers: Will this Premier confirm that the MTS has requested special consideration for further price increases due to any costs related to privatization? Mr. Filmon: No, Madam Speaker. Mr. Struthers: If the MTS is concerned about the cost of privatization, why does this Premier say it is just a wash? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, MTS does not have any anticipation of increased costs, and they simply, I am given to understand, asked to deal with anything that may arise out of privatization in future applications, but they do not anticipate anything coming out of it. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. ... (14 20)

4754 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Dutch Elm Disease Mr. Mike Radcliff e (River Heights): Madam Speaker, I want to bring to the Chamber's attention today a serious problem that is developing in our city, and I think that I can invite all colleagues on both sides of the House to join me in concern. I am told that we have approximately 4,500 of our elm trees in Winnipeg infected with Dutch elm disease. There are an additional 3,30 0 trees at risk.

Winnipeg is unique in western Canada as being the je wel of the western prairies in our urban forest that we have in our province. There are approximately 14 2 boulevard trees and 395 parkland trees which are infected at this point in time, and I can tell that northern River Heights and Crescentwood-for my honourable colleague across the way who, I am sure, is listening very carefully to this presentation-are seriously at risk. An Honourable Member: You mean the member? Mr. Radcliffe: Yes, the member.

I can tell this Chamber that Saint George's Green Team has been very effective at spotting the onset of the disease and has been instrumental in saving a great number of trees this summer. I can further advise this Chamber that a scientist, a plant science professor by the name of Martin Hubbes from the University of Toronto, is embarking on a genetic engineering plan to help to save our elm trees.

There is an organization, the Coalition to Save the Elms, which is actively engaged in the detection, the pruning, the removal of the diseased trees, and I would invite all members to join with this coalition to save our urban forest and one of the most outstanding attributes of our city. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Aboriginal Youth Justice Symposium Mr. George Dickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I wanted to take a few minutes to express my disappointment and my great concern to, I guess, the funny remarks that the Minister of Justice (Mrs.

V odrey) stated yesterday that she only had 38 hours to respond to the aboriginal youth justice symposium for a taping. I have a copy of a letter that was sent to her office on September 6 inviting her to attend a community meeting that would be held Thursday, September 19 , and then there was another letter that was sent to her office, and it is directed exactly to the Minister of Justice, that was sent out on October 9. lbat letter at the bottom says: We are ready to come in at your earliest convenience to tape your presentation. A response within the next 38 hours would be appreciated.

That was sent out on October 9, but the half-truths, some people were led to believe that there was 38 hours to the time of the taping. That is sort of playing with the truth here because there was so much time given to the minister to respond. The aboriginal youth justice S)mposium was dealing with exactly the same things that the minister gets up in the House and says We are dealing with the boot camps; we are dealing with the Young Offenders Act. Why is it so wrong for our Justice minister of Manitoba to hear from the youth that are affected by this, to hear firsthand exactly what the youth have to say?

Does she not care? Point of Order Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, on a point of order, as I said yesterday. I was asked for a response. I was given 38 hours and the member references it in the letter. Within that time frame I was unable to arrange to attend but made sure that a government member did attend, did participate in the taping, and I understand that it was also quite a successful day, and I was very pleased to provide some comments yesterday.

Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice does not have a point of order. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, to quickly complete his statement. Mr. Dickes: On the same point of order. Madam Speaker: I have already ruled on the point of order and indicated there was no point of order. -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4755 Point of Order Mr. Hickes: On a new point of order. The youth justice committee has sent letters to the Justice minister and at 3 8 hours there was only a time to respond. She has enough staff that could pick up an MTS phone, could phone the friendship centre to arrange for a taping in the future at her earliest convenience, at her convenience. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas does not have a point of order either.

It is clearly a dispute over the facts. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas has five seconds to complete his statement. Mr. Hickes: Madam Speaker, there is a letter dated September 6, a letter dated October 9 and then the committee went right to her office and met with her staff in her office when they were trying to get an arrangement to tape the minister because they, the committee and the youth, want to hear from the government, so that way they can share some positive progresses that will help governments and all citizens of Manitoba.

Please, Madam Justice Minister, at least make time for the December 2 meeting to hear from the youth. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Manitoba Telephone System Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Spea ker, I want to take this opportunity to state categorically that in my judgment the Manitoba government is making a serious mistake in selling the Manitoba Telephone System because it is going against the wishes of the people of Manitoba, it has no mandate whatsoever and I am afraid rates will indeed escalate at an accelerated pace under a privatized system.

We know the CRTC has a record of accommodating profits of a private company and there is no reason to suspect that CRTC in the future will have to accommodate profits to be paid to shareholders in addition to providing sufficient revenues through a rate base that will pay for the costs. A publicly owned MTS is providing service at cost. A privatized MTS will have to not only provide the service at cost but has to provide additional revenues to satisfy the shareholders. As was revealed by my Leader today, there is evidence that privatization could lead to a 9. 7 percent rate increase on average.

So, therefore, there is no question that there is going to be a serious acceleration in rate increases. When it is stated opposite, when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) states, well, service will be better under a private system and there will be more efficiency, I say the efficiency that he talks of will come at the expense of rural and northern Manitoba. In a relative sense, relative to urban Manitoba, I firmly believe that the service will deteriorate.

In its effort to maximize profits, a private company will do whatever it can to cut services and, in that way, Madam Speaker, I believe that the people of Manitoba stand to lose. In conclusion then-1 was not sure how much time I had-1 believe the government should withdraw this bill and go to the people. Let the people have a voice in this matter. It is a major Crown corporation. They want to have a referendum for tax increases; I think the corollary to that is to have a referendum or plebiscites for the sale of major assets. Thank you. * (14 30) Bill 200-- The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I just want to take a minute or so just to comment on Bill 200, which is a private member's bill that we introduced actually earlier, much earlier this session. It is a very good bill, we believe from within the Liberal caucus. It is a bill which we bel ieve ultimately should be receiving a great deal more attention, and it is something which I would argue a vast majority of Manitobans would in fact support.

In essence, what it is, Madam Speaker, is the enshrinement of the five fundamental principles of public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility into provincial law. It is something which I have introduced on behalf of our party for the last couple of years now and I notice that the current member who adjourned debate, the minister of, I believe it is Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), has had it standing in his name since April l8.

4756 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 I would have liked to have seen this particular bill at least debated and just stand to express my disappoint ment in the government of the day not recognizing the imp ortance of the five fundamental principles to Manitobans and to ultimately ask the government to give reconsideration, given that we have two days left before we adjourn, and at which time the session would likely be prorogued and would have to start the process all over again.

A vast majority of Manitobans believe in our medic are system today, and I ultimately believe that this government has a responsibility to adopt this very positive private memb er's bill. It is a bill in which I take a great deal of pride, in presenting this bill through this Chamber on behalf of the Liberal caucus, something which I believe all members should be supportive of and, at the very least, debate it. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Committee Changes Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Point Douglas, with committee changes. Mr.

George Dickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway); The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Tuesday, November 5 for 3 p.m. I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relati ons be amended as follows: Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) ; Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson); Flin Flon (Mr.

Jennissen) for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) for Tuesday, November 5, for 6:30 p. m. Thank you. Motions agreed to. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations for Tuesday, November 5, at 3 p.m., be amended as follows: the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); and the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson).

I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations for Tuesday, November 5, at 6: 30 p.m., be amended as follows: the member for Girnli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger), and the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources (Tuesday, November 5, at 6:30 p.m.) be amended as follows: the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister) for the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger); the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), and the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for the member for Rob lin-Russell (Mr. Derkach). Madam Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable member for Girnli (Mr Helwer), seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for 6:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 5, be amended as follows: the honourable member for Portage (Mr. Pallister) for the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger); the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), and the honourable member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings) for the honourable member for Roblin Russell (Mr. Derkach) . Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

It has been moved by the honourable member for Girnli (Mr. Helwer), seconded by the honourable member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations for Tuesday, November 5, 3 p. m., be amended as follows: the honourable member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the honourable member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey); the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) for the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). Agreed? -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 475 7 An Honourable Member: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. It has been moved by the ho nmrra ble member fo r Gimli (Mr. Helwer), seconded by the honourab le member fo r Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the com position of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations fo r Tuesday, November 5, 6:30 p.m., be amended as fo llows- Order, please. [interjection] I know they are having a dispu te, but I wonder if they would step outside the Chamber if they want to continue the dispute.

It is very difficult fo r the table officers to hear these changes and it is imperative that they be given due consideration. -the honourable member fo r Gimli (Mr. Helwer) fo r the honourable member fo r Steinbach (Mr. Driedger ), and the honou rable member fo r Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) fo r the honourab le member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). Agreed? An Honourable Member: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. ORDERS OF THE DA Y Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call fo r second reading, Bill 301.

SECOND READINGS-P RIVATE BILLS Bi11301-The Native Alcoholism Council of Manitoba Incorporation Amendment Act Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member fo r Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that Bill 301 , The Native Alcoholism Council of Manitob a Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Native Alcoholism Council of Manitoba" ), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Robinson: Madam Speaker, I want to take this opportunity just to put a few words on record respecting this bill.

It was requested some time ago by the board of directors and also the membership of the Native Alcohol ism Council of Manito ba to make amendments to not only the name of the organization but also to bring up to date some of the terminology that is used in toda y's modem-day reality.

I believe that, simply, this bill is not a contentious bill; it simply, as I say, brings into 19 96 some of the terminology that is commonly used today , fo r example, removing the word "native" to "aboriginal" in some cases, also changing the word from "alcoho lism" to "addictions" because we are not simply facing alcohol as being a social problem among the aboriginal community but, indeed, other addictions have come to the fo refront, solvent abus e, drug abuse and also gambling addi ctions, and that was the purpose of the change at the request of the board of directo rs. * (1 440) Also, we are asking that all members of this House support the other amendments that are being proposed.

That is, bringing the board of directors size from 12 to nine, making it a more workab le board fo r them to carry out their work, and a few minor changes that are self explanatory in the bill. I look fo rward to support of all members of this House in making these minor amendments to bring the reality of the work that these people are doing at the Native Alcohol ism Council sort of up to date on toda y's modem-day reality. So with those few word s, I look fo rward to the support of all members. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready fo r the question?

The question before the House is second reading of priv ate Bill 301 , The Native Alco holism Council of Manitoba Incorporation Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. House Business Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, Bills 50, 73 and 301 are referred to

4758 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 Industrial Relations committee for 3 p.m. this afternoon, Bills 41, 26 and 302 having already been referred. Any bills not completed during the 3 p.m. sitting are to be carried forward to the 6:30 p.m. sitting this evening, where Bill 17 is also already referred. Madam Speaker: Bills 50, 73 and 301 are to be referred to the committee previously scheduled for Industrial Relations for 3 p.m. this afternoon, which have previously been announced to consider Bills 41, 26 and 302.

Any bills not completed in the 3 p.m . sitting this afternoon will be referred to the same committee meeting this evening at 6:30 p.m . Mr. Ernst: Is there a will of the House to waive private members' hour? Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to waive private members' hour? An Honourable Member: No. Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied. Mr. Ernst: In that case, Madam Speaker, would you call for third reading Bills 54, 33, 36, 47 and 49. THIRD READINGS Bill 54-The Municipal and Various Acts Amendment Hon.

Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Aff airs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 54, The Municipal and Various Acts Amendment Act (Loi concernant les municipalites et modifiant diverses dispositions legis latives), be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on Bill 54.

First of all, I do want to express our congratulations and sincere thanks to the committee that so dili gently over two and a half years travelled around Manitoba listening to reeves and mayors and councillors across this province in trying to establish a new format with respect to our Municipal Act which has been around, I guess, for over around 10 0 years, and it was time for a change.

I know that during my short tenure as mayor of my community of Riverton, it was a difficult situation at times to have to deal with the Municipal Act, being new and not understanding the process and the situation and fortunately having a good administrator at that time who had indicated to me at this time, she said, Clif, we are going to have a tough time when it comes to trying to understand the Municipal Act with all its amendments and so forth. But ha' ing said that, I want to say too that we are very pleased on this side of the House that Bill 54 came into being and that it \\ill be proclaimed on Thursday.

We feel, my colleagues on this side feel, very proud of the fact that we have sort of made history here along with the Mini ster of Rural Development (Mr.

Derkach) and the government side that we have been able to deal with the process and deal \\ith the situation of Bill 54 and that it is a mark in time that this Legislative Assembly had the will and the ability to be able to bring through, pass and discuss a new Municipal Act that hopefully will provide our municipalities and our councillors, reeYes and mayors and jurisdictions across this pro' ince much more freedom in promoting their own communities, make it simpler for them to be able to deal \\ith the issues that they have to deal with day in and day out in their local communities.

We were very fortunate of course too during committee to hear many presentations, presentations that were not necess arily always in fa,·our of some of the issues, some of the clauses that were presented during Bill 54. I must also say that I appreciate the dili gence of the Minister of Rural Development, who met \\ith myself and my col league for discussing amendments and dealing with the issues that the communities brought to the attention of committee and to the Minister of Rural Development, and we certainly appreciate that.

We also want to make comment, Madam Speaker, that there are, and I said this in second reading, going to be some problems. We hope not too many problems, but we know that there may be some problems with the legisla tion that is now going to be in place to deal with our local jurisdictions. I know I can say that in discussions with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) that the Minister of Rural Development and myself, as Rural Development critic for the opposition, have combined to say that we will address issues that come to his attention or to my attention or to the -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4759 members' attention as to situations or issues that Bill 54 does not deal with formally in dealing with the issues that they have brought forward that are concerns through Bill 54, whether it be clauses, whether it be language, whether it be a situation that it does not deal with specifically, what they would like or need for their jurisdictions. So I know that we will work together on that. I can guarantee our side of the House and myself will definitely work with the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) in dealing with these issues as they come to be.

However, Madam Speaker, I do also want to say that during the process there were many difficult times and situations for some jurisdictions and municipalities in dealing with Bill 54. Being such a large, large bill, the situations that were brought forward and the issues that were brought forward in the bill were also made notice by these municipalities that they were disappointed that the final draft of the studies and the committee hearings throughout Manitoba and the bill itself were not exactly the same and not necessarily what the municipalities expected. The presentations were very, very good.

The presentations made comment to that in meetings that I have attended with the Minister of Rural Development in different areas of the province, that they were wondering why the final draft and the legislation were different when in fact the minister had indicated, the government had indicated that the final draft would be a facsimile of the bill. * (1 450) But, Madam Speaker, I just want to say again that I am very pleased to be a part of the process that occurred. I know that we did not necessarily do all the legwork like the committee did over the two and a half years, but we dealt with it.

We dealt with it in I think a very fair manner, and I think we dealt with it with the people within jurisdictions, with UMM, with MAUM, that to make changes were necessary to make it a better bill. Hopefully, we can continue to do that to even make it a stronger bill as the years go by for the jurisdictions and the reeves, mayors, councillors throughout this province. Certainly we provided as much support for Bill 54 as possible and, in closing, I know that I did indicate to the minister, and he agreed, that now is the time to see how Bill 54 will aff ect, will be taken throughout the years.

If there was anything there that we had brought forward to the minister now and this governm ent during this process, we would bring it back to him again in a lot stronger manner than we did this time or the people from UMM or MAUM or any jurisdiction that comes to this government. So, Madam Speaker, in closing my few comments, I just want to again congratulate all those who took

part in making history and proclaiming Bill 54. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just very briefly with respect to Bill 54, when the bill in fact was tabled, it is a very substantial document, and I think it would have challenged any one of us to have read through it to get a complete understanding of exactly what the bill is purporting to do. But I would acknowledge the effort, as the speaker prior to me acknowledged, in terms of those individuals that were involved in a process that ultimately led to the drafting of Bill 54.

In sunun ation, from our perspective, from the Liberal Party's perspective, what we are hoping is that in essence we have now a much more simplified manner in which we can process things. We trust that will in fact be the case and no doubt that there even could be some amendments that do come up in the not too distant future with some of the concerns that have been expressed from different individuals . Thank you, Madam Speaker. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to also speak on third reading to Bill 54, The Municipal Act.

I became involved with The Municipal Act fairly late in the process when looking through the act and seeing that there was a

section in the act that had major implications for the city of Winnipeg. So, while I did not participate in the process through the over two years that the government and other municipalities did, I was able to participate in the process leading to Bill 54 briefly. I want to again reiterate what my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) has stated and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), the process appears to have been-[ interjection] As the Premier stated when I heckled him during Question Period a week or so ago, you have made me lose my train of thought. It must be my advanced age. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

4760 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 The process that I think was undertaken in deve loping Bill 54, The Municipal Act, is the process that I think should be undertaken in virtually every piece of legi slation in this House. I think the elements came together fa irly well in generati ng a new piece of legislation, the first time in a hundred years . This was a massive undertaking, as has been stated bef ore in the House.

It is massive not just because there are so many elements to putting together a totally new bill dealing with municipal affairs, but also because there are so many diff erent municipalities in the province of Manitoba, ranging from very small municipalities to the city of Winnipeg.

They all have varying degrees of concerns and issues that need to be addressed in this underlying basic piece of legi slation, and it seems to me, from what I can unders tand, the process, two and a half years of consultation, of going out into the communities, of getting inf ormation and concerns from the various stakeholders in the proces s, was what should be fo llowed in any major piece of legi slation. So I want to commend the Minister of Rural Devel opment (Mr.

Derkach) , I want to commend his staff, because I know that while ministers take a lead role in policy determination, it is staff who actually implement the directives given by cabinet and the minister. The consultations that I had with the staff were unif ormly of very high quality. I was able to ask any question I wanted, and I got answers that were excellent. So I commend the staff in the Department of Rural Development fo r the outstanding work they have done in putting together this piece of legislation.

Also, having spent a lot of time this session, as in other sessions, in committee where there are amendments that are made, and sometimes there are amendments made immediately while you are in committee, I think that we should all recognize every once in a while the work that the Legis lative Counsel does in drafting a piece of legislation that is 30 0 pages long. Legis lative Counsel has to take the work, the ideas that come through cabinet and the department and consultation, and they have to actually put it into language that will stand the test of time and will stand scrutiny over any potential court hearing.

Not only that, but they have to deal with amend ments , and I know that in my case I would call Leg. Counsel and I would have an idea about what I wanted to have as an amendment, but I did not know exactly where it should go and I certainly did not know the language that it should be in, and Leg. Counsel was, again, unif ormly helpful in doing that. I know that they have been working very , very hard given this new split session that we have both in drafti ng the legisl ation this spring and then in dealing with amendments in the committee stages this full.

So I think on behalf of all of us, I would like to give some commendation to the members of the Leg. Counsel fo r the work that they have done . As I said, dealing with the bits of The Municipal Act that I have dealt with has been a real learning experience fo r me as well as sitting in on the committee heari ngs.

I have made every attempt in my six-plus years in the Legisl ature to expand my horizons and try and be very much aware of the need not to think only in terms of the city of Winnipeg or the perimeter or the capital region, which I know is difficult for all of us, but most particularly people who live in the city of Winnipeg and people like myself who do not come from a rural background. So listening to the presentations at the committee stage was very helpful fo r me to understand a little bit more about what the issues are that are of concern to various municipalities in the province of Manitoba.

I \\ill be the first to admit that I do not understand all the distinctions. I do not understand still how municipal government works in any real way, but I do have a fe eling fo r some of what the concerns are and some of the issues that were raised. So I appreciate the process that I was allowed to participate in in the committee hearings I would like to speak a bit about the area that got me involved in The Municipal Act in the first place, and that is the area around changes to the boundaries of the city of Winnipe g. Now, the City Council, when it was alerted to this

section of the act, had a meeting and discussed this situation, and they sent over a request to the government fo r an amen dment, fo r a series of amendments actually, to clarifY and make more comf ortable fo r the city their concerns around the sections in The Municipal Act dealing with the city of Winnipeg boundaries. * (150 0) One interesting thing about this process is that the City Council passed this resolution 15 votes to one vote, and I think anybody who knows anything about the City of

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 476 1 Winnipeg City Council will know how unusual that is. Normally there is a very large range of opinion on City Council, and it is very unusual that you will get virtual unanimity on any particular issue.

But in this case the City Council voted virtually unanimously to share their concerns on this element of The Municipal Act with the committee, and the one city councillor who opposed the resolution that was passed by City Council, when he came to committee, stated that part of his opposition was the flavour that the resolution brought forward, that the language was a little harsh and did not open itself to compromise or working together. So the concern that was raised by City Council was one that was raised by, in eff ect, every city councillor.

That is, and I will not go into it in too great a detail because the minister and the government know very clearly what the concerns are, the proce ss for making changes to the city of Winnipeg boundaries is very different from the process for making changes to the boundaries of any other of the municipalities in the province of Manitoba.

If a municipality, other than the city of Winnipeg, wants to amend its boundaries or annex other land or be annexed or amalgamate or dissolve, there is quite an extensive process that needs to be undertaken in The Municipal Act, a process that, I might add, appears to me to be a good process. This is not something that you want to have undertaken lightly; it is a major-in most cases, changing the boundaries of your municipality or your city is a very serious matter that should not be undertaken lightly. So there are many pages in The Municipal Act dealing with these boundary change s.

If the City ofWinnipeg wanted to annex Headingley or St. Andrews or Springfield, or any of the R.M.s around the Per imeter of the city ofWinnipeg, they, too, for the purposes of annexation would be considered a municipality, so the city would also have to go through exactly the same very detailed process for change. However, the area that causes the City Council and has caused me concern is that, if another municipality wants to annex land that currently belongs to the city of Winnipeg, it is a very much smaller, narrower, faster process, and this is driven largely by the cabinet.

The only specific is that there be a requirement of a study undertaken as to the impact of the boundary change, but there are no parameters around that impact study. There is no statement in the legis lation as to who will have input into the study; and, other than it says, it shall be made public, there is no delineation of how people will find out the findings of the study. Also, this part allows the cabinet to decide whether they will send an analysis such as this and a request to the Municipal Board.

So we brought these issues and conce rns to the minister and to his staff , and the council brought them to the committee hearin gs. I do not believe this city is completely satisfied, because the amendments that we brought forward were not accepted, but the minister is on record as saying that he believes , in eff ect, the legislation, as it now stands, strengthens the City of Winnipeg's hand in protecting its boundaries from other municipalities who may want to take part of it away.

In the spirit of co operation and understanding, as my colleague from Interlake has said, this is a huge, brand-new piece of legi slation that needs to have some time to sort itself out. We have supported Bill 54 although we are going to maintain a very serious watching brief on the concerns that we have raised about the city of Winnipeg annexation problem. One other part that I would like to speak to about in third reading is the other amendments that came through. I found it very inte resting. The Minister of Rural Devel opment (Mr.

Derkach) , I think, really made an effort to listen to what was being said in the committee hear ings. He made note s, he talked to his staff , and he met with the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), the Rural Development critic, and myself , the Urban Affairs critic, in between the time when the presentations happened and when we went to clause by clause. He outlined for us the concerns that he had heard addre ssed by various present ers.

Some of them, he was willing to addre ss in the form of amendmen ts; others he was not, but he gave us answe rs · for the reasons why he was not willing to address some of the concerns and amendments at this time, a process that I greatly appreciate. One particular amendment that I would like to commend the minister for suggest ing-and it is an amendment that we would have brought forward had the minister not-comes out of a concern raised by the Canadian Union of Public Employees in their brief, and it deals with The Labour Relations Act provisions.

Bas ically, the original act stated that the rights, obligations, liabilities, assets, et cetera, that the cabinet considers appropriate to be dealt with in regulations

4762 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 19 96 dealing with amalgamations of municipalities may operate despite a collective agreement, which means that if two municipalities amalgamate or one dissolves and is taken over by another or if there are any of these boundary changes that take place, the employees who may be operating under two or three collective agreements, their collective agreements might not take precedence. The Canadian Union of Public Employees was quite concerned about this, as were we.

The minister heard this concern, and he put forward amendments that stated in effect that any amalgamation that took place would have to do so under the aegis of The Labour Relations Act, which means that The Labour Relations Act takes precedence and must be looked at when you amalgamate or make changes in boundaries.

I applauded the minister at the time, and I would like to applaud the minister right now for having seen the inequities, the potential inequities in that part of the legislation and having made that very important change that we feel will enhance the ability of municipalities to deal with any boundary changes in the most effective, nonconfrontational manner possible. Finally, I have a comparison, if you will, between how the minister and the governmen t handled Bill 54 and how the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System (Mr. Findlay) and his government are handling Bill 67.

As I stated, the process, the consultation process that took place in drafting Bill 54 took place over two and a half years. They listened to literally hundreds of people from across the province, recognizing [interjection] As the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) said, as it should be, and I am commending the government for that because they recognized the importance of this issue, that it was going to have a massive impact on virtually every citizen in the province of Manitoba. The second thing that happened in Bill 54 is when the minister came to committee hearings he actually listened.

He listened and he reflected and he made decisions on amendments. Some he accepted, some he did not, but he clearly paid attention to the public-hearing process. He clearly utilized it as a way of hearing potential positive things, things that could be changed in Bill 54. In contrast, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government in putting forward Bill 67 did not consult with the people of Manitoba. I will not go into the fact that this is a piece of legislation that was not mandated by the people of Manitoba. I think the parallel is that this is not a small piece of legislation amending a small bill.

Legislation always has an impact on somebody, but we all know that some pieces of legislation are minor in their impact on most people. You do not necessarily have to consult broadly on those pieces of legislation.

But the government recognized in redrafting The Municipal Act that they needed to consult in order to be an effective process and to bring forward a good piece of legislation. * (1510 ) Unfortunately, the government did not recognize, or chose not to recognize, the need to consult in that regard with Bill 6 7 which ·will have potentially an incalculable effect on all of the people in the province of Manitoba. We have debated back and forth in Question period.

We have debated, more or less, in the committee hearings, although the government is not choosing to dialogue much of the presenters, these issues, but it is important that not only 57 people in the Legislative Chamber and several hundred people in the committee hearings, but a million people across the province of Manitoba have an opportunity to hear both sides of this issue because the impact of this piece of legislation is potentially so important on our futures as a province. So I would like to compare those two, the process that was undertaken by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.

Derkach) in Bill 54 versus the process that has been undertaken by the government in dealing with Bill 67. They went through exactly the same steps, without the consultation in Bill 67. They brought it through the same required steps in the Legislature. They are having public hearings. They have been going on for over a week now, but that is where the similarity ends. We can only assume, I can only assume, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that the govemrne:n t wanted a municipal act that worked and undemood what it needed to do to bring that about I can only assume, secondly, that the governm ent knew what was going to happen with Bill 67. It knew the outcomes that were going to be brought forward, knew the potential or the actual changes that were going to take place for all people in Manitoba, did not want to meet the people head on, did not want to consult because -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4763 they knew what they were going to hear from their constituents and from the people of Manitob a. The only thing that I can come up with, given the almost antithetical behaviour on the part of the government in Bill 54 versus Bill 67, that the government knew exactly what it was doing in both cases. In the one case in dealing with Bill 54, it acted in an admirable fa shion, working exactly the way the process should work.

In the case of Bill 67, it has worked in the most despicable, if I can use that word, I do not know if it is parliamentary or not, but underhanded, not clear with the people of Manitoba. The process has been abrogated, the process has been made a mockery of, and it is too bad because the government knows how to do it. They knew how to do it in Bill 54, they have chosen not to do it in Bill 67, and the people of Manitoba will see that distinction.

It is interestjng because, in many cases, the people who are most aff ected by The Municipal Act, the people in rural and northern Manitoba, are some of the people who are going to be most aff ected by Bill 67. They saw the consu ltation that took place in Bill 54. They see that nothing is taking place in the same way in Bill 67. I think the people of Manitoba will understand the distinction there. So with those wor ds, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I close my debate on third reading on Bill 54, and again commend the government for an excellent proc ess. Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member fo r Broadway (Mr. Santo s), that debate be adjourned on Bill 54. Motion agreed to. Bill 33- The Education Administration Amendment Act Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Mr. Deputy Speaker, that Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'administration scolaire, be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): I rise fo r the first time to put a fe w words on the record on Bill 33. This is the third reading of the bill, and we have had the opportunity to listen to community members presenting on The Education Administration Amendment Act. The ultimate purpo se of this bill is basically to conce ntrate-versus the minister's words-concentrate power to the minister's office, rather than in fa ct empowering local communities and parents.

What it actually does is fo cus the attention on the minister and enable the minister much more intrusive powers in the classroom, in the school and on school boards . We heard very eloquent and well-thought-out presentations by the Teachers' Society, by the Manitoba Assoc iation of School Trustees and from a group called CAST, which is a parents' group opposed to standard testing.

They made very good points as to why this type of comparison of results and academic perf o rmance will actually lead to deterioration of our school system rather than the enhancement which the minister attempts to argue is the reason fo r these changes to The Education Administration Act. If we truly wanted enhancement of public education, I would suggest that the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) would be wise to go out and speak to those who have that vested interest, go and speak to the teachers who are in the classroom daily with our children. Many jurisdictions, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have done that.

In the United States, a southern state was particularly concerned about how their schools were achieving and how their students were learning in the school system, and they went out and the one thing that they did is that they listened to teachers. That state has now turned its record completely around and has one of the highest success rates of any American state, and what they did was, they went and listened to teachers.

What we heard over and over again about this bill and the other education bills was that teachers were undervalued, were not consulted and were not respected in terms of the prof essionals that they are and the expertise that they have when dealing with our children. This bill, contrary to the minister's pontification, actually is a shift of power into the minister's office rather

4764 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 than the decentralist model which she proclaims by shifting power to parents and local boards and councils. Actually, the presentations that we heard from teachers and school boards both expressed very serious concern about the undermining oftheir power and their authority professionalism in the areas that have always been their mandate, their jurisdiction and, quite frankly, the minister has had the responsibility and power to set the overall parameters on public education and private education and has that ability already.

This further articulates the power that the minister wishes to enunciate to all of the education community, articulating points such as, the minister will decide on the assessment tools, the minister will decide on the program of study. These things are not only within the mandate of the minister's powers today.

The question arises, why does the minister feel that it is so important to rearticulate in such a pointed fashion her power and her ability to interfere in the classroom if it is not another direct attack to the very professionals that I would suggest she should be speaking to, and that is our classroom teachers. * (15 20) This bill will enable the minister to determine all forms of assessment in the classroom. Asses sment is a very complicated issue and, for professionals who wish to express how assessment works, it is very complicated because what you are trying to do is measure a person's performance.

You are trying to measure their academic, their intellectual, their emotional successes and areas of needed improvement, and that, as we all know, is extremely complicated. You cannot use one tool, for instance a standards test, which uses a pen and paper instrument and use that as a guide to then say, this student has a certain achievement level in that particular course at that time. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is inherently unfair in fact to use one instrument when we know that we all have various learning skills, various learning abilities and various learning styles.

In fact, the Department of Education and modern educational thought is looking at the classroom teacher being able to identifY the learning style of each individual student, and we want to move to that. We want to move to a system which is able to identifY the learning style of our child and to accentuate that learning style, and to be able to then understand that to assess that student's learning abilities and where improvement has to be, it has to be modelled to the individual child. This is a model that educators are moving towards. It is not a simple model.

It is not one that is going to be necessarily marked oo a grade from zero to 10 0 and given a specific percentage. The trustees of Manitoba, the teachers of Manitoba, the parents and the educators, the administrators met-I believe it was about three years ago during the former Minister of Education Clayton Manness's platform.

Those people, those partners in education, did sit do"'n for a fairly long, intensive workshop in Brandon, where I believe colleagues from the other side of the House who are now MLAs that were at one time trustees also participated, and they looked at a visioo of educatioo and came up with virtual consensus, which is an astonishing accomplishment. We were all proud of that accomplishment. We knew that change had to happen. We had a direction, and we wanted the Minister of Education to listen to what we had to say. The unfortunate part, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is that the former Education minister, Clayton Manness, had his O\';;TI direction. What I do have to give him credit for is having the honesty to come forward and say that he did not really care what that conference was telling him. He had an agenda, and he was putting it forward. We did not agree with him. We knew at that time, through consensus, that it was not the way to go. However, what is unfortunate is that we are seeing the Manness plan-modified many times because many parts of it did not work-being implemented by the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) of today.

I believe that over the past mandate of the Conservative government we have had five or six Ministers of Education all trying to fmd very simple solutions to complicated topics of assessment and evaluation. This bill is extremely unfortunate. It attempts to come with a simple solution directed by the minister and, in fact, is often contradictory with what educational thought is saying; contradictory to what the documents that the department is putting out, and contradictory to the very fundamental pwpose of public education. -

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4765 The minister has decided that schools boards have apparently too much power and has, through this bill, decided that she is going to tell them what they must do and how they are going to report it. When you are looking at a mandate and the minister calls you to evaluate your special needs programs, that may seem like a fairly reaso nable request.

The complication of a request like that is that it will intensifY and virtually increase astronomically the amount of administrative work required unless the minister is particularly careful and precise with what she is asking in terms of assessment. The concern is that the statements in the bill are so broad based and going to be left up to regulation.

The concern is that it is actually going to increase administrative costs as the minister is requesting more ass essments, more reports, more paperwork and taking away from what really needs to be done, a refocus of our public education system into one that is based on the individual, qne that encourages individual thought, one that builds on teamwork and co-operation, one that is going to be responsive to the needs of business, that is talking about higher thinking skills.

Instead, what it is going to be doing is focusing the administration and the school system on increased administration, increased papenvork and increased responsiveness to the minister, whose legacy unfortunately has been one of mis management. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the legacy is that there have been directives from the minister that have not been possible to implement. We remember clearly when certain timetables were prescribed and the curriculum was prescribed by the government as to what was expected in the back-to-the-basics, back-to-the-core curriculum.

Suddenly schoolteachers who know the curriculum like the backs of their hands said to the minister, there is not enough minutes in the day to conduct this program of study. Is the minister suggesting that we expand the school day, or is the minister suggesting that we eliminate recess? It is impossible to implement the curriculum as given by the number of minutes in the day even today. In certain programs of study, it is still impossible to follow the department, the minister's outline. What a member of the public who came to the committee said was somewhat reassuring.

He said, as a public school teacher for over 40 years, I know that governments come and go and ministers even more often than that, but the real purpose of education is preserved. I think what he meant by that is the public school system or any school system is a large institution and is not likely to be turned over on its heels as quickly as perhaps the government may want and they may be misdirected. The institution itself will respond in a sensible way because the ultimate purpose is to provide a better education for our children, and I have that faith in the system as a whole.

What concerns me is that we have legislation which puts a whole lot more faith in the Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh) and, although she was a classroom teacher, I understand-I do not know for how long or where-but for one individual to be so empowered, the concern is that indeed they are not the best equipped. * (1 530) The role that we had in Brandon when we used all the partners to come up with a plan that unfortunately was rejected by this government is the model to go.

It is possible to receive and develop consensus in terms of the direction of education and it is not the one that the government is pursuing unfortunately. It is possible to meet with ilie partners and develop an agenda of change that will work, and I would say that classroom teachers, trustees, administrators are all ready to change. The problem is that if the changes are coming out unilaterally from the minister's office that are apparently contradictory to the very fundamental goals of education, you have a quandary. You have the system fighting each other. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that is extremely unfortunate, because what we have are challenges in the education system that need to be developed in a consensus fashion. We need to be moving ahead to meet the needs of our children, not to be in a situation where we have the various partners fighting against, in this case, virtual unanimity. You have the partners fighting against the government, the Minister of Education, which is, as I say, extremely unfortunate. MAST, the school trustees, presented to the committee on Bill 33; and Bill 33 is a very small bill if you look at the number of pages.

It focuses on fairly specific amendments to reporting and and asses sment. Some jurisdictions, particularly right-wing jurisdictions, have decided that the way to improve education is to publicize grades, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and many speakers who

4766 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 5, 1996 came to committee were very concerned that this indeed was the intent of this government. The example from the people from CAST, Coalition Against Standardized Testing, I think, is particularly relevant. Here, if you looked at-they cited the recent Grade 3 mathematics standards exam-question 16 (

b) asks, if you have 24 diff erent combinations of outfits, how many T -shirts and jeans can you have? This is for Grade 3. This is children eight and nine years old. CAST, the Coalition Against Standardized Testing, pointed out that in many communities, in many cultures, children do not have outfits. They would not even understand the term "outfit." Perhaps, if you live in Tuxedo, you wear outfits, but if you live in Point Douglas, you have jeans and a T -shirt.

The fact that you would have 24 diff erent combinations or outfits is an example of how the test itself can be skewed and biased when you are looking at a paper and pen test and, in this case, probably tests your ability to understand language and cultural diff erences more than the mathematical test which it was presumed to be measuring. The Department of Education is moving on a program of what they call hands-on manipulatives in mathematics for the early years. It is a program of study that has proven to be very eff ective.

What it means is that children will get to experiment using diff erent materials to make it practical, to make mathematics real, and schools are actively engaged in developing this new curriculum. For that example alone, how can hands-on manipulatives be tested by a paper and pen test, especially with something so obscure as, how many outfits do you wear, how many outfits would you have if you had 24 diff erent combinations? It is truly an unfair examination. Another question, question 29, the question here for the Grade 3 class again, write a math story problem where the answer is 36.

Now, that is a pretty broad-based question. I would like to challenge the members in this House to answer that question. [interjection] Write a math story problem where the answer is 36. Well, that alone gives you second thought as to the meaning of the question itself. Mathematics was one of my favourite subjects. I loved to manipulate numbers, and I loved to calculate various answers that always came out with the right ans wer . It was fuirly simple. This type of question, write a math story problem where the answer is 36, is not a mathematics question.

This is actually, I would say, a reading comprehension question, and actually is probab ly directed in the \\To ng subject. Clearly, this is not a mathematics subject or problem that is manipulative or hands on. It is very theoretical and requires a very good grasp of language, and I remind you that this is in Grade 3. Would it be valuable. for instance, if we looked at the children in the inner city or even in my community on the east side of St. James, where there is a very large population of recent immigrants?

These children are learning another language, and here they are facing a test which is dependent on their ability to understand fairly sophisticated language concepts. They are often enco uraged to do well in math and have the skills and ability. Would this test in fact measure or somehow reflect accurately how well those children can do in mathematics, or do they understand the concepts? I do not think so. What it actually does is measure the person's ability to read the question and understand it.

The publication of results and assessment, which are the fundamentals of this bill, will lead to, what the minister is quite proud to say, competition. It will lead to school shopping, and presumably, according to most right-wing theory and philosophy, competition leads to improvement. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that clearly parents do not agree that comp etition is what is needed in the public school system or in education. What is needed is a system that is going to provide for the needs of our children.

What we \\ill have-and we do have some studies indicating that in fact this type of school shopping has actually led to more mediocrity in the public school system, in the school system in general, has led to mediocrity and standardization. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is a fear, that the government is actually moving away from allowing individual exce llence in achievement and schools and diversification.

What is actually going to happen is, a certain formula or recipe that has proven to be successful will be adopted by all schools, and so just like all stores move towards-we have seen a trend-megastores, we have Home Depot, we have REVY, we have these giant stores, SuperValu. Even Safeways are becoming large. There is a certain trend in the market, and when there is something that is appealing, you will see that same recipe being used in all sectors.

November 5, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4767 There has been evidence of other jurisdictions which have tried to go to this model of competition amongst schools. We have seen it in the U.K., in Britain, and some jurisdictions in the United States. The results have actually proven that it has deteriorated the overall standards of education and led to mediocrity.

Parents instead are searching for schools that offer-initially they will be looking at schools that offer before-and-after daycare programs, lunch programs; they will be looking at the facilities of the school; they will be looking at the promotional materials that the school has produced. If a school has a sophisticated marketing strategy, they will probably be able to attract many parents, not based on the program or the legitimate values that are going on in the school, but rather the artificial or, I would say, the superficial aspects of the school.

The other things, unfortunately, will be so standardized that there will not be the diversification, and that is exactly what we need in our public school system. * (1 540) In fact, again, as we saw earlier, we see administrators and trustees moving away from focusing on improving education to doing more administration. Schools are actually going to be focused on attracting parents. Instead of focusing on enhancing the educational o

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-76
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 76.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	57cedc85c824e2adb8139e06e848b202f40fe06f

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