LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MA NITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTE E ON STATUTOR Y RE G ULATIONS AND ORDERS Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 IME - 8:00 p.m. OCATION - Winnipeg, Manitoba HAIRMAN- Mr. C. Santos (Burrows) TTENDANCE - QUORUM - 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Messrs. Buck laschuk, Cowan, Penner , Plohman, Storie; Messrs. Birt, Kovnats, Mercier , Orchard , Santos PPEARING: Hon. Messrs. Desjardins, Ev ans, Hon. Ms. Hemphill, Hon. Mr. Uskiw Me ssrs. Driedger , Filmon, Mr. Man ness, Mrs. Oleson IATTERS UNDER DISCUSSION: Bill 17 - The Transboun dary Pollution Reci procal Access Act ;

Loi sur les droits de recours reci proques contre la pollution transfrontaliere Bill 19 -

An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act (2); Loi mod ifiant le code de la route. (Hon. Mr. Plohman) Bill 28 - The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Act ;

Loi sur la protec tion du patrimoine ecolog ique du Manitoba. (Hon. Mr. Usk iw) Bill 37 -

An Act to amend The Public Schools Act ; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les ecoles publiques. (Hon. Ms. Hemphill) Bill 40 - The Workplace Inno vation Centre Act ;

Loi sur le Centre d'in novation des lieux de travail. (Hon. Mr. Eva ns) Bill 47 - The In fants' Estates Act;

Loi sur les biens des mineurs. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 57 -

An Act to amend The Law Socie ty Act ; Loi modifiant la

loi sur la Socie te du Barreau. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 59 - The Statute Law Amendment Act (Family Law) Act; Loi mod ifiant le dr oit statutaire concernant le dr oit de la famille. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 60 - The Statute Law Amendment Act (1985); Loi de 19 85 modifiant le droit statutaire. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 62 - The Charter Compliance Statute Amend ment Act ; Loi mod ifiant di verses di spositions legislatives afin d' assurer le respect de la Charte. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 67 -

An Act to amend The Registry Act ; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur l'enregis trement foncier . (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 70 -

An Act to amend The A gricultur al Credit Corporation Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur la societe du cred it agricole. (Hon. Mr. Uruski) 129 Bill 72 -

An Act to amend The Teachers' Pensions Act ; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur la pension de retraite des ense igna nts. (Hon. Ms. Hemphill) Bill 73 -

An Act to amend The Special Survey Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les arpentages speciaux. (Hon. Mr. Pe nner) Bill 74 - The Equal Rights Statute Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le droit statutaire afin de favoriser legalite des dr oits. (Hon. Mr. Penn e.r> Bill 78 -

An Act to amend The Amus ements Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les di vertissements. (Hon. Mr. Kostyra) Bill 81 -

An Act to amend The Cooperatives Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les cooperativ es. (Hon. Mr. Cowan) Bill 82 -

An Act to amend The Real Prop erty Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les biens reels. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 84 -

An Act to amend The Public Schools Fina nce Board Act; Loi moditiant la

loi sur la Commission des financ es des ecoles publiques. (Hon. Ms. Hemphill) Bill 86 -

An Act to amend The Consumer Pr otect ion Act ; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur la protection du cons ommateur. (Hon. Mr. Penne

r) Bill 90 -

An Act to amend The Ecological Reserves Act; Loi modifiant la lni s• or les reserves ecolog iques. (Hon. Mr. Uskiw) Bill 94 -

An Act to amend The Housing and Rene wal Corporation Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur la Soc iete d'h abitation et de renovation. (Hon. Mr. Buckla sch uk) Bill 98 -

An Act to Valida te an Exp ropriation Under The Expropriation Act ; Loi validant une expropria tion effectuee en vertu de la

loi sur !'expropriation. (Hon. Mr. Pe nn er) Bill 14 -

An Act to amend The Community Child Day Care Standa rds Act ; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les garderies d'enfants. (Hon. Mrs. Smith) Bill 36 - The Mortgage Dealers Act;

Loi sur les cou rtiers d' hypotheques. (Hon. Mr. Pe nn er) Bill 55 -

An Act to amend The Liquor Control Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur la reglementation des alcools. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 58 -

An Act to amend The Mortgage Act; Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur les hypotheques. (Hon. Mr. Penner) Bill 85 -

An Act to amend The Health Services Ins urance Act (2); Loi mod ifiant la

loi sur l'assu rance -maladie. (Hon. Mr. Desjardins) MR. CHAIRMAN: There being a quorum, the Committee of Statutory Orders and Regulations will please come to ord er.

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 BILL 17 - THE TRANSBO UNDARY POLLUTION RECIPROC AL ACCE SS ACT;

LOI SUR LES DRO ITS DE RECOURS RECIPROQUES CONTRE LA POLLU TION TRANSFRONT ALIE RE MR. CHAIRMAN: The Atto rney-Gener aL HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I beg your indulg ence and that of the co mmittee to go back to Bill 17 , The Transbound ary Po llu tion Reci procal Acces s Act, which was passed this morning to be reported. There is just a title that legislative couns el draws to my attention and , by leave, to reopen to make that typographical chan ge, to change No. 13 5 to 14 5, but first if there is leave. MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave is granted. HON. R. PENNER: Then I would move, Mr.

Chairperson THA T Bill 17 , The Transbound ary Pollution Rec iprocal Access Act, be amend ed so that on Page 3, in both the French and the Engl ish versi ons , the numb er appearing in the first line of sect ion 10 appearing as T13 5 read T14 5. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed? (Agreed) The Min ister of Natural Resou rces. HON. S. USKIW: I'm wond ering whether I can offer some sugges tions . That is that I kno w that we are going to hear the bills in the order of their number here but, when we get to a Minis ter who isn't a member of the com mittee, would it not be reasonable to hear the .

Minis ter's bills, all of them, so that person doesn 't have to wait intermittently, if you like, to have other bills come up - (Interjection) - no, no, for any Minis ter who is not on the committee. lt is not just myself; there are others as well. Becaus e otherwise, you are tyi ng them up unnecces sarily all evening. HON. R. PENNER: I have no problem with that. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there leave by the committee? MR. A. KOVNATS: Do you promise not to go out and do campa igning if we let you out? HON. S. USKIW: On my honour. MR.

CHAIRMAN: The comm ittee grants leave that whene ver a bill comes und er a Minis ter who is not a member of the comm ittee, all the bills under him will be taken in sequenc e despite the previous agreement of the committee. HON. R. PENNER: Agre ed. MR. CHAIRMAN: So granted. HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, that is only with respect to thos e Min isters who are not members of the com mittee. HON. R. PENNER: That is und erstood. The rest of us are slaves, bound and chai ned to this desk. 130 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Might I make a sugges tion?

If i is the will of the com mittee - we 're de aling with 19 , w• are part way thr ough it - might we be able to mov• Bill 85(2). I wond er if we might be able to do that fairl: shortly after Bill 19. We've got the staff of the Healtl Services Commission here. HON. R. PENNER: Agreed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that agreed to by the committeE by leave? (Agreed) By leave, after Bill 19 is completed, we shall consid e1 Bill No. 85. For all Minis ters who are not members o; the committee, they are entitled to proc eed with othe1 bills und er their jurisdic tion. HON. R. PENNER: If they behave themselves. MR.

CHAIRMAN: If they behave properly. Agreed to? (Agreed) HON. R. PENNER: Bill 19. MR. A. KOVNATS: Do you want to pass 17 now tha t it's been amend ed? HON. R. PENNER: I think that's probably right. For the record, Bill 17 ... MR. CHAIRMAN: For the record, Bill 17 , as amended, is passed as a bill. BILL 19 - THE HIGHW AY TRAFFIC ACT (2); LE COD E DE LA ROUTE

(2) MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 19, proceeding page-by-page. Page 1 - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, we were discus sing that 2(2)(

a) and the Min ister was giving us an explanation at the closing of the committee this afternoon as to the necessity of this amend ment. I reca ll the Min ister saying that this was merely a change in numbering of this Sessi on that noth ing had change d. If that's the case, Mr. Chairman, why is the sect ion repeated? MR. CHAIRMAN: . The Honourable Minis ter. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Chairman, what the sect ion do es, other than the chang es that I said with regard to subsec tions 4 and 5 of the act, is renumber the sect ions that are outlined and restructure them, but the same word ing is used. lt combi nes a couple of subsec tions together in one paragraph. So there is no change in the actual word ing or substance of it. lt's simply a matter of changing the structur e of it. The only change is as outlined that I gave with regard to subsect ions 4 and 5 of the previous act.

Those deal with the truck us ed for an excep tion from the commercial truck for trans porting gravel, sand or other material for use in the cons truc tion or maintenance of a public highway, and a truck which the board, after examination of the circums tances, certifies in any year

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 is not to be regulated either as a public service vehi cle or a com mercial truck in that year. I said that under regulation 23 1 73, which power is provided for under sect ion 286 of the act, the registrar is already doing that, exempting sand and gravel trucks and also other public service or safety trucks by virtue of that sect ion. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, sinc e the Min ister is mentioning T -plated trucks which are carryi ng sand and gravel, cou ld the Min ister ind icate to the committee that with his ch ang e in licensing category, the number of trucks th at are in volv ed in the T to PSV rec lassifica tion and what the revenue pickup to the govern ment is? HON. J. PL OHMAN: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I stated earlier this afternoon that there is no chang e by virtue of this change in the act.

The change would come about as a result of a ch ang e in the regu lation 23 1 73, if we were to inde ed under take that chang e as we indic ated in our White Paper that was tabled in the House in May on Page 6 which I referred to tod ay. That would result in a change. We have not made that final decision to do that.

That is our intent that T -plated trucks cu rrently used as dump trucks would be required to be registered as PS Vs, but that is not the decision that is being made at this time and that is not given any effect by any chang es to this act. lt's a good question and we perhaps could get the answer, but it is hypothet ical at this point becaus e we have made no decision to do th at. MR. D. ORCHARD: So, Mr. Chairman, is the Mini ster ind icating to me that he will provide that information tomorrow? HON. J. PLOH MAN: lt's very dif ficu lt, Mr.

Chairman, and again we're deal ing with a regulation change, not the act , but even in terms of that, to ac tually break it down , all of the T -plated trucks that operate within the 20 kilometres of the city or within 30 kilometres of any town, would of cou rse not be affected and we don't have the actual location as to whether they 're registered for use just within the city or out of the ci ty, and that makes it dif ficult to de termine exactly how many of those would be affected.

We perhaps could get that information at some point and we cer tainly would want to have it before we make a final decision with regard to the regu lation change, but do no t have th at breakdown in a defi nitive way at this time and it is not effect ive. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1 - the Mem ber for Pe mbina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, let's pass Page 1 and the Minis ter can explain the amend ments (b), (

c) and (d), Page 2 then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1- pass. Pag e 2 - the Attorney -General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I move th at sect ion 3 on Page 2 ... MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Cha irman, before we move that amendment, the Min ister was going to offer an explanation for sect ions (b), (

c) and (

d) on sect ion 2. 131 HON. J. PL OHMAN: Well, Mr. Chairman, those are the provisions as defined in the cu rrent act and there 's no ch ang e in that except to reletter them and com bine sect ions. In the cu rrent act, there's an exc eption for cer tain trucks as outlined in sect ion 22(

a) a truck that has a gross weight including its load not exceed ing 3, 700 kilograms and then (

b) is unladen or is carr ying only the househ old good s and so on. What we've done is combi ned (

a) and (

b) into one subsec tion at that time to include both of those provisions, so that is now bec oming the new (a); then the old (

c) becomes the new (

b) and then the old (

d) becomes the new (

c) and the old (

e) becomes the new (

d) and there's no ch ang e. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, is the Min ister saying that trucks that fall within this catego ry, will be plated with T -plates? HON. J. PLOHMAN: They cou ld be T -plates - they are T-plates. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the Mi nister said "could be" T -plates. HON. J. PLOHMAN: They are T -plates. MR. D.

ORCHARD: This is the restriction that is going to be in effect for a CAT versus a CT -plate anytime a vehi cle of the weight cl assificat ion that we passed on Page 1, is operated more than 30 kilometres from any city, town or village or more than 20 kilometres from Winnipeg, it would have to be aC T -plate, is that correct ? HON. J. PLOHMAN: If they were not exempted by any other sec tion of the act from being certified or required to be registered , I sh ould say, as CT as outlined in this defi nition. This is the same provision that was in place when the Member for Pem bina was the Minis ter. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, is the Minister saying that these are the requirements for T if these are not met; in other word s, if you need more than a 30 kilometre range, do es the plate then become CT or do es it become PSV? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thai is an exc eption from the CT defi nition as outlined here only. MR. D. ORCHA RD: So then what you are saying is that they would be CT and not PSV? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, then the Minis ter shou ld, I think with relative ease, be able to ind icate, even thoug h he is ind icating this sec tion do es not contain the statutory changes, that it's a regulatory ch ang e to require T -plated trucks, which are larger presumably than the 3, 700 kilogram, now are going to be licens ed as PSV with this exc eption still in pla ce; and with the move in this sect ion from T to CT only, I would think that the Min ister co uld, with relative ease, come up with the numbers of vehicles and the ec onomic impact that was given to the committee yesterd ay, I believe it was, by the Heavy Construction Associa tion,

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 wherein they have some serious concerns about the regulatory change this Min ister is proposing for sand and gravel carryi ng T-plated trucks by requiring a PSV plate on them at considerable expense to the ind ustry. We have made the case, Mr. Chairman, that that is another rev enue gr ab by this Min ister and this government in terms of their attempts to glean more money from the truck ing ind ustry and the dr iving public while still not living up to their obligations of maintaining our hig hway system. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, I will ende avour to get that information.

The estimate that I get is 500 to 700 gravel trucks, maximum, that would be in volv ed if that regulation change was made, but that has absolutely noth ing to do with the provisions in this sect ion or any changes that were made in this sec tion with the de letions of subsect ions 4 and 5 from it. The rest of the wording remains the same. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2 amendment - the Honourable Attorne y-GeneraL HON. R. PENNER: I would move THAT the proposed new subsect ion 18 0(5) to The Highway Traffic Act as set out in sec tion 3 of Bill 19 be amend ed (

a) by striking out the words "other than a truck or truck trailer com bination with more than 3 axles"; and (

b) by ad ding thereto at the end thereof the words "n ot to exceed indemn ifica tion for out of pocke t expenses ac tually incu rred in the performanc e of the transportation." MR. CHAIRMAN: Expla in, Mr. Min ister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, we heard from the Keystone Agricultur al Prod ucers, from the Vegetable Growers' Assoc iation yesterd ay, and we have had many dis cussions with them in the past and have, as a result of that, had some of the proposals that we put forward influenc ed in that we did not adopt the changes that were put forward by the task force with regard to eiimination of these exemptions to farm plates. We were proposing to limit the size of a farm plate that could be used for hauling for compensation to those farm trucks that would be three axles or less.

As a result of the presentations yesterd ay, and the practices that have dev eloped , particularly amongst the potato gr owers and other vege table gr owers and perhaps the sugar beet growers, we felt that this may caus e some hardships on small farmers in the area who rely on their neigh bours at the cost that they're able to provide for, trucks that are made by available by their neighbours to haul their produc e when it's needed on very shor t notice.

So in order to fac ilitate tha t practice, and yet rec ognizing that there is a problem with commercial operators abusing the system, utilizing purple fuel or farm fuel and lower registration fees and registering as farmers so that they cou ld haul commercial ly, to eliminate that abuse, we have added a defi nition of compensation under this sect ion which, as the Attorn ey­ General in moving the amendment stated would be 132 worded to the effect that they could not receive more than the indemn ifica tion for out-of-pocket expens es actu ally incu rred in the perf ormance of th e transpor tation.

We feel that this is reasonable, that this is in the spirit of neighbourly help, neigh bours helping neigh bours. We were told yeste rda y by the vegetable growers and members of the Keystone Agricu ltural Produc ers that they are not interested in making dollars from each other, that they're simply interested in helping each other and not being out-of-pocket because of it.

So we feel that this will eliminate the abuses for those who are attempting to haul commercially and at the same time, will provide for that practice that has grown up over the years in the ind ustry and ther efore add resses the concerns that were raised . MR. D. ORCHARD: With this amendment, what is the reporting proced ure and the investigative powers under which compl iance with the proposed amendme nt will be ach ieved? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Well, we see this working that there would be simply complaints raised.

If an ind ividual were dis satisfied, and felt that he was overc harged, he would complain to the courts, to the RC MP, and ch arges could be laid accord ingly a the judge would define whether the ind ividual had inde ed taken more than out­ of-pocke t expen ses on his operation. MR. D. ORCHARD: Is the terminology "out-of-poc ket expenses" defined anywhere in The Highway Traffic Act? HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that it is. We cou ld for the purposes of this sect ion define it. That's one option.

The other option, of cou rse, is to - perhaps the Attorne y-General will have some comments on that. HON. R. PENNER: it's a term that has been used frequently at law. it's not suscept ible of defi nition except in its own terms. I mean you would define out-of-poc ket expen ses - you cou ld if you wanted - "expens es less than" sort of thing, but what the out-of-pocke t expenses do es is really leave some flexi bility, so that a court would act reasonably rather than being stuck to some ironcla d formula. it's used in all kinds of com pensation type of cases.

I don't kno w if it's the exact word , but there's words like it in those sect ions of the MPIC legislation deal ing with reimbursement. MR. D. ORC HARD: Mr. Chairman , since the intent of this amendment is to allow for the use of semi-trailers, some of them special ized and used in the vegetable ind ustry, but as well oil seeds by clause (

a) to be transp orted by a neighbour - or indeed there is no restriction on a farmer but by a neighbour - can the Mini ster ind ica te whether tha t would pe rmit, for instance, the transportation by semi-trailer of flax seed from a grower in southern Man itoba to Minn eapolis, or are there restrictions preventing that from occu rring? HON. J. PL OHMAN: Mr . Chairman, what the Honourable Member for Pembina is getting at, of cou rse, is the reci procity agreement that he was asking

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 about in the House tod ay. Of cou rse, that would be limited only by conditions that are outlined in the rec iprocity agreement, there is no other limitation. If he can trans port for com pens ation, as outlined in the act , with an F-plate, if an agreement exists with the other jurisdiction that they recognize that F-p late, then, of cou rse, he would able to, under this sec tion, continue to do that, providing he only ch arged , if it wasn 't his own goods, his neigh bour or whoever he is hauling for out of pocket expens es as outlined in the proposed chang e to this sect ion.

Sin ce the question was asked by the member this aftern oon, I have received the full text of the agreement that was put forward by the State of Min nesota altering a 1954 recipro city agree ment. The only chang es in that agree ment were the ones deal ing with the limitations on the size of a farm truck. lt is coincide ntal that they brought that forward about the same time that we are proposing that semi-trailers would not be used in Manit oba with F-plates for comp ens ation. The point is that they have limited to 26,0 00 pound net gross veh icle weight.

Any thing above that they would not rec ognize and a speci al trip permit fee would be charg ed for an F-plated truck transporting to Min nesota and they would also require, under this agreement, that Manitoba would require any farm trucks from Min nesota com ing up to Man itoba to be registered as CT plates for the purposes of their trans port th rough Manitoba. So that cha nge was there, and yes, it do es limit the size of the truck that cou ld be used. lt do es not prevent them from hauling, except that they would have to pay a special trip permit fee or register for a minimum of 30 days in the jurisdiction .

MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, why did the Minis ter agree to that? HON. J. PL OHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we had no choice. The agreement as outlined is stated that it can be cancelled ... MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . by the hog thin g, do you realize that? Do you realize you give it up on the hog thing to try to get the hog problem solved ? MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2, as amended . HON. J. PL OHMAN: I was in the middle of talking when the Member for Pem bina quit listenin g. MR. CHAIRMAN: No incrim ination. HON. J. PL OHMAN: Wha t do you mean no incrimi nation? I was waiting, Mr.

Chairman, so that I cou ld continue once he resumed listen ing to what I was saying. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2, p.s amended - pass. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman , he was in the middl e of an explana tion and you have rude ly cut him off. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister may cont inue explaining. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Ok ay, what I was saying was that either party cou ld terminate the agreement, which in 133 fact they gave notice that they were going to do, on 30 da ys notic e. The y notified us that was what they in tended to do.

Rather than ha ve no reci procity agreement wh atsoever with that jurisdic tion, we felt that it was prudent to sign this one as it was, which still allowed for rec iprocity with CT and PSV. At the same time, we would have the opportunity to review further with our officials con tacting theirs to see whether there would be any way that we could have this altered, or whether inde ed we wanted to continue an agreement und er those circums tanc es at all.

They have ind ica ted that they have made a polic y chang e for enforcement purposes with all jurisdict ions, and they are changing the recipr ocity agreements with all other jurisdictions that adjoin their border s. So we will continue to work with them to attempt to have this chan ge but, if we cannot, obvious ly we will have to make a decision as to whether to continue under this system or not. As I said, it can be terminated within 30 da ys by either party on notice. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's another loss from this Minis ter to the farm com munity . HON. J. PL OHMAN: Get lost.

Min nesota did it. MR. D. ORCHARD: This Minis ter hasn 't got the ability to assure that the farm com munity can carry on in their trans portation services, as they have in the past. If it wasn 't for an extensive lobby yesterday at committee, this Minis ter would ha ve restric ted small farmers. He has brought in an amendment which may well work. lt wouldn't be the simplest amend ment. He had another one proposed to him that probably would have been much simpler. But, Mr.

Chairman, as I said earlier on in this bill, this bill sh ould be withd rawn so the Minis ter can come back after he has taken a little time to get his act together and to get the amendment drafted so that it is suitable, but that isn 't the style of this Minis ter. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2, as amended -p ass. Page 3 - the Member for Pem bina. MR. D. ORC HARD: Mr. Chairman, you had a presentation at committee which ind icated that sect ion 28 4(3) sh ould have a 40 percent limit in the number of veh icles under this sect ion for any given franchis e holde r. Does the Minis ter ha ve any com ments on tha t proposal?

HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, we did not ad opt that proposal at this time. Of cou rse, it may be that at some point, these kinds of ratios or formulae cou ld be put in place. But what we are attempting to do here is reco gnize the practice that has existed with regard to owner operators.

In The Highway Traffic Act, where there are no provisions at the present time, of cou rse, if we were to get into that kind of ratio, we may see a number of operations that currently exist have severe financial di fficulties in meeting those criteria, because I believe some of th ose are operating now almost exclus ively with leased vehic les, and would then be forced to

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 purcha se 40 percent or div est themselves or cut do wn their operation in order to meet this kind of stringent criteria. So we didn't feel it was timely at this time to get into that kind of a situation, but it is something that cou ld be considered in the futur e perhaps by grandf athering all exis ting operations and putting that requirement in all new operations. But that would have to be looked at as to whet her it provide s for inequities and dif ficul ties in terms of com petitiveness. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3 - the Member for Niakwa. MR. A.

KOVNATS: I had the opportunity of com ing from home this even ing. I came right by one of these big trucking firms, and I gue ss for the very first time I noticed the sign outside that said "O wner Operators". Anyway, I came by, and I thought that this is the way that these businesses are run. For me to consider that a big organization like the one that I saw - I guess I can mention it's Arnold Brothers, because it's the only one that I come by. Would this put them in any jeopardy if we started playing around with the amount of leased trucks that they have and that they own themselves and things of that nature?

Would that put the company into any jeopardy at all? Because, if they are going to put them into jeopardy , then I don't even think that we can consider it. I don't understa nd the reason why this person who made the presentation was so strong in trying to put a figure of 60-40. lt didn't seem right to me at the time. But can the Honourable Min ister just advise whether he would even consider it, or for what reason wouldn't he consider it? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I outlined just previous to his statement that we are not considering it at this time, because of inde ed the ha rdsh ips that it would undoub tedly cause to cer tain firms. The loss of those firms would result in a loss of emplo yment and contribution to the economy of this province. So we are not interested in pursuing it at this time. As I said , it is possible that, in order to maintain the employment levels of employees rather than owner­ operators - I think that was where the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway and Trans port General Workers MR. A.

KOVNATS: it was "owner operators " - that was the term, yes. HON. J. PLOHMAN: They would rather see the persons hired under their union as employees, as opposed to owner operators under cont ract agreements. That's the reason that they would like to see a cer tain ratio to protect the numb er of emplo yees and keep their numbers up. MR. A. KOVNATS: Fair enough. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3- pass. Page 4 - the Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: On sect ion 292, the president of the Man itoba Trucking Associa tion ind ica ted to the 134 Min ister the very likeliho od of problems under these fixed or minimum tolls.

One of the examples he used was detrimental to the rad ial carrier s in terms of di stribution of beer, as one example. The Motor Transport Board further objected to the board 's ability to establish a minimum toll which is provided for, I believe - (Interjection) - no, that is the sec tion. The Min ister ind icated when he introduc ed this bill that he had had extensive consultation with the indus try, etc., etc. When they arrived here to present a brief, we find out that cer tainly do esn 't appear to be the real case.

They have serious concerns about this minimum toll and, particular ly, they have serious concerns as to its potential impact on the rad ial carriers. Why would the Minis ter not propose to del ete this sec tion, if he is not going to pull the whole bill, and go back to the nego tiating table with the MTA and with the interested carriers and resolve this problem, rather than passing this legislation which is not supported , as the Min ister ind ic ated , by the ind ustry? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Chairman, as I said, we had consultation with a lot of dif ferent groups durin g the cou rse of the consulta tive process.

We talked with the CBRT, the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Workers, the CCMTA, that's the Canadian Counci l of Motor Transport Admin istrators, CITL, CNCP, the In dependent Dump Truck Operators, Key stone Agricu ltural Produc ers, Man itoba Pool Ele vators, the Manitoba Trucking Asso cia tion, the National Farmers Union, the Private Motortruck Carriers' Council, the Pembina Valley Development Corporation, the Sugar Beet Assoc iation, and the Winni peg Chamber of Commerce. So there were a tremendous number of groups that we di scus sed this with.

Of cour se, there were varying deg rees of conc ern and varying conc erns expressed . The MTA was in comp lete support of only maximum rates, but there were a number of groups including the CBRT, an association of local rural carriers, the NF U, who were concerned about only having maximum rates set and having no minimum rate, if pred atory pricing were to inde ed take place. As a matter of fact , the MPE, the Mani toba Pool Ele vators were conc erned as well about the matter of predatory pricing and the dif ficulty of policing it. So there was a broad range of views expressed there.

We felt it was necessary to be able to monitor whether inde ed rates were being char ged in excess of maximum rates. We felt it was necessary to be able to detect un ac cepta ble di sc rimi nation in rates char ged to shi ppers, and also provide a better und erstanding of actual rate-making practi ces so that the maximum rate de termination reflected the ne eds of carrie rs and shipp ers. There was a lot of information that was required . Tha t is why these provisions are in here, to assist in the monitoring of the rates that were indeed ch arged below the maximum rates.

Certain requirements put in place that, if there were allegations made or concerns raised by ind ividuals that inde ed someone was involved in non- compensatory pricing, the Transport Board could inde ed step in. Now it would be necessa ry, as I said earlier, to define clearly the guidelin es for what is not in the public interest

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 something detrimental to the public interest. We >pose under that sect ion then to develop that set guide lines, and to do that within consu ltation with ! Man itoba Trucking Associa tion. 3ut I think I can say quite clearly and unequivocally 1t they would not like to see the present system of ving to file all rates co ntinue.

They feel that is certainly regressiv e measure that is curr ently in place with jard to the fixed tolls and the requirement to file all :es with the Transport Board , and would not like to e that continue. :>o notwithstandin g the fact that they thought perhaps � sect ion deal ing with minimum rates should have other six months or some time for a consulta tion, 1ich we proposed to do in any event, they would not e to see the fixed tolls continue at the expense of ;i ng out on a maximum toll system that we are :>p osing here. So they are in agreement with the 1xi mum toll. The y would like to see the other

part it worked out, and we intend to do that. :t. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, just to corr ect the nister, I believe if we had Hansard , the question was 'sed as to whether this bill cou ld be del ayed for six mths, and whether it would have any adv erse impact the indus try. The an swer was, it could be withd rawn d brought back six months from now with no impact the ind ustry, cont rary to what the Min ister is saying. 1 there is not support for this aspect, and particularly 1en we move to Page 5 for 292.2(1) , and the necessity the ability to publish tolls other than the maximum lis. l:t.

CHAIRMAN: Pages 4 to 7 were each read and tssed. Pre amble-pa ss; Title- pass. Bill, as amended , be reported ? R. D. ORCHARD: No. Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Member for . Norbert, that the bill not be repor ted . R. CHAIRMAN: Ther e is a motion that the bill no t ' reported . As many as are in favour of the motion, say aye; as any as are opposed, say nay. MEMBER: The ayes have it. R. CHAIRMAN: Only members of the committee may 1te. R. D. ORCHARD: Let's count them. R. CHAIRMAN: The nays have it. The Member for Pe mbina. R. D. ORCHARD: Would you please call a standing >Unt, Mr. Chairman ?

COUNTED VOTE was taken, the result being as 'llows: Yeas, 4; Nays, 5. IR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is defea ted. The bill be now reported shall be the decision of the >m mittee. ON. R. PENNER: Yes, okay. 135 BILL 85 - THE HEALTH SERVICES INSURANCE ACT (2); LA

LOI SUR L' ASSURANCE-MALADIE

(2) HON. R. PENNER: We had previously agreed we would now go to Bill 85. MR. CHAIRMAN: By leave, we have agreed that Bill 85 will follow Bill No. 19,

An Act to amend The Health Services Insu rance Act (2). We are now considering Bill No. 85,

An Act to amend The Health Services In surance Act (2). We shall proce ed. The Honourable Minis ter. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I want to make sure that everybody received a copy of the proposed amendment. lt might be helpful. Page-by- page. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page-by- page. Page 1 - The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Prior to starting, we dealt with this bill at 2 o'clock this morning.

Peo ple in the Mani toba Medic al Asso ciation, the pres ident, the exe cut ive di rect or, their legal couns el, College of Phy sicians and Surgeons, past president of same and a couple of other physicians were here and they were here from 8 o'c lock till 2 o'clock, waiting to make their presentations. Could the Min ister ind icate whether he has had an opportunity to avail himself of the comments that they made to Bill 85 last night ? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, I have, Mr. Chairman. In fact, most of what was said la st night had been di scussed at some time or other with staff mostly.

That is one of the reasons that resulted in some amendments as I mentioned yesterday afternoon . MR. D. ORC HARD: So, Mr. Chairman, the Minis ter is ind ica ting that he got Hansard or whatever to en able him to review the comments made by those three ind ividuals and organ izations. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, I got a copy of two of the briefs and then I got some information of what was said by the third one. MR. D. ORCHARD: So then what we're doing is dealing with this bill without the Min ister or his staff having access to Hansard, answers to questions posed , etc., etc. HON. L. DES JARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, if the member is going to ask me a question, I wish he would listen to the answer. I said I was aware, I don't necessa rily need Hansard here. This is the brief from the other man and there's the one from the College of Phys icians and we kno w of some of the things that were mentioned by the other member also. We had had some discus sion with them before, so I'm well aware of what was said. I could say that I met with the Attor ney-General this afternoon with staff and we reviewed some of this again. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Leader of the Opposition.

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 MR. G. FI LMON: Mr. Chairman, there was a concern expressed by the MM A that this bill would probably create far more problems than the problems that it seeks to overcome. The question that I wanted to ask the Min ister before we get into the claus e-by-clause is, what problems do es this bill seek to overc ome? HON. L. DESJ ARDINS: If my ho nourable friend had listened to the seco nd read ing, I think that I was quite dir ect on that.

First of all, let me say that there is an amend ment. lt has not been an intention of taking the standards away from the responsi bility of the College of Phy sicians and Surgeons. That cert ainly will remain. Some of these things in this bill are bringing under this act some thing that was done under the previous act. The main thing, and I'll be as can did as I was yesterda y afternoon on that, it is a bill that will enable the Commission to make sur e that there is no proliferation of these labs or dupl ication in an area wher e the y're not needed.

In eff ect, what the Commission will be doing is exactly what for years they've been doing vis-a-vis hospitals and personal care homes. MR. G. FILMON: What is that that they've been doing vis-a-vis hospitals and personal care homes? HON. L. DESJARDINS: What does the Commission do, was that the question? Well, it plans and organ izes and dev elops throughout the province, the bal anced and integrated system of hospitals related to health facili ties and services commens urate with the needs of the residents of the provinc e. That is the role of the Commission. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Chairman, I'll respond to the Minis ter in the same way that he responded earlier and say that I have read his remarks in Hansard on second read ing of the bill. The only thing that I can see that he refers to as a rationale for the bill is that in his view, or in the view of the Health Services Commission, the cost of diagnostic and laboratory services has incr eased too rapidly since 19 74. Is that the only rationale that he has for this bill? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That, Mr. Chairman, is a very important part of the bill.

Now at the present for those that might be unaware of this, we have a standing committee on diagno stics that consis ts of nine people, two from the MMA, two from the College of Phy sicians and Sur ge ons, one from the School of Medicine, University of Manitoba, two from the Manitoba Health Services Commission and a chai rperson who happens to be from Health and a Health Department a lay member on this committee. They're the ones that advise and as you will see, we've made some chang es. The change would be an officer , not the Commission , so there could be an appeal to the Commission instead of the Min ister.

MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, is the Min ister saying that this com mittee made up of representatives of the MM A, the College of Phy sicians and Surgeons, lay people and so on, recommended this bill? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, that wasn't their manda te at all. Th at's not what they were set up for at all. I say 136 that these people are there to look and recommenc the need when there is a need , to the Commission. For instance, let me give you a condition, somethin� that could happen.

You might have a new hospital suet as Seven Oaks, with co mplete lab facilitie s, anc somebody might decide to build right in front and the} would be open from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. or somethin� and then expect, in the hospital, to be there in the ev ening and you would ha ve two that would be under utilized ; or to pay for the equipment, there would be a tendenc y, certainly a temptation, to order more of these tests than are need ed. MR. G. FILMON: Then , Mr.

Chairman, the remarks o1 the various speakers last evening were correct, that this is a bill that is designed to permit and give authority to the government to ration dia gnostic and laboratory services. HON. L. DESJA RDINS: I do n't think that the word rationing is appropriate at all. To control the proliferation of too many of these, to control the duplica tion, yes. I don' t apologize for that at all. What I have been saying all along, the costs that we'll have to pay in 10 years for health , we'll have to start doing more of these thin gs.

We're not doing anything unsual, anything that we're not doing with the hospitals and personal care homes. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, one of the presenters last evening said that, although the cost of diagno stic and labor atory services had inc reased four times between 19 74 and 19 84, the cost of institutional car e had incr eased five times and the cost of personal care ho mes had incr eased 10 times in the same period of time. That being the case , is the Min ister going to ration ins titutional care and personal care, as well? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I'm not going to respond if the honourable member keeps using the word "ration. " I already told him we are not rationing. If he wants to mean that we are car eful, I'll say, yes, but he has no fear because we've built an awful lot more personal care homes than they ever did. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that his admin istration has clo sed more than we ever did, as well, it is obvious that they are rationing health care, they are ra tioning institutional care, personal care and everything else, but, Mr. Chairman, that is the case.

Under any other name, this is a bill to ration diagn ostic and laboratory services and to put that control in the hands of MHSC. Mr. Chairman, that control is being taken out of the hands of the physicians who are the · ones who are most aware of patient needs, most aware of where the demands are, and that is the di fficulty that we are deal ing with. This is a bill that is attempting to sup erimp ose a bean-counter mentalit y over professional health care in this provinc e. HON. L. DESJAR DINS: How rid iculous a statement. That is too ridiculous a statement to comment on it. MR. G.

FILMON: Too intelligent for you to unde rstand it.

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 MR. D. ORCHARD: You kno w, the Min ister always gets into his huff and gruff posture when we point out some of the realities of what he is doing. Mr. Chairman, there is no rationale for this legislation. Various groups last night ind ic ated to us that there was no consu ltation with them in the dr aft ing of this legislation. They could not unde rstand why the bill was before us because the system has been, even in the Mini ste r's es timation , running qu ite smoothly .

His argument of payments to private labs was not, in terms of com parison of cost increase in other lines in his estimates, not as dr amatic an incr ease. Even his cost argument fell by the wayside last night. So, Mr. Chairman, there is no other apparent reason for this legislation - after we listened to the briefs last nigh t it became even more evident - then the paymaster, i.e., the Health Servi ces Commis sion, and the Government will become the control ling arm of all aspects of dia gno stic services.

Now the Minis ter, I notice in here, has at least come to his sens es and left the standards of operation of diagno stic labs with the College of Physicians and Surgeons because that would be a conflict of interest to have the paymaster, not only licenced and det ermine what proced ures are paid for, but to also have them det ermine wha t stand ards th ose procedu res are undertaken by. So, Mr. Chairman, there is no need for this legislation, the Min ister hasn't demo nst rated a need for it.

The Min ister, in reply to the Member for River East, said that he didn't agree with wha t he sa id, tha t the standards were not good in Ma nitoba. The re is no demo nstrated need for this legislation, other than the argument that my leader has put forward, that this is the Min ister's and the government's method of putting a cap on the spe nding for diagno stic services and thereby rationing health care services to the people of Manitoba. The need that is being add ressed in Bill 85 is not the need of the pa tient, in terms of quality health care, it is the need of the government to meet a restricted budget.

HON. L. DESJARDINS: For the ed ification of the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Pembina, let me say that all we are doing is what the Commission has been doing now for a number of years, except we want to do it legally. lt could be now that somebody could take the Commission to court. ·Ag ain, I am very surpris ed that the Mem ber for Pembina should speak as he is toda y because, dur ing the estimate, he kn ew exactly the concern that we had not to let this thing get out of contr ol, and he made that point himself.

He was hone st enough to accept that and to say that during the estimates. lt is a concern, look at the abus e that you have in the United States on some of these tests, and some of his col leagues yesterda y were agreeing with me on that. Then with this new tech nology, all these new things we were talking about - my honourable friend himself talked about somebody coming in with a CAT scan or something, parking it somewhere and then starting to prescri be tests. This is what we are trying to do.

All of a sudden, things that were done by the Commission and done by the Commission while my honourable friends were in power, exact ly the same 137 way. That is also done by the Commission for hospitals and for personal care homes. We have a five-year capital plan from the Commission that is brought in advance every year and there has been no criticism of that. You can look as much as you can, you are not going to find a kind of scandal or a plot to do away with private enterprise and so on. I'm sorry, it's not there. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr.

Chairman, I just have to respond to the Min ister that in the cou rse of the estimates when we dis cussed various spe nding estimates, there was no ind ication by the Min ister that the dia gno stic lab testing procedu res were in need of some legislative change such as we are having proposed here tonight, or I can assure the Minis ter that we wouldn't be taking time tonight to find out why he is doing this, we would have done it in estimates. There is no indic ation·given of any problem, any need for legislative change, any need for this kind of a bill to come in.

Now we have it in the dying da ys of this Sessi on, and I don't think I want to prolong the time taken at this com mittee much longer but, Mr. Chairman, this Min ister brought this bill in without any consultation as to the content of the act ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: That is not correct. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, the Minis ter once again is going to get on his high horse and say that's not corr ect . HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's right, you are not going to mislead the people in this committee, that is not corr ect. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr.

Chairman, that question was put to ind ividuals presenting this brief last night HON. L. DESJARDINS: And what did they tell you? MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . and you read Hansard and you will find what out they said. HON. L. DESJARDINS: What did they tell you? MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. D. ORCHARD: The y said that tttey saw this bill the first time several da ys ago; that's what they say HON. L. DESJARDINS: And what other information have you received ? MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . and, Mr. Chairman, . HON. R. PENNER: A point of order . MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order being raised . HON. R.

PENNER: That's not what they said. They said they had only seen the bill because it was printed late, but they said that they had had "i nformal " - was

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 the word that they used - informal dis cussions. All of them qualified they had informal dis cussions. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's a point of information. MR. D. ORCHARD: That's right. HON. R. PENNER: Oh, sorry. MR. D. ORCH ARD: And the Attorne y- General' s information is corr ect - it. was informal information. If the Min ister cares to ask any of those groups whether they consider his informal cont act by staff to be consu ltation and working towards production of this legislation, they will tell him "no " as they have told me "no.

" Now we are sitting here tonig ht with this legislation for what appears to be no apparent purpose. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Chairman, I will just read one paragrap h, the first paragraph of a letter from the Phy sicians and Surgeons of Mani toba. "Th ank you for the opportun ity to review the dr aft bill to amend The Health Services Insur ance Act . I reviewed this with Dr. Brown and also with Dr. Gary Hansen, who is chairman of the Program Review Committee, which is ultimately responsible for the laboratory and x-ray programs. " MR. D. ORCHARD: What's the date on that letter, Mr. Chairman? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Jun e 11 th. MR. D. ORCHARD: When was Bill 56 first brought out, Mr. Chairman? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Eh? MR. D. ORCHARD: When did you bring out Bill 56? HON. L. DESJAR DINS: Th at's just it. They had the bill before it was even brought here. If anything, we broke the rules in giving it to them before we brought it in this House. MR. D. ORCHARD: I'll bet you did break the rules. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1 - the Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Well, I would like to ask a couple of questions also.

On my way down this evening , I mentioned I went past Arnold Brothers, and I also went past the Provencher Medical Diagnost ic Clinic which is in the Honourable Min ister's constituenc y. Now I would like to find out who initiated this bill conce rning the dia gnos tic clinics. You have mentioned tha t there are nine peo ple tha t are on a review com mittee. Who initiated the bill, and why? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I think we told you why. Who?

There is no way that this is a question that should be answered at this time that you are going to start naming staff or anybody else. lt is a bill that I take, and the 138 government takes, full responsibility for. lt is a bill that is needed . For instanc e, what I meant when talkin g about the Mem ber for Pem bina not necessa rily for this area but the concern that we had for instance of there are too many GPs.

I will tell you that one of the concer ns that we have is these people, these walk-in clini cs that are being set up, they all want x-rays and labs also, and that is duplica ting what we have and the cost will skyrocket, it will be a heck of a lot hig her than that. We will not be able to keep what we have. That's what we are trying to do. In the meantime that has been monitored and done by the Commission . lt's just that this is now protection in case one decides to chal lenge and go to court because then with the Bill of Rig hts we have to make sure that everything is clear or any thing cou ld be do ne.

They wou ld say the standards are good , go ahead and build. There could be one at every corner of the street, and that's what we don' t want. MR. A. KOVNATS: Well, you kn ow, Mr. Chairman, I can see that what is happening is that medical services, med ical clin ics and whatever are going to be limited then because somebody is taking the decision on thems elves saying who can be a do ctor, who can' t be a do ctor ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: Who is doing that? Who is saying that? MR. A. KOVNATS: Well, obviously, you are cutting back on some of the medical services. HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Who is saying that you can be a do ctor and you can' t be a doctor? Well ans wer that - you made the statement. MR. CHAIRMAN: Order please. MR. A. KOVNATS: I forgot. I thought I was the one that was asking the questions. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Niakwa is the one ask ing the questions. MR. A .. KOVNATS: Thank you. An yway, what I see ha ppening is all kinds of medical services being cut back for because the Min ister says that the costs are incr easing so we have to cut back and we have to start doing more of this - were the Honourable Minis ter's actual remarks.

What medical group is the next one that is going to be cut back? HON. L. DESJARDINS: I don't think that the member is co rrect when he said that we'll start cutting thi ngs. I said we'll have to be carefu l. We are not cutting services; at no time did I start talking about cutting services. I think that is there to make sure that there is no mushrooming or proliferation or dupl icat ion of this, and I can show you good examples of those. That's all we have in mind. We are going to provide the same services as before, I can assure you. MR. A.

KOVNATS: The Honourable Minis ter said that he had a di scussion with the Attorne y-General and the

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 At to rney-G eneral advi sed him the ques tions and answers that were taking place at 2 o'clock this morning HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, we di scu ssed some of the thing s that happened at this comm ittee that I wasn't he re last night and then I was also given the two briefs that I read very car efully. MR. A. KO VNATS: The only point I am trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the Honourable Min ister didn't or doe sn't kn ow exactly what happened last night at 2 o'clock even though . HON. L. DESJARDINS: That's why I met with the Att orney-General who was here. MR. A.

KO VNATS: Well, I'll tell you - I think if the Attorn ey-General is that proficient at it then he should be the one that's doing Hans ard rather than the girls do wnstairs because I can 't believe that he could give you a verbatim thing of what happened last night, and there were some things that happened, because I was very very ... HON. L. DESJARDINS: You don't know how sharp he is. MR. A.

KOVNATS: Well, he is very sharp and he was last night also, but what really bothers me, and I was upset, because these professional people were here till after 2 o'clock in the morning, they were interested in look ing after their profession. I don't think any of them MR. CHAIRMAN: No reference to absence or presence of members. MR. A. KOVNATS: I was here, Mr. Chairman, so I guess I can't even say I was here. MR. CHAIRMAN: No. A MEMBER: Neither was the chairman there. MR. A.

KOVNATS: Anyway, it was very very disturbing that these people who ha d enough feeling towards the medical profess ion had come do wn , and I don't think any of them were con nected at all with dia gnos tic clin ics, but every one of them spoke against this bill concern ing the limiting of di agnostic clinic s becaus e the regulations now seem to be able to handle it quite well. Unless the Min ister has something else in mind, I think that maybe he should just keep right out of trying to limit di agn ostic clin ics. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1- pass; Page 2. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Page 2, there is an amendment MR.

CHAIRMAN: There is an amendment HON. L. DESJARDINS: ... for 14 0.3. 139 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Atto rney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I have a motion. I move THA T the proposed new subsect ion 14 0.3(1) of The Health Servcies Insu rance Act as set out in sec tion 1 of Bill 85 be struck out and the following subsect ion be substituted therefor: Operation of dia gnos tic laboratories. 14 0.3

(1) No person shall opera te a dia gnostic laboratory except (

a) pursuant to the approval of an officer of the commission, desig nated for the purpose by the exec utive dir ector of the com mis sion and hereinafter in this sect ion referred to as "the officer "; and (

b) in ac cordanc e with such terms and conditions subject to which the approval under claus e (

a) may be granted , and such requirements as may be presc ribed therefor under sect ion 14 0.4. MR. CHAIRMAN: Explanation - the Honourable Minis ter. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I think the explanation I already made, the word "Commission " is replaced by "offic er " who has the respon sibility, and then the Commission would replace the Minis ter, the appeal would be made to the Commission. MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment- pass; Page 2, as amende d-pass. Page 3 - the At torney-Gener al. HON. R. PENNER: I have a motion THA T the proposed new subsect ion 14 0.3 (2) of The Health Services Insur ance Act as set out in secti on 1 of Bill 85 be amended (

a) by striking out the word "co mmission " where it appears in the 1s t line, in the 4th line, in the 6th line and in the 7th line ther eof and substituting the refor, in each case, the word "off icer "; and (

b) by ad ding thereto, immediately after the word "with " in the 3rd line of cla use (

b) thereof, the words "such standards as may be prescri bed th erefor by The Colle ge of Phy sicians and Surg eons of Manitoba and ". MR. CHAIRMAN: Amend ment pass? The Member for Pem bina. MR. D. ORCHA RD: The amendment can pass, Mr. Chairman. Could the Min ister enlig hten us as to what the defi nition of "need " will be in cl ause (

a) and what approvals would be co ntrary to the public interest, the circums tances under which (

c) would hold? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The need would be, as it has been done in the past, and as reco mmended by the Standing Diagnostic Committee that I am talking about, to see where the needs are the same way as the Commission would have that responsibil ity, the same way as they would have the respon sibility for the

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 advising and construc tion and the defi nition that I gave you earlier, in other words, to plan, organize and dev elop throughout the province a balanc ed and int egrated system of health. The hospitals relay the health facilities. it would be exact ly the same th ing; that is where the need would be det ermined . MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, if the Min ister gave an explana tion of (c), I missed it. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, (c) - I thought you said (a)- (

c) contrary to the public interest, for instanc e the example that I gave. There is one that is open, a clinic, a lab that is open , and somebody wants to open just next door and so on, for ins tance, le t's say one is a hospital, so for the result that they will not be busy, the two would suffer and the temptation might be to order tests that are not neede d . MR. D. ORCHARD: Now, Mr. Chairman, the amendme nt HON. L.

DESJARDINS: Excuse me, that has happened in rural Manitoba, and we feel that in rural Mani toba we probably have the best set-up of any province in Canada, and that is a concern that might be if somebody has a hopsital, let's say, and somebody decided they wanted to open a clinic right in front and they cert ainly can' t support two labs, I should say. This is one of the concerns that we would have. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, this amend ment retains with the College of Physicians and Surgeons the setting of standa rds which this act , as originally dr afted , would ha ve rem oved and left with the Commission?

HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, the langua ge was ambiguous and it was never the intent of doing tha t. Alter dis cus sing with the College and with legal advisors, as I had mentioned yesterd ay, as I mentioned earlier, these amend ments were prepared . MR. CHAIRMAN: Ame ndment- pass. Page 3, another amendment. HON. R. PENNER: I move THA T the proposed new subsect ion 14 0.3 (3) of The Health Servic es Ins urance Act as set out in sect ion 1 of bill 85 be amended (

a) by striking out the word "comm ission " in the 1s t line thereof and substituting therefor the word "off icer "; and (

b) by striking out the word "it " in the 3rd line thereof and su bstituting therefor the words "the officer ". MR. CHAIRMAN: Ame ndm ent- pass. Motion - the At torney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you. I move THA T the proposed new subs ection 14 0. 3(4) of The Health Services In surance Act as set out in sect ion 1 of Bill 85 be amende d (

a) by striking out the word "mini ster " where it 140 appears in the 6th line, in the 10 th line and in the 11 th line thereof and substituting therefor, in each case, the word "c ommission "; and (

b) by striking out the word "co mmission " in the 9th line thereof and substituting therefor the word "of fic er ". MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment pass? The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Could the Min ister explain the last amendment? HON. L. DESJARDINS: That is the appeal. That was a request also of the MM A. The appeal would be to the Commission and not the Minis ter. MR. C. ORCHARD: What is the appeal process now? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, before this amend ment, the Commission was dec iding and the n the appeal was to the Min ister.

We felt that was too political and therefore there is a desi gnated officer who will approve MR. D. ORCHARD: Who is the execut ive dir ector? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, not necess arily. To make sure that I under stood the question, I gave the answer as if you ha d asked wha t the original witho ut amendment, but . . MR. D. ORCHARD: Without this bill. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Oh, without this bill, pretty well what this amend ment will do is ask ing for it - the Commission is appealing and there is an of ficer . MR. D. ORCHARD: So, Mr. Chairman, this act was going to chang e the cu rrently existing . HON. L.

DESJARDINS: This act would have the appeal to the Minis ter instead of the Commission, and that's chang ed . MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment- pass; Page 3, as amended - pass. Page 4 - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Chairman, a couple of questions on Page 4. Under the Exc lusions, the short list as referenced in 14 0.3(6)(a), I understand that's a sh ort list which is established , I believe, by the Col lege of Physicians and Surg eons of call it routine di agnostic tests that can be und ertaken within a lab located in the office of a physician or medical prac titioner. Mr.

Chairman, there is a concern - and I bring this to the Min ister's attention - by the Manitoba Asso ciation of Lab Technolog ists that the short list can be expanded and now with this legislation there tabs are exempted from the licensing, etc ., etc., and the standards that are being put out in this legislation and that they could, in effect , lengthen the short list, add mor e procedu res to the short list. Their concern is by pass the intent of

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 the legislation. Is that in the Min ister's opinion a legitimate conc ern ? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The short ans wer for category 1, is it would have to be approved , it can 't be chang ed in this way. Did I hear the question co rrect ly, that there was a concern also with the nurses, from the technolo gists, you did n't mention that? MR. D. ORCHARD: So, Mr. Chairman, their concern was th at this was a de facto way of removing from an ind epend ent lab, either attached to a hospital or a private lab, the Min ister do esn't share that conce rn? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: In sending it to increa sing the area one or ... MR. D. ORCHARD: In cr easing the volume between the lab and the physician 's office. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, not at all. This is done, there are cer tain tests and so on that are needed ; there's a doctor and this, of cou rse, would not be pract ical to start worrying about them at this stage. MR. D. ORCHARD: Ok ay, Mr. Chairman, last question. 14 0.4 gives to the Commission the regulatory ability to prescribe stan dards, etc.

Now I tho ught that we just put an amendment in whereby the standards are to be left with the College of Phy sicians and Surgeons. If that's the case, then what is the need for

section 14 0.4? HON. L. DESJARDINS: This is going back to the personal -care homes, that's not the lab. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman , is that HON. L. DESJARDINS: (

b) is lab prescri bing requirements, but that's not standa rds. That might be the requirement for the facil ities, for space or something like th at. MR. D. ORCHARD: Oka y. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 4- pass. Page 5 - the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Are the off ence and penalty sec tions cha nged in any way? HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, it isn't. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 5- pass.

Preamble- pass; Title- pass. Bill be reported . MR. D. ORCHARD: Nay. A MEMBER: Aye. MR. D. ORCHARD: I think the nays have it, Mr. Chairman. 141 MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill, as amended, be reported. The Honourable Attorney -Gen eral. HON. R. PENNER: In terms of how we should proce ed, I think that there are one or two persons here who are not members of the committee and if we could deal with their bills and then . . . MR. CHAIRMAN: That has been approved already, by leave. HON. R. PENNER: Ok ay. So if we cou ld deal with Mr. Uskiw's bill and then Ms. Hemphill's.

I think we should do thi ngs right, I think we should deal with Ms. Hemphill's first, then those two can toss a coin. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Attorne y-Gen eral. HON. R. PENNER: I' m trying to do this on a consu ltative, consensual, aren't we all happy ton ight basis and, if I could, as a result of some very quick consult ation, propose the following, that we deal with the small easy, virtually nothing bills of Uskiw and Ev ans, and then with the Community Child Day Care Stand ards, there's some staff, it won't take long, then, the three bills of the Min ister of Educa tion.

Well, we'll see where we are at tha t time. Okay? it's agreed . BILL 28 -. THE MANIT OBA HABITAT HERIT AGE AC T;

LOI SUR LA PROT ECTI ON DU PATRIM OINE ECOL OGIQ UE DU MANITOBA MR. CHAIRMAN: Agreed. By leave, we are ca lling Bill No. 28, The Manitoba Habitat Heritage Act. HON. S. USKI W: Mr. Chairman, I'm wond ering whether you should n't first of all dete rmine whether there's anyone here to present any brief on it, because it hasn' t been through that stage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Since this is a bill that has not gone th rough public hearing, are there any members of the public who wish to be heard on Bill No. 28? Hearing none, we proceed to the consi dera tion of Bill No. 28, cl ause-by -clause? Page- by-page?

Bill 28, Page 1- pass. Page 2- pass. Page 3 - the Member for Emers on. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I just want to raise a few concerns. In spite of the fact that everybody feels - and I think it's insulting to the Min ister of Natural Resources that his bills are referred to as nothing bills. If they're nothing bills, then we shouldn't even have had them on the Order Paper. I want to raise some questions on a general basis and then we can possibly pass the bill. Can the Min ister ind icate whether he's been in consultation with the Manitoba Wildl ife Associ ation in terms of support for this bill? HON. S. USKI W: Well, Mr.

Chairman, I believe the history of this bill is that it's been strongly promoted and partially, I suppose, or wholly, dev eloped with

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 continuous consu ltation of the Naturalist Socie ty and the Wildl ife Federa tion and others. it's a produc t of that kind of process, Mr. Chairman. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I raise some concerns in deal ing with the bill this afternoon, nothing that major because I think, as I indic ated , that we basically supp ort this kind of a concept. I think it is something that every body feels quite comf ortable with. Since this afternoon till now, the one concern that I had is that this is one app roach to it. I'm not arguing against the approach of establishing this kind of a bill and

an act and a commission that is being set up. The one thing that I think I would like to dr aw to the Minis ter's attention at this stage of the game is the fact that, by and large , our farmers in the provinc e are the biggest promoters of wildl ife habitat, have been very involved in that, and I would like to maybe see tha t we make some kind of provision tha t could probably enhance our wildl ife habitat aspect of it by giving cer tain conc essions. There are various approache s to this and I think this is one approach. I can apprecia te that.

But what could have happened is, if we had made some kind of a provision, many of our farmers have land that is marginal land that is not good for production. We have farmers who have potholes, you kn ow, sloughs, this kind of thing, and the farmers, because they pay high taxes on the land, try and make every foot and square yard and acre arable to try and recover their costs.

Jus t the thought that possibly, if you had worked out some kind of an incentiv e program or maybe a tax concession where these farmers would not have to pay taxes on some of this marginal land or the potholes, I think would possibly have done more to enh ance the retaining of habitat for wildli fe or the potholes for waterfowl, things of this nature. As I indicated before, I am not arguing that this is not a step that we should take, but I think there are other steps that would probably do much more to try and retain habitat for wildl ife. I just wonder how the Min ister feels about that end of it. HON. S.

USKIW: Mr. Chairman, the member add resses an area of interest of many people in society and he is right. In recent years, farmers have become very act ive in various wildli fe assoc iations throughout the province. The co-ex istence, if you like, of interest groups in this area has been dev eloping very well. There are always, however , some confl ic ts and th ose are, I suppose, unavoidable.

I have initiated within the department a process for sort of doing a listing of thing s that might be consid ered in a way which would encou rage farmers to co-operate and to perhaps give up some of their resource as a trad e-off for other thing s that they may get in return. The department is now preparing a list of thing s that might be consider ed , part of which could be a concession on assessment, if we could get the trade­ off for habitat protec tion. But that is very preliminary at this point in time. I make the point only to agree with the member that it's worth looking at.

We will likely be com ing do wn with some kind of a recommendation on that sometime in the next several months. 142 MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3 - the Member for Emers on. MR. A. DRIEDGER: I just have one point, Mr. Chairman, that I want to raise and then I have no objection for the bill passing to comm ittee. I wonder why the Min ister did not specify more precisely as to the members who would be appointed to the board .

In the working notes that I rece ived from the previous Min ister of Natural Resou rces, it ind ica tes tha t it is in tended to appoint a cr oss-sect ion of interested groups and organizations, Manitoba Wildl ife Federa tion, Ma n itoba Na turalis t Soci ety , rural representatives and government staff will also be on the board . I wonder why he did not specify a bit more precisely exact ly how he intended to set up this board. lt leaves it pretty wide open. HON. S. USKI W: Well, Mr . Chairman, it is another point that was consider ed .

In govern ment's wisdom, we decided that would be determ ined as a matter of polic y from time to time and announc ements will be made acco rd ing ly when the appointments are made. But it is intended that all of those interest groups would be represented on the board as a matter of policy. We did n't want them to show up as representatives of groups. We want them to be the representatives of the corpora tion, kn owing that they have backgr ounds of varying deg rees from dif ferent quarters, if you like. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr . Chairman.

I just wanted to emphasis what the Member for Emer son has been saying , particularly about the board, that I would see that it would be very important to have people that are involved in agriculture on this, particula rly from the point of view that the people who are involved in agriculture are providing a great deal of the habitat and some of it happens to be right in the middl e of the grain fields. So there is wide conc ern with wildlife damage and other aspects of wildl ife habitat that the pe ople in volved in ag ricultur e are very concerned with.

I would hope that the polic y will include that defi nitely people in the agricultu ral field will be incl uded on the board of dir ectors. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, in closing the deba te on second read ing, I did indic ate that agriculture would be represented , not any particular organ ization within agricultur e, but there would be farm people on the board of dir ect ors. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3 - the Member for Niakwa. MR. A.

KO VNA TS: Yes, on Page 3, under Public Information, I see where there is going to be adver tising through publica tion, newspaper, rad io, television, films and thing s of that nature. Is this strictly non-political or is it a manner of getting another mailing list like we have kno wn some other departments to do so that they can get ready for the next elec tion? HON. S. USKIW: Mr. Chairman, if the member reads it care fully, this is a permissive sect ion permitting the new board to di sseminate information and to promote

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 their program. I guess one can give it a political

interpretation if one wants to go the length of suggest ing that the board will be politically motivated . That is always a possibility, but not a likeliho od . I guess the proof will be in the pudd ing, Mr. Chairman. MR. A. KO VNA TS: I can belie ve tha t with the Honourable Min ister making that remark. Can the Honourable Mi nister give us any ide a as to what the cost would be for this type of a program, and is this to cou nteract and to assist in a project like Garrison where it do es affect the wildl ife and the water system? HON. S. USK IW: Mr.

Chairman, the operation here can be a small amount or it can cost millions, depe nding on the success of the corporation to entice Manitobans to make contri bution to its operations . So it is from zero to millions, depe nding on how successful they are as a board of di rect ors. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pages 3 to 8 were all read and passed; Pre amble- pass; Title- pass. Bill be reported . BIL L 90 - THE ECO LOGICAL RES ERVES AC T;

LOI SUR LES RES ERVES EC OL OGIQ UES MR. CHAIRMAN: The next bill is Bill No. 90,

An Act to amend The Ecological Rese rve Act. The Member for Emers on. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr.

Chairman, I raised some concerns dur ing the deba te on this bill and I hope that the Mi nister has acq uainted himself with some of the concerns that I raised at that time, and I would like to have the Min ister make some remarks as to the concern I raised about the specific area where "the Minis ter may appoint any person as an officer for the purpose of enforcing this act and the regulations." I'd like to refer the Min ister to the second page of the bill where it says, "for the purpose of this Act, an officer is, and has and may exerc ise the powers and authority of, a polic e officer , polic e constable or peace officer .

" I have some concern of the powers that the Min ister is going to be giving to an ind ividual that he appoints as an officer without any trainin g, there's no specifi cati on on that. I wonder if the Minis ter would want to comment on that? HON. S. USKI W: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would simply com ment on the fact that this is no t unl ike the con servation officer's authority. it's very much on the same line of duty and the same kind of po wers will be provided for them. HON. R.

PENNER: I should add that through resources available in the Department of the Atto rney-General, and under the general dir ect ion of the Director of Police Services, we seek to dev elop and have de veloped a number of training programs. The y're not, of course, of the sophi stica tion of the RCMP Training School in Regi na but, nevertheless, wher ever ther e are officers appointed who have duti es similar to those of peace officers they do get some in-service training . 143 MR. A.

DRIEDGER: I wonder whether either the Min ister or the Attorne y-General could ind icate, because in here that is not the ind ication it gives. The Min ister may "appoint any person ", it says, and that is my conc ern. lt do es not ind icate that this person should have a cer tain amount of training or whatever the case may be, and it leaves that area wide open . You kno w, if that portion were covered somewhere along the line, then it would be justified .

I'm not saying this Min ister would, but it could be a Min ister that maybe did n't feel that respon sible, would appoint people that maybe not as responsi ble, maybe do n't kno w, becaus e the powers that are given to the ind ividual that is going to be appointed as an officer are quite far-reaching and I think it is a matter of concern that we outline the guideli nes, to some degree, as to under what guideli nes this ind ividual would operate. You could appoint anybody, without any trainin g, the way it is right now, and that ind ividual has very far­ reaching powers.

When you give him the powers of a police officer , that means that the ind ividual could go and confis cate vehicles, weapons, all kinds of things, somebody who is not trained, doesn' t know what he's doi ng. You see, the other concern I have is that in the last portion of this bill it says "no liability attaches to the Crown or the Min ister or any officer for loss or damage, etc. " Now if you appoint someone that do esn't have any qualifica tions, or any training, we cou ld run into a situation that could create all kinds of problems. You kno w, there's nothing that puts a guideline on this thi ng.

I wou ld assume that it wou ld probably be cons ervation officers, and stuff of this nature, but that is not specified in here and that is my concern at this stage of the game. HON. S. USKI W: Well, Mr. Chairman, again I'm going to answer this question in the same manner as I did the previous one, and that is that these officers will be hand led in very much the same way, throug h the scre ening process of employment, on through the system through training, as do the C.O .s that we now have within the Wildlife sect ion, so that the process is no di fferent.

I concur with the member that one has to be very cautious, carefu l, about the people we do bring in and the training that we do offer, because they do have to be respon sible for the provisions that are in this act . In deed , they reflect upon the government if they're not so and we will pay the pric e for that. So we have, perhaps, as a government, more interest than anyone in making certain that those con cerns that the member is alluding to are, indeed , dealt with. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: The qu estion that I have then is that if we're going to put up a bill where we allow certain ind ividua ls to have this kind of authority, why would we not be more specific in terms of the kind of indi viduals that will be appointed to have this kind of responsi bility? HON. S. USKI W: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's where the screen ing process is when they apply for these positions. The department will have to assure themselves, or satisfy themselves, that they have selected , from the group tha t has applied , the best people. it's a selec tion process and from time to time we may not be able to

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 keep all of them. We may have to let some go if they don't work out. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think I co uld, without trying to compliment the Minis ter, feel relatively comfortable, and would hope, would antici pate that he would use proper judg ment in doing that. But once this bill is passed we can antic ipate in the future there are people that are not going to be conscientious about this aspect of it and cou ld cr eate a problem.

If we're already passing a bill, it would have been better if we could have covered this aspect of it in terms of putting more specific guideli nes as to who would qualify as an officer . That is the only concern I have because we're giving them far-reaching powers by appointing them as an officer and there's no restriction as to who cou ld be appointed . Jus t as an example, you kn ow, no reflect ion, the Mem ber for ln kster for example, would have much dif ferent views than possi bly the Min ister and myself and many other people.

No reflect ion on that indi vidual , but I'm just saying, that ind ividual will take the power of officer and probably arrest half the province because he didn't agree with the way they looked at the process. HON. S. USKIW: Well, Mr. Chairman, if the member's worried about the Member for lnks ter, I can assure him that he will probably not pass the RCMP security test which these people must under go. MR. CHAIRMAN: That's an imputation. The Member for Emers on. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Well, ok ay, I'm just going to call up momentarily on the last comment of the Min ister where he said that these people have to pass . . .

Or do you want to receive that statement that they would have to pass the . . . HON. S. USKIW: My understa nding is that the RCMP do a check, or we consult with them, on whether there's anything to suggest that they should not be appointed . There is a process that is applied in the select ion to protect us agains t that problem. HON. R. PENNER: I don't want anybody to get the wrong impression. They're run through what is called CPIC which is Canadian Police statistics to see whet her or not they have a crimi nal reco rd . MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Is that the only restriction there would be, that they would have to pass the security of the RCMP that they don't have a criminal rec ord, would that be the only restriction for somebody to be appointed as an officer here? HON. S. USK IW: Mr. Chairman, I would hope not. I would hope that they would, indeed, be qualified people in the view of the department who was going to select them, apart from the fact that they have a cle ar record from a criminal point of view. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1 - the Mem ber for Emers on. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: To the Min ister then, why would he not be more specific then in his appointment of 144 officers and outline exactly the type of individual that would qualify for this kind of thing? HON. S. USK IW: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm advised that it's not generally done with respect to any of these kinds of acts, cer tainly The Wildlife act do es not provide for it, which is a much larger operation than what this one is going to be. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1- pass. Page 2- pass.

Preamble- pass; Title- pass. Bill be reported . BILL 40 - THE WO RKPLACE INNOV ATIO N CE NTRE AC T;

LOI SUR LE CE NTRE D'IN NOVATIO N DE S LIEUX DE TRAVAIL MR. CHAIRMAN: By leaver we have Bill No. 40, The Workplace Inno vation Centre Act. Page 1- pass. Page 2 - the Mem ber for Glads tone. MRS. C. OLESON: The word "inv estigate " is used a couple times in 3(1) (

b) and (i). I wond er, could the Min ister cl arify on what pretext an investigation would take pla ce. Who wou ld, for in stance, init iate an investigation - a company that was wanting to introduc e tech nology, a company that was going to use it, or someone who was conc erned about it, or the board itself would initiate it? Would the Min ister clar ify that for me, please? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Min ister. HON. L.

EV ANS: Well, the board , of cou rse, can decide to initiate it, but the board will be, as I have explained in seco nd read ing, ess entially made up of business representatives and labour representatives more or less on an even basis and they will be, in many instanc es, deal ing with specific com panies who have come to them to ask for help. The word "inv estigate " is simply to research.

I mean it is not as though it is a polic e investigation by any means, but the board could initiate it by way of research or I would think in many cases, in fact most cases, they would be responding to ind ividual compan ies who have some kind of a problem because of techno logical chang e. MRS. C. OLESON:. One point that I had raised during the de bate on second read ing was who would be the owner of the information. Can the Min ister pass some com ments on that? HON. L. EVANS: The data acq uired I guess would be owned as such by the centr e as an es tablished body.

However, the intent of the centr e is to dis seminate information and not to covet it and to retain it in some kind of a secretive fashion. In fact , one of the major thrusts is to di sseminate information to the business commun ity, to labour, in order to assist and to promote the human dim ens ion, if you will, of technolo gical chang e. MRS. C. OLESON: I guess what I am meaning is if a company asks or contr acts for a study , does that

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 company own the information, the da ta that is gathered for it, and would a similar company then have access to it or would it provide the information from the original company that has the investigation? HON. L. EVANS: I see what the honou rable member is spe aking of. No, I would think they would act as an ordina ry type of consulting firm who, on contr act, would do a particular study , research. That information would be for that particular company and would not be made available to others who may be compe tition. Who knows?

So the board would want to respect the confidential ity of that ind ividual firm. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2- pass. Page 3 - motion. HON. R. PENNER: I move THA T cla use 3(3) of Bill 40 be amended by striking out the word "and " at the end thereof. HON. L. EVANS: That is purely a minor technical . MR. CHAIRMAN: Amend ment- pass? HON. R. PENNER: I move THA T the French version of Bill 40 be amended by striking out the word "d 'applica tion " in the 1s t line of clause 3(4)(

b) thereof and substituting therefor the word "i nternes ". MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3, as amended, amend ment pass in French. Pass 3, as amended -p ass. Page 4 - motion. HON. R. PENNER: I move . THA T clause 4(

c) of Bill 40 be amended by str iking out the words "a represenative panel of nominees presented by " in the 2nd and 3rd lines ther eof and substituting therefor the words "the facult ies of" . MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment- pass? Page 4, as amende d -p ass; Page 5- pass. Page 6 - motion? HON. R. PENNER: I move THA T subsect ion 6(3) of Bill 40 be amende d by striking out the word "The " at the commenc ement of the 1s t line thereof and su bstituting therfor the words "Un less otherwise provided by by-law, the ". MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion- pass? Page 6, as amended - pass. Page 7 - motion? HON. R.

PENNER: I move THA T subsect ion 7(6) of Bill 40 be amended by striking out the word "l ast " in the 2nd line thereof and subs tituting therefor the word "le ast ". Can I speak to this? MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion - pass? The Attorney -General may speak on this. 145 HON. R. PENNER: Well, the last shall be least. You kno w what the Bible says. HON. L. EV ANS: I'm agains t that. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In 8(1) , 1 believe it is 8(1) , that there is a reference to hiring staff . . . HON. R. PENNER: Yes, if ther e is. MRS. C. OIESON: Is there any limit to the staff that this board can hire? HON. L.

EVANS: Well, not theoretical ly, but in reality they are limited by their bud get, by the amount of funds that they have. Ess entially, they would be fund ed by the government in the first instance, although in the years ahead they may be earning some reven ues by charging fees to compan ies, etc . But I would imagine a relatively small staff and this is not the staff, these are the officers, these are the members of the board . MRS. C. OLESON: Sin ce the Minis ter raised the question of initially supplying funds, has the Min ister an amount that he could give us, the cost to set this up? HON. L. EVANS: Yes.

I believe I indic ated in seco nd read ing, but I'd be pleased to review that. We have estimated $1. 2 million for a three-year initial period . So that is roughly $400, 000 a year on average . MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 7, as amended - pass; Page 8, pass. Page 9 - motion. HON. R. PENNER: I move THA T subsect ion 11 (2) of Bill 40 be amended by st riking out the head ing "Annual rep ort" and su bstituting therefor the head ing "Audit ". HON. L. EVANS: Yes, because that's what it is talking about. The annual report is on the next page - pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Pass? Motion -p ass. The Member for Glads tone. MRS. C.

OLESON: No, I was going to speak on No. 9. We passed the amendment. lt says here that members of the board can be paid for actual loss of wages. Would that result in dif ferent board members being paid dif ferent amounts of money? HON. L. EV ANS: 9(4). MRS. C. OLESON: A dif ferent salary for each one, could that be the end result of that? HON. L. EV ANS: Well, I guess it is if it says act ual loss of wages. lt cou ld vary; it depends on the wage level of the person.

Many people who may serve may be in the happy position of not suffering any income loss if they happen to be, let's say, a faculty mem ber of the University of Manitoba, for example. The y may be able

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 to have the time to come to a meeting without any real loss of income. So we wo uld not ex pect to pay out anything, but if a person, let's say a union representative had to take three hours off of work, we would pay that person for the ac tual wage loss. MRS. C. OLESON: Is that customary with other boards and commissions? HON. L. EVANS: it's not customar y. HON. R. PENNER: But it's not un usual. MR. L. EVANS: Yes, it varies. Some pay per di ems; some will pay an annual stipend. No matter how many meetings, you get X thousands of dol lars.

But this, I would trust, will be a relatively modest expend iture, and it was felt that it was a reasonable way to proce ed. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 9, as amended - pass. Pages 10 to 13 were each read and passed.

Preamble- pass; Title- pass. Bill, as amended , be reported . The At torney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Well, Mr. Chairperson, apparently they may be waiting for the ed ucation critic on the other side to do the Min ister of Educa tion's bill. We'll go through a couple of minor acts while waiting, okay? Call 47 and 59. BILL 47 - THE INFANTS' ESTATES ACT;

LOI SUR LES BI ENS DES MINE URS MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill 47, The In fants' Estates Act , the committee passes the bill as a whole, in its entirety. Bill be reported. BILL 59 - THE STATUTE LAW AME ND ME NT ACT (FAMILY LAW) AC T; LE DROIT STATUTAIRE CONCERNAN T LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 59, the Statute Law Am end ment Act (Family Law) Act. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, one question with respect to 11 (2) of The Family Maintena ce Act where the period of one year is dele ted .

That's where a man and woman have cohabit ed for a period of one year, and you delete the "for a period of one year or more". Do you or your department have any concerns about the fact that there really are little criteria left for obtaining an order , other than one person is a man and one person is a female? HON. R.

PENNER: I apprec iate the concern raised by the member, but the overriding consid eration was the protect ion of women, particularly who might be found in ci rcu mstances where a previous relationship has been entered into bona fide with the intentions of living 146 together or cohabiting but, in a period of less than a year, a problem arises that requires the immed iate powers th at a cour t can grant. Tha t's the main explana tion. MR. G. MERC IER: Pass the bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 59 passed in its enti rety. Bill be reported . BIL L 67 - THE REGIS TRY ACT; LA

LOI SUR L'EN REGISTREME NT FONCI ER HON. R. PENNER: Bill 67. MR. CHAIRMAN: Bi11 67,

An Act to amend The Registry Act . MR. G. MERCIER: Are there any amendments? HON. R. PENNER: No amend ments. This is consequent upon the real property. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: A ques tion: are you making amendme nts to Bill 73, The Survey Ac t, in ac cord ance with the surveyors' reco mmendations that would require amendme nts to this bill? HON. R. PENNER: Yes. Will it require amend ments to The Registry Act ? No. MR. G. MERCIER: No? Ok ay, pass the bill. MR. CHAIRMAN: The bill in its entirety is passed by the committee. Bill be reported . HON. R.

PENNER: I think we're ready to do 14. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready to do Bill No . 14? BILL 14 - THE COMMU NITY CH ILD DAY CA RE STANDARDS ACT; LA

LOI SUR LES GARD ERIES D'ENFANTS MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 14,

An Act to amend The Community Child Day Care Standards Ac t. The At torney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I just want to indic ate so that there is no problem, Mr. Chairperson, in you following the proced ure tha t we are deali ng, of course, with amendments to

an act. There will be, in some instances, amendments to the amend ments proposed by the Member for Fort Gar ry. In one or two instances, I will be proposing an amend ment to the amend ment, just so that every body has the same program and the same box of popcorn. MR. CHAIRMAN: Ok ay. Shall we proc eed page-by ­ page? Bill No. 14. Page 1- pass; Page 2- pass.

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 Page 3 - the Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: I move THA T sect ion 3 of Bill 14 be struck out and the following sect ion be substituted therefor: Sect ion 3 am. 3 Sect ion 3 of the act is amended (

a) by repe aling su bs ect ion (1) ther eof and su bstituting the following subs ect ion therefor: Responsibility to provide proper environ ment. 3( 1) Every person providing da y care shall at all times provide an environment that is condu civ e to the hea lth, safety and well-being of the childr en; and (

b) by ad ding the reto, immed iately after su bsec tion (2) thereof, the following subs ec tion: Requirement for parental involvement. 3(3) Every person providing da y care in a da y care centr e shall provide for parental involvement in the operation or management of the day care centre to the extent required in the regulation. MR. CHAIRMAN: We don't ha ve a copy of the amendment. The Clerk do esn 't have any copy of the amendment. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, I had filed an initial motion, and it has been modif ied in agre ement with the dep artmental staff and myself.

This is the motion that is to pr oceed . lt is to manda te ac tually parental involvement in the da y care operation, so that cer tain things such as the Charle swood situation that occurred a year-an d- a-half ago, at least the parents would have someone who could monitor the situa tion . The gove rnment has agreed to this and, as a result, this compr omise amendment has been put forward . MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment- pass. Other amend ments? MR. C. BIRT: I move THA T proposed

section 5.1 of The Community Child Day Care Standards Act, as added by sect ion 5 of Bill 1 4, be amended by adding thereto, immedia tely after subs ect ion (1) thereof, the following subs ect ions: Ex parte order granting di rector. 5.1

(1.1) Where the dir ect or on reaso nable and probable grounds believes that the health, safety or well-being of the childr en is threatened or in jeopardy in any facili ty or premises, and is of the opinion that the operator may con ceal from the dir ector any condi tion or cir cu mstance relating to the health, safety or well-being of the childr en, the dir ector may apply ex parte to a judg e of the Court of Queen 's Bench or a justice for an order authorizing the dir ector to enter the facility or premises to inspect them and the services provided and to require the operator to provide such inf ormation relating to the facil ity or premises as is specified in the order .

Director to act within 7 days. 5. 1(1. 2) The dir ect or shall act on any order granted pursuant to subsect ion (1.1) within 7 days of its effective da te. 147 Mr. Chairman , I had moved an almost identi cal motion, and the staff and the Minis ter have asked for a couple of minor chang es to my motion. lt is agreeable, so the amended motion is here.

This added paragraph is to give the dir ector the option that, should they feel that something is happen ing in a facil ity, if they give them due notice, the operator might take steps to conc eal or prevent the dir ector from coming in, they can move ex parte to a court to allow them immed iate access without any del ay. If this authority had been in place, again approximately two years ago, it would have been a great help to the department in deal ing with the problem in Charleswood . So I move the amendment. MR. CHAIRMAN: Amend ment - pass. Page 3, as amended - pass. Page 4 - any amendment?

The Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: I move THA T the proposed sect ion 5.1 of the Act be further amended (

a) by striking out the words "books of accou nt and other " in the 6th and 7th line of subsect ion (1); and (

b) by strikin g out the words "books of acco unt and other " in the 9th line of subsect ion (2). That is the motion. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion pass? The Attorn ey-Gen eral. HON. R. PENNER: No. lt is with regret that I must oppose this motion. have consider ed it, and we feel that the power which is granted is one that, after very care ful considera tion, is necessary to the operation of the scheme as a whole. We believe that there is adequa te protect ion for the ind ividuals who may be aff ected because of the involvement of the cou rts and the requirements of the jud icial process. MR.

CHAIRMAN: Is the amendment withd rawn? MR. C. BIRT: No . HON. R. PENNER: Put it to a vote. MR. CHAIRMAN: A vote is being called on the amend ment being proposed by the Me mber for Fort Garry. Those who are in favour of the amendment; those who are against the amendm ent. The amendment is defea ted. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 4- pass; Page 5- pass. Page 6? Is there anyth ing on Page 6? Page 6 is ok ay? Page 6- pass. Page 7 - motion. HON. R. PENNER: I move THA T Bill 14 be amende d by adding the reto, immed iately after sec tion 16 thereof, the following sect ion: Su bsect ion 26(3) and

(4) Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 16 .1 Subsect ion 26(3) and (4) of the Act are amended by striking out the word "faci lity " wherever it appears and substituting therefor in each case the words "day care centr e". MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment- pass. Page 7, as amended? Are those all the amendments on Page 7? HON. R. PENNER: No, no. MR. CHAIRMAN: Another motion. HON. R.

PENNER: I move THAT the proposed su bsect ions 26(1) , (2) and (2.1) to The Community Child Day Care Stand ards Act as set out in sect ion 18 of Bill 14 be amende d by striking out the word "fa cility" wher ever it ap pears and substituting therefor in each case the words "day care centre ". MR. CHAIRMAN: Amendment- pass. Other amend ments on Page 7? Page 7, as amende d - pass. Page 8-p ass. Page 9 - the Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: I have an amend ment on a motion THA T Bill 14 be amended by striking out sect ion 20 ther eof and subs titut ing ther efor , the following subsect ion:

Sec. 35 am. 20 Sect ion 35 of the act is amended (

a) by renum bering the present sect ion as subsect ion 35(1) thereof; and (

b) by strikin g out the words "after the 1s t day on which it occu rred " in the last line of such renum bered su bsect ion and in ser ting the following "after the first da y on which a person is found guilty"; and (

c) by adding thereto immed iately after su bsect ion 1, the reof, the following subsec tion: Offence. 35(2) Every person who resists or wilfully obstructs the dir ector or a person duly authorized by the dir ector unde r subs ect ion 5(2) or a provisional ad min istrator appoi nted under subs ect ion 26(1) in the execution of the dut ies under this Act, commits an offence punishable on

summary convic tion. This chang e was recommende d by Mani toba Association of Rights and Liberties in their presentation to us, MARL, and after considering their proposal I feel that it's a worthy rec ommenda tion for chang e. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Chairperson, I have a di fficu lty, I've consider ed the MARL position and the amendment as proposed is one that I don' t think is legally possi ble because it ap pears to me that the effect of it is that there is the suggest ion of the imposition of what is, in effect, an ong oing penalty.

I wonder if the member cou ld respond and just perhaps go over this amend ment a little bit more fully so that its purpose and effect may be better grasped by me. I may be missing something. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Chairman, the word ing I took straight from the MA ORL brief, but heari ng the representation, 148 this has nothing to do with say the Charleswood type sit uation. it's where an operator might be doing something without their kno wledg e and without having any kno wledg e that they're operating illegally once they're brought to the court and found guilty of it.

In effect , the way it is now, they can be ch arged for each day. I think the maximum fine is $200 a day and it can go back to the da te of di scove ry. That can go back at least a year and the attempt is to remove the retroactive aspect of the penalty; because if the person did n't kno w they were doing something that was illegal or improper, why should they be penalized for it? HON. R.

PENNER: I'm advised by Legal Couns el that this is, in a legal sense, not operable. it seems to have this effect, as I understand it - there's an allegation that someone has committed an offence, let's say, on November 20th and in the normal course, the trial comes on, let's say, Dec ember 20 th. The suggest ion here seems to be that although charged with an offence on November 20th, and found guilty of an offence on Decem ber 20th, it really only operates prospectively and you can' t do that.

I think, rather than perhaps taking up more time, I would feel constrained to oppose the amendment now but would say, although there's not a lot of time to the member, that I'll check this out between now and report stage. MR. CHAIRMAN: Amend ment withd rawn? Withd rawn. Page 9- pass. HON. R. PENNER: Wait a minute, I have a renumbering motion. I move THA T Legislative Counsel be autho rized to renumber Bill 14 to eliminate decimal points. MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion pass? Pass;

Preamble- pass; Title- pass. Bill, as amended , be reported. BILL 37 - THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AC T;

LOI SUR LES EC OL ES PUBLIQU ES MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 37 -

An Act to amend The Pu blic Schools Act. Any amend ment on Page 1? Page 1- pass. Page 2 - there is an amendment. HON. R. PENNER: I move THA T sect ion 5 of Bill 37 be struck out and the following sect ion be substituted therefor: Subsec. 17 3(1) am. 5 Subsect ion 17 3(1) of the act is amended (

a) by striking out the words "ed uca tion support" in the 3rd line thereof and substituting therefor the words "g overnment support to ed uca tion "; and (

b) by adding thereto at the end thereof the words and figu res "except in order to provide each school di vision in 19 86 and su bsequent years the same amount of support as in the preced ing year, providing that there is no reduc tion in services ."

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 Explanation? ,R. CHAIRMAN: Exp lanation - the Honourable Ain ister. ION. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think a very 10od point was made in the presenta tion last night by he Teachers' Socie ty when they raised the concern for he removal of the 85 perc ent, the guarantee for the >rogram, the size of the program, and the removal of he 85 perc ent, not on eligible expen di tures, but on vhat would now be supportable expendi tures. lt defined he size of the program, in their mind guaranteed the �xistence of the program.

The removal of the 85 percent jave them some concern because they felt that it was Jpen to some changes easily do wn the road . While I �xplained that we had agreed , in principle, to move award 90 percent of supportable expenditur es when he resources were available, and it was di fficult to Jefine the percentage, we have felt that they should 1ave some guarantee that the program is going to exist, 11ill continue to exist in its present form, so that school Jivisions are not concerned year from year that they ire going to get the same formulas and the same grants �hat are in the new program.

So we ha ve defined it in a dif ferent way by �uaranteeing, in fact , that money that goes to school jivisions would be no less than it was in the previous fear which means that all of the formulas and all of the elements of the program are guaranteed , but they are guaranteed through the funding of the school divisions. MR. C. MANNESS: I have two questions. I suppos e when the Min ister says they are guaranteed the same amount of supp ort she is talking about act ual doll ars.

Secondly , is there any potential, given the formula which the Min ister has shar ed with me during estimates, whereby there are radical falls in student numbers, let's say 10 perc ent, would the guaran tee st ill hold? Would that school division still receive no less support in act ual dolla rs than they did the year pre vious? HON. M. HEMPHI LL: it is act ual dol lars. Because we ha ve decl ining enrolment form ula and in crea sing enrol ment formula, those would apply to any decl ine in students. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Cha irman, the Minis ter is a little vague on that.

I want to kno w if what she is saying then is that, given that there is no change in student numbers, that there won't be a decr ease in formula; I can accept that, but I want to kn ow how sensit ive this formula is. If the numbers dr op 5 percent in the school division, would there be a drop in the payment rece ived ? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: If there is a change in program, what we have sugge sted is that they will cont inue to get exactly the same fund ing as they got last year providing they are con tinuing to provide the same programs, so that if there was a dr op in program that affected a certain number of students in a program, but didn't mean that they were eliminating the program, they would get the same dolla rs. However, if the 149 reduction was such, in a cer tain program area, that they eliminated the program, clearly we would not continue to provide the formula for the program that doesn 't presently exist.

So what we are basically telling school di visions is what we told them this year when we applied the variable block, and that is tha t they would not get any less under the new program than the y were entitled to receiv e under the variable block. What we are now saying is that they will not get any less in subsequent years than they received in the previous years. MR. C.

MANNESS: But that is subject to, of cou rse, the numbers not falling, because if numbers did fall - and we are talking now, not about just next year, we may be talking about some years forward - that in fact that school di vision might receive less, even though they provided the same levels of programs and the same programs. HON. M. HEMPHILL: If they eliminated a program, they would not receiv e the funding they were eligible to for that program. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying that they are going to reduce the programs.

I'm saying that they are going to red uc e - let's say, the numbers are reduc ed . There are de clining num bers, 5 percent dec lining numbers, and yet the school division is going to maintain the same programs. The question is would the level of support in that school di vision fall below the year's previous support? HON. M. HEMPHIL L: The decl ining enrolment factor that we have built in is built in for a three-year period , so it protects them for a loss. I think it is at 60 percent the first year, 30 percent and then 10 perce nt.

So they are protected for the decli ning en rolment loss for a three-year period . If they lost, for instance, a voca tional program that was a very specific program, and they weren't deliv ering that program, they would not be entitled to the funds for that program. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, the amend ment spells tha t out. I have no dif ficu lty with the removal of programs; we are not arguing that. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Oka y. MR. C. MANNESS: I want to kn ow how sensit ive the formula would be before there would be a decr ease from year to year.

Would it take a sudden dr op in 10 percent from this year to the next year? Would that cause the formula to spew out a number of support which should be lower the coming year than it has been in the present year for example? HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. C. MANNESS: The Min ister says no. Do we kn ow what figure, what drop in enrol ment would trigger a decl ine in support? HON. M. HEMPHI LL: Mr. Chairman, we believe that the dr op would only affect them if it was a drop in a

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 major program, not an overall dr op in general student population. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I won't belabour this, I am just talking about the regular block funding. My feeling is that, even in spite of the formula, because it is taken into account in the formula, if it dr opped , for instance 25 percent in a school di vision, that would have an impact on the fundin g immediately the next year. My point is then it would be in contr avention of the new amend ment. That's my only concern and I only put that ... HON. M. HEMPHILL: All right. I'll take a look at it to see . MR.

CHAIRMAN: Amendment pass? MR. C. MANNESS: The amend ment can pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is passed . Other motions on the same page? HON. R. PENNER: I move, THA T prop osed new sect ion 17 8 of The Pu blic Schools Act as set out in sect ion 8 of Bill 37 be amended by striking out the words "on the date established by the financ e board " in the 1s t and 2nd lines thereof and substituting therefor the words and figures "On or before Jan uary 15 , in each year, ". MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, we heard the dis cussion on this last night.

I have no great di fficult y with this, but has this date been presented to the Man itoba Ass ociation of School Trustees? I believe most school di visions are meeting this date anyway, but I want to kno w whether they have been provided with this da te and whether they have any di fficu lty with it? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, in terms of specific, they haven't been provided with the date, except to be given the da te. They had been told that was the da te that we wanted the budg ets in last year.

What I said last night was that this was the practice and that we had moved away and removed the February da te because it was too late, boards were getting their budg ets in too late and we didn't haven't enoug h time to respond, we only had a two-week period before their final budg ets had to be in. lt wasn't enough time to give them the information they needed . This year we moved towards giving them the information they needed to do their budg ets much sooner. 1t allowed them to get their budg ets in much sooner and they were almost all in by the Janu ary 15 th date.

So I think there has been general agreement th rough this past yea r's pract ice that tha t is a reasonable date to strive for and I'm sure we won't have any problem with it. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'll accept that statement. Before we pass this page though, I'd like to ask one question with respect to cla use or sect ion No. 4. That's where sect ion 17 2 of the act is repealed . I mentioned it in speak ing on second read ing and the Manitoba Teachers' Socie ty mentioned it last night.

Why 150 is the Minis ter not going to enshrine in the act her new formula, as indeed the former Educa tion Sup port Program was so enshrined? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Chairman, I think that we're just making a di stinction between what we think nee ds to be spelled out in regulation and what needs to be spelled out in legislation; and defi nitions such as eligible expen ditur es which are now going to be supportable expen ditur es will be defined in regulation instead of in legislation.

I would say that the defi nition is going to be that those that are the enabling legislation, the broad legislation, is going to be left in legislation and the specific calculations are going to be in regulation. I don't think it's unusual to have specific formulas that are related to the legislation contained in regulation, so they're going to be spelled out but just in regulation. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'm prepared to pass this page, but on the next page I'll continue the de bate. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2, as amended - pass. Page 3 - the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Chairman, the Minis ter just said that Orders -in-Council and the Cabinet could look after some of the chang es with respect to mod ificat ions of formulas that are required . She said that detail wasn't required in the bill and yet I look at sect ion 1. (a)2.(2) - pardon me, of the act , coming under sect ion 11 . HON. M. HEMPHILL: What number were you looking at? MR. C. MANNESS: Clause or sect ion 11 of this bill and I see where the mill rates are fixed and they 're locked into the act .

I have no trouble with that, but I say that contrad ic ts her argument that she just offered with respect to the whole formula. I wonder how she can justify putting into the act one set of numbers, which I think could be more easily altered by way of regulation, and yet the whole formula is kept out. HON. M. HEMPHILL: I suppose, Mr.

Chairman, that's just an ind ication that maintaining the mill rates at the level they were at, as we have attempted to do in the previous years, is something that is very important and I suppose that we are prepared to have in the legislation which, to my mind, is just an ind ication of our strong commitment to maintain the mill rates at the level they are and therefore give some control to property tax, an important point for us. MR. C. MANNESS: A final question on this page, Mr. Chairman.

Is the Minis ter then saying that in this point in time that the mill rates in support of educa tion on property and on other forms of assess ment will not incr ease in the next com ing year? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3- pass; Page 4-pa ss;

Preamble- pass; Title- pass. Bill, as amende d , be reported - pass.

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 :ILL 72 - THE TEACHE RS' PENSION AC T; LA

LOI SUR LA PENSION DE RETRAITE DES ENSEI GNAN TS R. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 72,

An Act to amend The 'achers' Pe nsion Act . Page 1 - The Mem ber for Morris. R. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk to lgislat ive Counsel only for a secon d. R. CHAIRMAN: Can we continue? Which bill? R. C. MANNESS: 72. R. CHAIRMAN: Page 1. Any amend ments? The Member for Mo rris. R. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I just have a question • inquiry with respect to the chang e adde d to in sect ion to cla use 2(1) .

In the act, the beginning of sect ion 1 in the area of defi nitions, this talks about the '!airman, and yet (f.1) talks about common-la w 1lationship and (f.2) common-la w spouse and (f.3) Jmmuted value. I wonder why those were added on 1ere. Is there any rationale to the way they were slotted ON. M. HEMPHILL: I believe that they're defined that ay just in order to use the same terminology used in he Pe nsion Benefits Act.

In a numb er of cases 1roughout the bill you will find defi nitions tha t we have rought in, the same wording, in order to comply with 1e word ing in The Pe nsion Benefits Act and this is ne of them. it's to make our compl iance sect ions arallel to The Pen sion Benefits Act. IR. CHAIRMAN: Page 1- pass. Page 2 - the Mem ber for Morris. IR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if 1hen we're going through this bill if the Min ister would �11 me specifical ly what are new sect ions and what are ompliance sect ions.

I'm wonderi ng if she would just �ke the time to tell me the sect ions becaus e I think 1ere is compl iance sprinkl ed throughout this whole bill nd when we're looking at every page, if she cou ld tell 1e which is which. ION. M. HEMPHI LL: 2(1) (n.1) is complia nce, as is (1)(o.01) , 2(1) (r)- those are all com pliance; and 2(1) (t) ; ad ministrative on that page. IIR. C. MANNESS: Thank you. IIR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2 - the Mem ber for Morris. IIR. C. MANNE SS: Mr. Chairman, one final question. ;1a use 4(

c) talks about an "eligible employee". it's a 1ew addition within those ind ividuals who comply with ;ection 62. Why was this added ; who was not covered n the previous breakout? iON. M. HEMPHILL: The purpose of this cl ause is to 1l low the employees of MTS to be able to belong to 151 the teachers' plan. Most of them are teachers that are employed by the Teachers' Socie ty, but they have a cou ple of staff members who are not teachers and they would be precluded from being able to belong to the teac hers' pension plan.

This chang e is to allow to make an eligible emplo yee, emplo yees of MTS, so tha t whether they're teacher or non-teac her employees, they're all entitled . - (Interjection) - Teachers only. - (Interjection) - Oka y, sorry teachers only. MR. C. MANNESS: I'm glad that final disting uishing comment came in by the Min ister. I would wonder why anybody shou ldn't be eligible to be covered under this pension act. I ask the Minis ter, does this also then include ind ividuals who may work in the MAST Office that are teachers? HON. M. HEMPHIL L: Yes.

Th is is not a chang e, they've always been allowed , it's only putting it in the defin itions, it's only defi ning it. it's to corr ect the act, it's an ad ministrative cha nge MR. C. MANNESS: Fine, pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 2- pass. Page 3 - the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Ag ain, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Min ister whether

section 5 is compliance? HON. M. HEMPHILL: it's complia nce, yes. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr . Cha irman, ther e's also, beginning on Page 3, a des cription of the formula which is basically the same as the one spelled in the old act , but the word ing is chang ed somewhat . What is the sign ificance of the word chang es, particu larly under every defi nition und er the various formula letters? HON. M. HEMP HILL: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, this sec tion says that when a person reaches the normal retirement age and is entitled to the full-formula pension regard less of the amount of time worked . it's cons istent with The Pe nsions Act . The only chang es are in formula defi nitions (a), (b), (c), and (d), to note that the number of years of salary to be averaged can be less than seven or five if total service is less. it's required because a normal formula pension must now be granted at normal retirement age regard less of leng th of service. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 3- pass; Page 4- pass; Page 5. MR. C. MANNE SS: Just one second, Mr. Chairman.

Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 5- pass. Page 6 - the Mem ber for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Agai n, I ask the Min ister on Page 6 which is complia nce and what is new? HON. M. HEMPHIL L: Two areas. One is complia nce and the other is negotiated through nego tia tion. lt

Wednesday, 10 July, 1985 provide s for pensions at 55 instead of 60 on a full formula pensi on. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 6- pass. Page 7 - the Mem ber for Mo rris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Cha irman, that's fine, we can pass 7. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 7- pass; Page 8- pass; Page 9- pass. Page 10 . MR. C. MANNESS: One secon d, Mr. Chairman. What specific sec tion, Mr. Chairman - we're on Page 10, that's 17. Pass. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 10- pass; Page 11- pass; Page 12-p ass; Page 13- pass. Page 14 - the Mem ber for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: We're on Page 14? I'm looking for clause 24. We can pass till then. MR. CHAIRMAN: Page 14- pass; Page 15- pass . Page 16 - the Mem ber for Morris. MR. C. M