Manitoba Hansard — 28 June 1983 (Sitting 97B, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-97b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

IS SN 0542-5492 Second Session - Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 97B - 8:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 28 JUNE, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manilobe

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNES$, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Hon. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minn edosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elmwood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin- Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wo lseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnkster Fort Garr y Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 28 June, 1983. Time - 8:00 p.m. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Order please. Would the Acting Government House Leader please indicate the next item of business? The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was conferring with the Honourable Member for St. Norbert who is Acting House Leader for the Opposition and he is to confirm, within a matter of moments, bills that he understands members of his side are prepared to speak on.

I perhaps, in the interval, seeing that there are honourable members opposite who have adjourned bills, I might ask whether they are prepared to speak. I thought maybe if I talked for a moment or two . . . Most of the bills have been adjourned in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. Perhaps I could start the list. I was just indicating, Mr. Speak er, that a good number of the bills are adjourned in the names of members. I don't know whether they're available to speak. We have already addressed Bills No. 2 and No. 3, Mr. Speaker.

Bill No. 18 stands in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson, but perhaps it was adjourned for someone else. Bill No. 18 will stand, Mr. Speaker. Bill No. 54. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL 54 - THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the prop osed motio n of the Honourable Minister of Labour, Bill No. 54, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, this bill of Payment of Wa ges Act, Bill 54, has been spoken on by many on this side of the House.

The only arguments I've heard from that side of the House is the argument that we have to have Bill 54, The Payment of Wages Act for the benefit of the workers. The presentation from the Mem ber for Winnipeg Centre was a very interesting speech in that he said it didn't matter what else we did as far as the workers are concerned, we must have Bill 54 in order that we will have a good situation, good relationship between lab our and manage ment . The ultima te protection of the worker as far as he is concerned, if somebody goes broke and they would have a guarantee of wages. Mr.

Speaker, obviously the person that has been respons ible for putting this bill together, the Minister of Labour and her staff, really didn't do a lot of research into the consequence of Bill 54 when they decided that first of all the extension of the respons ibility of Boards of Directors.

The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of Economic Development and all of those should be very very concerned about the fact that companies who are wanting to have Boards of Directors and ultimately have the Boards of Directors in charge of companies that are operating in Manitoba and manufacturing in Manitoba, that would not be the right thing to do. Why do they have to put up with that?

Why, if you're going to have Boards of Directors and the respons ibility of the Boards of Directors are extended, do they not go somewhere where that extension doesn't exist? - (In terjection) - I just heard the Member for Wolseley in her usual way say, get away without paying their responsibility which is the usual hatred of management that she has. It is unfortunate that people over on that side of the House have the warped mind and thinking that they have regarding management so they can get away without having their respon sibilities. Mr.

Speaker, what I said was, in the situation that we have in front of us they don't have to come to Manitoba. They're not getting away with anyt hing. They can simply go to another province and not have that kind of legislation. (In terjection) - Now we have the intelligence of the Member for St. Johns, how about the moon? Well I don't know about the legislation on the moon, maybe he does because he certainly lives in a dreamland and he doesn't really know, at the best of times, which way he's going. Anywa y, Mr. Speaker, the situation still remains that they don't have to come to Manitoba.

The other situation also remains, Mr. Speaker, on the investment. As far as investment is concerned , those who have placed their money in the hands of somebody that invests it expect they will be protected, as they always have been protected. It could be the Member for Wo lseley who invests their money with somebody, and she expects them to invest it wisely. Those people who are investing her money take on a respon sibility to her, and she fully expects that they will invest her money in some manner that will be the best benefit to her.

They don't have to invest her money in Manitoba. - (In terjection) - In fact, Mr. Speaker, if they take her money and she can prove that they did not invest it and handle it to the best of their ability on her behalf, she has a case against them. So when they look at Manitoba they say well, Mr. Speaker, we don't really know that we want to put our customers, our people that we have a respon sibility to, we don't want to put them in the prejudiced position of investing in Manitoba because your investment may not be as secure as it would be in other provinces. Mr.

Speaker, we now add up to another situation in Manitoba where we are going to discourage investment . The members opposite are sitting there and they're saying in their smug mann er, and only for political reasons as my colleague for La Ver"endrye said, that we really have to put this legislation through for political reasons only, because it sounds good. That's the only reason that they've done it because in Manitoba, Mr. 4020

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 Speaker, there was a fund set up by the previous government to be called on to take care of the salaries of emplo yees of com panies th at have gone into receivership or gone broke. Mr. Speaker, we had the same presenta tion put before us. We had to look at it in the same terrns that this government did and that was taking care of the emp loyee and we said well if we put too many people before the investor, if we place the investors in that type of a position, we won't have investments. So we said what is the best thing for government to do?

Here is the best example I think I've ever seen of how government should play a role in the protection of the employee and still protect the investment potential in the Province of Manitoba. The government moved in and we set up a fund to take care of those emp loyees.

The Mem ber, as I said, for Winnipeg Centre spoke previously that the concern was to see that the employee was taken care of, the concern was always going to be there so the employee would have confidence that he would be taken care of, there was a good place for the government to move in and have a fund to see that that happened and at the same time not make Manitoba the odd-man-out as far as investment was concerned.

The Member for Wo lseley is really an excellent example but other excellent examples are, that if somebody - just think about it yourself - if you give your money to somebody to invest for you; if you are a group in Toronto that want to put investment into the hands of an investment dealer, into the hands of a bank, into the hands of anybody and you found that there was one province that was worse than all the rest to invest in, where are you going to invest? A MEMBER: Good question. MR. F. JOHNSTON: You see the Province of Manitoba now has with this bill, another reason not to have investment in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I got up today and I questioned the Minister of Economic Development as to the reason why manufacturing shipme nts were down in this province January to April this year over last and why shipments of manufactured goods are down in this province of April over March of 1983.

You see the trend is in a downward slant and that means we haven't got as much manufacturing going on, we haven't got as much expansion going on, we haven 't got as much happening in the way of development of products, etc., to be able to hold our situation in a stable position and we still have a great number of unem ployed in this province, more than we ever had, and we put ourselves into the position of being the odd-man-out, as far as investment regulations are concerned, in Canada. We have a Payment of Wages Act that says that you will stand behind some other people before you will receive your money.

Now, rightly or wrongly , Sir, that doesn't happen in other provinces, so naturally you will not invest in Manitoba. In fact, you could actually take the person you've entrusted your money to to court, under the circumstances, if they did not handle your money properly. So I move back to saying that's what faced us as a government, and we were aware of the problems of 4021 the employee under these circumstances, and that's why the fund was set up.

Now if the Member for Wo lseley wanted to see that the employee had more benefit she could have extended the length of time that the fund would pay an emp loyee; could have increased the amounts that the funds would pay the employees, because that's where the government role is. The cost of doing that will be less, in the long run, compared to what we will lose as far as investment in this province is concerned . You know, Mr.

Speaker, with all of that plain common sense, which happens in the business world, the common sense that happened with the previous government when we set up that fund, we wonder why this government comes along and places Manitoba in this position. We ll I remember several years back the Member for St. John, at that time, the fellow that - (In terjection) - the fellow that Morton Shulman described as a financial ignoramus, was there as Minister of Finance, and I can only remember that there was a structure to set up treasury branches by the Department of Finance in this pr ovince.

Now if we don't have investment from the people in the investment business coming into Manitoba, and there is a requirement for some businesses to l00k for that type of investment, whether it's buildin g apartment blocks, or businesses, or whatever, and it isn't available from the normal channels, now who do you think will come along with their Treasury Boards and set up an investment structure in the Province of Manitoba. Our great old Socialist Government in Manitoba will come along and they will say, now we will loan the money.

We will be the people that will support the money for investment and then what do they have? They have the cash flow coming in. They have control of the cash within the province, the same as they want to get control of the cash flow of the life insurance business. They want to get control of the cash flow of the pension plan business and the Member for St. Johns says, yes, yes, we will be the ones that will be the loaners, we will control the money in this province and we will control the businesses in this province. And, Mr.

Speaker, when this government comes forward and starts to do any loaning to business - we already know because they've got the structure all set up with their new plan in the Department of Economic Development with the Venture Capital plan - that they can end up getting a share when they loan money into a business. If a fellow doesn't like his payments, they will end up having some own ership in the business. So, Mr.

Speaker, when we take a look at the economic development in this province, and although the First Minister keeps saying it was the worst we'd ever seen during our four years because there was only one figure he could ever point to that was bad, the rest were all good. When we point to the unemplo yment at the present time in Manitoba versus the unemplo yment we had then, we find tha t Ma nitoba is going down continual ly. Manufacturing shipments are dropping, manufacturing output is going down.

Business investment, this will help to discourage business investment; this will put the government in the position to make business investments and they will be in the banking and loaning business in the province because other people won't do it. It is the

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 motive of the government. It was there during the Schreyer Government's years, that was the motives. The Honourable Member for St. Johns shakes his head, he was there then and he knows the motives. A MEMBER: Not St. Johns, Point Douglas. MR. F. JOHNSTON: He was there then and he knew the motives. Point Douglas, well then that's fine, St. John, but he was the Member for Point Douglas, as my colleague says, before. Now we know what the plan is.

Why else would a government become the odd man-out as far as investment is concerned in The Payment of Wages Act, be different from the west of Canada, and you only have to have half a brain to know that you will not get as much investment into Manitoba if you do it, and yet they go ahead and do it. So the obvious thing is that they want to be the loaning agent for investment and expansion within the province. The Member for Wo lseley looks at me with her eyes slanted, you know that look of hate that she always has when she looks at me, there's no question about that.

But the point is she just doesn't understand business, she doesn't understand business; she doesn't understand inves tme nt; she doesn't understand corpor ate structur e; she doesn't understand bankruptcy; she doesn't understand a damn thing about it. All she understands, or she is convinced - and the Mem ber for St.

Johns who obviously, his profession shows that he's not really the best businessman on earth, he may be the best preacher, but not the best businessman - anyway the understanding of business, there is absolutely no understanding of it there, and they put this bill into effect for political reasons only. The Minister of Municipal Affairs goes out to meetings and absolutely says things that are not factual to the elected members of the councils. I was there yesterday and heard him, so that means he doesn't understand the structure either. A MEMBER: He said he was perfect, and that's not true. MR. f.

JOHNSTON: He said he was Perfect Peter, I've never heard that before, but that's beside the poin t A MEMBER: No, that's right to the point. MR. F. JOHNSTON: . . . that's the municipal bill, we will talk about that a little bit later because I can assure you the statements that he made, I just wondered if I was in the same room with somebody that would make statements that would have people think the actual opposite to what was happening, and I think you call that sort of misleading statements. Mr.

Speaker, the understanding over there of business is not there and those of them that have it, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who should know something about it, obviously doesn't either. All of a sudden, even those that know the consequence, go ahead with this bill on the basis that we'll play politics with it, we'll say we're for the worker, put Manitoba on the odd-man-out position, rather than do what the government should be doing.

Support the fund that was set up to take care of workers that had the unfortunate situation of having worked with a company that goes into bankruptcy or has to close down, for whatever reason. Mr. Speaker, there was a situation that would give us the best of both worlds. You could almost call it sort of an extension of welfare, or unemployment insurance, or whatever you want to call it, but it was a legitimate place for the government to play a role and play it proper ly, protecting jobs, if you want to call it that, within this province but this government chose to do that.

Now, Sir, I could tell you that when the committees are in their hearings there will be businessmen coming forward, businessmen who actually know what's going on in the world of commerce in this province, in this count ry, and in North America and international ly, who will say to this government that if this legislation passes, and you in Ma nitoba have a worse cli mate for investment than there is in the other provinces, or other areas of Canada or North America, you will not have our investment dollars. I want to know what the Member for Wo lseley is going to say to those people who make that statement.

Maybe it'll be one of the investment houses or banks where she has her own money; just maybe the memb ers who have got money with investment houses in this country will have their money invested elsewhere, other than Manitoba, which won't help Manitoba business, and they will have forced that situation. They laugh - (In terjection) - MR. D. MALINOWSKI: You're not telling the truth. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , the Member for St. Johns says I'm not telling the truth. I would ask the Member for St.

Johns if he was taking care of his daughter's money, that lovely girl who was a page in this House at one time and a guard, if he had the responsi bility of looking after her financial affairs, would he invest her money in a position that was worse if he could have done better. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speaker, would the Memb er for St. Jo hns not invest his daughter's, or any member of his family's mon ey, to the best of his ability? Well, now, Mr. Speaker, now we really wonder, we really have to wonder don't we?

Wo uld anyone on the other side of this House, members of the government, if they had a good friend come to them and say, I don't have knowledge of financing or investment, I think that you know a little more about it than I do, I want you to handle my investments for me, is there one of them over there that wouldn't do the best they could for them?

I don't think there is one over there, I don't have a very high opinion of some of them, but I don't think there is one over there that wouldn't sincerely try to help their friend, and if they took that friend's money and invested it, loaned it to the construction of an apartment block, or a group of houses, or con dominiums, or small business in the Province of Manitoba, and they loaned that money in Manitoba they would have put that money in worse jeopardy than it would have been in in any other province in this country. Now would they do that? A MEMBER: They would. 4022

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 MR. F. JOHNSTON: Wo uld you do that? They're doing it because of playing politics, and all they had to do, Mr. Speaker, and this is the third time I've said it, maybe it will get th rough to them, is pl ay the role the government should play in this position, protect the investment climate in the Province of Manitoba and increase the fund, if necessa ry, to take care of those unfortunate workers that end up in bankruptcies; increase the funds so that they pay longer, pay more, or whatever.

As I said, an extension of welfare, or an extension of unemp loyment insurance, or some guarantee to that person, and that's all they had to do and they would have protected the investment climate of this province and it would have been a help. I feel sorry for the Min ister of Economic Development in this province. On the steps last night, her feelings got so high that she kind of broke down a bit because of that. I can see a person that has to work through the worst frustrations of any Minister that ever was. She has to work through the worst frustration.

If she agrees with it, so be it, then you have to take your consequences of what you get. But I can tell you, at the present time, that she has a role to play. Of course, The First Minister probably likes her in that role because he's now gotten rid of one person that ran against him for leader and he's just sort of hurting the reputation of the other person that ran against him as leader and that, naturally, would happen with a Prem ier, such as we have. So, Mr.

Speaker, who is the leader over here? - (In terjection) - He happens to sit right there and he's probably the most straight forward person in this province and that's why you are afraid of him. Mr. Speaker, the one way you be a socialist is tell the truth because they don't know how to handle it. They don't know how to fight against the truth and they change the subj ect the minute you have them cornered. Mr.

Speaker, I would tell the Member for Wolsel ey, just because I know of her sincere desire not to be incorrect and her sincere desire that she knows the facts, it was the Minister of Municipal Affairs that brought up leadership. So, Mr. Speaker , I can only say that the . . . - (Interjection) - No, I didn't bring up leadership, Mr. Speaker. I just happened to say that you have a leader that really and truly has now got rid of one and gradually getting rid of the other person that ran against them for leadership and doing absolutely nothing to assist the Minister of Economic Development to do the job. So, Mr.

Speaker, then we come down to the final thing. This government wants to be in the loan business because there won't be anybody else investing to any great extent and they will have the cash flow that they've been looking for. They'll be charging the interest on loans, bringing the money into genen:I funds, the same as they want to do with the life insurance business and the same as they want to do with pension funds and that's the only reason anybody would be stupid enough to do this, put through this legislation. A MEMBER: They would be. MR. F. JOHNSTON: That's the only reason.

There is no logical reason for putting through this legislation unless you have that in mind because if they put through this legislation, if they believe in this legislation, they believe that they would not help a person to the best of their ability. It's very very simple. So, Mr. Speaker, we are not going to vote for this legislation . . . A MEMBER: No, we won't. MR. F. JOHNSTON: . . . and you can rest assured there will be people at the Law Amendments Committee who have probably more financial ability, experience than the whole side put together over there.

It doesn't take much, I admit ... - (In terjection) - Well, what's the comparison? The whole ND Party put together? That could be closer to it. A MEMBER: That includes Dick Martin. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Yes, that's right. Well, I didn't mention Mr. Martin but I'm sure that this is one of his influences. He just called in and said that, whether you like it or not - maybe that's the reason it's going through - whether you like it or not, Mr. Martin said, you're going to do it. Of course, when Mr.

Martin says anything to this government, because of all of this, building a better Manitoba, how "Weet it is, all the work that the unions did during the election campaign. We talk about conflict of interests and we talk about payment of election funding and what have you, all it's going to do is take these fellows off the hook and they won't have to spend as much money as they did before but they'll still do all this. So when Mr. Ma rtin walks in and says, I want this Payment of Wa ges Act, he gets it. That could be a reason, Mr. Speaker. Really and truly, do you really bow down to Mr.

Martin at the expense of jobs in this province? You know, that's what they're doing. So, Mr. Speaker, they will soon learn that what they have done makes Manitoba different from every other province. They just don't seem to realize that those people who invest money don't have to put it here. When th� Federal Government prints dollars, Mr. Speaker, they don't print it saying, this one's for Manitoba; this one's for Saskatchewan and this one's for Ontario and this one must be spent in the United States. Money has no boundaries.

Anyone in this room can invest it anywhere they want, just the same as a lot of the honourable mem bers invested in a restaurant chain in Ontario - I didn't think that was very good of them but most of them did or a lot of them did - but money has no boundaries. Maybe they invested it there because they knew they were passing this bill. Wo uld that be the reason? A MEMBER: That could be. That could be. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Money has no boundaries and there's no obligation for the investor to invest it in Manitoba, if he has more risk in Manitoba than he has in any other province. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I would like somebody to get up on the other side and just tell me that that's wrong. I said, there is no reason why anybody should invest money in Manitoba when their money is in more risk in Manitoba than any other province. Just answer that. Is there a reason when your money's in more risk when it's in Manitoba? Tell me the reason 4023

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 why you would and I'll tell you that you shouldn't manage anybody's money. If you tell me the reason why you would invest your money or somebody else's money where there's more risk than any other province, I tell you then you shouldn't invest anybody's mon ey, you shouldn't be in charge of anybody's mon ey, and you really should get somebody to look after your own under those circumstances. Thank you, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Wolsel ey. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we've just had a very interesting lecture on money and how important money is and how we should spend a lot of our energry making our legislation so that we can take care of money. I'm wondering whether the member is talking about Bill No. 54, which is dealing with the wages of people who have worked in an enterprise when an enterprise goes bankrupt and those people deserve to have their well-earned wages returned to them or paid out.

The member has been talking a lot about investment and how this particular bill will scare away investment from the Province of Manitoba, and is quite concerned that we in Manitoba are a bit different than the other nine provinces. Of course, he doesn't recognize that we are an NDP Government and we are different, and if we didn 't bring in legislation that was different than what was going on in the other provinces, then I would feel we weren't doing our job.

So I have no apology for the fact that this legislation is different than in other provinces, that it shows we put the wages of people ahead of the investment income when a company has gone bankrupt. The point that the member is making in terms of scaring away investment, it's my opinion, and as he has already stated, my opinion is very naive; it's not based on business experience. However, I tend to think that a logical decision for someone who is investing money would be to look at all the different factors in terms of cost and supplies and transportation and production material.

All those kinds of things are the kinds of th ings that someone wou ld take into consideration when they decided to open up a business in terms of whether it was in this province or another province. It kind of puzzles me to think that when someone was deciding to open up a busin ess, locate a busin ess in any province, that one of their key decision factors would be, oh my goodness, what if I go bankrupt, then I have to pay the wages first before my investors.

Now if that is one of the key reasons why a company would decide to locate in another province rather than Manitoba, if they are not coming here after all their demographic analyses and deciding that this is the place where they can open up a viable business, where they can in fact set up a long-standing company, can in fact make a profit, I tend to think that the reasons they would come to that conclusion that they couldn't do that would be for many other economic reasons; not the reason that if they invested their money they would have to pay the workers first when they went bankrupt rather than their investors.

The fallacy, the illogical argume nt that the member talks about, his song and dance routin e, his sob story about the poor investors losing their money in Manitoba and scaring away investment seems to me to not be related to this particular piece of legislation. I would think that when a compa ny decide d to come to Manitoba to start an enterprise, that all the other factors would be the kinds of things that would reckon in that determination. Maybe they would take into account the different provincial taxes. I think Manitoba would do very well in that analyis.

Those are the kinds of things that a company would take into account as to whether they were going to settle here, because they would come here and they would set up any where because they intended to thrive, to grow and to make a profit. When they put that investment in, those would be their intentions. They know that there would be risks. They would try to minimi ze those risks so that they didn't end up in a bankru ptcy situation.

They would not look at this little piece of legislation and say, oh, my goodn ess, just in case 10 years down the road we go into receivership, they have this dreadful law that says when I go into receivership, I have to pay my workers before I can pay the investors. MR. F. JOHNSTON: What about the investor, not the company, what about the investor? MS. M. PHILLIPS: The investor, okay, what about the investor? What about the investor? When an investor is looking at a company to invest in, they are going to be looking at putting their money into a company that has the best record of being viable.

When they put that money in, which is risk capital, they put that money in intending to get a return on that investment, and they take that risk as to whether they're getting a return on the investment or not. If they feel the chances of getting a return on that investment in that company, regardless of what province it is in, they will make the decision based on what kind of a return they are going to get. They know when they invest their money in any province that there is a risk of losing it.

They can lose it on the stock market; they can lose it by handing the president $5,000 to start his company, or whatever, but when they put that money in and they invest it, they do it with the knowledge that they are taking a risk. When someone puts that money up front, that money that they put up front is almost always extra capital they have. It's not the bread and butter on their table.

It isn't the kind of money that people have that they have to pay their rent at the end of the month and buy groceries and pay babysitters - if you want me to include that - it's the kind of money that people have that they can afford to risk. Now this particular bill talks about a very different kind of money and a very different invest ment. What we are saying is that one investment has more priority than the other.

When someone has worked for a company for a week, for two weeks, for a month, and they are to be paid for that job that they have done, tha t investment of their time and energy in that company, in that enterprise, the investment they've made with their labour in return fol' a pay cheque at the end of the week, which is their bread and butter, which is their rent, which is the spending money that they can go out and buy the products from the other 4024

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 companies that the Member for Sturgeon Creek is talking about, can help the investment of companies in other enterprises - (I nterje ction) - And I will get to the fund. Mr.

Speaker, when that person gets their pay cheque which is based on their ene rgy, their time, their commitment and their investment in the work that they have put in in that time period, when a company goes bankrupt, and not necessarily through any fault of that emp loyee, perhaps your darling in vestors from another province have given the Board of Directors of the company all kinds of money to invest, and he hires people who are working on a daily basis, putting in their energy and their time doing their job full well, and the Board of Directors fritters away the money the investors from the other province have given them and the company goes bankrupt.

The Board of Directors make some very bad management decisions. A MEMBER: And then they get kicked off the board . MS. M. PHILLIPS: Or perhaps it's a single owner who makes very bad in vestment decisions or management decisions. The blame for that should not go down to the secretary in the office; it should not go down to the mechanic in the garage; it should not go down to the computer operator .

Those people have inv ested their time and energy and their money and they deserve, in that instance, if there is any money left over when that company goes broke, at least to get their wages, in first priority, ahead of all the other people who lay claim on that compan y. In terms of this bill scaring away investors from this province I think No. 1, that is not the basis of how the money is divided up on bankr uptcy; that's not the basis why an investment is made in the first place, an investment decision.

Second ly, when a company goes bankrupt it is not the employees mishandling of the situation that has brought that about. So the emp loyee has earned the mone y and, in fact, in this legislation there is even a limit on how much each emplo yee can get, including their vacation pay, etc., etc. A MEMBER: Did the inv estor not earn the money? MS. M.

PHILLIPS: If they have not get paid for two months, and they had holiday pay coming to them for a year, or a year-and-a-half, and it was over $3,500, they would only get the maximum of $3,500; so whatever money was left in that fund it would be divided up fairly amongst the employees, firstly, and if there is money left over then it goes to the other creditors. Now I would like to deal with the Payment of Wages Fund.

The Payment of Wages Fund I think, for the most part, where there are situations where there is no way that money can be taken out of a situation; where there is none, in terms of getting blood out of a stone; where there is absolutely no assets and the employer has no money left to divide up amongst the emp loyees; then I think it's very important to have a Payment of Wages Fund that employees can claim against.

However, I think to say we should not have this legislation, and that any employees who don't get their money in a bank ruptcy situation from the employer can go to the Payment of Wa ges Fund, I think is another example of how the Cons ervatives opposite would like the taxpayers to pick up the losses that companies have.

I don't think it is right that the taxpayers of Manitoba, the very same taxpayers that the members opposite are always screaming about protecting, I don't think it's right for the taxpayers of Manitoba, the citizens of this province, to have to come in and cover for some employer who has made bad investments and bad management decisions, come and cover for the workers to get their fair wages. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek on a point of order. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Would the honourable member permit a quest ion? MS. M. PHILLIPS: I will permit a question when I'm finished, Mr.

Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolsele y. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speak er, the Payment of Wages Fund, as I say, is very important in situations where there is absolutely no money at all from assets, or any thing that can be divided up. Ne're talking about situations where there is money to be divided up, to be disbursed when a business closes. Who get first call on that mone y? That's what we're talking about.

We 're not talking about people who have risked their mone y, in terms of investment; my opinion is that we're not talking about them coming first, we're talking about the reasonable operat ing debts that company has, and the first priority should be to pay the wages of those people who have worked in good faith in that company and, through no fault of their own, that company has gone bankrupt. A MEMBER: Where do you think the company got its money to invest if it wasn't from its ladies. MS. M.

PHILLIPS: I think in situations where there is absolutely no money to disburse, then I think the Payment of Wa ges Fund should be suppor ted by employers, that they should be contributing to that like an insurance fund. They should be paying on an ongoing way into that fund, in a per capita or whatever kind of formula, like the do Wo rkers Compensation, into that fund so that if anyone of their kind happen to run onto bad times, and happen to have to close their doors and go into bank ruptcy, then the employees can draw on that fund.

I would like to know all the members opposite, who are always talking about how hard up the farmers are etc., etc., I would like to know, when they take this back to their constituencies and say to their farm friends, you know your tax dollars are going into this Payment of Wages Fund so that outfits in the city who go bankrupt can get out of that responsibilit y, and all you taxpayers are having to pay those wages.

I am saying that in a situation where employers owe money to their employees and they close the doors and, if there is money left, the first debt they should pay is to those employees, those people who have worked for that period, who legitimately are owed that 4025

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 mone y, that holiday pay, and who have to put bread and butter on the table and pay their rent, and out of that hard work that they have done in that pay period. If there is money left over, then it goes to the banks etc., etc., the investors, as the Member tor Sturgeon Creek cares to talk about. Where there is no money. I think it's very important, where there is no money left to divide up, I think it is very important that those workers do not do without that pay cheque, and I think that the Payment of Wages Fund should then be used as a method of last resort.

I'll certainly continue with the idea that isn't an original one, about having it on a levy system, or whatever, with employers contributing to that fund. I don't think it's right that the banks can get their investment, and the taxpayers of Manitoba have to pay into the Payment of Wages Fund for those emp loyees to get their wages back out that they've duly earned.

I don't think that this legislation is the kind of issue that determines whether investment comes to this province or not, because investors and companies would come to set up a business in this province with the full expectation that business was going to succeed. They would not walk into any province in this country and set up a business in the hopes that it would fail, or in the expectation that it would fail. They would know they were taking a risk and they would take that risk with that investment capital well knowing that that's the option.

But a person who works in that operation every day of the week and deserves to get their pay cheque, has a contract in effect with that employer to work for X number of dollars an hour, or X number of benefits, has a contract with that emp loyer and that's the only income that they have and it's different than having excess income with which one can choose to invest.

They have invested their work, they have invested their time and their energy, and they should have first prior ity, and in a situation - only in a situation - where there is absolutely no assets to divide, then I think it can revert to the Payment of Wages Fund. I even have some problems with all the taxpayers paying tor filling in, in that instance, for emp loyers that haven't paid those wages properly that they were duly supposed to pay. I don't think it's going to scare investment away.

I think it's absolutely right and proper that the employee should have first call on whatever money's left and I think the Payment of Wages Fund should only be used as a last resort and a backup where all else fails. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: The honourable member said that she would answer a question, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I'd ask the honourable member what her position would be with a lady who worked all her life and at 55 took her savings that she worked hard for, invested it in a service station business or into an apartment block, etc., and she had worked for the money - worked all her life for the money - why she should not be protected when that business goes bankrupt. If you had protection with a fund for the employee, does the member not believe that the money people invest, they worked hard for themselves? MS. M. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would first hope that the lady the member speaks about doesn't come to him for investment couns elling. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Well, it wouldn't go into Manitoba if I handled it, I'll tell you. MS. M. PHILLIPS: That's the kind of bogeyman that the member is so wont to pull out on every occasion. First of all if someone has money to invest - and I tend to think that the first time he asked us he said the little old lady - I tend to think that they are very astute in terms of how much - (Interjection) - you did the first time, Mr. Speaker.

I tend to think that if someone chose after working as he said to 55 years and had some money saved up, that one would be very cautious about where and how they would invest that, and how much of that savings one would invest.

I can't see if someone had $1 0,000 that they'd go running off and throw it at the first offer that superficially looked good and put the whole works into one basket. - (In terjection) - Wel l, I think that if someone has money to invest they would only, in that situation, invest what they thought they could spare; that someone who had money to invest would not invest the money so they couldn't pay their rent, couldn't buy their food, couldn't go and do any other kinds of spending that they had planned to do for their retirement.

The money that one would use in that situation to invest would be money that one considered to be surplus money, that it was the kind of money that one could afford to risk. In that situation, it wouldn't be the kind of money that one would be depending on for their daily, monthly income; that they would not be in a destitute situation where they had to have every penny of that money to get by for months and months and months. Someone who only has for instance their OAS or CPP doesn't have much money to invest. It's the person that has money that they can afford to lose that would be investing it.

First of all they would go for solid financial advice to invest that and to minim ize that risk, but I don't think that should come before - when someone has that surplus excess money to invest - I don't think that should come before a person's salary that's required tor their every day, day-to-day, hand-to-mouth kind of living.

Where someone has to provide food for their family and a roof over their head, I think when we get down to a bankruptcy situation, that those kind of responsibili ties are the ones that have to be given first priority and where someone has excess money to invest that they have chosen to risk, I think that's quite a different situation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Would the honourable member permit another question? MS. M. PHILLIPS: Do you want to be here all night talking to me, Frank? • MR. F.

JOHNSTON: If the lady I was speaking of had an income of $400 a month and she had some money 4026

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 in the bank, but she needed $700 a month or let's say $600 a month to live, she inv ested the money in the bank so that she would make the interest on that money so that she could maintain her living, do you not think that might not be a good investment and that her money should be protected as much as possible? MS. M. PHILLIPS: Mr.

Speaker, I think the example that the Member for Stur geon Creek has brought up is a perfect example to show what massive reform we need in pensions to relieve the elderly women from the destitute situations that they find themselves in across this coun try, with 85 percent of them living in poverty conditions, and if the Member for Sturgeon Creek would like to laugh about that, I don't think myself that it's a laughing matter.

I think in that situation where someone had some money in the bank they would look at, and if they were that tight to the line about their expenses and their income, I think they would look for an extremely safe place to inv est their money which would probably be either in a term deposit in the bank, in Canada Savings Bonds, those kind of things is what they'd be investing their money in, they wouldn't be running off investing in a company who was deciding on what province to start business in because they were worried about the legislation, and what would happen to them when they went broke , what that legislation was about.

She would not be investing in that kind of an outfit that was so tenuous when they started up their business that they were worrying about what would happen to whatever assets they might have left over when they go broke, how they would be disbursed, that particular individual with that little capital to invest that they can't afford to risk, they can't afford to take a great risk, would certainly not be looking at the kind of operation that was so concerned about what would happen when their company went broke that there were no assets left to distribute. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The Honourable Member for Roblin-R ussell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments to add to Bill No. 54. I commend The Payment of Wages Act, Mr. Speaker, and if there was any doubt in my mind that I would be voting against this bill, I certainly have no doubts now after listening to the Honourable Member for Wo lseley. I just can't believe, Mr. Speaker, that these are the people that are in charge of the fiscal and monetary policies of this province. I just can't believe it. It's just flabbergasting to listen to what's going on across the way; that this little band, Mr.

Speaker, of hard-nosed socialists, there they are swimming up against the stream, against the tide of all the busine ss sense of all Canada and all North America. Nobody else in Canada or North America has to deal with this kind of legislation, Mr. Speaker . It's an absolute farce; it just doesn't work, Mr. Speaker. But here they are, this little eager band of 28 or 30, whatever they are, there they are swimming away against the tide; no other jurisdiction in Canada and , as far as I know, Mr. Speaker, no jurisdiction in the Unit ed States has this kind of legislation under statute.

But there they are, and any businessman that's got any dollars, Mr. Speaker, to inv est in this province, after hearing the comments from the Honourable Member for Wo lseley, you know where he's going to go? He sure ain't going to come to Manitoba if he reads the speech that she just read into the record of this Legislature, Mr. Speak er. Mr. Speaker, I wonder why this bill is before us. I wonder why. Are they trying to hide the fact that we've got the worst deficit in the history of this province? Are we trying to hide that the public debt is at the record levels.

Are they trying to hide that we've got 52,000 people out of work? Are they trying to hide that the borrowings of this province are beyond the wildest expectations of anybody that's ever sat in this House before? Why are they bringing this legislation in, Mr. Speaker? Why did the First Min ister take in a tirade this afternoon on a little private members' resolution? Mr. Speaker, I have never heard a First Min ister take his teeth into a private members' little resolution, whether we should be in NATO or not, like this First Minis ter. I don't know, Mr. Speaker.

It's absolute confusion to try and figure out who is running who and who is bringing this kind of legislation in, because, Mr. Speaker, I suspect the First Min ister is looking for his Min ister of Labour tonight because . . . A MEMBER: They tied her up. MR. W. McKENZIE: Wel l, maybe they tied her up, because there was a real problem here to try and figure out who was who, and who was saying what, and that's exactly the problem we've got in this Legislature. There's not a businessman over there knows what it's all about, Mr. Speaker, not a one .

If there is, I'd like him to stand up and tell us, okay, there's the man then. I'll direct my questions to the Honourable Mini ster of Mun icipal Affairs, and I heard him espouse the mun icipal wisdom of the province on two occasions, and it was an honour and a privilege, Mr. Speaker, to see the Honourable Min ister in full flight. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Min ister of Muni cipal Affairs on a point of order. HON. A. ADAM: The honourable member has invited me to be challenged that there's no business people on this side of the House.

I think perhaps I can give him some lessons on how to run a business. MR. W. McKENZIE: We ll, I just asked the honourable member really quickly, do you support this kind of garbage? Do you supp ort that kind of legislation as a businessman? No, he wouldn't; he'll back off then. Mr. Speaker, I'm not going to delay because it's actually a joke, this legislation, but I had a matter brought to my attention today, real simple, real quick. Water Services Board buil t a sewage lagoon in Grand view and the Mini ster is over and he is the House Leader tonight. The contractor that built the sewage lagoon went broke.

Everybody got paid except the hotel man, the guy that fed the workers and provided them lodging. Now, should he not be considered in legislation like this? I ask the Honourable Mini ster of Muni cipal 4027

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 Affairs: Shouldn 't the hotel man at Grandview, and it's $1 ,200 and some odd doll ars tha t he's out, everybody else got paid, all the empl oyees got paid, they got paid for the gas, everybody else but the hotel man, the guy that fed the workers and provided them with lodging, he didn't get paid. The Minister is over here and maybe the Minister of Municipal Affairs will ask me and see if that's in this kind of legislation, that those kind of people, the top notch citizens of this province, that man runs an excellent hotel and should be protected.

If we're going to protect the workers, don't you think he should be protected? Because he's the guy that feeds the workers and provides them with the lodging. Let's be fair and square to everybody if we're going to go this route and let's put provisions in it. Or I ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Why wasn't the hotel man paid? He doesn't even want to talk about it, but it's his department. He hired the contractor and the contractor finished the job. The job was completed, it was well done, but as soon as the project was finished , the contractor declared bankruptc y.

Everybody else got paid; the emplo yees all got paid. All the accounts around Gr andview, everybody was paid, except the man that fed them and provided them with the lodging. I ask the Minis ter of Municipal Affairs if he'll be kind enough as a man that understands these problems, Mr. Speaker, and add this in the legislation because I think if we're going to deal with these matters, let's deal with them fair and square. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources on a point of order. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I understand the honourable member is accusing me of acting in some impr op er way or bein g involved in some bankruptc y. It sounds like it's kind of fraudulent. I certainly want an explanation, Mr. Speaker . MR. W. McKENZIE: I wasn't accusing you of anyt hing. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, I want the honourable member to explain what he's talking about then. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speak er, I'm sure you and I don't want to wake the Minister of Natural Resources from the deep sleep he was having there. He can read Hansard and discuss it another time.

I'm directing my remarks to the Mi nister of Munici pal Affairs who understands what I'm talk ing abo ut and who understands and stood up and said he's a businessman, and this matter that I'm raising should be dealt with. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member not only wouldn't clarify what he'd said, but now accused me, and I was busy naturally with some matters of importance of being involved in a deep sleep, and I want him to retract those words. I want him to retract them, Mr. Speaker , because that's insulting. MR.

SPEAKER: I would hope that the Honourable Mem ber for Robl in- Russell would review that last remark that he made concerning the Honourable Minister. The Honourable Mem ber for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker , I'll leave it to you to judge. Did I make any insulting remarks about the member? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I pose to the other members in this chamber I heard the honourable member suggest that the Minister was in fact asleep. I don't believe that was the case. The Honourable Member for Roblin -Russel l. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, if he wasn't listening to what I said, I assumed that he was sleeping. Is that fair enough? MR. A. ANSTETT: Wally, that would mean that everybody in the House is sleeping but you, when you speak. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker , if the honourable member will not act like an honourable member in this Chamber, I will take heed of that and the opportune time will come when the honourable member then will recall his words. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden to the same point. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Speak er, on a point of privilege of the House. To issue threats in this Chamber is very unparl iamentary and I would ask the Mi nister to withdraw those threats. I think it is very unparli amentary for any member to th reaten another member in this Chamb er and I would suggest th at the memb er withdraw that kind of threat. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden did not have a point of privilege since it was not followed by a substantive motion. The Honourable Mem ber for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, it's very unusual for me to have to stand in my place, especially to a Minister of the Crown, and tell him twice what I said, in a very simple little speech. I raised the matter of the Water Services Board, I think, on two or three occasions; he wouldn't even listen. I raised the problem of the sewage lagoon at Grandview on two or three occasions and he never even listened; he just kept on with what he was doing, so it's not my fault, Mr . Speaker. I put my comments into the record. Whether he wants to listen or not, I don't know.

It appeared to me, when I was speaking, he didn't want to hear what I said because he had this big map out in front of him and he never listened, so I then, Mr. Speaker, took the liberty of directing my comments to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and what I've said is in the record and I will be opposing the bill for the reasons that I raised, and others. • Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? 4028

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr . Sp eaker, I will move, seconded by the Honourable Min ister of Mun icipal Affairs, that the debate on the bill be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 23 - TH E REAL PR OPERT Y ACT HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 23, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honour able Attorney-General, Bill No. 23, standing in the name of the Honour able Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. The Honourable Mem ber for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask that this bill remain in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, but at this time I would like to make a few comments on the bill which I consider to be fairly important in the Province of Manitoba because it deals with a question that was raised in the previous bill and that is investment in this province and how you deal with investment and how you record the sale of property, the trans fer of property and in fact, protect that property for the individual who has put his good hard-earned dollars into a fund to pur chase proper ty. Mr.

Speaker, I've been in this Assembly for a long time and I've seen a lot of different things occur, but there's one field that I think causes me more concern than any and that is in the operation of the Land Titles Office. We have provided in this province, many civil servants that serve various departments of government and yet I am told, Mr. Speak er, when it comes to the operation of the Land Titles Office, that if a civil servant in the Land Titles Office makes a mistake in the title on a piece of proper ty, he is held personally responsible. I have been told that, Mr. Speaker .

I have not had any verification from the Civil Service Commission on it, but I believe, Mr. Speaker, that type of responsibility is not placed on any other civil servant in any other branch of government. Mr. Speaker, having looked at the transfer of property ! over the years, and the care and the diligence that goes into the examination of various documents, I would have to say I believe probably that might possibly be the case.

I know in my particular area of the province, it seems much more difficult to transfer pro perty, to have a conveyance that transfers ownersh ip than it does in some other areas of the province and I would have to assume from that, that the person who is in operation of the Neepawa Land Titles Office is a person who is very diligent, very careful and very methodical in his work, and in doing so makes sure that no errors occur and I think that's a good, sound principle, but it does have problems, Mr. Speaker .

It does have problems when people sit and wait, one month, two months, three months, six months and longer for the transfer of a title. We 're dealing with amendments to The Real Property Act and I would suggest, Sir, when you're dealing with real prop erty in this province it is the responsibility of every member of this Chamber to make sure that all Manitobans are treated equal ly. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, the very fundamental purpose of this bill is to ensure that all Canadians and indeed, all people, are treated equal; but we know that is not the case because this particular bill is tied very closely to the Foreign Land Ownership Bill, so we know at the beginning that all people are not going to be treated equal ly. Then we have to try and find out, are they going to be treated as close to equal as possible?

We know that some are going to be given a favoured position and some are going to be more equal than others but equality of treatment in this province goes out the door with the introduction of this bill because we know some people are not going to be treated the same as others. Mr. Speak er, one of the very fundamental princip les of democracy in this province is being shot down by this bill and that is, the fundamental principle of equality. We know that equality is already gone. - (Interject ion) - Well, everybody has their own interpr etation of what socialism and equality mean.

We do know that the two are foreign. A MEMBER: Equality is foreign? MR. H. GRAHAM: No, socialism and equality are foreign. - (I nterjec tion) - I'm glad the Honourable Member for Springfield asked that question because I know the Honourable Member for Springfield is a most honourable man, and I know that he would like to see equality for everyone. If he would like to see i!!Qllality for everyone, then he would have to vote against fhis bill because this bill does not provide equal ity.

Sc I. would ask the Hono ur able Me mber for Spring�jeld to not support this bill because it does not provide equality for all people. If that is not part of his politici;i.I P�!h,?sophy I would ask him to stand up and explain w;l:iy if isn't. So, he has the right to stand up and get )nvo lved in this debate and tell us why he believes that some people are more equal than others. Mr. Speaker, when you start to deal with the transfer of property as this present government envisages it, under their so-called Farm Land Protection Bill, I tell you that you are running into a virtual nightma re.

If anybody read all of the conditions that are laid down in this bill you would see here a perfect example of bureaucracy gone wild. They have written in every conceivable phrase that it is possible to put, not to assist in the transfer of property, but to prevent the transfer of proper ty. Mr. Speaker, I say to you, and to every member in this Cham ber, if the real intent in legislation is to prevent the transfer of real property, then you don't bring amend ments into The Real Property Act, you rescind The Real Property Act, and you prevent the transfer of any property when you do that.

I think tha t, basically , is the real int ent of this government. The real intent of this government, Mr. Speaker, as far as I can ascertain, is to prevent the trans fer of pr operty , that is presently owned by individuals, to prevent the transfer to another individual. They will not siand in the way of transferr ing that pro perty to gove rnment, but they will put every 4029

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 roadblock in the road to try and prevent the trans fer of that to another individual who might, in his own way, want to own and operate a piece of real property in Manitoba for his own personal use. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker , that earlier today I had the privilege of extend ing, for the view of the First Minis ter, a book that I had taken from the library.

The First Min ister - (Int erjection) - seemed very interested in it, so much so that he didn't return it to me, he took it out of the Chamber, and I would ask the First Min ister now if he would be willing to return it to me so I could return it to the Provi ncial Lib ra ry. I do have a responsibili ty to ensure the safe protection of that book and its return to the library before the date is over. I say to the First Min ister, if he is willing to return it to me, I will make sure that it gets back to the library and then he can borrow it from the library if he wants to read it.

I sent it over to him this afternoon as a gesture, just to point out - (I nterject ion) - I will tell the First Minister right now that I sent it over. He made the remarks about the Honour able J.S. Wo odsworth, a fine man, and I happen to agree with him. I just happened to have in my possession a book from the Provincial Library that had Mr. J.S. Woodsworth's name in the flyleaf of the book, so I sent it over to him to show him I was int erested in J.S. Wo odsworth.

I was also inter ested in the book because the book was a book written by Karl Marx, and the preface was written by Frederick Engels, and the book was the Communi st Ma nifesto. - (I nterje ction) - No, I happen to enjoy reading that type of literature. I enjoy reading the Regina Man ifesto. I enjoy reading some of the writings and the sayings of members of the other side. I happen to enjoy the remarks of the Honour able Member for Wo lseley because they do reveal some of the finer points about socialism and the narrow min ded , twisted philosophy of members of the opposite side.

One of the fundamental philosophies of socialism and communism is not to let everybody live peacefully together, it is to take over and control. - (Interject ion) - Okay, that's your opinion; I have my opinion. That's my opinion, too, but everything that we see, here we see a bill dealing with real estate in the Province of Manitoba, and are you making it easier for anybody to own real estate in the Province of Manitoba, no way, no way. This is not a bill that makes the ownersh ip of real estate in this province easier. This is a bill that severely restricts the ownership of land in this province.

So the First Mini ster can stand up in his pious manner and say, you don't know the philosophy of this side. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I don't have to know his inner . . . ; all I have to do is read the legislation that he brings into this Chamber to know what their thinking is. I would suggest to the Honourable First Minis ter, if he can't read, I'll lend him my glasses, I have a second pair, and I'll tell him that these are coloured, too. These ones are coloured, they're tinted. Mr. Speaker, all I'm trying to do is point out to the honourable members that at least I am honest. So, Mr.

Speaker, when you come to this particular bill, dealing with all of the limitations, the restrictions and the roadblocks that this government intends to put forward to prevent the transfer of property from one individual to anot her, then I say, Mr. Speaker, that I have to ask the question, why? Why would this government want to prevent the trans fer of property from one person to another? Why would they want to do that? I go back to a bill that I spoke on previously today, Mr.

Speaker, where they already wanted to know, on the Elections Financ es, who suppor ted what party and how much they contributed; then you put these things together and then you start to unde rstand what the true purp ose of this government is. I just heard the First Min ister mention the word fascism and I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that he tell us what fascism is all about, because I don't know what it's about; but I would think that he might know what it's all about. Mr.

Speaker, when I rise to speak on this bill, I just want to point out once again that the restrictions that have been placed in here has made it very very un attractive for anyone in this province to transfer land from one individual to anot her, and I think it's going to be a bonanza for the real estate brokers and the lawyers in this province because the conditions that are spelled out are so nu merous that I'm sure they can double their charges for int erpretation of legislation and it's going to cost a lot. Who is going to pay?

It's the person who has one of the greatest driving forces that would make this country great, and that is the desire to own his own little piece of proper ty. If you put roadblocks in front of that, then you have killed the desire in individuals to succeed and to prog ress and to make this province great. So I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that maybe the government should take another look at this bill, maybe withdraw it, take it back, work it over and bring it back again next year because, at the pr esent time, this bill is totally un acceptable to me and to 90 percent of Manitobans. Thank you very much. MR.

SPEAKER: If no other member wishes to speak to this bill, it will stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. The Honour able Government House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Bill No. 92, Mr. Speaker. BILL 92 -TH E CIT Y OF WINNIPEG ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Member for Cultur al Affairs, Bill No. 92, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

Bill No. 92, introduc ed by the Minister of Urban Affairs, deals with The City of Winnip eg Act, and in his opening remarks, the Minister referred to this bill as containing amendments, mainly admin istrative in nature, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to, before dealing with the bill itself, Mr. Speaker, remind the Min ister of Urban Affairs that last fall he is quoted, in speaking to the Winnip eg Labour Council, that he would be introduc iri'g amendments to The City of Winnip eg Act to make councill ors more accessible and more responsive to the City of Winni peg residents.

Not a mention of that, any thing of that nature, 4030

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 Mr. Speaker, is contained in this bill. I was critical of the Min ister at that time, as were a num ber of other people in the city, for the Minister taking that point of view when councillors at the City of Winnip eg level, in my view, are the most responsiv e and accessible politicians of any level of government. Mr. Speaker, we have a numb er of amendments to this bill which are, as the Min ister has said, mainly adminis trative in nature. There are some that I do wish to comment on, however. They are with respect, Mr.

Speaker, to what the Min ister referred to in his opening remarks as the most significant changes proposed in Bill No. 92, which will permit the City of Winnip eg employees to be nomi nated for election to, or to become members of City Council, the Legislative Ass embly in Parliament. At present, civic employees are disqualified from running for or sitting on City Council. So, Mr. Speaker , the Min ister of Urban Affairs has proposed amendments to the City of Winnipeg with respect to rights of empl oyees respecting elections, which I must say that I object to.

The former NDP Government passed amendments to The Civil Service Act with respect to civil servants of the province, Mr. Speaker, and what they succeeded in doing, at this level, was in politicizing the Civil Service of Manitoba, and now what they are attempting to do is to do the same thing at the civic level. This is the party, Mr. Speak er, that is the only party with an active mun icipal wing, as they like to call it, the only political party in Manitoba that espous es partisan, political activities at the mun icipal level.

They've been rejected ever since 197 1 by the residents of this city; will be rejected again, I expect, this fall in the civic elections; but they are, at the same time, through their being in government at the provincial level, going to enact the same sort of legislation that exists provincially with respect to encouraging the Civil Service of the City of Winnip eg to become inv olved in partisan, political activities. Mr .

Sp eaker, I think it is im por tant that other employers, other than civic empl oyees, encourage their emplo yees to participate in politics if they so choose, but I think the fact that this type of encouragement of civil servants to become involved as candidates in either the munic ipal, provincial or federal election leads to politicization of the Civil Service, Mr.

Speaker, which most and probably a vast majority of civil servants do not like because we see the effects of this kind of attitude towards civil servants in this government when we see such partisan political appointments at the Deputy Mini ster level and the Clerk to the Executive Council and down into many areas of the Civil Service, Mr. Speaker, that we have not yet un covered. But we certainly see a great deal of evidence of it for the Min ister resp onsible for the Wor!<ers Compensation Board and more evidence is forthcoming from his responsibi lities in that particular area, Mr.

Speaker, and I don't think the public of Manitoba want the traditional merit system in the Civil Service to be inter fered with as the NDP previously and now are doing and they do not want to see a further extension of what the NDP has been able to do with the provincial Civil Service extended into the civic Civil Service. The City of Winnip eg is very fortunate indeed, Mr. Speak er, in the quality of personnel and emp loyees who serve them in the City of Winnipeg.

I don't think 4031 that this type of legislation is going to add very much, in fact, will take away from the independent, professional Civil Service that we have in City of Winnip eg but the NDP, again, being the only political party in Manitoba to support partisan political activities at the mun icipal level now want to encourage and support partisan persons in the Civil Service at the mun icipal level, Mr. Speaker, and I have a very real concern about that. Mr. Speaker, it's int eresting in some of the smaller amendments what the NDP Government will do.

They make an amendment to the type of people who are disqualified from running for council and they make a num ber of changes, Mr. Speaker, but who but the NDP would make a change that would allow an undischarged, bankrupt or insolvent to run for council? Who but the NDP, Mr. Speaker, with their record with respect to the creditworthiness of this province and having been put on that credit watch, proceeded as they did with respect to their budget and their financing, had their credit rating reduced, have a record deficit. I suppo se we can expect that the NDP, Mr.

Speaker, would say, what's wrong with an und ischarged, bankrupt or ins olvent being nominated for election and being allowed to become a member of council, Mr. Speaker? With their record of fiscal management, Mr. Speak er, one can see, I suppose, why they have no concerns over that. We have seen that, that they have little, if any, fiscal responsibilit y, Mr.

Speak er, so with that point of view, with that attitude, they say they will now allow to change the qualifications of people who are allowed to run for council and allow an und ischarged banrupt or ins olvent person to be and remain a member of the City Council of Winnipeg, Mr. Speaker, and it's not surprising in view of their attitude. I do want to know, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the amendments allowing members of council to run for public office at all levels of government, whether those are amendments that have been requested by the City of Winnip eg Council and its admin istrative and personnel staff.

I want to know whether there was consultation with the City of Winnip eg and whether the City of Winnip eg Council has requested that those amendments be made to The City of Winnip eg Act, Mr. Speaker. I expect that they have not been, Mr. Speaker. In that connection, Mr. Speaker, they have included a

section with respect to, and I have to read the words, "No person who is in a supervisory capacity over an employee or is authorized to empl oy, promote or reclassify shall coerce or intim idate that emp loyee or person into supporting or not supporting a candidate or political party." I would like to know the reason for that type of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Was it requested by the City of Winnip eg, its council or its admin istrative staff, or who requested that kind of legislation and on what basis, on what justification is that type of legislation supported? Obvious ly, Mr.

Speaker, no one on that side of the House or on this side of the House, would suggest that type of coercion or intim idation be allowed, but it would be in teresting to know why the government has included that piece of legislation in the act this year, Mr. Speaker. There are a number of sections with respect to details of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we want to ask the Minis ter about. He indicated in his opening remarks, almost with some pride, that more than ha!f of the amendment" have been drafted in response to specific

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 requests made by the City of Winnip eg over the past two years. We want to know, Mr. Speaker, about the ones that the City of Winnip eg has not requested, and why the NOP are proposing to act in that manner without consultation and without requests from the City of Winnipeg. Why are they proceeding with the rest of those amendments? We are concerned, Mr. Speaker, because we've seen the record of the previous NOP Admin istration and this administration in imposing upon the City of Winnip eg its views in making its financial grants conditional, Mr.

Speaker, upon complying with the wishes of their own Provincial Government and imposing themselves and interfering with the priorities as they've been developed by city council. Mr. Spea ker, the NOP in doing that, like to say, well, we're so suppo rtive of the City of Winni peg that we have the right to ask them or request them or require them to do certain things that we feel are important. We ll, a review, Mr.

Speaker, of the City of Winnip eg taxes once more, and I want to do this again for the Member for Springfield because when I spoke on another matter a few weeks ago, he said those figures are not true; they're not correct. It is important, Mr. Speaker , to refer to this and to refer to the lack of support which this government has given to the City of Winnipeg, and now we're giving them what they call a series of mainly admin istrative amendments. Mr. Speaker, I say this particularly to the Member for Springfield so he can examine them, because they're a matter of record and they're factual.

Using an average home in the City of Winnip eg School Division, which had the lowest in crease in total school city taxes in 1983 - I point that out to him - which had the lowest in crease in school city taxes in 1983 - in 1977 the total taxes on that property were $686.01; in 198 1, the total taxes on that pro perty, and that's using the minimum property tax credit, were $764.34. There was an in crease of $78.03 over a four-year period under a Prog ressive Cons ervative Government on that average home assessed at $7,000 in the Winnip eg School Division.

In 1982, the in crease in taxes was $1 80. 14; in 1983, there was a further in crease of $52.45. In two years under the NOP, the in crease was $232.59. In two years, the total in crease under the NOP is thr ee ti mes what the total incr ease was under a Prog ressive Cons ervative Government for four years. That should cause some concern; perhaps not to the Member for Springfield whose constituency does not reside within the Winnip eg School Division. I bet Harry is concerned, pardon me, the Member for The Pas, pardon me, Mr. Speaker.

He's a party person and now he's seen why the whole results in the City of Winnip eg are so bad for the NOP, because they criticized our government with respect to real property tax incr eases in the City of Winnip eg while we were in government, and we see what they have accomplished. In the City of Winn ipeg School Division, where they hold the majority of the seats, they have ignored those people, Mr. Speaker. The people in those areas are going to remember; we're going to try to help them to remem ber. We're going to do our best to help them to remember, Mr.

Speaker, about the benefits they have received under the New Democratic Party as compared to the Progr essive Conservative Party. Those same people, Mr.

Speaker, living in the core area, who expected, and their expectations were raised, that there would be a very significant in crease in employment in the core area of this city under the Core Area In itiative Agreement, which I had the privilege of signing on behalf of our government with the Mayor and with the Federal Min ister, and which shortly thereafter became the responsibility of this Provincial Government and the responsibility of the Deputy Min ister for Urban Affairs, who said before and during the election of 198 1 that he had to run as an NDP candidate because the Prog ressive Con servatives weren't going to carry out this Core Area In itiative Agreement.

Well, they've carried it out all right. Approxima tely 200 jobs were tolled at being produced under the Core Area In itiative for those people within the core area in that Winnip eg School Division, in that area where a vast majority of these members represent. Why has that happened, Mr. Speaker? Because they don't unde rstand how to deal with economic development. They simply have no concept. The Member for Wolesley clearly indicated to this House earlier today the lack of kno wledge that exists in that particular area. They don't know how to deal with economic development.

They're good at creating a bureaucracy which they've done in that particular area, and I am glad that the mayoralty candi date has arrived when we're talking about the City of Winnipeg, and perhaps we'll hear more from him as the mayoralty campaign goes on and on, Mr. Speaker, because he's got to be very disappointed with the performance of this government in the Core Area In itiative and their lack of success and lack of any type of proper action in that area. He's got to be concerned with the complete lack of development and lack of direction that's taking place.

Su rely, he's not impressed with the very transitory projects that the Minis ter of Urban Affairs has approved for no rth of Po rtage Avenue, Mr . Sp eak er. They complained about the employment situation in the core area in the City of Winnip eg while we were in office, Mr. Speaker, and we know what that unemplo yment rate is now and where the vast majority of those people are located . Those people have not only had to suffer through the incr ease in real property taxes that I have referred to un der the New Democratic Party, Mr .

Speaker; they've had to suffer through the consumer price index in crease in the City of Winnip eg, the largest consumer price index incr ease in Canada in the City of Winnip eg. How many seats does this party have in the City of Winnipeg? About 20, I think, Mr. Speaker, and they have been let down terribly by this government because those incr eases are caused, according to Statistics Canada, by government-i nduc ed incr eases in taxation. The trend is up with respect to the consumer price index incr ease.

The real property in crease is up; in two years, twice the in crease that was incu rred over four years un der the Progr essive Cons ervative Par ty. Unem ployment is up. They are botching the Core Area In itiative Program, Mr. Speaker. They are wasting the money without any real jobs being created in the core area for a gr oup of people, particu larly, who are identified as a special needs people who need jobs in t:1at area that have not been produced for them. But what is their main in terest? What do we get, Mr.

Spea ker, from the only political party who wants to introduce partisan political parties at the municipal level. 4032

Tuesday, 28 June, 1983 We get the most significant change in their bill is to encourage partisan political activity among the Civil Service in the City of Wi nnip eg , Mr . Sp eaker, to encourage partisan political activity in the Civil Service in Wi nnip eg, a principle which I cannot support. I don't think a principle which the majority of the citizens of this city can support. Mr. Speaker as we look at it, as we put this legislation in the context of the remaining agenda of this Legislative Assembly, this government is concerned with introducing partisan political activity in the Civil Service.

They're concerned with having the public pay their election expenses; they're concerned with readjusting the benefits under The Legislative Assem bly Act for the members' benefit. Mr. Speaker, there are an awful lot, I would suggest, of very politically orientated pieces of legislation and philosophies that are being forced upon this Legislature to adopt.

The concerns should be addressed with respect to emplo yment in the City of Winnip eg where we had a sign ificantly high rate as one of the major Canadian cities; with respect to the consumer price index; with respect to the burden of real property taxes; with respect to economic development in the City of Winnip eg to provide the jobs that are so urgently required particularly in the core area of the city. That's where the emphasis should be, Mr. Speaker , not on introducing into the Civil Service in the City of Winnipeg, partisan political activities by civil servants of the City of Winnip eg.

We have seen the effects of the legislation that they brought in at the provincial level, Mr. Speaker. We have seen extremely partisan people hired to sensitive senior admin istrative positions which has had, in my view, a disturbing effect on the career civil servants in the Province of Manitoba, has had a bad effect on the merit principle which has been traditional in the Province of Manitoba and is one that should not be encour aged any further. We want to know what the City of Winnipeg's views are of this, Mr.

Speaker, what their council thinks; what their admin istration thinks; whether they support this type of legislation, or is it going to be another case of amendments to The City of Winnip eg Act and the provincial views being foisted upon and forced upon the City of Winnip eg and the residents of this city. In most cases when that has been done, a vast majority of cases, it has not proven beneficial for the citizens of this city. llllR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. llllR. G. FILllllON: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Swan River, that debate be adjourned on this bill.

MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The time being 10:00 o'clock, the House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon. (Wednesd ay) 4033

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-97b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 97b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5c426db1534a3fcb414683daf6787380c45a6264

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