IG-8048 First Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39 Elizabeth 11 PubllshBd under the authority of The Honourable Dents C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XXXIX No. 29 ·1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 21,1990 ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer, Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOC K, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRE TT, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIR S, Sharon CERIL LI, Marianne CHEEMA, Gu lzar CHOM IAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward, Hon. CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNE Y, James, Hon. DRI EDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARM E, Gerry, Hon. EDWARD S, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ER NST, Jim , Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FIND LAY, Glen, Hon. FRIE SEN , Jean GAUDRY, Neil GIL LESHAMMER, Harold, Hon.

HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R. HIC KES, George LAMOU REUX, Kevin LATHL IN, Oscar LAU RENDE AU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNE SS, Clayton, Hon. MARTI NDALE, Doug McALPINE, Ge rry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOS H, linda MIT CHELSON , Bonnie, Hon. NEU FELD, Harold, Hon. ORCH ARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack, Hon. PLOH MAN , John PRAZN IK, Darren, Hon. REID , Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROC AN, Denis, Hon.

RO SE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric STOR IE, Jerr y SVEINSON, Ben VODRE Y, Rosemary WASYL YCIA -LEIS, Judy WOWC HUK, Rosann CONS TITU ENCY Os borne Thompson Wellington Crescentwood River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage la Prairie Ste. Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lake side Charleswood lnterlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas lnkster The Pas St.

Norbert Elm wood Morris Bu rrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY. Liberal NDP NDP Liberal Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, November 21 , 1990 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDIN GS PR ESENTING REPOR TS BY STANDIN G AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Loulse Dac qu ay (Ch airm an of Committees): Mr. Speak er, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) , that the Report of the Committee be received. Motion agreed to. INTROD UCTION OF GUESTS Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of Honourable Mem bers to the Speaker's Gallery where we have with us today Dr. Juan Argentina Vega of the City of Mendoza, Argentina. Dr. Vega is the Minister of the Treasury for the Province of Mendoza. He is on a tour of six major centres in Canada under the auspices of the Department of External Affairs and CIDA. On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. Also with us this afternoon in the gallery, we have from the Princess Elizabeth School, twenty-eight Grade 5 students. They are under the direction of Anne Br ow.

This school is lo cated in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). Also this afternoon from the Grant Park High, we have eighteen Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Richard Dooley. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr). On behalf of all Honourable Members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Transportation Industry Open Sky Pol icy Mr. Gary Doer (Lea der of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier.

Manitoba, and Winnipeg, has always considered itself to be the transportation centre of Canada, and deregulation has over the past few years cost us jobs in trucking. lt has cost us jobs in the railway industry. lt has cost us some jobs already in the airline industry. Mr. Speaker, the Gove rnment is proceeding with an open sky policy. My question to the Premier is: What is the position of the provincial Gove rnment on the proposed open sky policy of the federal Conservative Government? Hon. Gary Ftlmon (Premi er): Mr.

Speaker, we are examining the proposals that are developed in the federal scene, and we are examining what their potential effects, positive and negative, will be with respect to Manitoba and its econom y. We will respond in due course . Mr. Doer: Again, it looks like the Government is going to react after the fact instead of before the fact in terms of employment opportunities in Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, most industry analysts consider the open sky policy of the proposed policy of the federal Gove rnment to mean a closed airline in Canada. Manitoba, and Winnipeg, has hundreds of jobs in the airline industry.

We have reservation areas, we have Air Canada overhaul bases, Canadian Airlines Ltd. has crew assignments, Air Canada has crew assignments, so how can the Premier stand up in this House and not know the impact on the thousands of Manitobans who work in the airline industry and not have a position literally one week before the federal Government's committee will be before Manitobans in the Province of Manitoba? • (13 35) Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, we have continued to have discussions with various airlines.

I personally met within the last year with the president and CEO of Air Canada, with tlie president and CEO of Canadian Airlines, talking about further overhaul

1618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21, 1990 facilities, further facilities here in Manitoba. We have not heard from either of those. In fact, discussions about their prospects have been part of those discussions and have been encouraging. We have not heard from either of those sources, the two main airlines, that he says one of which is going to be closed down, that that is indeed their assessment.

So without wanting to belittle the tack that the Leader of the Opposition is taking, it may be in his political interest to do that, but I do not think that he ought to be striking fear in the hearts of all of the empl oyees of these airlines and air transport carriers here in Manitoba by virtue of that kind of statement. Mr.

Doer: If I was an employee of the airline industry, I would be fearful all right, based on the statements made by the Premier that they have not done an independent assessment of what this will mean for Manitobans and Manitoba jobs, that they cannot provide this Chamber and Manitobans any analysis, that they are relying on conversations with airline executives and not doing their own analysis in terms of the hundreds of jobs in Manitoba. I ask this Premier: Will he get a position together? In fact, the last Cabinet meeting potentially before the parliamentary committee will be in Manitoba today.

Why has the Premier not got an independent analysis of how many jobs are impacted, given that the seven largest airlines in the United States are larger than the two airlines in Canada put together? Why can he not stand up and take a pro-active position to protect jobs, rather than a reactive position as these Conservatives always do? Mr. Fllmon: lt is not the parliamentary committee that is going to make the decision.

The fact is that rather than our shooting from the lip as the Leader of Opposition, we are indeed having the department of transport and the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism do an analysis that will give us the -(interjection)-Mr. Speaker, with respect, the Leader of the Opposition was chatting across the way with his colleague from the Liberal Party and he was not listening to my answer, because he is not interested in my answer. I will repeat for him.

The fact of the matter is that is why the ministries of transport and Industry, Trade and Tourism are doing the complete analysis, so that we will have fact upon which to base our position, not fantasy as he might prefer to do for his own political purposes, to try and strike terror in the hearts of thousands of employees in Manitoba. Employment Standards Act Amendments Ms. Becky Barrett (Well ington): Mr.

Speaker, on Monday the Premier stated that his Government had taken no action to ensure that Manitobans can take advantage of the increased maternity and paternity benef its under the recently changed federal Unem ployment Insu rance provisions. Individuals who cou ld potentially use these benefits are now in danger of losing their jobs if they try to take advantage of the federal provisions based on cu rrent em plo ymen t standards legi slation in Manitoba.

Given that the Premier has known for months that these changes wer e imminen t and that the Department of Family Services has had time to prov ide a detailed analy sis of the impact on Manitobans, which I will table now, can the Premier tell this House why his Government has had no amendments prepared so that Manitobans will be legally allowed the benefits to which they were entitled under the new regu lations? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Monday, that legislation just took effect on Sunday, one day earlier. We were in precisely the same position as eight other provinces.

We would have our response to that prepared very shortly, and that would be a matter undoubtedly that would require the co-operation and consideration of all the House since it would indeed-to harmonize with the federal U.l. changes-r equire a change in our Employment Standards Act. I suggest to the Member for Wellington that she just wait a short while, and her House Leader will have an opportunity to discuss with our Hous e Leader whether or not we will indeed be acting co-ope ratively on this matter. Ms.

Barrett : I will be sure to let the people who are under these difficult times know the answer of the Premier. * (1 340) Unemployment Insurance Changes Impact on Manitoba Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Will the Premier tell this House what plan of action his Government has developed based on the analysis provided in

November 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1619 the documents I have tabled from the Department of Family Services, which states quite clearly that there will likely be, quote, an inordinately high reduction in benefit paym ents in Mani toba compar ed to other province s? When will the Premier take a strong pro-active stand for Manitobans? Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premi er) : When the Member for Wellington is speaking to those people, I hope she will not mislead them, that she will tell them that, as I said on Monday, we are very anxious to ensure that the benefits of the improvements in the U.l. changes are passed along to Manitobans and that we will be reviewing what measures have to be taken in order to ensure that happens. I might tell her that indeed the review has been under way this week.

Very shortly the House Leader will be talking with her House Leader to ensure that we have co-operation in effecting the changes that are going to be necessary to our legislation. Ms. Barrett : Yes, more review, review, review, Mr. Speaker. -(interjection)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Employment Standards Act Amendments Ms. Becky Barrett (Wel lington): Will the Premier direct his Minister of Fam ily Ser vices (Mr. Gilles hammer) to provide his plans for social assistant changes and his Minister of Labour (Mr.

Praznik) to immediately draft amendments to The Employment Standards Act-the only way this can happen-that will allow the net losers of these changes, women, low income workers and youth, to take advantage of the few changes in this federal legislation that cou ld possibly benefit Manitobans? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premi er) : The Member for We llington was obviously not listening to my previous answers. I said that until the federal Governmen t did in fact enact that legislation, because it was sitting in limbo for a year due to the stalling in the Senate and there was no assurance that indeed it would get-Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Wellington appears to be exercised. I want to give her the assurance that it is our intention to ensure that Manitobans get the benefits of the changes to the federal U.l. Act, the positive changes. Until we had in fact the legal assurance that those changes had taken place we could not draft the appropriate legal changes. Having had that assurance as of the weekend that matter has been in process in the last two and a half days.

I am sure that when our House Leader gets together with her House Lea der, given co-operation-which I am sure she will urge upon her House Leader-these matters will be attended to very, very quickly. Child and Family Services Night Staffing Policy Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, the Member for Wellington should be exercised about a report that says the net losers from the changes will be concentrated among lower income workers and youth in this province.

Some time ago I raised a question with the Minister of Family Services about the safety of night duty workers in the City of Winnipeg, saying that changes in the funding policy that resulted in layoff of staff placed the predominantly female workers at greater risk. We now have confirmation of this, Mr. Speaker, in a letter to the president of the board of Northwest Child and Family Services that says that effective with the implementation of this new policy, which is resulting from lower funding, 75 percent of the shifts worked by night duty workers in these agencies will be worked by a single worker.

These people are working in the core area in very dangerous circumstances. I would ask the Minister of Family Services, is it his department's policy that people work alone on these shifts? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (M inister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the arrangements that the Member speaks about were arrangements arrived at by three of the Child and Family Services agencies. They have indicated to us that the service provided by night duty, rather than being handled by one agency would be handled by three agenc ies, and they would take advantage of some economies in that manner.

I expec t the agencies are always concerned about their staff and will make the proper decisions to see that staff work in the safest conditions possible. Having said that however I have the utmost respect, as I indicated yesterday, for front line workers who work in conditions that are less than ideal. These are people who do a tremendous job for the agencies in our province. "( 1 345)

1620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 Mr. Aleoek : Mr. Speak er, the Minister might demonstrate that respect by responding to a letter from those same front line workers who are expected to do a job that we do not expect the police to do, and that is go in alone to dangerous situations. Will the Minister meet with the board of that agency, the agency responsible for this decision, to ensure that these workers are not placed alone in dangerous situations? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Sp eake r, I had the opportunity to visit with three of the Child and Family Services agencies in the province .

We have met with many of the other agencies as well. I would be pleased to respond to any letter that the agencies forward to me, and we will endeavour to work co-ope ratively with the agencies. When I met with the presidents of the agencies they indicated to me that they wanted to forge a partnership with Government. We would be very pleased to do that. Mr. Aleoek: Mr. Speaker, I will send the Minister a copy of this letter.

I wou ld ask him, given that the workers who are expected to work these shifts are expecting fears for their own safety, will he take action today to ensure, until such time as he has had an opportunity to review this policy, they are not forced to go into dangerous situations alone? Mr. Gllleshammer: I would be pleased to respond to the letter when I receive it from the agencies. I perhaps misunderstood, I think he said the letter was addressed to me. I have not received it as yet. The agencies are in constant contact with the department.

I will see that staff of the department make some contact with the responsible boards later today if possible. We will do everything we can to facilitate a very difficult job that these front line workers do. Landflll Sites Government Pol icy Ms. Marlanne Cerllll (Radlsson) : My question is for the Minister of Urban Affairs. This morning his colleague the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) said on CBC radio that the Manitoba Gover nmen t is looking at increasing use of landfill sites to handle garbage instead of recycling, since in his view it may be more economical to continue burying garbage.

Considering that this Gove rnment's refusal to support the Resou rce Recovery Institute is leading to the closure of that facility and the only cu rbside recycling program, I wanted to ask the Minister if his department is going back to the solutions of 30 years ago in advocating that we continue to poison our land and bury our garbage, or will his department pursue the nece ssary steps to en cou rage recycl ing? Hon. Ger ald Due har me (Min ister of Urban Affairs): No, Mr. Speaker. Resource Recovery Institute Meeting Request Ms. Marlanne Cerl lll (Radlsson): My second question is for the same Minister.

Can he elaborate on that, and can the Minister then tell the House if he has yet set a date for a meeting between the City of Winnipeg and the Resource Recovery Institute and officials of this Govern ment to enc ourage the institute to remain open so that Winnipeg residents who are wanting recycl ing programs in increased numb ers can continue to have their garbage recycled? Hon. Ger ald Dueharme (Min ister of Urban Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, the City of Winnipeg has a means to approach the province under capital grants that are spread over the past six years, to come forward to the Urban Affairs and to the provincial Government to make usage of that, to share those capital grants. We are in an ongoing meeting with the City of Winnipeg every two or three months in regard to official delegation, and the City of Winnipeg likely will probably bring that up at one of our official delegation meetings. • (1 350) Recycling Programs Govern ment Initiatives Ms.

Marlanne Cerllll (Radlsson) : Since our city has one of the most limited recycling efforts of any major city in Canada, I want to ask the Minister of Urban Affairs what other initiatives .lle will be undertaking with the City of Winnipeg to improve our recycling capability, or are we going to be waiting for recycling programs until the spring, as the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cumm ings) said on the radio this morning? Hon. Ge rald Duch arme (Minis ter of Urban Affairs): There have been cou nts of studies done

November 21 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1621 by the City of Winnipeg. They have looked at it through their Works and Ops Department, and again these proposals that they have ready, they share with the province to come forward and ask for combined funding. They have that alternate through their urban capital grants that are set up between the province and the City of Winnipeg. Aboriginal Tribal Councils Health Services Administration Mr. Oscar Lath lln {The Pas): My question is directed to the Acting Minister of Health.

The Canadian public is becoming increasingly supportive of aboriginal people obtaining control over their affairs in their communities. The Health ministry is aware that for some 1 0 months now, senior staff of that department have been meeting with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council regarding the transfer of health services to local boards. My qu estion is: What is the time frame for transferring control of those services that this ministry has been proposing to the tribal counc il? Hon. Leo nard Derk ac h (Ac tin g Minis ter of Health): Mr.

Speaker, I would be happy to take that question as notice for the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), and he will get back to the Member with the answer. Mr. Lathlln: I have a supplemen tary question to the same Acting Minister. Will that ministry release today its position on recognizing the authority of those local tribal health boards? Mr. Derkach :Again, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of Health will be happy to get back with his response, and I will take that question as notice. Mr. Lath lln: My final question is again to the same Acting Minister.

When will the communities of Grand Rapids, Easterville, Shoal River and Indian Birch be hearing from this Gover nment of its position on transferring control of those heal th servi ces to those communities? Mr. Derkach : Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. Energy Conservati on Governme nt Role Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, the 19 80s represented a sorry

chapter for ene rgy conservation in the Province of Manitoba. While other provi ncial Governme nts were taking aggressive steps between 19 81 and 19 86, the NDP Govern ment did nothing to set targets for energy conservation. Neither did the board of Manitoba Hydro, a member of whom was the Member for Thompson. Things are a little better but not very much better fou r years later. We would like to ask the Premier if he agrees with the chairperson of Man itoba Hydro that this legisla ture and this Government has no role to play in the setting of policy for energy conservation for Manitoba. Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premie r) : Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Crescentwood I think would probably acknowl edge that when people are making decisions about important issues such as whether or not we will have sufficient capacity to ensure that we do not have power shortages, brownouts and all sorts of disruptions in our energy service to the province that we ought to have those decisions being made by those who have all of the information when they make those decisions, that they ought to be made on the basis of expert information, advice from engineers, from scientists, from economists, from those who have a full and complete knowledge when they are making that.

The consequen ce of making a political decision by a committee of the legi slature and cutting short the available electrical energy that is needed is that we would have severe disruption to our industries, to our energy cons uming sector, indeed to all citizens of this province.

I believe that is the issue that was being debated when the chairman of Manitoba Hydro said in a very forthright manner that it was his responsibility to ensure under The Manitoba Hydro Act that we could indeed give the assurances to the ratepayers, to the consumers of electrical energy for the decade to come, that we would not encounter those kinds of shortages and that if indeed a political decision was being made on the basis of somebody trying to get some cheap political points, that wou ld not be in the best interests of the operations of Manitoba Hydro. * (1 355) Mr. Carr: Mr.

Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Premier. In 19 79 the Conservative Government of Sterling lyon , of which the Premier was a part, established the Tritschler report on Hydro, which was very

16 22 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 19 90 specific on the role of the Government vis-a-vis accountability of Crown corporations in general and Hydro in particular. Is the Premier now saying that his Gove rnment has no role to set energy policy in this province and he is going to leave that excl usively to the chairperson of Manitoba Hydro? Mr. FIImon: Mr.

Speaker, what we are saying is that we have a role to ensure that Manitoba Hydro is run on an arm's-length basis, on a non-political basis, so that they do not make judgments such as was made by the former NDP Gove rnment to artificially move ahead the construction of lim estone so that it was constructed two years before we had any contracts for the sale of that electricity that was being produced, so that we in fact drove up the rates of electricity in this province and we in fact caused two years-two years-of interest on a $2 billion investment to be loaded on to the base rate of Man itoba Hydro, that those kinds of politically motivated decisions would not take place, that in fact it goes before the Public Utilities Board to have its capital plans approved and that in fact it is always at the scrutiny of the committees of this Legislature to ensure that it is keeping on its mandate- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Conawapa Dam Project Final Approval Mr. James Carr (Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplemen tary to the Premier. Yes terday in co mmittee, Mr. Rans om, the chairman of Manitoba Hydro, said it was not the Public Utilities Board that had the final say on the approval of the Conawapa project. My question is very simple to the Premier. Who has the final word? Is it the Public Utilities Board? Is it the Crown Corporations Counc il? Is it the chair of Manitoba Hydro, or is it the Government? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premi er) : That answer has been made time and time and time again.

The Public Utilities Board scrutiny of the cap ital plans of Manitoba Hydro is being done for the first time in history, because this Government wants to be open and accountable to the people of this province. After a thorough scrutiny in public has been made of those capital plans , they will mak e a recom me ndation to this Go ve rn men t.

This Gove rnment, with the full knowledge of the people of Manitoba as to the whys and wherefores that those decisions have been made and those recommendations have been made, will then take the final decision to ensure that in responsibility to the people of this province the decisions that are made have been made with full and open public consu ltation and scrutiny, but ul timately this Government will be responsible to the taxpayers and the ratepayers. Farming Industry Fuel Tax Rebate Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.

Last week the Minister met with his counterparts in Winnipeg and had precious little to report as a result of that meeting, which was bridged as one that would deal with some very important issues facing Manitoba farmers. lt of cou rse did not result in major action.

I would ask the Minister: As a result of information that we have recently from a federal study that says and confirms that our input costs for our farmers are indeed higher than they are in the U.S. and that although Conservatives have said our farmers can be competitive with any farmers in the world, their own policies are causing difficulties and problems- An Honourable Member: You do not believe it? You do not believe it? lt is only Conservatives, eh? Mr. Plohman: The Premier is saying we do not believe it. Mr. Speaker, the fact is that our fuel costs are higher.

I ask the Minister if he has taken any action at the Ministers' meeting and his counterparts with the federal Go vernment to have the federal Government once again restore the excise tax rebate so our farmers will not have to face the additional costs of some up to $300 million in additional fuel costs because of the federal Govern ment's policies. Hon. Glen Flndlay (Minis ter of Agricultur e) : Mr. Speaker, Ministers of Agriculture traditionally meet once a year. Ove r the past year and a half, we met about every three or four months because of the number of issues in front of us.

Clearly the cost of producing crops in western Canada is an issue. We have asked for the reinstatement of the interest-free cash advance. We have asked for consideration in GST of limitation that the farmers not have to pay it and ask for a rebate. We have asked for the reinstitution of the interest-free cash advance, which

November 21 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1623 the federal Gove rnment has done, which has put $1. 3 billion worth of cash into the hands of farmers, into the economy of western Canada. Mr. Speaker, the Member clearly fails to realize what the real issue in front of agriculture Is, and that is a fair return for the grain that they sell on the export market plus access to markets around the world. The GATT process has been un der constant discussion by Ministers of Agriculture as it was last week.

The safety net process to get the farmers through the next period of three or four years while GATT resolution does occu r was on the agenda, very actively discussed, and some very major movemen ts have been made on it. * (1 400) Debt Restructuring Mr. John Plohman (Dauph in): Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that we fail to recognize the problem. We have been asking for cost-of-production pricing for months. We are the ones who called for a return of the interest-free cash advances. Mr.

Speake r, I asked the Minister a specific question, and it was asked in this House on a cou ple of occasions by my Leader and by myself. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) did not know the answer and sat down in disgrace . I ask the Minister whether the specific issue of debt restructuring was dealt with at the Ministers' meeting last week? Was it identified as a major problem facing agriculture? What specific action was agreed to be taken on this serious issue? Hon.

Gle n Flndlay (Mi nister of Agricultur e): I mean, you talk about a person disgracing himself, he does not even read the press releases that came out of the meeting. lt is rather unfortunate if he does not take that pro-active move to know what is going on. Yes, the issue was discuss ed at some considerable length. Yes, some action will probably occur on it in the interests of the farmers of Manitoba and western Canada. Deficiency Payments Mr. John Plohman (Dauphi n): Mr. Speaker, the Ministers cou ld not even get together enough to have a press release ready when the meeting was over. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister, was there agreement regarding an immediate payment next spring, a deficiency payment and, if so, how large a payment? Who would be making that payment? Who would be paying for that payment for farmers, which is so desperately needed immediately so they can get on with their work next spring? Hon. Glen Flndlay (M inister of Agricultur e): Mr. Speaker, the Member asked a question. I presume he is interested in hearing the answer. If he would just let me have a chance and keep his mouth shut, I will give him an answer. Mr. Speaker, clearly, we did discuss it.

If the Member would like to re-ask the question, now with all this I have forgotten what the question was. Mr. Plohman: I did not forget it, Mr. Speaker. lt was a serious Issue and that Is the issue of an immediate payment, a deficiency payment for next spring, so that the farmers of Manitoba and western Canada can get on with the operations, the money that is so desperately needed for the next crop year. Mr. Flndlay: There really is a need for injection of cash flow into the grain economy of western Canada.

The cash advance process of $1. 3 billion has done it fcir the intermediate term between now and next spring. Clearly, there was discussion on an ad hoc process to be used next spring. The federal Gove rnment is going to come back with some proposals to us, but there has been a very clear statement that the safety net process has to be the mechanism through which that can be done so there Is some predictability for the call upon the federal Treasury this year and years to come. So it is part of the overall package and process that is being further developed. Winnipeg Police Force Shooting Inquiry Mr.

Ell)ah Harper (Rupe rtsland): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Ju stice. On Monday the Minister said he was meeting with the officials over the police shooting of Dan De laron de. Ha s the Min ister finished his consu ltations? Will he be recom mending an independent inquiry into the incident? Hon. James McCrae (Mi nister of Justic e and Attorney General): I dealt with the issue on Monday when the Honourable Member raised the question first of an independent public inquiry and spoke of the difficulties that particular approach creates.

I was pleased this morning to learn that City of Winnipeg Police Department Chief Stephen has

1624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 written to the assistant commissioner of the RCM P to ask that there be a review by the RCM P of the incident. I support that approach by the City of Winnipeg Police in this matter. Mr. Harper: I know there have been other people who have been calling for an independent inquiry into this incident.

Will he follow the advice of the civic protection commissioner and the Winnipeg civic protection parks and cultural committee, in which they have said that public interest-a nd also it would improve public confidence if such an inquiry, an independent inquiry, were made? Would he follow the advice of these people-and there are other people who are calling for an independent inquiry? Mr. McCrae: I invited and received a visit yesterday from Mayor Bill Norrie of the City of Winnipeg. We discussed the matters rela ting to reviews of incidents that occur involving the use of deadly force everywhere in our province.

The comments made by Commissioner Reynolds recen tly about an independent-or some mechanism of review regarding the use of deadly force I think is certainly welcomed by me. The discussions that Mayor Norrie and I had yesterday more or less lead us in that direction. Now the City of Winnipeg is looking at possible mechanisms. We will be doing this in consu ltation, because I am concerned not only that there be some kind of mechanism in the City of Winnipeg but also in other jurisdictions throughout our province that are governed by municipal police departments. Mr. Harper: Mr.

Speaker, I know the Minister has indicated a review, and the recommendation or suggestion has been an independent inquiry. Will he follow the example of Ontario, where a police shooting was involved an independent inquiry is done by the Ontario-in that province? Will he be following that procedure or recommending a change in the procedures of how police shootings are handled? Mr. McCrae: Well, I cannot say today I know that is the model that would be used for a review of incidents involving deadly force. That is one that is there that can be examined, but every jurisdiction has its own particular dynamics.

I think rather than announcing today in the House a particular model that will be followed it would be us eful to consult with the people who have something to say about this, for example, police authorities- in this I do not mean police forces, but police author ities lik e City Councils and Departments of Jus tice and so on-may have some light to shed on the whole issue so that rather than announce today in Question Period a model that might be used to provide some kind of independent review, I think it is a good idea to look at the options that are available to us.

Department of Transportation Rail Car Inspections Mr. Daryl Reld (Transcona): Today we have learned that there are serious breaches in the way that safety procedures are implemented by the CP Rail company relating to the inspection of rail cars. When defective loaded cars are detected, these loads are being allowed to continue to the unloading destination point before repairs are undertaken. Sinc e these rail cars run through ma ny communities and cities of this province and put at risk the lives of many Manitobans, my question is to the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

What measures is this Minister and his department un dertaking to ensur e that the Transportation Department is adequately staffed and are indeed inspecting rail cars for safety violations? Hon. Albert Drledger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. Mr. Reld: Since one defective car is too many, can this Minister indicate to this House how many defective rail cars are allowed to continue between service points in this province? Mr. Drledger: Mr.

Speaker, I will take that question as notice as well, and I will get all the information related to the issue back to the Member. * (141 0) Railway Disaster Plan Mr. Daryl Reld (Transcona): If we are to avoid another MacGregor or Mississauga disaster, what safety procedures does this Minister and his department have in place to deal with potential disasters? Hon. Albert Drledger (Min ister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before in my previous answer, I will take the whole issue under consideration and I will report back to the Member.

November 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1625 Citizens Forum on the Constitution Manitoba Meeting Mrs. Sharon Carst alrs (Leader of the Second Oppositio n): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. The Citizens Forum on the Constitution is giving very mixed signals and very disturbing signals to the Canadian nation. They have indicated, for example, that they are not prepared at this time to go into the Province of Quebec, because they do not want to be in confl ict, they have said, with a Quebec commission presently conducting an inquiry in that province.

Can the First Minister tell us if the same standard will apply in the Province of Manitoba, i.e. , if we begin our task force , will the Spicer forum also refuse at this time to come to the Province of Manitoba? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premi er): I hesitate to say this, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to imply that I am on the same wavelength as the Leader of the Liberal Party, but I had exactly the same reaction when I saw the story and the news reports of the Spicer commission's feelings about not going into Quebec.

Ob viously when we annou nce the appointment of our commission, or at least our task force , to go throughout the province and hear Manitobans, we will have to await the response of the Spicer commission to see whether or not they will show the same concern and deference to Manitoba during that period of time. Mandate Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I think it would be deeply regrettable if they refused to come to the Province of Manitoba, just as I think it is deeply regrettable that they are not going to the Province of Quebec.

Can the Premier tell us if he has had any consu ltations with Mr. Spicer or any members of the committee because of, again, the disturbing signals that they seem to think their mandate is to explain Quebec to Canada, when I think most of us think their mandate is to explain Canada to Canadians? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): No, Mr. Speaker. Belanger-Campeau Commission Manitoba Meeting Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Oppositio n): Mr.

Speaker, since the Province of Quebec will be making decisions based on its commission's report, will the First Minister give any consideration to inviting the Quebec comm ission to find out a little bit more about Manitoba and come and have a sitting in this province, since the Spicer committee will not go to them? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Pr emier): What I think is appropriate is for Manitobans to speak to the Manitoba task force . That is why we indicated last spring that was our intention.

That is why the throne speech confirmed that we are holding such an all-Party task force , to canvass opinion on cons titutional pr iorities throughout the province . That is why I will be speaking very shortly with the Leader of the Liberal Party (M rs. Car stairs) and the Leader of the Opposition (M r. Doer) to try and set in motion the process to get under way with that all-Party task force. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. NON- POUTICAL STATEMENT Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a non-political statement? Mr.

Speaker: Does the Honourable Member have unanimo us consent to make a non-political statement? An Honour able Member: Leave . Mr. Chomlak : Mr. Speaker, on November 20 the Ontario Ins titute for Studies in Education, associated with the University ofT oronto, honoured Lionel Orlikow with its Distinguished Education Award. Dr. Orlik ow, now Director of the Winnipeg Education Centre, has been a prominent, innovative educator in Manitoba for decades. He has served as teacher, university professor, Deputy Minister of Educa tion, consu ltant and member an d vice-chairperson of Winnipeg School Division No. 1. Or.

Orl ikow has been instrumental in introducing programs to include the broadest spectrum of Manitobans in the education system. Therefore, we have programs like New Careers, special ACCESS, Brandon University Northern Teacher Education Program and others.

1626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF M ANITOBA November 21, 1990 I know that all Members of this House will join me in congr atulating Dr. Orlikow on this important award. Thank you , Mr. Speaker. ORDE RS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Go vernment House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to call second reading of Bills 13 and 20. Then we will follow that with debate on Bills 6 and 12 , in that order.

If there is time re mainin g before five o'clock-because it is my understanding we will be in private Members' hour today-if there is time remaining of a significant nature we then would move into Interim Supply. SECON D READI NGS BILL 13- THE RESIDE NTIAL TENANCIES AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ACT Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Min ister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Jus tice (Mr.

McCrae), that Bill 13 , The Residential Tenancies and Consequen tial Amendments Act; (Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation et modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Ducha rme: Mr. Speak er, I am pleased to introduce for second rea ding, Bill 13 , The Residential Tenancies Act. However the number, I am still pleased to introduce such a Bill. This Bill represents a major overhaul and amalgamation of two existing pieces of legislation, The Residential Rent Regu lation Act and The Landlord and Tenant Act.

The introduction of Bill 42 at the last Session of the House drew comments from various parties affected by the legislation from landlords, tenants and the real estate industry. The Gove rnment decided that because of the far- rea ching implications of the provisions in this Bill, the Gove rnment would withdraw the Bill and reconsider the issues that were raised by these various groups. We have done so. Ov er the last several months, we have met and explained with this Minister and staff the provisions and listened to the concerns and suggestions of both landlords and tenants and the real estate industry.

Today I am proud to present this Bill before the House, representing the first major overhaul of landlord and tenant laws in this province in the past 20 years. We are talking about a significant piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. lt affects about 12 5,000 residential tenancies in this province, affecting approximately 250 ,000 people. lt is only reasonable and fair to expect the Government to think very seriously and very soberly about the implications some of the provisions that this legislation would have on the citizens in this province.

We have had the benefit or in the effect having, I would say, would call a White Paper on this legislation. The Landlord and Tenant Review Committee touched on a number of issues. As far as possible, these issues were addressed in Bill 42. The public saw the first time how these issues wou ld be addressed in the Bill. From the time Bill 42 was presented to the House almost a year ago, we have had the benefit of comments from Members of the Oppo sition and citizens of this province. lt is therefore with a significant amount of pride and confidence that I present this Bill to the House today. Mr.

Speaker, Members of the Opposition would have had an opportunity to review the provisions of Bill13 . They have had the opportunity. They will now recognize the Bill has been substantially rewritten in both style and organization, but not in content. This is of significant importance.

This piece of legislation is not designed for a few members of the legal profession to read and study in law offices. lt is a working documen t that is used by lay people eve ry day in conducting their business, whether as landlords or tenants. lt is only reasonable, therefore, that the Act be written in language and set up in an organizational form that is easy to read and simply one that is easy to administer. * (1 420) Also in conjunc tion with that, the way the Bill has been written, I have distributed to the critics on the other side of the House and to other Members of the Assembly, who so wish, a guide to understanding The Residential Tenancies Act and dealing with this particular Bill.

The guide is in the vicinity of about 75

November 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1627 pages. However, I felt that with the confusion-a nd not only with the confu sion of the Opposition, but of Gove rnment Members and of this Minister through the whole program of what has been happening over the last probably five years-there has been much confu sion in regard to what the different groups put forward and what the Bills have put forward. Mr. Speaker, Members of the Opposition will see that the fundamental provisions of Bill 42 have not been altered in any way.

The provisions relating to security deposits, which is one of the important items flagged for the first time in Bill 42, have been kept. Some of the details that showed up in Bill 42 have now been moved over into regulations. Mr. Speaker, that is not to avoid the issue, that was done for very good administrative reasons, and upon the advice of the Jus tice Department. These draft regulations have been distributed, and we are certainly open to comments from the Members opposite and I look forward to them. Bill 13 , Mr.

Speaker, continues to recommend the establishment of a tripartite Residential Tenancies Commission consisting of members of the landlord community and the tenant community. This is a significant provision because it means that the people who are affected by the regulations, as provided for in this Bill, will continue to have a role in the administration of the legislation. In the same ve in, the advisory committee to the Minister, consisting of landlords and tenants, has been made mandatory. Mr.

Speaker, this is a further indication of the Gove rnment's commitment to this legislation and the process of continuing review. I acknowledge that no amount of changes will ever satisfy everyone. I do not expect everyone affected by the legislation will be happy in all respects. However, I do hope that by bringing in this new draft, we will have a better informed, more focused legislative debate and Law Amendments discussion than we would have been in the case of Bill 42. I emphasize that most of the changes made have been more to the tone than to the substance of the legislation.

The intention is to encour age a more co-ope rative type of appr oach , Mr. Speaker. Certainly most landlords and tenants in Manitoba acknowledge and abide by their obligations and the laws should reflect that, while at the same time dealing as clearly and expeditiously as possible with the minority of those who do not. Mr. Speaker, measures have been taken to ensur e that suf ficien t powe rs are vested in administrators to adequately enforce this new legisla tion.

The new Residential Te nancies Commission will be empowered to render decisions on secu rity deposits and other money disputes previously in Small Claims Court's ju risdiction. Health safety related repair matters, previously under the by-laws and orders for possession and eviction currently under the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen' s Bench. Mr. Speaker, in view of the magnitude of the changes in authorities represented in this Act, an advisory comm ittee will be established with representation from all interest groups, including both landlords and tenants.

This will provide ongoing monitoring to make recommendations for possible improvements from the users point of view. This will be particularly valuable in the early years of the administration of this very large new Act. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, all disputes will be, in the first instance, handled by the Residential Tenancies Branch. This branch would have the authority to deal with virtually any landlord and tenant matter, including evictions and monetary claims up to any amount. Mr.

Speaker, I would like to bring this to the attention of the Members opposite that this Bill 13 provides for all claims arising out of landlord and tenant matters to be handled by the branch and by the commission. Further, this provision does not relate to claims arising out of personal and bodily injuries that will continue to rest with the courts. Mr. Speaker, all the decisions made by the branch will be appealable to the commission guaranteeing that all members of the public would have an opportunity to appeal the initial decisions.

Throughout this Bill, emphasis is placed on solving problems, and I would like to bring this to the attention of the Members opposite. lt is notthe intent of the legislation to find ways to punish people, but to resolve problems quickly and where necessary to co mp en sate those wh o had the right to compensation. As such, for every issue that arises, I believe there is a remedy. Ultimately orders of the director and the commission can be filed in the courts and become judgments of the courts, and be enforced as such.

1628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 We will not be relying, as we do now, upon the process of prosecution to enforce provisions of the law. Remedies are spelled out in each instance in the Bill, which can be applied in all instances against landlords or tenants. Hearings by the commission will normally be open to the public. We are pr oviding a single comprehensive forum that specializes in residential tenancy matters between the landlord and the tenants. We are providing for a simple, quick and inexpensive forum to resolve disputes.

The second major area of concern and addressed In this Bill, Mr. Speaker, deals with the repair and the repair provisions in Bill 13 . Under Bill 13 , a landlord who ignores a work order issued by the city or municipality will find that the order can be filed with the branch. The remedy then will be put into place. The remedy Is not simply taking the landlord to the courts and have him prosecuted, paying a small fine while the repairs remain undone. The remedy lies in finding a way of actually making the repair.

The legislation provides that rents from the premises can be collected and the money used to carry out the needed repairs. Where necessary, access to the Capital Fund will provide emergency funds to carry out repair on the premises. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Tenancies can be terminated. The landlord can be prohibited from re-renting the suite unless the repairs are done. In cases where extensive repairs and renovations are needed, the court will be asked to prov ide for the appointment of a rece iver ma na ger.

The rece iver manager would be responsible for ensuring that all necessary repairs are carried out using both the rent monies and funds obtained from the repair fund. Mr. Ac ting Speaker, wher e any funds are expended by the Government, a lien will be placed on the property with priority equ ivalent to taxes. You will also note that the process for initiating the appointment of a receiver manager has also been delegated to the majority of the tenants in the building.

Other significant changes in Bill 13 include making unit condition reports mandatory at the request of either the landlord or the tenant, and a provision for the department to use surplus monies from unreturned secu rity deposits to promote the educational programming for both landlord and tenants. In summation we, the Gove rnment, believe that Bill 13 will go a long way in terms of improving the existing legislation.

With legislation that is more meaningful to the people it affects, it promotes the prevention of disputes through a more clearly written statute. lt provides for increased opportunities for the education of landlord and tenant and requires significant changes in the handling of secu rity deposits and repairs.

Bill 13 enhances the protection of landlord and tenant rights by expanding and more clearly defining the obligation of each. lt improves the quality of rental housing through the tougher requirements of repairs and maintenance. lt does, in the long run, provide a grea ter ser vice to the public and accountability by removing a number of layers of decision-making and by getting both the landlord and the tenant to be involved in the process. Mr. Acting Speaker, I recommend Bill 13 , The Residential Tenancies Act, to the Honou rable Members of this Legislature and I look forward to their support. Thank you. Mr.

Doug Martlndale (Bu rrows) : lt is a pleasure for me to speak on Bill 13 today on behalf of my caucus. The Residential Tenancies Act, Bill 13 , has interesting parentage. I suppose the Honou rable Minister of Housing (M r. Ducharme) could consider that he is the father of this legislation. However, since this is really the offspring of Bill 42, he might consider that he is the grandfather of this Bill.

This Bill also has two grandmothers, the Honou rable Mur iel Smith and the Honou rable Maureen Hemphill; and it has another grandfather as well, in addition to the Minister of Housing, and that is the former Minister of Housing from Gimli, Mr. Bucklas chuk. • (1 430) In my mind, the history of this legislation really goes back to 19 84 when I was part of the Housing Concerns Group. The Housing Concerns Group or ganized a demonstration outside the Rentalsman's office to draw attention to the fact that there were serious problems with the Rentalsman.

Tenants had the perception that the Rentalsman was biased against tenants and, similarly, landlords were convinced that the Rentalsman was biased against landlords. We had this demonstration to

November 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1629 draw attention to the problems inherent in the Rentalsman and the Rentalsman office. The next day, we met with the Minister of Housing, and we followed that up with a press conference , because the tenants were fed up with the Rentalsman office and wanted something done about it. lt was not very much longer after that the Landlord and Tenant Review Committee was appointed by the Minister of Housing.

I had the pleasure of serving on that committee as an alternate representative for low-income tenants. lt was a very interesting committee, it was a very interesting process. In fact, it was quite different from previous processes. For example, I remember being in the Legislature and appearing before a comm ittee when The Re nt Regula tion Act was brought in and it was that comm ittee in July 19 82 . Also , there were amendments to The Landlord and Tenant Act. At that time, it was a very adversarial system, where the Gove rnment brought in their legislation with very little consu ltation.

The result was that at the committee, there were three people supporting the Governme nt's legislation, including myself, and there wer e about 22 landlords and proper ty ma nagers and their lawyer s oppo sing the Gove rnment's legislation at that time. The process of consu lting and involving various parts of the housing sector was very significantly different with the Landlord and Tenant Review Comm ittee.

There wer e representatives from low-income tenants, of whom I was one; there were representatives of middle-income tenants; there wer e representatives of professional prope rty managers, of the Manitoba Landlords Association; of civil servants; and a represe ntative of the handicapped community. The process was very slow, I think that committee took over a year and a half to issue its final report. However, in spite of the fact that the final report was very thick, 13 9 recommendations, almost all of these recom mendations were ma de with consensus or near consensus.

In the process of debate and discussion on the recommendations, there were things, of cou rse, that tenants wanted that they did not get, and there were things that they wanted that they did get. There were things that landlords wanted that they did not get, and conversely, things that landlords wanted that they did get. There was some horse trading that resulted in the consensus and near consensus on 13 9 recommendations. The result was that the New Democratic Party drafted new legislation, and it was an excellent Bill.

In fact, it went much further than Bill13 in the number of respects, espec ially in regard to protecting tenants. Then after that, the Bill unfortunately never saw the light of day due to the Gove rnment falling. Next, after a lengthy delay-1 believe it was introduced in the Session after it was promised-we finally got Bill 42 and there were some significant changes, but we will not go into those changes right now, instead we will ask, what happened to Bill42? Well, it has a very interesting history. As the Honourable Minister of Housing (Mr.

Ducharme) knows, they ran into some heavy duty lobbying from a Tory land developer, from a Tory fund raiser, from the execu tive of the Winnipeg Real Estate Board, from the Professional Property Managers, and from the Landlords' Association. They also were lobbied by the Housing Concerns Group and by myself. They were lobbied by the Manitoba Anti-Poverty Organization; the Social Assistance Coalition of Manitoba, staff of the Social Planning Council and staff of CED A- Co mmu nity Education Development Association.

The Minister has reminded me of the fact that I was one of those people who lobbied him on Bill42, he has mentioned that several times in the House, but what is the difference between those who are lobbying? Well , there is a fundamental difference . The propertied interests said, withdraw Bill 42, throw it out, redraft it, we do not like it. What did they do? They listened to their friends and they withdrew it.

Whereas the tenants' groups, including myseH, and the low-income groups and the people from the inner city were saying, we like your Bill, Mr. Minister, Bill 42 is a good Bill, go ahead with it, send it to committee. Did they send it to committee? No, they withdrew it. We said, send it to committee. We put some pressure on the Liberal Caucus. We put some pressure on the NDP Caucu s, and they said that they would send it to committee. In the dying days of Bill 42, they said they would pass it with no amendments. The Member for Osborne (Mr. Alc ock) was part of our strategy session-i magine me meeting with the Member for Osborne-a nd he agreed that this was the best way

1630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 to go in order to get Bill42 through because we knew it was in serious trouble. However, they listened to their propertied friends and they withdrew Bill 42. The Minister today in his remarks on Bill 13 said that they withdrew it to reconsider. Well, what evidence is there that they reconsidered? Well, did they make changes, did they reconsider the things that tenants and tenant groups were asking for? The re is very little evidence that they reconsidered in favour of tenants.

In fact, there is some evidence that they reconsidered in favou r of their other friends. Well, now I have reviewed the history of Bill 13 , very interesting history. Why was new legislation with more sweeping powers-power given to a Te nancies Comm ission and a Residential Tenancies Commission are necessary? Well, I would like to relate some stories from my work on the staff of North End Community Ministry and from involvemen t with the Housing Concerns Group. In response to the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr.

Connery), these are true stories, these are things that happened to me in the community in the last 1 0 years. For example, I can tell you that I went to visit a family at the corner of McGregor and Magnus in the north end, living in a suite. The home visitor from North End Community Ministry asked me to go with her. She was the translator and she talked to this family. This family were living in a downstairs suite where the stove did not work for a month, and this family were forced to cook on the stove upstairs and the family did not speak English.

So my friend went and translated. for me and interpreted what the people were saying. We were successful in getting the name of the landlord and we got the phone number of the landlord. We called the landlord; all we got was an answe ring machine; we did not get our calls returned. The landlord happened to live in the north end so we went to the north end to see the landlord, but the landlord's front yard had a fence around it and it was full of guard dogs so we could not get hold of the landlord in person.

We cou ld not get hold of the landlord on the phone and we cou ld not getthe stove repaired for the family so they could cook their own food. As a result they moved. We cannot blame them for moving when they could not get any response from the landlord. Freque ntly over the last 1 0 years, I have had people come to me with a problem and the problem is they had no food in the house. They came to North End Community Ministry seeking food. At that time, we used to interview people. We would ask people, well, why do you have no food in your house? Why are you coming to us?

We wanted to know, and frequently the reason was that they had used their food allowance to pay for their next secu rity deposit because the landlord had not returned the last security deposit. This happens to tenants over and over and over again. Mr. Acting Speaker, if there is any doubt about the need for swee ping legislation with sweeping powers, which are much needed, all we have to do is look at headlines from the newspaper in the last ten years, and see the kind of housing conditions in the inner city that people have been forced to live in. Here is Janua ry 1 981 .

The headline is: Unsanitary Housing Plagues Inner City. Here is an editorial from the Free Press: Loophole for Landlords. Here is a story from the Free Press, also in April, 19 81 : Two Move In, Out Same Day, Several families forced to relocate after health inspectors check suites. Those are only a few examples, and I could go on. I have newspaper clippings here from 19 85, 19 86, 19 87, 19 88, 19 89, 19 90, and in that period of time there has been ve ry little change or very little improvement in housing conditions in the inner city. • (1 440) The proof, Mr. Acting Speaker, is there that serious problems exist.

If we need more proof, let us look at city by-law cou rt. I would like to tell you another story. Since the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Connery) likes my stories so well, we will give him another illustration. We went to obser ve city by-law co urt, an educational process for anyone to go and watch the city by-law cou rt at work. We had tenants there, and we watched as all kinds of cases came up, stray dog cases , noise by- law violations, maintenance , occupancy by-law violations and health violations. The Minister ·of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) is familiar with City Hall; he remembers his days there.

I hope that he has been to city by-law cou rt and observed it.

November 21 , 1 990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1631 Well, during the coffee break the judge called some of the tenants over and sat them down, this is Judge Johns ton, and he said, I would be interested in knowing, what do you think of my court? You have to understand that this is a very informal cou rt, where people can go and speak on their own behalf. Judge Joh nston sort of prides himself on running a ve ry informal cour t wher e people are no t intimidated, and they can tell their stories. So he said to the tenants, now, what do you think of my court and what you saw and heard here today?

This tenant being a rather timid chap, said, Your Honour, you promise that I will not be charged with contempt of cou rt if I am honest with you? He said, no, it is okay, go ahead, tell me what you really think. The tenant said, well, I noticed, Your Honour, the people who were there with dog violations received the same fines that landlords did for having slum housing, and that is exactly the case. People can be there and have their stray dog charged on a numb er of different violations of city by-laws, and they might be fined $ 12 5. 00.

Meanwhile, some family can be living in the most atrocious kinds of housing with violations of city by-laws, violations of the health Act. The landlord is issued a repair order and the landlord has 90 days to do the repairs. On the 91 st day the city building inspector goes back and reinspects. If it has not been done, they put it on the docket for by-law cou rt. lt can take three or four months to get on the docket of by-law court. Then when the person does get on the docket, they can choose to plead not guilty and go to trial which can take three or four more months to get on the docket and have a trial.

Then they can get remands, because their lawyer will say that they are not available, they are busy, and so it can take a year or two years before a landlord is charged for violations of City of Winnipeg by-laws. Meanwhile, one family after another, after another, continues to live in the most deplorable of housing conditions. I think there are many reasons why we need new tough housing legislation to protect tenants, and the newspaper stories tell part of the story.

My illustrations from my work in the north end provide further evidence, and the examples of city by-law court and what a farce it is provide further examples. What do we need in legislation to protect tenants? We need better protection for secu rity deposits. We nee d to fol low up on recom men dations and suggestions by tenant representatives and tenant groups that all secu rity deposits be held in trust by the Residential Tenancies Commission. There are a number of reasons why this needs to be mandatory.

Now the Minister has said that it is mandatory if anybody requests it, which is quite different from making it mandatory for everyone. There are good reasons why it should be. I believe that it would stop abuse of secu rity deposits by landlords. For years we have been claiming that many landlords make their profit margin on the non-return of secu rity deposits. Secondly, another reason, which the Member for Morris (Mr. Manness) will be very pleased to hear, and that is that it would save the taxpayers money.

When we were sitting in the committee of the Landlord and Tenant Review Committee, the civil servants told us that a third of all the time in settling secu rity deposit disputes was in tracking down the secu rity deposit, and departments like Landlord and Tenant Affairs deal with thousands of requests in a year. So we are talking about a considerable cost to the taxpayers just to track down the secu rity deposit that the landlord is supposed to have in the bank, but probably spent already.

The advantage of having security deposits held in trust by the Residential Tenancies Commission is that the civil servants do not have to waste their time trying to track down a security deposit. 1t will be in a trust account, administered by the commission, and it will be available for adjudication in disputes. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lau rendeau): Order, please. Mr.

Martlnda le: I helped a former tenant in Winnipeg to track down their secur ity deposit after they moved to Vancouver, and it took two years to get a $60 secu rity deposit returned to the tenant, two years to track down a secu rity deposit in the City of Winnipeg. Third, secu rity deposits in a trust fund or in a housing fund cou ld be very helpful in a number of ways. lt could be like an unsatisfied judgment fund. This fund could be used to compensate landlords. I admit that from time to time tenants cause damage to a suite, and the costs are not recoverable from the security deposit.

That money, the interest on that money, could be used to compensate landlords. Similarly, if a tenant is aggrieved, for example, the landlord might have sold their possessions before the date that they were allowed to, then the tenant could claim compensation from the interest in this housing fund. The housing fund, of cou rse, would

1632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 be used to pay out the secu rity deposits that it collected.lt could also be used to pay for emergency repairs, and the Member for Morris (Mr. Manness) would be happy to hear this once again. lt would be used to help defray costs of the department. Now, why would the Minister of Housing (Mr. Du charm

e) not wantto have a fund with millions and millions of dollars in it, earning interest, some of which interest could be used to defray expenses in the department? Sounds like a good idea to me. There is another related problem, and that is condition reports on the condition of a suite upon entering or leaving, or in the beginning or ending of a tenancy. The problem now is that tenants move out, the landlord blames the damage on the tenant, and the tenant has no proof. All they have is their word. lt becomes the landlord's word against the tenant's word.

The landlord has the secu rity deposit, they have the money, and they are usually better informed, they know what the law is, and inevitably they win. Frequently, tenants do not know the law; they are not well informed. They do not have a lawyer. They do not fight; they give up and they move. Their money comes out of welfare for the next security deposit at a cost to the taxpayers, and subsequently comes out of their own pocket, frequently taken from food money, and forces people to use food bank outlets.

There is a way of resolving this, and that is to make unit condition reports compulsory so that when a tenant moves in, the tenant and the landlord fill out the condition report, and they keep a copy . When the tenant moves out, they fill out the report again, and note any differences in the condition of the suite between the beginning of the tenancy and the end of the tenancy. I have been involved in some of these disputes. For example, I was involved in helping a tenant recently.! helped fill outthe conditionreport.l helped the tenant by signing the report.

I went through the suite, helped the tenant to write down all the defects, all the problems, with the suite that she was living in before she moved in. This was a rather interesting example. I will not use the tenant's name, but this tenant has been quoted in the media a number of times, and there have been stor ies on TV ne ws broadcasts illustrating the inside of this suite and numer ous problems. The reason the media liked this particular example so well was that the landlord was a City of Winnipeg housing inspector. Rather a disgraceful example, to be a housing inspector and to be an owner of slum properties.

When the tenant said to the landlord, here, I have a condition report. lt has been filled out, and Doug Martindale from the Housing Concerns Group signed it for me. Would you like to go through the suite and verify this information, and sign it as well? The landlord said, no, I will not sign your condition report. I will give you my own. Did the landlord give her a condition report of his own? No, he did not. When the tenant moved out recently, the landlord refused to return the security deposit.

The tenant went to Landlord and Tenant Affairs, submitted the condition report, and the condition report was used as proof of the condition of the suite at the beginning of tenancy in, I believe , September of last year, and the tenant was successfu l in getting all of her secu rity deposit back again from the landlord. Making condition reports compulsory would be a major improvemen t in this legislation, and we could tie it to secu rity deposits. In fact, I believe that is what Bill 42 did. I am sorry, not Bill 42, the NDP Bill on housing did. -(i nterjection)- • (1 450) I have seen it, it is quite interesting.

You might want to read it someday, Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux), because I have a major advantage. I can compare the NDP legislation with Bill 42, and Bill 13 , and we can see what they took out. lt is very obvious to see what they took out, and it is fairly easy to conclude why they took it out and at whose request they took it out. -(interjection)- Well, here it is, Member for lnkster.lt is right here. This is it. lt does exist. What we could do, Mr. Acting Speaker, is if the Minister of Housing (Mr.

Ducharme) wanted to improve this Bill to provide further protection to tenants, what he would do is this: He would tie condition reports to secu rity deposits and say the landlord does not get a security deposit until a condition report has been filled out and each side has a signed copy. When that happens, then the landlord gets the security deposit. -(interjection)- Mr. Acting Speaker, I am just getting started. Not only was the use of condition reports and conditions on secu rity deposits in the NDP draft legislation, but

November 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1633 it was also in the Landlord and Ten ant Review Committee. lt was recommended, and it was recommended for a number of reasons, so why did they say that this would be a good idea? They said it would help prevent disputes from arising.

The problem now is that there is no evidence, and so it is the tenant's word against the landlord's word, but if condition reports on suites were compulsory, it would eliminate disputes from arising and going to the Residential Tenancies Commission and tying up a lot of staff time and staff dollars. lt would reduce the likelihood that tenants would be taken advantage of because frequen tly tenants, as I have said, are in a disadvantaged situation compared to landlords in terms of knowing their rights and of having access to legal couns el, et cetera. lt would enable disputes to be resolved fairly and quickly because there would be a document that could be examined to settle disputes, and it would improve relations between landlords and tenants.

In fact, the use of condition reports is very widespread in parts of the housing sector. For example, in housing co-ops there is almost always the use of a condition report. In fact, in those housing co-ops, where condition reports are used, it is usually a part of the regulations or the by-laws of the housing co-op, and then the board of directors insist that the condition report be used or people do not move in. Similarly, property managers insist on using condition reports. lt is rather interesting to note, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that when the committee was having its meetings, the Landlord and Tenant Review Committee, who opposed these kinds of moves? Was it the property managers? No, it was not the property managers because they were already using them. Was it the civil servants? No, the civil servants, as I recall, were in favour of it. Was it the middle-income tenants? No, they were familiar with condition reports. Was it the low-income tenants? No, it was not the low-income tenants? An Honourable Member : Who was it? Mr. Martlndale : lt was the slum landlords, repr ese nted by the Mani toba Landlor ds Association.

The same people who have been in the newspaper this past week. Mr. Sid Silverman, the past chai rperson of the Man itoba Landlords Association. lt was the slum landlords who were opposed to condition reports. Well, l am very sorry that we could not get this into this otherwise somewhat progressive piece of legislation, Bill 13 . lt is a change from the committee recommendations, and it is a change from the NDP draft Bill. Another example of how it has been watered down. Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, ! have some comments that the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) will be particularly interested to hear.

Perhaps, I should have put them at the beginning of my speech instead of at the end. However, he can read them in Hansard. To the credit of the Minister of Housing, I would have to admit that Bill 13 compared to Bill 42 has not been substantially changed although it could have been improved. I would even admit that there are many good things about Bill 13 . Bill 13 is the resu lt of years of study and consu ltation and finally, at last, action. Both landlords and tenants wanted major changes and improve men ts. Te nants wanted en fo rceable standards of repair orders.

Landlords wanted speedier evictions of problem tenants. Major changes were endorsed by both sides on the Landlord and Tenant Review Committee and the result is the Residential Tenancies Commission and the Residential Tenancies Commissioner. The intent of these major changes is to provide a system which is fair, a system which is accessible, a system which is fast, a system which has the capacity to enforce orders and to enforce the orders that it makes.

There are a number of things that I would like to address in the remaining minutes that I have, and this has to do with things that are not in Bill 13 , but should be in Bill 13 , and could be in Bill 13 if they wanted to improve it in order to provide greater protection for tenants. For example, the habitability

section of the Bill should be and cou ld be strengthened. What is needed is a definition in the Act of what constitutes a habitable suite or house at the time of occu pancy. I think this is one example, and the Minister referred to this in his speech, of things that were in the Act in Bill 42 and removed from the Act to regulations. I am always concerned when I see this, because it means the regulations can be changed very easily

1634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990

whereas

an Act is much more difficult to change. lt is an example of watering down. Another example is the state of repair. What we need is a good definition of what is an acceptable state of repair at the beginning of occu pancy. There is also a need for tenant information and tenant education, and this should have been a much stronger part of the Act. The re are leng thy recommen dations by the review committee on tenant information and tenant education.

One of the points that we made and the Housing Concerns Group made when we were making representation to the Minister was that if they spent half as much time and effort and money advertising education and information about their Tenancies Commission, and the new rules and regulations governing tenancies, as they do on rent regulation or rent control, we would have tenants who are much better informed and probably have fewer problems, fewer calls to the branch, and a much improved situation for tenants. This is an area in which I think the Minister could improve his legislation.

Another change, and a disappointing one-the fact that it has not been made, I guess, has to do with final orders. Bill 13 says that the Residential Tenancies Commission can act on final orders of say the City of Winnipeg by-laws or the health Act regulations. That is orders coming from another jurisdiction. There is a problem with waiting until you get to a final order and that is that it might be months or even a year or more before you get to a final order and that is really not acceptable.

We have a new system coming into place with Bill 13 with stronger powers, but they needed to go this one step fu rther and change the

section on final orders. There should be provision for an inspection to be made by someone from the Tenancies Commission to do a fast and fair inspection and issue an order or remedy immediately, rather than having to wait for a final order from another level of jurisdiction. Finally, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to address a serious problem and omission, and a change , I believe, from NDP draft legislation. This is another example where the Minister from Morris would be very interested in my comments because it has to do with an area that could save the taxpayers of Manitoba millions of dollars.

I know he is always challenging us on this side to su ggest ways to save mo ney, rather than su ggesting ways to spend money. So the Honourable Member for Morris (Mr. Manness) will be interested in these suggestions. lt has to do with the fact that millions of dollars-1 bel ieve now it is approximately $60 million a year-go from the taxpayers of Manitoba. Basically it is a tax transfer from you and I as taxpayers to the Minister of Finance , to Family Services, from Family Services to tenants or in many cases directly to landlords and into the pocket of landlords.

The amount of money in the City of Winnipeg annually, most of it in the inner city, is $60 million from the budget of the Minister for Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). What is that money going to purchase? Well, it is going to pay rent for tenants on social assistance. What are they getting for that money? Well, many of them and, therefore, the taxpayers of Manitoba, are not getting good value for their money. They are paying considerable money for subs tandard accommodation that does not meet city by-laws, does not meet health standards and regulations, and that is in violation of work orders.

That is what it is going to pay for. * (1 500) What I would like to suggest, and what I would like to see as an improvement, is a mechanism whereby the staff of the Minister of Family Services are able to check through, say, a computer listing of houses that have work orders against them, and thereby determine for tenants, for the taxpayers of Manitoba, and for their department whether or not a tenant should be living in a house that has outstanding work orders against it. If not, to put the tenant in a different and more suitable kind of accommodation. An even better idea, Mr.

Acting Speaker, would be to prohibit the spending of any rental money on any place that has a work order or repair order against it in order to protect the investment of the taxpayers of Manitoba, to provide protection for tenants, and to make sure that they get into suitable, decent, as well as affordable, accommodation. So that is another area in which an improvement could be made, an improvement which would be beneficial to both the ranters and the taxpayers of Manitoba- The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laur endeau) : Order, please. The Honourable Member is well aware of

No vember 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1635 the fact that he is not to debate any issues pertaining to just one specific

section of the Act. If he will refrain from that and get back to discussing the Act as a whole. Mr. Martlnd ale: Mr. Acting Speaker, as far as I know I have covered about 15 sections of the Act, but without referring to the sections, I realize I must direct my comments only to the principle of the Bill, and with those remarks I am going to concl ude. Of course, you will hear much more detailed comment from the third reading. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osbor ne) : Mr. Acting Speaker, I move , seconded by the Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux ), that this debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to.

BIL L 20- THE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT (TAXATION) ACT, 19 90 Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) : Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill 20, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 19 90, (L oi de 19 90 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Acting Speaker, Bill 20 provides the legislative basis for the measures introduced in the 19 90 Manitoba budget. lt also contains techn ical amen dments to improve the administration of certain taxation statutes. As we all know, the federal goods and services tax is scheduled to be implemented on Januar y 1, 19 91 , maybe. Who knows where the GST is today? Though there still remains some uncertainty as to the future of the GST, our Governm ent has decided that if the GST is implemented, Manitoba's retail sales tax will be applied alongside the selling price before the GST is added.

This decision helps both consumers and retailers in Manitoba by simplifying compliance with the GST. Mr. Acting Speaker, at this time, I want to pull out of my notes something that has been bothering me for a long period of time with respect to this elemen t. lt was the day or two days after the election and, of course, those of us on this side were euphoric in many respects. I went to my favourite hobby, my favourite pastime, and that is sitting on my tractor and doing some work away from a telephone .

I turned the radio on in the piece of machinery that I was in, and I happened to bring in the radio station from Brandon. Is that CKLO? I had the delightful experience of listening to the Member for Brandon East (Mr. leonar d Evans), the newly elec ted Member for Brandon East, being interviewed at that particular time. If there was ever a time that I wished I had a telephone in the tractor, if there was ever a time that I could have instant logistical movement from where I was to Brandon, I would have taken it.

Here, the Member for Brandon East said that he did not know an ything about the provincial Gove rnment with certainty, being prepared to apply the retail sales tax as alongside the federal GST. Mr. Acting Speaker, the Member knew when he uttered those statements that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and myself on four occasions at least had indicated it was the Gove rnment's intention. Now the comentator said that to this Member.

He said, yes, but the Gove rnment it seems to me had indicated it was their intention to put this alongside and the Member says, wel l, if that was their intention, why did they not in the spring legislation Session of 19 90 bring it in at that time? Mr. Acting Speaker, the GST is not law today, and it certainly was not law in the spring of 19 90. How do you write legislation that says- Some Honourable Members : Oh, oh I The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lau rendeau) : Order, please; order, please. Point of Order The Actin g Speaker (Mr . Laure ndeau) : The Honourable Member for Brandon East, on a point of order. Mr.

Leonard Evans (Brandon East) : Mr. Acting Speaker, on a point of order. The Minister is inferring certain things that may not be correct, and I just want to point out to him the federal Gove rnment was already collecting the GST last summer, and there was every indication that it was going to be passed, and there is nothing wrong with the Government being prudent and protecting the interests of the taxpayers of Manitoba last spring. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Lau rendea u) : Order, please; order, please. The Honourable Member for

1636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 19 90 Brandon East did not have a point of order. lt is a dispute over facts. *** Mr. Manness: Mr. Acting Speaker, what is patently obvious Is that the Member for Brandon East, indeed the New Democratic Party, had given In. They accepted the fact that the GST was coming. I am a member of a number of organizations. One of them, as recently as in July, asked me to pay the GST for services rendered in 19 90. I refused.

Yet the Member here had the gall on a radio station to say, why did this Minister of Finance, the Filmon Gove rnment, bring in this legislation as if the GST was going to be in place. How do you write that legislation? So you bring in the law and say, if this happens, and this does not happen, and that might happen, therefore, we will apply the tax in this fashion. Nonsen se, Mr. Acting Speaker.

I think the Member, if he wanted to be honest and he wanted to correct the record, he wo uld stand in his place when he has an opportunity to debate Bill20, he will stand in his place and he will publicly apologize to Manitobans. I encourage him to do so. lt is amazing what you will hear when you listen to the radio in the morning time. -(i nterjection)-That is right. The field was crooked after that. lt took me three hours to correct the errors of what 1- * (1 51 0) Mr. Acting Speaker, Manitoba retailers will be required to show the goods and services tax and the provincial retail sales tax separately.

This will help ensure maximum visibility for the new federal tax. Let me say, and I digress agai n, the first Gove rnment in Canada that indicated they were going to force visibility was this one here, and it had nothing to do with whether we were a minority Gove rnment or not, absolutely nothing. The Members have chastised me before saying that I am a supporter of consum ption taxes. I have always been prepared to enter in dialogue on that comment, but I have always said that Governments have to be held accou ntable for whatever taxes they levy, and they have to be prepared to make those levies visible.

Ou r retail sales tax is visible, and there should be no lesser expectation of the federal Government that the GST should also be made visible. The Retail Sales Tax Act is also to be amended to include the removal of a provision, whereby an individual can refuse to pay the retail sales tax by providing the vendor with a declaration to that effect, effective November 19 , 19 90. This provision of the Ac t- again I indicate to Mem bers oppos ite becomes in effect as of November 19 , Monday of this week. This provision has existed since 19 67.

All pro vinces, excep ting the pr ovinces of Saskatchewan, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have removed such a provision from their retail sales tax statute as it is impractical and creates confusion for retailers who face demands from certain taxpayers that they are not required to pay the retail sales tax. Vendors will now be required to collect the tax from all persons, other than on tax-exem pt products such as food and children's clothing and other exempt products and services. A notice will be sent to all vendors under The Retail Sales Tax Act informing them of the proposed amendments.

I understand that is happening probably sometime this week. Mr. Acting Speaker, there are three proposed changes to the health and second post-secondary education tax levy, in other words known as the infamous payroll tax contained in Bill 20. First, the Oc tober 11 , 19 90 Speech from the Throne announc ed a new skills training strategy called the Workforce 2000 plan to improve the basic skills and training of Manitobans. -(interjection)- ! digress again. The Members are saying to us that� you know, the proceeds of the payroll tax are helping us. I acknowledge that.

The problem is even though we keep slicing away at-econ omic growth is such in this province that more and more people are paying the tax and ultimately we are having difficulty driving down the $200 million thereabout total figure. While we keep slicing at it, it keeps building because of the economic growth within the province . I hope, again, the Member acknowledges that.

As part of this initiative, and I am talking about the Wo rkforce 2000 plan, I annou nced in our Gove rnment's 19 90 budget that Manitoba firms will be eligible for a maximum 0.3 percent payroll tax credit to offset training and development costs. -(interjection)- Mr. Acting Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is here. He says shame. lf you have seen his commentary in the last few days, what he is

November 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1637 trying to build is the myth, the corporate welfare bum myth that we indeed are again are trying to help the large corpo rations. These large corpora tions, including the provincial Gover nment, because a significant portion of the $200 million or the $18 0 of the payroll tax is a transfer from one pocket of the Gove rnment to the other to the other, a significant portion is also paid by the federal Gove rnment. Indeed, after that there are only many, many, dozen large firms that pay this payroll tax but that amount totals $18 0 million, $19 0 million.

The Member opposite is criticizing us for trying to put into place , and we have not developed them fully yet, very strict criteria in support of training. Training that will better prepare the work force within those sectors to better prepar e them to meet the challenges of globalization as we move into the decade of the '90s and into the next century. What could be a better use of a firm's own money, rather than having it come to the tax coffers, but indeed be specifically directed towards retraining of the employees? Mr. Acting Speaker, we are going to try and focus that within the manufacturing industry.

We are going to try our best to do that. How successfu l we will be, time will tell. For the Member opposite to try and portray that this offset is against tax, is somehow a giving of yet more Gove rnment funding to corporations to try and build on the corporate welfare bum myth, to me, is reprehensible and unfair indeed to those good corporate citizens who do so much for our economy. Firms will continue to pay the payroll tax in 19 91 , with eligible firms to rece ive the credit early in 19 92.

The Gov ernmen t will be consu lting with the business community over the next few months to finalize details of the payroll tax credit. Further information on the program and the method of reimbursement will be forthcoming in 19 91 . The second point un der the payroll tax, our Gove rnment recognizes the increasing competitive pressures on Manitoba's trucking industry and the importance of out-of-province business on two trucking operations. Effective Janu ary 1 , 19 91 , remuner ation paid by an employer to a person engaged in interprovincial and international travel will be exempt from the payroll tax.

This exemption does not apply to trips within the province . An Honourable Memb er: How mu ch is that, Clayton? Mr. Manness : I will answer that, Mr. Acting Speaker. lt is very hard to estimate, but we feel it will be around a million dollars at this point in time. Finally, the majority of employers exempt from the payroll tax will no longer be required to file an annual form affirming their payroll tax exemption status. Only employers with yearly payrolls close to the threshold exemption of $600,000 will be required to file. This measure is to be effective for the 19 90 and subsequent calendar years.

This change will elimi na te the need for approximately 38,000 Manitoba employers to file un necessarily and will be a time and cost-saving measure for both the employers and the taxation staff. Even within my own farm, and I have an employer number, ! was required by law, by our provincial law, every year, every January, to file an exemption notice with the department. So myself and 38,000 other Manitoba employers will no longer have to file this declaration. The Manitoba new small business tax reduction introduced in our Governmen t's inaugural 19 88 budget will be extended by one year to December 31 , 19 91 .

This program provides tax relief to new enterprises during the first critical five years of operation. In the first year eligible, new small businesses will be exempt from Manitoba corporate income taxation on the first $200,000 of active business income. For the next four years, they pay at a reduced rate. Let me say, Mr. Acting Speaker, with respect to this program, it is encou raging to see the number of businesses. Of course, I do not expect the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), or indeed the Small Business Critic for the Liberal Party, to stand and congr atulate the Governm ent.

Indeed, the Government should not be congratulated for this. I mean, this is what happens when you have a healthy econ omy. Businesses should begin to aspire to come into being, ultimately to profit and to take advantage of the small business tax reduction. * (1 520) I signed first hand the exemption forms, the certificates, that provide the tax relief, and I can tell the Members opposite, there are a goodly number of Manitoba businesses that have come into being

1638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 over the last two years . They are emplo ying Manitobans. I am not so sure that they are focused purely within the wealth creation industries, in the initial wealth creation sectors, as I might like to see. There seems to be a very heavy incidence within the service sector, and I would like to watch that more closely. Nevertheless, I want to report to Members of the House there are a significant number of new businesses being established In the province at this point in time.

The one-and-a-half perce nt tax on mining profits introduced in the 19 89 Manitoba budget is extended to Dece mber 31 , 19 91 . The Govern merit had anticipated a solution to the shortcomings in the allocation of provincial income tax with the mining industry by this time. Obtaining a solution has taken longer than expected, and the tax will be rescinded if the problem is resolved before the end of the next tax year. To this end, Mr.

Acting Speaker, let me say that the mining industry and, more specifically, lnco have worked very closely with us to try to find measures around this tax allocation problem that we have between ourselves, the federal Gove rnment, and mo re spe cifically, the Pr ov ince of Ontario. Everybody is trying to work toward a solution, but the fact that Ontario corporate taxation is outside of Ottawa-and indeed they collect their corporation taxes within their own prov ince-m akes the situation somewhat more difficult.

I want to assure Members of the House, though, that lnco, being the good corporate citizen that it is, is trying to work with us to find methods by which they cou ld allocate a greater portion of their income to Manitoba such that we can have fairer claim to our fair share. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Mr. Speak er, the only tax increase by the Gove rnment for this year is a one-half cent for cigarettes increase in the tobacco tax effective midnight, December 2, 19 90.

I might add the only criticism that I have received to date with respect to this tax measure has been a cou ple of letters asking us to have also increased the rate on fine cut tobacco, which we did not do this time around. Let me say, in closing, these measures continue our Government's agenda for improving Manitoba's com petitiveness with other ju risdictions' tax regimes. lt contains important initiatives to help Manitoba strengthen our economy over the long run. The future of Manitoba is promising. We have the ingredients to make it bright and prosperous. Bill 20 helps lay the groundwork for that future. Mr.

Leonard Evans: I move , seconded by the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READI NGS BIL L 6- THE BUSINE SS PR ACTICES ACT Mr. Speaker : Debate on second readings on the proposed motion of the Honou rable Minister of Co-operative, Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Connery) , BillS, The Business Practices Act;

Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) . An Honoura ble Member : Stand. Mr. Speaker : Is there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave . Agreed. Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Bonlface) : Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on a ver y important Bill, Bill S, The Business Practices Act. Firstly, I would like to say thank you to the Minister for briefing us on Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as it is the first time in this Session and this Legislature that I have had the opportunity to be a critic on Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

I appreciate it very much when he received us to give us the breakdown on the Consu mer and Corporate Affairs. lt does not mean that I will be nice to him all through my comments, but I will try. I will try. An Honourable Member : They do not come any nicer. Mr. Gaudr y: I have to be careful with that. lt is an in-hous e joke between the Member for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr). The fact that it deals with deceiving and misleading the public defines what unfair business practice is. The examples that are used in the Act are important for the protection of the public and the consumer.

The examples that are used, I could relate to one personally. Ten, l5 years ago, when I was going to go away on holidays and �took my car in to get it checked, I decided before taking a long trip that I was going to get the transmission checked. As I took it into one of the transmission dealers here in town, after about

November 21, 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1639 15 minutes he said I needed a new transmission, that it would cost me $300 to $400.00. At that time I could not afford that; either I went on holidays or stayed at home and repaired the car. I decided I would take it to a garage where I knew someone who would tell me if I really needed the transmission. lt turned out that it was not, and I drove the car for another 80,000 miles on the same transmission after that. So -(interjection)-Exactly, but I think with this kind of legisla tion com ing out, Mr. Speaker, the consumer will be protected.

Is it because maybe it was presented by the NDP and they had never done anything in the last 17 years that they were in power? -(interjection)- Some Honourable Members: Oh, ohl Mr. Gaudry : I had no intentions of doing that because I think the Minister had done that in his speech. In reading over his speech, I feel that I have got to point it out again today. In dealing with the NDP in what they had done in the last years that they were in power-and of course our Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tells us how the Tories were very wonderful .

I am glad he is clapping hands alone because I am glad he has presented this piece of legislation for the consumer, but what have they done in the last two and a haH years? They were in power for four years through the Sterling lyon years also. What did they do? Same thing as the NDP, nothing. An Honourable Member: What about the last two and a half years? last year and a half? What did they do? Mr. Gaudry : Well, we will see. We will debate that later and we will ask questions in Estimates to see what you have done and -(interjection)- I have to agree with you . Mr.

Paterson, the former MlA for Radisson was a great man, a fine man. The examples given in that

section I think are examples that we can use to illustrate how important it is that the consumer can be protected. After all, the consu mer should be pr otected against unscrupulous business persons. You can have it that business people are not unscrupulous or bad, but, of course , like the Minister called them bad apples , there are some. We can not say all businessmen are like that, no, because there are good businessmen in Manitoba, but we require that legislation to protect our consu mers.

We ought to impose obligations on suppliers to be honest and truthful about their merchandise that they sell and place high standards on the business world. This legislation, I believe , will do that. Employees of suppliers are also prohibited from un fair business practices, and this shou ld be. Employees should be taught and regulated by their bosses to resp ect those and no t to be misrepresented.

The advertising-t here I have some caution maybe, because it says: "A person who, on behalf of a supplier, prints, publi shes, distributes, broadcasts or telecasts an advertisement in good faith and in the ordinary course of business is not responsible under this Act for the truth or accuracy of any representation in the advertisement." lt states that someone who advertises in good faith should not be responsible for the truth or accuracy of the advertising.

I think the consu mer shou ld be protected, and the legislation should specifically prohibit or impose an obligation on advertisers to look at the C()ntent of what they are advertising and be aler t to the ob viou s or br aze n misrepresentations. • (1 530) Surely the advertiser, Mr. Speaker, should not be able to turn a blind eye if something is obviously false and misleading.

An obligation on advertisers to question the honesty and truthfulness of all the materials they advertise, it is not reasonable to expect advertisers to question every ad that comes about, especially if, on the face of it, it claims to be reasonable, but there is legislative language that can be used, can be drafted, to prevent advertisers from using, they simply publish and advertise what the supplier told them to advertise. Surely, they cannot wilfu lly or recklessly tu m a blind eye to an ad that is obviously false and dishonest. The "Appointment of experts," Mr. Speaker.

"The minis ter, with the appro val of the li eutenant-Gove rnor-in-Council, may appoint, engage or employ, and may fix the remuneration of, such part-time or fu ll-time exper ts and other qua lified persons, in addition to the persons appointed under

section 1 0, as the minister deems necessary for the administration of this Act." How many will be employecl? How many part time? I think, Mr. Speaker, it is important that we specify these.

1640 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MB LY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 "Refusal to mediate.w lt states very clearly: "The director may refuse to mediate or investigate a complaint .... " How can the director refuse? lt provides for a mediation, a quick and efficient way to solve a dispute-c an be a very positive thing; but it allows the director to refuse, seems to belong to another authority or "for any other reason ." Why should the di rector be allowed to refuse to investigate for any reason? Certai nly, if there is a reasonable base to the complaint, if the com plaint is made on malicious grounds, Mr.

Speaker, or if the matter belongs to another jurisdiction, the director then should be allowed to refuse to proceed, but surely the director mus t in all cases, except where the complaint properly should be made to another authority, be requir ed to make at least a preliminary investigation. Mr. Speaker, does this mean that if the director does not like the complainant that the director can refuse to investigate or mediate? lt should not be. This secti on sets the stage for su bjective decisions that may reflect personal bias of the director.

Note, the director would be acting in good faith, but even so the director's bias may be a factor in refusing to investigate. Is not every consumer with a valid comp laint entitled to have that complaint investigated? I think legislation prevails so that the consumer can be protected. That is right . In another section, Mr. Speaker, the Bill seems to advance consumer protection.

All in all, this Bill sees that the obligations should not change anything for honest business people and dishonest ones should be penalized. -(interjection)-Yes, and as I said before, there are good business people and they will be protected. In an ideal world the consum er may be able to limit their own losses and may be able to negotiate a solution with a supplier, but ther e should be great caution in imp osing too high a standard, because the ordinar y person on the street may not realize until much later that they have been had.

The ordinary person may not realize until mu ch later that they are entitled to have the supplier rem edy the situation. Even if the consumer is another business person, that business person is not necessarily highly sophisticated and knowledgeable about legislated consumer protection. We might say that we must remem ber that the intent of this legislation is to protect a consu mer who generally is disadvantaged in not having all the informati on thatthe supplier has. For this reason and because this Act is about the protection, we must be certain that we do not expect too mu ch of the duped consumer. Mr.

Speaker, like I said, I will be bri ef. We will be going into com m ittee, and we will be asking qu estions in corn mi ttee. The Li beral Pa rty , generally, will support this Bill with amendmen ts. I am pleased to say that we are generally pleased for what the Min ister has done with this Bill, and we look forward to going to comm ittee and debating the Bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed , this matter will remain standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) . BIL L 12-T HE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT Mr.

Speak er: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Prazni k) , Bill12 , The Lab our Relations Am endm en t Act ; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing in the nam e of the Honour able Mem ber for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Stand. ls there leave that this matter remain standing? Leave. Agr eed. • (1 540) Mr. Jlm Maloway (Ei mwood) : Mr. Speaker, this Bill, the repeal of the FOS has become somewhat of an annual affair it seems, that we are into a reru n. This is the thir d time now that many of us have spoken to this Bill. In fact, the curr ent Memb er for Broadway (Mr. Santos) must feel some sense of security here, must feel right at home, because when he left the Chamb er in 19 88, we were discussing this Bill.

He comes back two years later, and we are still on the same Bill. I do not know how much time we have spent, in terms of hours of the Legislature, discussin g this particular Bill. I do not know how much money has been spent on this, but this Governmen t seems to have a death wish when it comes to final offer selection. You would have thought by now, after two unsuccessful attempts at the repeal of this Bill, that in fact they would have given it up and gone on to som ething else. I think that it is only a matter of time, if they get their way in repealing the final offer selection Bill, Mr.

Speaker, that first contract legislation and other

November 21 , 1990 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1641 labour legislation are sure to follow. That is why I feel it is important for people in our Party to voice our opposition and fight as hard as possible to der ail this legislation one mor e time. In term s of the history of the Bill, and the history of the idea, this particular idea has been arou nd for a long, long time. In fact as early as the early 1 900s, final offer selection was used in the resolution of British coal trade disputes, and it has been used sporadically over the last few decades.

In fact, at the University of Manitoba, final offer selection has been used as a common method of dispute resolution there with the faculty association for a numb er of years now. l can recall back 15 years ago, that it was something that was being used at the time. The idea has been pai nted as something that is foreign to this province and the labour envir onmen t, and that is entirely unfair. That is something that this Governmen t has been trying to do.

They have made the assertion, they have made the suggestion that some how this is a new idea that was thought up in some radical think tank and had not been tried anym ore and was in fact giving the provi nce a bad name in terms of the business climate. In fact, as we know, this particular idea has been used for a lot of years under a number of different type of cir cums tances. As a result it does have a track record .

There is evidence that we can point to, to demons trate that this is a worthwhile concept, and in fact later on I will get into the history of the Bill and run through a numb er of the disputes that have been settled in fact by final offer selection, which I think prove the point that final offer selection is an actual working idea and in fact has been very, very helpful in terms of the labour and business climate in this province .

The Governmen t wants to paint the pictu re that final offer selection is in fact detrimen tal to the business climate in Manitoba and some how that when they make their tri ps to Mexico and Alabama and other far off places that they travel to, that this is one of the pressing issues that the legislators in Alabama point out to the Minister when he goes there, when the Govern men t Mem bers are trying to make their case for busines s to locate in Cana da, that they are told, my God, if you would only get rid of that final offer selection, we will be moving our truckloads of money in here. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I would predict to you that if and when this Government ever gets this Act repealed, that is if the five-year sunset clause does not take effect first, I would suggest to you, that we are not going to see any overnigh t change in the business climate-for the better that is-we are not going to see truckloads of money pouring into this province and new busines ses setting up here as a result of that particular change in The Labour Act.

In fact what we are likely to see happen is this Gover nmen t will at that point decide that we have to go further, that we have to repeal first contract legislation, and we will go through this whole ar gumen t again. They will never be satisfied, because there are people over there who want to take us back to the old days of child labour and beyond. I do not know how many of them are there rig ht now, because the com position of the Legislature changes every couple of years with every election that we have had recently.

Certainly the old Con ser vative Par ty had its share of dinosaurs who did not like any type of progressive labour legislation, and they still exist over there . There is still the busi ness lobby her e in this province , in this country and internationally who work very actively and put a lot of money behind efforts to reduce the effects of any type of labour legislation which helps the workers. lt is incorrect to think that some how if this Bill is passed, that some how a whole lot of businesses are going to come in from outside and set up shop here, because some how the climate has changed.

The real reason for the Governme nt's persistence in wanting this Bill defeated goes back to what the Memb er for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) talked about the other day when he said that pure and sim ple it is a cam paign prom ise. lt is something that we promised the business commu nity that we would do, and now they want us to deliver.

They are very, ver y dis appoi nted, becaus e initially they were unsuccessful in repealing the law and once again rather than giving up and trying som eth in g else they deci ded to stick to this steadfastly, I mean to the point where it is really unr easonable, because they know how muc h it antagonizes our Member s in the Opposition . They know that at this point it is largely symbolism, because in fact this

part icular legislation was passed, was proclaimed Januar y 1, 19 88, to last, it has a sunset clause after five years.

1642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 21 , 1990 In fact, this legislation will automatically expire at the end of 19 92. We are almost into 19 91 , and by the time this Bill passes, if it should pass, and by the time the Act is proclaimed, we are talking about little more than a year, maybe a year and a half, where the legislation will not be available to the workers of Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker. lt is a bit of-1 suppose it will be a bit of a hollow victory for the Governmen t if they are able to get this passed, but in fact they will be able to go back to their backe rs , their financial backers, and the Member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) will be able to proudly proclaim to his big business backers that we produced. We promised we would produce for you, and look Mr. Presiden t of Exxon or Mr . Presid ent, whoever the company Is, we produced for you. We told you we would repeal final offer selection, and we have done it.

Now, of course , if the president of Exxon is smart he will wonder what all the fuss has been about, because he will say, well, it would have expired in a year and a few months anyway. * (1 550) We have been successfu l, I guess, in Opposition, in keeping this legislation on the books in spite of the attempts by the Liber als last year to cloudy the issue, in spite of the Liber al attempts last year to keep this legislation on the books until at least, I would suggest, a year and a half before it was going to expir e anyway. The Liberals, Mr. Speaker , claim to have had a better idea.

I believe it was Ford who had the new idea. Well, the Liberals were the people last year who had the new idea. They thought, well, if you take a little bit of this and a little bit of that and shake it up, a little bit of hocus-pocus, you are going to come with a solution. I reread the articles wher e the Member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), I think the former critic now for the Liberal Party, had a Chi nese dinner in the Liberal Caucus the night of the big debacle.

He was proudly proclaiming that while he had the NDP, who were willing to support the amen ded resolution, that he was going to get the Conservative support on the final Bill regar dless of how we voted, and that some how the Liber als were going to be seen to be the big policy makers in Manitoba, and that would kind of lead on to that great time when they would form a Government in this province . lt did not lead very far. He did not even get to digest his Chi nese food before the whole thing exploded . I recall the debate in the Legislature here, it was three or fou r in the morning.

The Liber al Mem bers-m ind you all of the Memb ers or most of the Mem bers were rather stunned at that hour in the morning and not fully functioning, but on the other hand the Memb er for St. James was in a state of shock. I mean, he could not admit-even to the reporters he adm itted initially that he really did not know what had happened, and what had hit him . Then he admitted that he had known all along what was going on. Even in the death throes of this initiative, while he was digesting his Ch inese food, he still could not manage this crisis, what had developed Into a crisis for them .

They sent the form er MLA for St. Vital on a mission through enemy lines out to make a secret deal with the Federation of Labour, suggesting to the Federation of Labour that they were really on the Federation of Labour's side. They had their other em issaries out in the business com muni ty letting the bus iness know that they wer e buddies of the business gro ups.

The Liberal Party bag persons were out collecting their $15, 000 from Westfair and their $1 ,00 0 from Parkside Ford , letting these people know that it is okay, it is all right, we deliver, but they were also carrying that same message over to the Federation of Labour suggesting that they were going to help to come up with a solution here that was going to prolong the life of this Bill. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Order, please, order, please.

I am in te rrupting the Hon our able Member to acknowledge the fact today that we have in our Speaker's Gallery this afternoon His Worsh ip Rick Bo rot sik, along with his city man ager, Earl Backm an, from the City of Brando n. On behalf of all Honour able Mem bers, I welcome you here this afterno on. *** Mr.

Jlm Maloway (Ei mwood) : Once again that was a very , very good example of the Liberals practising the form er Member for Niakwa's policy of having it both ways while you are in Opposition, trying to be on both sides of the issue, trying to develop this issue as something that would be positive for them, but not only did none of that happen, but the whole issue blew up in their face, did