LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtl e­ Russell): The Honourable Member for Virden. PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. MORRIS McGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Manitoba Elevators, praying for the passing of

An Act to amend

An Act to amend and consolidate

An Act to incorporate Manitoba Pool Elevators. MR. SPEAKER: Reading and Receiving Petitions PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Memb er for Virden. MR. McGREGOR: Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions; directs to report same, and asks leave, to sit again. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Dauphin, that report of committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Fitness and Amateur Sport. HON. ROBERT (Bob) BANMAN (La Verendr ye): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to table the Annua l Report of the Co-operative Promo tional Board for the year ending March 31st, 1980; and also the Annual Report of the Co-operative Loans and Loans Gu arantee Board for the year ending March 31st, 1980. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the report of the Board of In ternal Economy Comm issioners for the fiscal year period, ending the 31s t day of March, 1980. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. ARNOLD BROWN introduced Bill No. 30,

An Act respecting The Sperling Joint Commun ity Centre District. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: At this time I would like to draw the honourable memb ers' attention to the gallery on my right where we ha ve 40 students of Grade V sta nding, under the direction of Mrs. Greenberg from the Winnip eg Hebrew School. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for lnkster. On behalf of all the honourable mem bers we welcome you here this afte rnoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier.

In view of the promise by the Province of Alberta to cut back oil production by some 60,000 barrels a day, apparently just recently increased to 100,000, to commence on this coming Sunday, can the Deputy Premier advise whether or not there will be a negative im pact as far as Mani toba is concerned? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Energy. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Speaker, there is no evidence of supply shortage for Manitoba, and that does not appear as a problem.

There is of course the negative im pact overall that the oil will have to be displaced by foreign imports and the price of the foreign im ports is more than twice as high as the Canadian price, and as a result there will be a net cash outflow from Canada for the pu rchase of those oil supplies; 60,000 barrels beginning on March 1st, and then as has been indicated another 60,000 three months later and up to 180,000 at nine months. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, further to the Deputy Premier, can the Deputy Premier advise the Chamber as to whether or not his department has undertaken any analysis as to the financial cost that the cutback will cost to either Manitoba taxpa yers or Manitobans as consumers? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition is probably aware that when the Federal Government increased the amount of taxation at the well head which affected both gas and oil, there were additional revenues th at flowed to the Federal Go vernment as a resu lt of tha t in crease.

The increased cost of the imports now will have to be taken from that or from other Federal revenues; there is no vehicle for them to transfer the cost directly to the gas pump. So ther efore the answer I suppose is that the calculation is there would be zero evident impa ct at the gas pump as a result of this move or other oil and gas products. However, there will be a net cash additional cost to Canada as a whole that will run up to about $450 million a year. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, then further to the Deputy Premier.

Can the Deputy Premier advise whether or not it is still a policy of his government to suppor t the pol icies as enunc iated by Premier Lougheed of Alberta to bring about an increase in oil prices to world levels or near world oil level prices. Can the Deputy Premier advise whether or not that is 1117

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 still the policy of his government, as indeed it has been, such as same has been proclaimed from time to time by the First Minister? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the Opposition mem bers are applauding their desks in antici pation of world price, or what they'r e applauding for. To the best of my knowledge, even Al berta, has not advocated world prices. Their position has advocated, I think 75 percent of the Chicago price. However, Mr.

Speaker, that position that has been taken in Alberta has not been the position taken by the Province of Manitoba. The position of the Province of Manitoba has been that Canada should be att empting to attain self­ sufficiency and we are now seeing the result of it. The Province of Alberta and others are taking the position that with the discrepancy now between world and Canadian prices, that the oil in terms of Canada's future is more valuable in the ground than it is flowing at the present time.

And as a result of that, you have this dilemma that isn't being solved by either policies of the Federal Government or the Alberta Government. And we have not taken the position that is as polarized as th ose positions. We have said consistently that there must be a pricing regime that brings about self-sufficiency of supply, and that that can happen in ten years if a sensible approach is taken. MR. PAWLEV: Mr.

Speaker, since we are now, and further to the Deputy Premier, since we are now hearing from the Deputy Premier that Manitoba is disassociating itself from the position that has been taken in the past by Premier Peter Loug heed of Alberta, and indeed is now announcing some form of pricing regime that will relate to self-sufficiency levels, could the Deputy Premier now indicate what he means by self-su fficiency by way of price transla tion?

Is he now speaking in terms of a made in Canada pricing policy; is he speaking in terms of a pricing policy relating to 85 percent of world prices; can he define more closely for us where he disagrees and where he disassociates himself from the policy position enunc iated by Peter Lougheed of Alberta? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, really, there's a point of privilege involved here. The Leader of the Opposition insists on trying to manufacture and portray some position that this government has taken that he can identify with the position that Alberta took.

Manitoba, this government, has always said that the target of Canada and the interests of Manitoba are served by pursuing a self-sufficiency policy. At the present price -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, if we have the federal responsibility, then we can itemize these things in detail. They are equipp ed to do that. The producing provinces are equi pped to do that.

But it must be completely evident to anyone, the average citizen, that at the current Canadian price, the industry is not responding, the governments are not responding, we are not approaching, the tar sands are over 30 a barrel, we're going to have to have tar sands supplies, oil sands suppli es, to ach ieve self­ sufficiency for one thing. We're going to have to have frontier area production which may be higher, who knows, but all we do know is that the price is higher than the current Canadian price. it may not be world price. We assume it's not. Maybe it's half of world price. Maybe it's three-qua rters.

But we do know that the price is going to rise. We're not achieving self-sufficiency of supply. We're the envy of the rest of the world now because of the potential that's in front of us, but we don't seem to have enough comm on-sense to go out and discover the oil and produce it at a price that can be lower, and much lower than world price and satisfy our supply requirements within ten years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURV: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Minis ter of Health, and refers to the press release from his department encouraging expectant parents to enroll in pre-natal classes; and continuing, the im portance of pre-natal care and preparation is becoming increasingly recognized. Good pre-natal care and education can significantly increase the chances of a successful pregnancy and birth. Mr.

Speaker, is the Mini ster now prepared to answer the question he took as notice last week about the inability of a pregnant deaf woman to participate in this pre-natal program and education because nobody would provide an interpreter and there were no instructors who were capable of using sign language? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Health. HON. L. R. (Bud) SHERMAN (Fort Garry): No, Mr. Speaker, I regret that I'm not. I took the question as notice and I will supply the honourable member with the information as soon as I have it. I don't have it yet. MS. WESTBURY: On another matter, Mr.

Speaker, to the same Mini ster, would the Mi nister advise whether the Provincial Government will be participating in or contributing to studies covered by th ree awards from the National Health Research and Development program totalling over $200,000, all for health research at the Un iversity of Manitoba? Is the provincial government participating in that in any way, Mr. Speaker? MR. SHERMAN: I don't know, Mr. Speaker.

As the honourable member knows, we have established a Mani toba Health Research Council and are funding it to an extent possible each year in our annua l budgets now and will be doing so again in 1981- 82, the current fiscal year. I can't tell her whether there is direct participation in the project to which she refers but I will investigate it. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Member for Transcona. MR. WILSON PARASIUK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Deputy Premier, and follows up on the questions of my leader regarding oil price increases and the whole question of self­ sufficien<;y.

In view of the fact that the debate over oil price increases has taken place over whether in fact any in crease in oil price should go to a public energy self-sufficiency fund to be used to fund the 1118

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 exploration for new oil, or whether in fact oil price increases should go to multinationals to induce them to look for oil, could the Min ister ind icate what the position of the Manitoba Government is on that ques tion? Where should oil pric es go, to multina tionals or to publicly funded exploration for oil for self-sufficiency purposes? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Sp eaker, unl ike the members opposite our pos ition on this is much mo re pragmatic than finding an absolute solution in the funding of an entirely public corporation.

It must be very clear at the present time that the oil ind ustry is one of the most, if not the most, controlled industry in all of Canada. It is controlled from one end to the other; it's control led on the profit end where it applies its revenues, etc. There is no problem for any government establishing a polic y at this time that will lead to the required exploration to provide self­ sufficiency with the Canadian industry structured as it is now, and without undo concern about loss of revenues. MR.

PARASIUK: would like to ask a supplementary to the Mini ster, and ask him if it is then still the avowed policy of this government to back the multi natio nals as opp osed to public ly funded enterprises in respect to oil development? Is it still the policy of this government to sell Petro­ Canada's exploration development and marketing divisions to private enterprise, the only pr ivate enterprise companies who could afford that, being foreign multinationals? Is it still the policy to sell off PetroCan. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, we're talking about new oil supplies, we are not talking about marketing and that seems to be the problem these days, is oil supply and I can tell the member that actions speak louder than words. First of all in the last three years we freed up Crown lands for exploration. The member might be happy to know that one of the principle purchasers of those lease sales was Sask Oil and Gas, which we didn't put up a barrier to, to come into Manitoba and do their exploration work, Mr. Speaker, so as I say, we're entirely pragmatic.

It's whatever gets to the root of the problem, and that is further exploration whether it's a Cr own op era tion, whether it's PetroCan, Sask Oil and Gas, or any other that are doing their exploration work in Manitoba. We don't control the national policy. We don't control who owns Petro-Canada, any more tha n the mem ber opposite does.

But I can tell you in the actions that have been taken within Manitoba, where there is jurisdiction, this government has taken action that has brought about a much better approach and a much better supply than we would have under the policies of the former government when they were in office. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Transcona with a final supplementary. MR.

PARASIUK: I would like to ask the Min ister if he is now repudiating the statement of September 1s t, 19 79, by the Premier of Manitoba, who at that time urged the Federal Government to sell Petro­ Canada's exploration development and marketing divisions to private enterprise, saying that the need for a publicly owned oil company has not been demons trated anywhere in the world? In view of the Minis ter's statement just now, is he repudiating the statements of his First Min ister, one year ago? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Sp eaker, I fail to see what Manitoba's position would do to have any bearing whatsoever on Petro-Canada would be. I might also point out to the member, that I noticed that Petro­ Canada is one of the companies that notably in the last two weeks, has started to publicly complain that they are losing money on their production of natural gas in the Province of British Columbia and that if the Federal Government does not come to grips along with the B.C. government with the taxation problem, that they too are facing a problem. I don't know that it would maybe make any difference, Mr.

Speaker, on what the policy was with regards to Petro-Canada. They are in trouble as wel l. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Sp eaker, my question is to the Honourable Mi nister reporting for Manitoba Hydro. I would like to know if the Min ister can confirm reports that the new senior management at Hydr o has do wng raded its public relations department and severely restricted the flow of information? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: No, Mr. Speaker, not that I'm aware of. MR. WALDING: Mr.

Speaker, would the Min ister be prepared to look into this and find out if that policy was instituted independently by the new president of Hydro, and whether it has the concurrence and agreement of the Minis ter? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I would doubt that it would be their policy. It wouldn't certainly be with the concurrence of the Min ister. But I would suggest to the member that it would be a good question for him to di rect to Ma nitoba Hydro when they appear before the Public Utilities Committee hearing. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Vital with a final supplementary. MR.

WALDING: A second supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The chairman of the board of Manitoba Hydro is quoted as saying, "We will provide any and all information. We are only concerned that that information be accurate." I wonder if the Mi nister would agree that this would permit Hydro to release the three secret reports that the Mi nister refuses to release. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly the member will advise me of what reports he is referring to, because I certainly don't know offhand what he refers to.

With regards to his mention of accuracy, if that was mentioned by Hydro, certainly it means that they have read the Tritschler Inquir y Commission 1119

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 report in which the head of the public information service there before, was pretty severely castigated for issuing inaccurate material. MR. WALDING: Mr. Sp eaker, in reply to the Min ister's question. the reports I was referring to were the Tesh mont study in to transmission to Alberta; the Foster Report on the economic feasibility of selling power to Alberta; and a UNIE S Report on both of them. Now is he prepared to allow the Chairman of Man itoba Hydro, as he apparently wishes to do, to release that information? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, that question has been dealt with before. it's not my position to deal with those reports directly. They were initia ted as a three provinc e study by the th ree Prem iers of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba, and when the Premiers advise the comm ittee to release reports and whatever they'll be released; but it will be their decision, it's not a unilateral decision at the present time. He makes reference to a Foster Report, it seems to me that a Foster Report was released about a year ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Dauphin. MR. JIM GALBRAITH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a qu estion for the Minister of Eco nomic Development. Yesterday I asked a question regarding closure of the Glenella Creamery as reported in an NDP broch ure tha t was distributed in my constituency; can the Minister inform me whether Bata Shoes are closed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Economic Development. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, Bata Shoes never did have a head office in Manito ba. Their head office is Batawa Ontario, their sales office is Scarborough, Ontario; Bata Shoes in 19 77 had four stores in Manitoba, in 1980 they have seven, Mr. Speaker. MR.

GALBRAITH: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker, a supplemen tary. I'd like to ask the Min ister whether the New Democratic Party and their leader were aware that these untruths were put in this pamph let before it was sent out to the Dauphin area? MR. SPEAKER: Order ple ase. Que stions of awareness are really no t qu estions se eking information in this House. Would the member care to rephrase his question? MR. GALBRAITH: Mr. Speaker, I'll rephrase the question. Were members opposite advised about these untruths before this pamphlet was sent out into my area? MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Sp eaker, in the Throne Speech debate in December I brought it out very, very plainly and pointed out in that speech that Bata Sho es never did have a head office in Manitoba and never did leave Manitoba, but the pamphlet still continues to be delivered. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Me mber for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: I'd like to ask a question, Mr. Speaker, of the .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Hono urable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to address a qu estion to the Deputy Premier, the Min ister of Mines and Energy, with regard to the question of oil pricing and multina tionals. Can the Mini ster comment on the fact that the multina tional oil companies, of which he is a friend, can he com ment on the fact tha t the mu ltin ational companies, that there is considerable evidence that these compan ies are using profits earned from recent price hikes to buy up real estate, coal mines and other non-oil-producing assets in this country; therefore, Mr. Speaker, using Manitoban's money, monies of Canadians, to buy more and more . . .

MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. May I suggest to the honourable member that when he asks a question of a Mini ster to comment, that he is inviting a lengthy answer. I would suggest that the questions be framed in such a way as to produce a short, sharp answer. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I could only help but note that the Member for Rock Lake asked the very question the other day, last week, asking a Minister to comment which was ruled in order, which was accepted. But regardless, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to have this Min ister indicate to this House whether it is not a fact that the multina tional oil companies in this country are using their excess profits to buy up non­ oil-producing assets, in effect using our money, the taxpayers' money to acquire more and more foreign ownership of this country. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked for a comment. lt can't be more than a comment because no provincial government is going to be able to address that question, although a Federal Government could.

The only comment I would make on it is that if that can be shown to be a problem, and it poses a problem in the national interest in terms of further oil supply and the general economic picture, I think the Federal Government does have the powers at the present time to address the problem. If it's a problem, I agree with him that it should be addressed by the Federal Government. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, will the Minister of Energy acknowledge that the higher oil prices that he is desirous of seeing in this country will cause inflation and th ereby lower the standard of living of the people of Manit oba, this province being a net oil- cons umin g provinc e; will the Minister acknowledge that those oil price hikes that he wants is going to cause more inflation and thereby take money out of the pockets of the people of this province? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, neither I nor the government have advocated higher oil prices for the 1120

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 interest of having higher oil prices. What we have advocated is self-sufficiency because as long as we are vulnerable to a shortage of supply, and in oil alone we're somewhere in the order of 20 percent or more deficient in our own supply;

whereas five, six years ago we were completely sufficient, we're going the wrong direction, and the only way we can avoid the problem that he is trying to point out, namely, vulne rability to high pr ices, is to become self­ sufficient. So in the short term his problem may become a reality; but in the longer term, it could become a catastrophe for the country.

And if the lack of sufficiency in supply continues to worsen and we are exposed to either a cutoff of international supply, which would be the worst of all problems, where pricing would become secondary to the issue and supply would become the major issue, that would be the worst of all conditions. That is the one that Canada has to address and is the one approach that we have supported.

Now supposing we do follow it, it's very likely, I haven't seen a prognosticator, at this point in time and in recent history, who has said, or predicted, that Canada's self-sufficiency pric e would be anywhere near world price under natural conditions when we reach it, which is 19 90. -(l nterject ion)- Well, the members opposite are so paranoid they have to throw up Premier Lougheed's name every time they have bad dreams. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question was only addressed to one Minis ter. We don't need a dozen answeri ng. The Honourable Mi nister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, very seriously, the answer to the Member for Brandon East's question, very clearly is that if, in fact, we do reach self-sufficiency by 19 90, there will be much less im pact on the Canadian economy, much less inflationa ry im pact and our standard of living will be far better than if we take the short-term view and try and wipe out the necessity for self-sufficiency. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, everyone in this House is in favour of self-sufficiency and that's a motherhood issue, we're all in favour of self-sufficiency. Mr.

Speaker, we just don't want to give away the kitchen sink in the process to the multinationals. I would like an assurance from thi s Min ister, because we recognize that this country is blessed with a surplus of all forms of energy except oil, we know that, we are very blessed with coal, hydro electricity, gas and so on, but we are short of oil, and we recognize the need for self-sufficiency, so, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to get an assurance from this Mi nister that he will at least go to the conf erence tables in Ottawa or wherever these conferences are held and speak on behalf of the Province of Manitoba, not as though we were the shiekdom of Al berta under Shiek Lougheed, but that we are a poor net consuming province of oil, and that the interests of the people of the Province of Manitoba will at least be protected at these conferences. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, the member can be absolutely sure that I will take that position and that I will find that solution in the longer term,

whereas his interests are shorter term. I would simply remind him again with his reference to multinationals, is he again not aware of the fact that PetroCanada is now com plaining about the present pricing pol icy in Canada because they are losing money on their production of natural gas? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, to the same Mi nister.

In view of the fact that th e Mini ster is saying that the price of gas will in crease, should in crease, and the Min ister I'm sure is interested in fighting inflation, does the Min ister intend to change the policy brought in last year of putting a percentage tax on gas at the pumps so the people will have less to pay and try to fight inflation? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Sp eaker, the Manitoba Government introduced the ad valorem tax last year along with three or four or perhaps five now of the other governments.

It represents 16 .7 percent of the price of gas paid at the gas pump and , Mr. Speaker, I don't think any provincial government has to back away from taking the responsi bility, which they all do, of providing the road and high way system and street systems of this province,

whereas I can't say the same for all the other economic rents that are being appl ied to the price of gas at the gas pump. Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is, that I think it will be found to be a fair tax. The initial results wou ld ind icate tha t the red uctions in consumption have so far offset any price increases that have occured as a result of that tax.

In other words at this point in time, at least in about January, about a month or two months ago, the revenues from that tax change were not in creased, did not produce additional revenues to the province over what they had been under the old tax, because simply consumption has gone down because of the increased price of gas. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster did not really answer the question. He made a long speech.

My question is, because of inflation and it's certainly not costing - the Mini ster should know - it's not costing the Province of Manitoba one cent more, I am asking in view of the fact that the Min ister himself is saying that there will have to be an increase if we're going to be self-sufficient in Canada, and I'm repeating the question. Is it the intention of the government to put in a fair tax, not one that will be based strictly on percentage, and when prices are infla ted that the tax will be inflated, it will cost the people of Manitoba that much more? I'm not asking if any other government is doing that.

The Min ister just finished saying that he's interested in setting policies for the good of Manitobans, and that's my question. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, there is of course more to it than what the Memb er for St. Bon iface ind icates. Th ere also was a scale of taxations introd uced varying from diesel fuel, railways, aircraft, gasoline, gasohol which was completely exempted, and so on down the line; insulation programs for 1121

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 comple te taxes were taken off insula tion and so on; it's a compl ete energy approach strategy in the package; it isn't just the ad valorem tax that he refers to, the across-the-board tax on gasol ine. There are other aspects to it as well as the gasoline. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Sp eaker, I'm sorry, but I'm not interested in debating the Budget at this time. My question is a very simple one and should be easy to understand.

Will the Mini ster feel that because the price keeps going up, and the refore it certainly helps in creating more inflation, will the Min ister feel that this is not a fair tax and does the Mini ster intend to change this - or maybe I should direct that to the Minister of Finance - but does the Min ister intend to change the policy on a flat tax instead of a percentage flat, which is infla ted and causing more inflation? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the experience so far is that the consumption has gone down some what and in the early months at least that there has been an offset that has yielded basically a revenue picture which is the same as it would have been without the change in the tax leve ls, I think that the tax is proving to be a reasonable one.

Furthermore, the provinces can hardly be expected and Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Prince Edward Island, and I believe perhaps one or two of the others - one at least of the other Maritime provinces for approximately 50 percent of the Canadian provi nces - have come to the conclusion that to pay for their highway and road systems at 16.7 percent is not an undue portion of the sales price of a gallon of gas to dedicate to the system that is going to have to carry the cars and the trucks and the other vehicles. MR.

DESJARDINS: Just to make sure, the Minister is saying tha t he consider s this a fair tax, a percentage tax instead of a flat tax is a fair tax in these days of high inflation; apparently this is what the Minister is saying. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, what I'm saying is, to operate a highway and road system out of a product and still not operate it, it still only pays for about half of the combined capital and operating program of the highways department although the money is not dedicated directly, it still doesn't even pay for the entire program - and particularly if you included the contribution towards the streets program in Win nipeg on top of that and then the other grants - cert ainly, Mr.

Speaker, the portion, the 16.5 percent or 16 .7 percent of the price of a gallon of gas that goes towards tha t and is collected by the Provincial Government and funnelled through to that end, would appear to be one of the fairest parts of the price of a gallon of gas that you and I pay at the gas tank. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Member for Transcona asked me a qu estion relating to an explosion at the CNR reclamation yards and a letter I had su bsequently sent to the CNR, and he asked me if I had received a reply, Mr. Speaker.

I did receive a reply on December 22nd, 19 77, and my records would appear to indicate that I sent a copy at that time to the Member for Transcona. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho no urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, since we are observing rather a topsy-turvy situation pertaining to the government relating to this very important issue of oil pricing, I would like to ask the Minister if he could explain just how it can be that in the space of some short six months that the government has done a turnabout, apparently, in their policy regarding oil pricing.

In July of 19 80 the First Min ister advised the House that anyone that did not see the need for higher oil prices as proposed by Alberta, was either, and I quote, "either a fool or living in a cloud cuckoo land." I wonder if that means that the Mini ster is now either a fool or a cloud cuckoo in view of his answers to us this afternoon? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, with the full knowledge of the fact that there was now a Liberal Government back in Ottawa, any fool would know that the price of gas was going to go up. MR. PAWLEY: Mr .

Sp eaker, back to the Honourable Min ister. I nearly, a slip of the tongue, said something else just now. lt was 1980, not 1970. Also, could the Min ister -(I nterjection)- no, Mr. Speaker, 19 80 was said earlier. lt was the Min ister who apparently misunde rstood. Mr. Speaker, the Minister indicated that he was not on Premier Lougheed's side. On October 31s t, Information Radio, the Min ister indicated basically in response to the Federal Budget, basically I would have to say we feel on Mr.

Loug heed's side, they haven't answered adequately yet the takeover of Natural Resources of the provinces and effectively that's what they did without any consultation. Does the Min ister now indicate that indeed the policy of the Government of Manitoba is not to be on Peter Loughe ed's side? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I find it extremely difficult to hear the answer. The Honourable Minister of Energy. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt.

We have always supported, and still support, and will continue to support, the argument that the provinces are the owners of the resources. And that is effectively what Premier Loughe ed was advocating and supporting. And when the Leader of the Opposition uses that to transpose it into a support of world price, of course he's dead wrong and he's carrying it to an illegitimate conclusion. But we do support comple tely the argument that the provinces are the rightful owners and custodians of the resources lying within the province. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition with a final suppl ementary.

MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, further to the Deputy Min ister, in view of the statement by the Minister of 1122

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 Finance yesterday to the effect that the inclusion of tax points as part of the Federal Gove rnment's contribution to post-secondary educa tion was a distortion, misleading distortion, can the Mi nister advis e whether or not he, as Deputy Premier, associates with that statement of the Minister of Finance? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I just would like to provide a bit information for the Leader of the Opposition which might enlighten him a bit and be a little more accurate than some of the material that he's been working from to now.

I just would like to point out that in the former government's Estimates, using as an example, 1976 -77, that the government at that time did not include those tax points as being revenue from the Federal Government. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think if the Minister of Finance would check his facts, which he has pretended to be so accurate upon this afternoon, he would find that the agreement didn't come into effect until 1977-78. My question again -(ln terjection)­ well yes, let's put that in the brochure. They started on the wrong date. Mr.

Speaker, back to the Deputy Minister, Deputy Premier, because we haven't received any answers from the Min ister of Fina nce, does the Deputy Premier associate himself with the statement by the Finance Minister that the inclusion of federal tax points within the Federal Government's contribution to post-secondary education and health is indeed a misleading distortion? Could the Deputy Premier advise as to the government's position? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I point out to the honourable member that questions dealing with Finance should only be directed to the Min ister of Finance.

The honourable member should know that it is highly improper to ask questions of a Min ister when the other Min ister is here in charge of that department. Order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Bon iface on a point of order. The Honourable Member for Kildonan on a point of order. MR. PETER FOX: Mr. Speaker, The Honour able Leader of the Opp osition was asking a pol icy qu estion and he was directing it at the Deputy Premier, and I think that is totally in order. lt doesn't have to go in front of the Min ister of Finance or in front of any other Min ister.

There's a Min ister in charge of all of the departments and that's the Deputy Premier or the Premier, and the question was in order in the absence of the Premier. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired, we will proceed with Orders of the Day. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privi lege.

There was an anno un cement from Buckingham Pala ce yesterday announci ng th e engagement of Prince Charles, and followed by a resolution that was introduced into the House of Commons, and I unde rstand passed unanimo usly yesterday. I look in vain on our Order Paper today for a similar resolution tha t would enable th e members of this House to join in those pleasant congratulations. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the .. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. May I point out to the honourable mem ber that omissions from the Order Paper are not points of privilege. Orders of the Day. The Honourable Min ister of Cultural Affairs.

MRS. NORMA L. PRICE (Assiniboi a): Mr. Speaker, ma y I ha ve leave to make a non-pol itical announcement? (Granted) NON-POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Cultural Affairs. MRS. PRICE: The Constituency of Assiniboia has come through with another team of champions in the curling world, and this time it's the team of Mert Thomps ett, again from the Assiniboine Memorial Curling Club. They won the Canadian Junior Men's Curling Championship at St. John, New Brunswick, which entitles them to represent Canada at the World Championships next year in Fredericton, New Brunswick.

On behalf of this Ho use I would like to congratulate them for the fame and honour they have brought to Manitoba. ORDERS OF THE DA V MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 8. SECOND READING - GOVERNMENT BILLS BILL NO. 8 -THE GARNISHMENT ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER presented Bill No. 8,

An Act to amend The Garnishment Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, this Act will permit the garnishment of pension benefits for the purpose of enforcement only if a court order for alimony or maintenance, including maintenance and education of a child, pursuant to an order under the Child Welfare Act. Presently under the existing law, benefits received from pensions are not sub ject to garnishment proceedings.

The amendments will allow for garnishment of benefits payable under pension schemes or plans, superannuation schemes or pla ns, life or fixed term annuity policies, accident sickness or disability insurance policies. 1123

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 I poini out, Mr. Speaker, that these are benefits which are taken into consideration in calculating the amount of a maintenance order awarded to one spouse. Mr. Speaker, I also point out that a bill has been introduced into Federal Parliament, I believe at the end of last June, which provides for a number of things including garnishment of Federal civil servants, which is something that we had requested for Manitoba, and as well

Part 11 of that Act would allo w for attach ment of pension plans to satisfy financial support orders. Mr. Speaker, I say this amendment is another step taken by this government to provide for better enforcement of all judg ment s and orders for mai ntenance and alimony. In particular this amendment will en hance the remedies avai labl e under the present Ma inten ance Enforcement Program.

This comp uterized program, which was im plemented by my department in January of 1980, has proven to be probably the most soph isticated and progressive in the country and this amendment will give the court officers another avenue through which money can be obtained to satisfy arrears under maintenance or alimony orders. Mr. Speaker, I point out again that inasmuch as such benefits are taken into consid eration in calculating the amount of a maintenance order, it is only reasonable to allow for, or to make such benefits available to satisfy maintenance orders. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR.

WILLIAM JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Hono urable Member for Elm wood that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mini ster of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION prese nte d an d carried and the House resolved itself into a Commit tee of Supply with the Honourable Member for Emerson in the Chair for the Depart ment of Go vernment Services and the Honourable Member for Virden in the Chair for the Department of Labour and Man power. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - LABOUR AND MANPOWER MR. CHAIRMAN, Morris MacGregor (Virden): The Honourable Minis ter. HON. KEN MACMASTER (Thompson): Mr.

Chairman, the Appointments Standards Branch is responsible for the admini stration and enforcement of a numb er of statutes concerning minimum standa rds in matters such as hours of work, vacat ions, general holida ys, wages and their payment, maternity leave, termina tion of employment and equal pay. In doing so the Branch observes four principle objectives.

They are ( 1) to imp rove public understanding of standards relating to the terms and conditions of employment in Manitoba by operating effective and educational programs; (2) to increase public awareness of the rights and obligations given emp loyers and empl oyees under the law and of the availability of services to uphold those rights; (3) to establish and maintain a high degree of efficiency in collecting wages by effect ively using available resources and man power and; (4) to establish and maintain effective investigative and enforcement techniques to ensure compliance with the existing standards.

A prime function of the Branch is collecting wages found owing to emplo yees, eithe r through the findings of the branch officers or by orders of the Ma nitoba Labour Board which result from a judication hea ring. In the reporting year ending October, 31s t 19 80, the total numb er of complainants handled increased three percent over the preceding year. Total wages collected increased by approxima tely 15 percent. Staffing - last year we had 30.36 staff ma n years, this year we are requesting the same number. That's it, Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Kildonan. MR. PETER FOX (Kildonan): Thank you , Mr.

Chairman, and I thank the Minister for his opening statem ent. The other day we had a news

article in respect to employer's being ordered to repay over half-a -million dollars and I would like to understand the Minister's rationale where he said the public em barrassment is more effective than a fine, and yet there is no public announc ement of who the firms are that are involved. So how does the public emba rrass that particular emp loyer who is delinquent or who is exploiting his workers and in consideration of the fact that it was over half-a -million dollars levied against emplo yers, why was there just one person or one empl oyer taken to court according to the report? MR. MACMASTER: Mr.

Chairman, it has been the policy of the Manitoba Government for many many many years not to use the weapon, if you wish, of taking companies to court. On the first side, it's a better approach in my opinion to work with the people and attempt to recover what is owing to the emplo yee or to the employer and there is a good numb er in both cases. I have no intentions of changing the policy in any way, shape or form tha t we make companies or empl oyees or any other individuals make their names public in this particular regard.

If a company is not treating its empl oyees correctly that word gets around the system pretty quickly. I have no intention on further adding to that bad name of the emplo yer or the emp loyee by making those names public. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I realize that there are also emp loyees that take advantage of the system, but I'm certain that the amount that is taken advantage of by emp loyees is very very much smaller or else there would have been some note of the fact that this had occurred. What really bothers me about this system, Mr. Chairman, is the fact tha t there is no 1124

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 way of anyone determ inin g whether th ere's an emplo yer that is a habitual violator, and as long as this is kept secret - now it may have been done in the past, but it may be time that we changed this system. We just saw recently where there was some discussion in respect to informing the public about restaurants that were not sanitary, that were not up to standards and there was some discussion about informing the public of who these people are. I think that is one protect ion.

The fine sometimes just becomes a licence to viola te these statutes and as a consequence if we do not have information as to who these people are, they shall keep on doing it.

So I just wonder if the Mini ster can inform us how many of these violators are repeaters, have been doing it consistently; secondly, as to whether those people, if they are fined are fined on an escalating scale or what is the procedure that the Min ister has in this particular regard, because as long as we don't ha ve the in formation th ere's no way we know whether it's being carried out fairly, and $.5 million is a lot of money to be paid out in fines, so that there must have been very many violators of one kind or another. How many of those were repeaters? MR.

MacMASTER: I answered the qu estion the other day that it would just take thousands and thousands and thousands of man hours to go through all the records going back 15 or 20 years to determine which are repeaters and which aren't. The staff eventually know if somebody is repeating a year or two after each other and that in fact triggers a reaction certainly from the staff. Let me just give you a couple of figures that you apparently weren't looking at or it's sometimes confusing and you didn't understand.

On Page 40, Table 4 on Termin ations - th ere was 828 complaints lodged by emplo yers, there was 920 complaints lodged by emp loyees and if you follow the figure around you'll see the disposition of claims that were settled was to the tu ne of 10 2,731 by empl oyees, amount paid back to them, and the amount paid back to the emplo yer is just about identical, 10 2,838. So you see, Mr. Chairman, and through you to the Member for Kildonan, it is a very large problem, it involves an awful lot of people, individual people and individual companies.

Again I reiterate, I'm not prepared - maybe the Member for Kildonan wants to tell me whether he thinks that emplo yers only, that their names should be made public or does he wish to have emp loyers and emp loyees? I don't wish to make either public. MR. FOX: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to make this public, but what intrigues me is the fact tha t the Mini ster said th ere is public emba rrassment and I cannot see the logic of public emba rrassment when there is no pronouncement as to who is violating what - that's my first point.

My second point is that I think fines sometimes just become a licence if they are inadequate, and I would suggest that possibly the department look at people who are violating, whether it's emplo yers or emp loyees, more than once, who are doing it as a habit, tha t thos e are the ones tha t should be publicized, not necessarily first offenders.

Everyone could make a mis take once or twice, but if they're doing it repeate dly, then I think there should be some fur the r action take n and I think public information, if the department can't keep statistics or feels that it's too great a task to do over a period of years, fine, I can concur with that, but then at least if th ey are aware th at someone is coming up repeatedly tha t they would announce at least tha t party, whether it's an emplo yer or an empl oyee and the public's memory would help to make that party toe the line, because as I said, I can concur that $10 0,000 on both sides of the coin in respect to termination of employment, that may just be a one­ time occu rrence, with an emp loyee or with an emp loyer, but the other still means that there's something like 80 percent of fines were levied for other in fractions and I think tha t ha s to be considered.

MR. MacMASTER: I guess the emba rrassment

part is what we're trying to get at, and I simply say to the Member from Kildonan that if a company in Northern Mani toba, for example, and it's, I guess, simpler for me to talk about my part of the province, if a company up there is giving its emp loyees a hard time and not dealing with them fairly, that name spreads throughout Northern Manitoba and there are two or three compani es up there who just virtually find it im possi ble to get emplo yees; some ha ve left operating in Northern Manitoba. lt may be that, and I would suggest and I don't know the big city aspects as well probably as I do my own part of the country, but I would suggest to you that if you had a hotel (no names mentioned) in Win nipeg that was mistreating its empl oyees, te rmina ting them imp roperly, not giving them their proper overtime or mon keying around with the minimum wage aspects of the legislation, that word would soon spread around the City of Winnipeg.

Now, I sus pect it would and that's really what I was trying to say. Em barrassment - you can call it whatever you want - after living the number of years I have in the north I know of companies who have - I think emba rrassment is a small word - they just find it very difficult to operate and in fact some aren't operating up there, so I guess I was speaking from my knowledge of the workings, confined as it may be, 21 years in Manitoba and by and large all of it in Northern Manitoba. Maybe embarrassment isn't a good word. In the north, if a company mis treats its people, it's more than emba rrassment.

Eventually, people just shun that company and I guess maybe the word embar rassment is the wrong word, but I think, knowing society generally as I do, that if a hotel within this city was contantly doing that, the people would just eventually say, that's just not a good place to work. MR.

FOX: I concur with the Min ister that in isolated areas and in small communities this would be a proper and just way of handling it, but we also have to remember that Manitoba, uniqu ely or otherwise, happens to have only a couple of large urban centres where most of the population is concentrated and where the greatest part of the labour force is as well, and if the Min ister is aware, I'm not certain, but probably he's heard that in the large urban centre, most of the people hardly know their next door neighbour, never mind what's going on 2 or 3 blocks away, whether it's at a place of work or otherwise, and this does create a problem if they are just fined 1125

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 on the q.t., because as I say it becomes a licence in a way, after a fashion, and I would just hope that the Min ister would have another look at this situation and see if we can't imp rove it. One conviction for the numb er of infractions that there were is a very very minimal way of looking at it in my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, considera tion certainly could and I suspect in past has been given.

I am quite prepared to give that consideration if we find an emp loyee in the city that pretty blatantly is abusing the legislation and abusing the people that's working th ere on a repeated basis. Wh at the memb er is saying as one example is sometimes when it's held up and waived is a good lesson for a lot of other people. That philosophy isn't all that bad and I'll take certainly that under consideration. MR. FOX: I just want to ask the Min ister because he said emp loyee, would he also include employer so that we have both sides of the coin? I'm certain the Min ister didn't mean just em ployee. MR.

MacMASTER: Well maybe it's my garbled speech. I didn't say empl oyees, I said an emplo yer who is abusing the legislation and emplo yees. I respect the position the Member for Kildonan is raising, but just to clear it I was saying an emplo yer repeate dly, if they're abusing the legislation and emp loyees, that's how I used the word emp loyees. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Mem ber for Logan. MR.

WILLIAM JENKINS: Just to follow on what the Member for Kildonan raised, and this has kind of raised a bit of confusion in my mind because I understood the Member for Kildonan to say that it was fines of $.5 million or was it recovery of wages? -(I nterjection)- Recovered. What process does the department use for the recovery wages now that we don't have The Payment of Wages Act as it was before?

Under prosecution un der legislation as admin istered by the Employment Standards Division on Table 5 on Page 41, there was only one emplo yer prosecuted and the charge was stayed in the period November 1, 19 79 to October 31, 1980. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, the member must be under a disillusionment about The Payment of Wages Act. The Payment of Wages Act is still intent, still in place, except now it's recognized so that people know, as the courts decided, that it doesn't come No. 1.

As they know in British Columbia, which has identical legislation, that it's not No. 1; and as they know in other jurisdictions in the country that it's not No. 1. The Payment of Wages Act, all the mechanisms within it for the collections of wages are still there except that you now don't allege to people or emp loyers or yourself or government or anybody else that you have first shot at recovering the wages because the courts of our country have said that that isn't the way it should be. Now The Payment of Wages Act is still used.

The Labour Board procedure is still used, the same mechanisms to the Member for Logan are still in fact in place. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Has there been any cases since the law was changed last year where emplo yees have not been able to recover wages since they do no longer have first claim on recovery of payment of wages not paid to the emplo yee. Have there been any cases where the department has been unable to collect wages due to an emp loyee under the Act as it is now? MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Chairman, in as honest an answer as I can give you we would have to assume that it was still as good or assume that something wasn't there because of the change. The legislation is still in place. Previously to changing the ranking of wages, the courts decided that we were wrong in at tempting to get thos e wages. That's what happened. Now, I don't like it; I don't think any member in the Legislature likes it. We've made if very clear that we're and - I'm sure other jurisdictions don't like it. We're not guessing at that.

We know darn well that every other jurisdiction in the country doesn't like it, at least they're saying so, and many jurisdictions in our cou ntry toda y are looking at some type of methodology, and I have promis ed this Commit tee, I have promised the Ho use, I have prom ised the people in the province that we are going to bring in a method to assure and hopefully one that the courts won't, well can't, I've legally been assured that they can't interfere with the method that we are going to bring into place.

So, to the member's question, there is no change in the prosecution; there is no change in your possibilities of achieving what you were able to achieve before. MR. JENKINS: I don't know, maybe the Min ister misund erstood my question. Has there been any foreclosures, bankrup tcies as such, where empl oyees due to the position that they are now on the waiting list to collect money, that have been unable to collect their full wages since the Act has been changed.

I am not arguing with the philosophy or anything, I just want to know if there has been any emplo yees since the Act was changed last year, the previous Act with . MR. MacMASTER: The answer is no. MR. JENKINS: The answer is no. Well then that answers that question then, Mr. Chairman. I raised last year with the Min ister and I realize that this comes under Workers Compensation, but it is listed under this department so I imagine this is where the Worker's Advocate would be covered.

I raised the issue with the Minister last year, I think I raised it before, that due to the trouble that people have been having in filing and receiving their proper, what they is feel is their proper, due under Workers Compensation, has the Mini ster and his department and the government given any further consideration to setting up the position of the Worker's Advocate• as al most like an Om buds man in Worker s Compensation because we - I realize that this ma�· be hinging on the report that is due and I only raise• this issue here because this is where, I imagine, the• salary and whatnot for the Worker's Advocate is,. because it's listed in the Employment Standards Division.

If the Minis ter recalls, I think I raised that issue with him last year and the year before, that perhaps we should be looking at that. it's almo st like 1126

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 a Worker's Advocate being like an Ombudsman in the field of Workers Compensation. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Chairman, I think the Worker's Advocate is darn near an Ombudsman. I think he's part priest and he's part advocator; he's

part conciliator, a very very difficult job and, in our opinion, and I think the opinion of un ions and industry and empl oyees in the province who have dealt with the gentleman, we think he does an admirable job. The title "Ombudsman" has not been considered and I think the member may be touched, consciously or unconsciously, on something that may flow from the review of the Compensation Board. There's a good likelihood - and I have to be honest with him, I don't know - but there is the likelihood tha t sort of problem he's talking about may be dealt with by the Compensation Board Review. MR.

JENKINS: I thank the Min ister for th at information and I want to make it quite clear that I am not criticizing the Worker's Advocate. I just want to give him a bit more power than he has right now. I don 't believe tha t unde r the legislation, as it is presently set up, that he has the powers that the Office of the Ombudsman has.

So really what I, and the Minister and I would both agree I guess, that we don't know what's in that report and we are looking forward to receiving tha t report with great anticipation because I don't suppose that there is any other item that we, as ML As, get more bugging at us than th e problems under Wor kers Compensation, not just speaking from the Injured Workers Association but from constituents as well who, in many cases, feel that they are not dealt fairly with and the argument about whether personal medical documents and criteria tha t the board has on the claimant, whether it should be made public or whether it shouldn't be.

This I imagine will all be dealt with in the report but I certainly hope tha t when the report is delivered that my fine hopes of a Workers's Advocate having a much greater power than he has at the present time will be fulfilled, but time will only tell. As I say, we are waiting for that report, I imagine, with just as much anticipation as the Minister of Labour is. MR. CHAIRMAN: (2)(d) - the Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Chai rperson. Earlier my colleagues were talking about the enforcement of the Act and their dismay that there had been as few prosecutions as there has been.

I'd asked the Minister because we went through this in previous years and he ind:cated that rather than follow a route of prosecuting emp loyers and empl oyees under the Act, the division preferred to file what they called board orders or division orders as judgments in the County Court which, I guess, is the procedure that's provided for under the legi slati on. I'd ask the Minister if he could indicate how many board orders or division orders were filed last year? MR. MacMASTER: 18 3. MR. COWAN: The Min ister indicates tha t there were 18 3.

I'd also ask him if he can indicate how that com pares to the year previous? Just for a matter of clarification, are we running from an October to October year when dealing with those figures? MR. MacMASTER: Yes we are. MR. COW AN: The Minister indicates it is October to October, and I'd ask him how many were therefore filed in October '78 to October 31, 1979? MR. MacMASTER: I'll have to get that figure, I haven't got it with me. MR. COWAN: When these division orders or board orders, and I'm no t certain what the exact terminology should be, are filed, is that then a matter of public record? MR.

MacMASTER: Yes it is. MR. COWAN: So that at least in 183 instances, and we don't know how many emp loyers or empl oyees would be accommoda ted under those 183 instances, there would be a public record of persons who had in fact viola ted the Act. An enterprising person if they so wished to desire that would be able to find that information. Would the Min ister be willing to table a list of those board orders which were filed in the last year? MR. MacMASTER: No. MR.

COWAN: The Min ister is not willing to table a list Then I would ask the Minister if he could indicate why he would not be willing to table that particular list if it is already a matter of the public record? MR. MacMASTER: Because it's a matter public record and anybody can go get it If the member thinks that I'm going to be boxed in a corner of this department writing out the names, and that's virtually what he's saying in a roundabout way, I am not If anybody is interested and wishes to check the courts of the land in the Province of Manitoba they can; if they want to check the Labour Board reports they can.

MR. COWAN: Would the Labour Board reports be those reports which would specify those emp loyers and emp loyees which orders were issued on during the previous quarter or three months or however often the Labour Board reports? Perhaps we can answer it during the Labour Board if it's more expedient because the Minister will have his staff here then. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Churhill or the Member for Kildonan, one of you make your mind up. The Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder if the Minister could explain that Table 9, in respect to special permits; it has under it Child Employment, Hand icapped Workers and Change of Pay Period. What I'd like to know is can the Minister indicate the parameters within which child employment are given special permits? MR. MacMASTER: These forms are signed by the employer, by the principal of the school, by the parent and by the participant or the youth and it outlines on it the hours of work, the details of the perspective employment. 1127

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 MR. FOX: Can the Minister indicate what fields or what areas these permits are issued? Are they issued discrimina tely across the total labour spectrum or do they fall into a particular area? MR. MacMASTER: Mostly the service industry. MR. FOX: Yes. The other question I'd like to ask is whether ther e's been any further thought and development given to a little more protection for paper carriers. I know we've discussed this a number of times and they fall into a sort of a no man's land because they're supp osed to be contractors on their own.

Since they are, in most instances, minors many of them do not often realize the rights and the ways to proceed in respect to what they should be paid. I'm not saying that this is widespread but I do say that many of these boys or girls are sometimes exploited because they do not know what their rights are. They do not collect from the customer, it may be the customer's fault, it may be the Circulation Department's fault, there are a numb er of reasons why and consequently these minors or children work and do not always get what they are really entitled to.

I'm jus t wondering whether the Mini ste r's department has had any kind of discussion and thought in respect to having a look at this particular field. MR. MacMAST ER: Mr. Chairman, I don't say that there isn' t problems with the young people that deliver papers but I asked this question probably a month ago for another reason and I just asked it again now to make sure that my information was correct.

We have not had a registered complaint to the best of our knowledge in the last year. it certainly wouldn't be the young people, I suppose, that may at the age be knowledgeable about what to complain about but you would think that if there was some abuse or if it was farspread that the parents would certainly be taking advantage of the knowledge that they have to relate to somebody knowledgeable, a union leader or somebody promi nent in the commun ity or their ML A or the government or somet hing.

I've wondered about that, if there is abus e in that particular area, but I've been assured that we have not had any complaints, Mr. Chairman. MR. FOX: I appreciate the Min ister's remarks but I would like to point out to him that we have difficulty com muni cating just across this barrier and we're supposed to be knowledgeable in some of these areas and we find out that there's much that we don't know. I would imagine that at the public level probably the same applies to parents; then of course chi ldren being children don' t often want to commun icate that they haven't done something.

So I do believe that there should be an attempt, since it falls under the Labour jurisd ictio n, for the department to see if there isn't any better way of adjudicating this particular area.

Now I don't know whether we can ever find an answer to it or not, but I'm saying that I think that as we become more aware of the responsibilities to each other in the society, we should try to do this, because as I said, sometimes the commun ication gap is great between chi ldren and their parent s and other s and consequently, although the Min ister always places a lot of faith in unions and I do too, it's still only 30 percent of the labour force and not every person who is in the labour force is knowledgeable about where to go, what to do, and how to get an action started , even is his child does commun icate a problem to him.

So I think it behooves the department to try a little harder to see if we can't find out that there should be more protection for these youngsters that are involved in this particular kind of field. And they're not just in the newspaper, there are some other areas that they fall into as well. I'd like to move on to another area. There are no special permits issued for handicapped workers in the report this year and that leads me to my question. I thought we had some protected industries where handicapped people were working. Would they not come under permits of one kind or another?

Maybe not special permits, but I'm just asking for my own edification, Mr. Chairman. MR. MacMASTER: The system that is in place in part, is somewhat confusing and we were trying to straighten it out and I think I have been asked this qu estion before. If the people are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, then the social agencies involved do not request a permit, they work with the person and with the agency that's att empting to get tha t person placed and the procedure has not been for many years, I have been advis ed, for them to off icially apply to the Department of Labour for a permit. MR.

FOX: And that is change of pay period, there's one special permit issued. Does that indicate that an employer has to have the special permit to change pay periods, or is this a special case? MR. MacMASTER: Yes, there is one official application that we dealt with and it was granted. All parties agreed to it. MR. FOX: That brings up a further question. Do employ ers have to register every time they change their pay periods or are th ere only special circumstances when they have to apply? MR. MacMASTER: I'll get the answer to tha t question. I'm not positive about it and I'd rather not put it in the record. MR.

CH AIRMAN: 2. (d)(1) - the Mem ber for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I had gi ven up the floor to the Member for Kildonan for those questions and wanted to get back to the item tha t we were discussing before that last series and that's in respect to board orders or division orders and the Minister had indicated that he would not be boxed in by my question respecting the provision of a list of persons who had orders filed against them as judgments in County Court by the department and I had not intended to box the Minister in.

As a matter of fact, what I was hoping to do was to allow the Min ister an opportunity to provide that information. I would ask him why it is he is so adamant that that information not be provided even though it is a matter of public record. There are many times when we ask the Min ister for information which is not a 1128

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 matter of the public record, but is imp ortant to the workers in this province and is important to the Members of the Opposition and imp ortant to the publi c generally, that in formation is provi ded. However, in this instance, and it's not up to us, I believe, to judge the im portance of that information, but rather to make the request to the Minister, he refuses to accept the request for the provision of that information.

So there must be some reason that mot ivates him to make a decision which appears to be out of character with his past performance, his past actions and his words of numerous occasions, when he says tha t he believes very strong in providing information to people requesing it. I don't have the exact quotes before me; I can find them easy enough. When the Min ister said, and I'm paraphrasing, that it was not his intention to withhold information and yet here we have an example of that type of with holding of information, as he still refuses to provide us with that list.

So the question, the obvious question to him is, what makes this matter so different than other matters where we have asked for a similar type of information which may be embarrassing to one party or another, but the Mini ster felt it was imp ortant and the public felt it was imp ortant and therefore it was laid upon the public table by way of a tabling or the providing of a list by the Mini ster? MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Chairman, I do not intend to get the Department of Labour and Man power in a position, as long as I'm Minister, where emp loyees' or emplo yers' names are labeled one way or another in this particular regard and that is the end of that. I've said that before, I say it once more, and the Member for Churchill, the Member for Logan, the whole Legislature can condemn me for it. I just do not wish to make those names of individuals for a damn good reason.

I'm not prepared to, in any way, inhi bit their future employment opportunities, or their future in any way, I do not wish to do that to young people - and by and large I suspect that it is young people - or middle-aged people, or whatever it may be and I'm not going to segregate between one and the other in this particular issue. If you open the door and put your toe in, then there's the next request and the next request and the next request and I don't think it's fair to the future of young people in particular, to start putting their names forward as being poor emplo yees.

They have a difficult enough time getting thems elves established in the work market as it is, in the work place. In answer to the Member for Kildonan, the time that you would apply for an exemption or a change in pay period is if it exceeds two weeks. You shall pay every two weeks and if for some reason the emp loyees and emplo yer got together and wanted to get paid every three weeks - I can't think why - they then would apply. MR. COWAN: My question to the Minister is, when did the Legislature apply for their official exemption not to pay the MLAs every two weeks?

Had we not received our pay when we did, there were many of who were seriously considering going to the Employment Standards Branch and asking for some assistance in respect to mone ys which we felt were owing to us by our emplo yer. However, as it turned out, that step was un necessary. There are some of us also, who are thinking about going to the Workplace Safety and Health Branch as another aside in respect to the offices downstairs and the air circulation in them. We thought we weren't going to have to do that either, but it appears as if that may be necessary.

I know the Mi nister will entertain tha t request with all due consideration if it comes across his desk.

However, the Minister has said th � he has, and I quote him - they're not my words - "damn good reasons" for not providing the names and he says the reason that he gives - that's in the singular, not the plural - is that he doesn't want to in any way cause the actions of young people, young workers or midd le-aged workers as the case may be, to be reflected on badly because of a mistake, or because of an error, or because of a judgment under the board which then goes in as a judgm ent under the court, but the fact is that his department is making it a matter of public record by issuing orders.

The question that has to follow then, is the Min ister going to direct his department not to issue orders as judgments in Coun ty Court any longer because that is opposed to the Min ister's concept of keeping tho se names out of the public realm? MR. MacMASTER : I think the member appreciates that that's nons ense. I have no intentions of doing that but I also have no intentions of relating really to this particular topic unl ess there's a new question. We've been over this and over this and over this.

My position is very clear and as good as the Member for Churchill may be trying to come at it from different angles, my position is pretty adamant on this problem here. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(d)(1) - pass - the Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Mr. Chairperson, I wish the Mini ster would recognize tha t I'm trying to assist him in this matter and that I think he's taken a bad position; and I think that it is a position that is not in keeping with logic; I think it's an illogical position.

I think if the Mini ster foll ows it from the perspective of a development of a logical argument he will have to agree that the argument is illogical. His position is very strong; nobody has suggested that the Minister has not taken a strong position on this issue and one certainly has to admire people who take strong positions on issues they believe very strongly on.

However, one will admire them more if the y can provide good solid reasons for th ose strong provisions and that is what is lacking here. lt is not a deficiency in the strength of the position tha t the Minister has taken but it is a deficiency in logic. They are a matter of the publi c record. The Mi nister agrees and they are a matter of the public record because the Minister's department makes them a matter of the public record. Again, we can only assume tha t there's agreement in that, yet the Minister says that they won't provide a list.

Now I'm not even certain tha t list is extremely import �nt to us but I do think that when we run across a position in this regard tha t is inconsistent, we have a responsibil ity to try to convince the Minister and by doing so assist the Minister to make a more consistent stand and to make a more logical stand in respect to this. 1129

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 So we have to disagree with this inconsistency.

We have to disagree with the fact that he says it is a matter of the record, that his department makes it a matter of the record, but that he is not going to either direct this department not to do so or provide that information to members of the public or the Legislature who ask for it. it's accessible; I don't know how difficult a form it is in now, I'm not certain, it may be extremely accessible, it may be easy to get, it may be difficult to get but the fact is that it is on the record and I would hope that the Min ister would review his position in this and tha t the Min ister would take under consideration the discussion that we've had today and look towards coming forward with a more logical and consistent stan d.

Just as strong a stand, I might add but just more logical and more c!'lnsistent. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Mr. Chairman, on the Labour Ma nagement Review Comm ittee th ere is a Comm ittee set up on payment of wages and the report indicates that it would be reporting early in the year. I'm just wondering whether the Mi nister has had a report from that particular Commit tee or if he can indicate to us when antici pates that early report. MR. MacMASTER: We have, let's call it, the final report, the final sets of recommendations I guess is its better terminology.

They have been forwarded to me. I have thought that I made it clear that that report is in government now and is being dealt with from the legal aspects and admin istrative aspects of how it will apply, and legally to assure ou rselves that it can be applied without interference, and that it's fair and equitable to the emp loyees in the Province of Manitoba. The precise answer is that it's now in government being dealt with. MR. FOX: Does the Min ister have an y kind of a deadline as to how soon? According to a report, it was supposed to be early in 198 1. We are going towards the end of February.

Will it be before the end of March or is there any time frame at all on it? MR. MacMASTER: The last thing I want to do, Mr. Chairman, is give a precise deadline. I said before that the early part of the year meant January or Febru ary. We'v e no w received the report. The member is correct; it's going on towards the end of February. I said very positively that it would be public before the end of the Leg isla ture un less we adjourned in a heck of a hurry and I have backed off that and said it certainly will be not anywhere near the end of the sitting, tt will be certainly sooner than that.

I would think in the next, hopefully, four or five weeks ana that's generally the end of Ma rch, I supp ose, early April but I hope it to be the latest. We have it in government as I said and I want to assure myself from the A-G's Department that thing is legal, correct and concise. I want to assure myself very thoroughly that it can be administrated adequately in an appropriate way. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you , Mr. Chairman, a question to the Minis ter.

When the department issues special permits on behalf of mino rs, does the department - I don't l<now who signs the permits - does the Minister sign them or the director? A MEMBER: The director. MR. JENKINS: The director. Do they make available to the minors concerned, because there are names and add resses I imagine on the permit, what their rights are under all existing provincial la bour legislation in the province, like payment of wages, the minimum wage, vacations with pay, whatever?

If they are not doing this and it wouldn't be such a great amount because there is only 928 according to what we have here, would the Min ister consider even the printing of a small pamphlet which would be ava ilable to these young people who are entering the work-force for the first time, just what their rights and privileges are under the labour legislation here that is in force in the Province of Manitoba? MR. MacMASTER: Well, we do a variety of things, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the hours of work and the wages must be on the permit and if they are not appropriate they wouldn't be signed.

Our staff talks to as many as possible but I can't gua rantee we talk to everybody. We have gone into a program in the last year or two. In fact, I think I mentioned it last year in Estima tes - it's been that long, yes - where we're getting out to the high schools and to the schools in the province and speaking to students about their rights and their obligations. Obl igations, I think, are just as imp ortant as rights. A lot of these young people are not taught that when the y go out the y have some obl igations.

They certainly learn about their rights and they learn about the technical abilities of learning to become whatever they are going to be in life, but we also try to make them aware of the fact th at there are some obligations when you do get a job. So we've gone into the educational system in the province and we are speaking to the young people right throughout the schools. MR.

JENKINS: The Min ister didn't answer the last question and I commend him for what he's doing, but has the department given any consideration to - and I quite agree that their obligations should be listed as well as what their rights and privileges are under legislation - it might be a very good thing for general distribution into the junior and senior high schools because we have quite a number of young people, approximately 1,000 according to here that are under the age of 16, what are classed as minors under the labour law here in Manitoba. Is it under 16 or Is it under 18.? MR.

MacMASTER: Under 16 and the thought of - if I can just interject in part of the questioning with an answer - the thought of making a pamphlet available to be attached to, if you wish, the permit, has been discussed. it's a good point. it's one that we haven't done but certainly something that we could consider doing. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(d)(1). The Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I'm sorry. I thought the Member for Logan had another question. But there are a couple 1130

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 of areas that we should sti ll discuss under this particular item and one is an area that was brought up by my colleague and that's in respect to sheltered workshops. The Minister indicates that there is a jurisdictional situation here where you have the sheltered workshops coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health primarily, if I understood his remarks of a few moments ago correctly.

The qu estion to the Mi ni ster is one of who has responsibil ity for exammmg th ose she ltered workshops to ensure that the labour standards are kept up, to ensure that the employment standards are kept up, to ensure they are being conducted in a safe and healthy way? Is it the Min ister's department tha t has tha t responsibil ity or has all the responsibility for those particular workshops been handed over to the Department of Health? MR.

MacMASTER: By and large the social workers are the ones that determine if it's an adequate place to work, adequate conditions, the state of the client and cond itions and adequa cy of the type of employment that they may be trying to get them. MR. COWAN: The Minister's Department has no invo lvement in th at particular area at all? He indicates not. We all know the need for shelter workshops.

As a matter of fact, the Mini ster has one in his own constituency of which we have discussed previously, and now it's invo lved in making extension cords and sel ling them and provides gainful employment for individuals and performs a useful service. There are other shelter workshops, of course, which perform useful services. But we have found from experiences in other jurisdictions that the concept of a shelter workshop is from time to time abused.

Now, I'm not saying that any one workshop in this province is abusing its workers, I don't know that that is the case, but we do know if we read the literature and if we examine the situation generally that in the past and presently in other areas, at least for certain, that abuse does exist. Therefore, we can only make the assumption that there is a potentiality for such abuse in this province. Again the records should be clear.

I'm not suggesting that it does exist; I'm only suggesting that one can make a proper assumption that the potential does exist, and I would hope that the Min ister of Labour, who is responsible for all the workers in one way or another in the province, would take that into consideration and review the situation to ensure that for whatever reasons that those persons who are currently being emp loyed in shelter workshops are being provided all the protections of the law, which are provide d to all citizens regardless of any disadvantages or handicaps they may have.

So I think that it really should be an area where the Min ister's department is involved. Wh en we talk about empl oyees of Crown Corporations, because they are government agencies we don't exempt them from the other legislation, at least we don't in every instance and we may in some isola ted instances.

When we talk about emplo yees of the government we don't say because the government is responsible for their welfare that we are not going to make certain and make available to them all the assistance that they can derive from the Department of Labour and I don't think we should do the same in the instance of handicapped people. I think that they have a right to the protection under the law and that the Minister's department has a responsibility to ensure that they are afforded all tha t protection under the law.

We can't leave it up to the department which is in fact the emplo yer or in fact is a party to an employment contract to do that alone. So I jus t bring th at forward to the Mi ni ster's attention for his consideration. I don't expect that he would be able to make a policy statement in tha t respect right now, at least I don't anticipate it, but I do thin k it is an area that is worthy of some discussion and some considera tion, given exp erienc es tha t are documented in other jurisdictions and given the fact that there is a potential for the same here.

On to another subject now, the Mini ster sugg ested that the great majority of permits which are being issued for minors to work, are being issued in the service ind ustries. Is there any study th at th e Min ister's department is doing to follow up, to make certain that the provisions of those permits are followed, to make certain that in fact the contract is being carried forward in full? MR. Ma cMASTER: Certainly, if there is any complaints, we follow up on that. Spot checks are taken periodically to assure ou rselves that in fact the contract is being lived up to. MR.

COW AN: There is a policy of spot checks on a certain percentage of the workers and the emplo yers who are working under that type of a special permit. In Table I in the Annual Report which is entitled, Numb er of Insp ections Made and Novices Issued Under the Employment Standards Act, the Minimum Wage Regulations, Vacations with Pay Act and the Payment of Wages Act by industries. Th e last industry is Domestic Service. Perhaps the Minister can be more explicit and provide us a detailed report as to exactly what that category includes. MR.

MacMASTER: Num ber 57 is households where they have domestics that are paid directly by the household. MR. COWAN: Is that a contractual agreement that's entered in to between the domestic and the representative of the household, or is it a matter of contractual agreements that are entered into by services which provide temporary help or dome stic help as part of a commercial service? MR. Ma cMASTER: No t all necessary written contracts, some are verbal arrangements. MR. COWAN: Well, perh aps the Minis ter can correct me if I am wrong then.

I don't believe that domestics would come under any of those particular regulations or acts. We had this discussion the other day. Is this a different type of service which we are talking about or are in fact the people that are being investigated in a number of claims and investigations arising from workers who are not covered by the specific act? MR. MacM ASTER: If an agency sends out domestics, they're covered under The Employment Standards Act, and if individuals hire an individual th ey're not covered un der The Emp loyment Standards Act because there's an exclusion. 1131

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 MR. COWAN: Now the point has to be made that we've just added another class of domestics. We have the foreign domestics who are covered by cont ract with the Department of Im migration; we have the domestics who are sent out by an emplo yment agency and we have in the lowest class according to provisions provided to them under the law, domestics who are self-employed domestics.

In other words -(I nterjection)- The Mini ster says it's always been that way and the Mini ster is absolutely correct it's always been that way but that does not mean that it always has to be that way, and that's the point we're trying to make. I don't want to belabour the point. We've had a fairly lengthy discussi on. Although it was not as satisfactory as I would have hoped, it was indeed a thorough discussion on the subject the other day, but the fact is that we did not have this information available to us at that time.

We now find that there is a third class and we now find some thing very interesting - that there are a numb er of complaints by domestics. We know that there are complaints to the Federal Department of Immigr ation because I have documents of those complaints. We know that there are complaints by domestics working for employment agencies and we know that at least the num bers of calls and claim in vest igations are increasing. This year they were 57 and last year they were 21, so it seems to be a problem that is on the increase, if one can take two years and try to sugge st a trend.

That's an unfair use of the statistics. I won't do it except to point out that there is an increase. There's also an increase in the numb er of routine inspections. lt appears that the department has decided this year as compared to last year, to undertake routine inspections on tho se areas, eight having been conducted this year and none having been conducted last year. But we know there are also 198 emp loyees and establishments investigated and inspected. We know on at least 19 8 individual cases there was enough cause and justification and concern to call an investigator in.

That is why we made the suggestion the other day that domestics should be brought under the provisions of the act. We will reiterate that and try to reinforce the logic for that statement. I think it is an important area, and when the Mini ster says that it's always been that way, I must, on behalf of my caucus and my Party and the previous government, take some responsibility for the fact that it's been that way, jus t as the Mi ni ster mus t take some responsibility for the fact that years and years and years - I think domestics were excluded in the early 1900s, 1930s and that area.

I could check that out easy enough, but it has been around for a long time and perhaps it's time for change and that's the point we're trying to make. As I said before there'll be more opportunity to discuss this particular matter and we Will take that opportunity, but we think this information should be highlig hted for that discussion. MR. CHAIRMAN: 2.(6)(2) - the Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Yes thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to refer to Table 2 on Page 38, Mr.

Chairman, and dealing with the major building projects where there were 14 calls in claims investigations, but we don't see any inspections were carried out on these complaints. What would be the nature of these complaints in the main, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister? MR. MacMASTER: lt could be unpaid wages or overtime wages - that's just a couple of examples. MR. JENKINS: And they would be settled by a phone call or what? How would they be settled since there was no inspections made of the calls or claim in ve stiga tion?

I see there's only 13 emp loyees involved here and I just wondered, since there's not that many empl oyees involved, if the Minister could be a bit more specific; just what these calls and complaints were and especially since there are no investigations whatsoever, no notices issued or no number of items contained in the notices - if the Min ister could just elaborate on that. MR. MacMASTER: The cases were resolved that's why there's nothing else being said about it.

They would be resolved in a variety of ways. lt might be resolved over the phone or it might be resolved on going out to the plant and talking to the parties involved. MR. JENKINS: Then that doesn't show up. What do you mean by number of routine inspections? If you look at the one above there was 421 and there was th ree routine inspections. What would be the criteria for an inspector to go out? Is it an inability to rectify the situation that calls for an inspection? What is the criteria that the department uses for a routine in spection to be made?

If you look at Greater Winnip eg (2), which was the City of Greater Winnip eg and a 30-mile radius and all major building projects within the entire province, there were 421 claims. lt entailed 547 emplo yees, three routine inspections; number of notices issued 66 and the num ber of items contained in the notices, 104. What I wanted to kn ow is, what is the criteria under which an investigation is made? The inability to settle claims? Is that when a routine inspection is carried out or just what is the criteria for a routine inspection made under this Industry Wages Act? MR.

MacMASTER: I ha ve to say you 've been wandering a little bit. The routine inspection, there just wasn't any routine inspections of major building projects, that's obvious. The report says no. There were 14 complaints and the 14 complaints were dealt with; there was 13 inspections with 13 investigations which dealt with them. MR. JENKINS: Maybe the Minister and I are not on the same wavelength here. The Min ister now tells me that the 14, there's no inspections and yet he said there was inspections or th ere was some thing.

He says number of routine investigations and then the estimated numb er of emp loyees in establishments investigated and inspected. Now, did they inspect 13 of those or didn't they? That is the question. They weren't routine in spec tions. Were they specia l inspections to settle th ose claims? That is the question that I wanted to get from the Mini ster. MR. MacMASTER: I think if the member would look at the headings - the headings tell the story. There were 14 compla ints. Th ey were in ve stigated, inspected - those complaints were - and resolved. 113 2

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 But there is no, as he can see, there is no routine inspections. MR. JENKINS: In other words, the Min ister is telling me then that the investigation and inspection that took place at those 14 projects were just specifically dealing with the claims or calls tha t were made on those items. MR. COWAN: I think it would be appropriate under this department to discuss what is happening with the notice of mass layoff or ma ss term ina tion provisions under the Act, The Emplo yment Standards Act? Is that a correct assumption before I proceed?

I'd ask the Min ister if he can provide us with information as to how many notices are currently outstan ding and ha ve been filed with the Departments after notices of mass terminations as provided for in the Act. MR. MacMASTER: I'll get that information for the member. MR. COWAN: Has the Min ister looked at the Act in reference to some problems which were experienced last year with companies providing a blanket sort of notice trying to take into account possible layoffs and yet those notices were'nt in keeping with the exact requirements of the Act?

The Min ister will recall the specific example was, I believe, with an emplo yer in Selkirk, where they had provided notice, there was a blanket sort of notice without a specific date and the Minis ter became involved in th at incident upon the urgings of the Opposition; I believe we brought it to the Min ister's atten tion. Within a few days the Min ister came back having taken speedy action and said that those layoffs in fact, were not going to be proceeded with, because the notice did not comply with the provisions of the Act. Has the Mini ster reviewed that situation generally? MR. MacMASTER: Yes, Mr.

Chairman, I'm satisfied that the intent of the Act has been lived up to. MR. COW AN: As we all are aware, there is an economic change constantly ongoing in society that certain plants close, that certain plants open, that certain plants layoff emplo yees at a certain time of the year and others hire at a certain time of the year. We are starting to see more and more as an increasing phenomena, is plant closures.

We can use the emotional terms if we want of flight of capital, runaway shops, we can talk about the whole problem that the industrial economy is undergoing, but the fact is, given the way in which we run our economy now, we are going to see more and more plant closures. Now, the reason I bring that forward under this particular departm ent is th at one of the basic protections tha t are provided to workers in respect to plant closures is advance notice, a period of advance notice.

There are many other jurisdictions which are now looking forward - and in that sense I mean in the literal sense - and trying to devise better strategies to provide advance notice for their emplo yees. I would ask the Min ister if the Province of Ma nitoba and if his government is currently conducting any studies as to the appropriateness of our advance no ti ce requir ements for ma ss terminations and possible changes. MR. MacMASTER: In answer to the previous question, the numb er of notices that we have are at present, two, and I am not prepared to divulge the names of the two at this particular time.

Both companies are attempting in a variety of ways to deal with that situation. The emp loyees have been made aware, for competitive purposes, I am not prepared to make it public if the emp loyees want to. I know in one instance, from phone calls from the emplo yees, they damn well don't want it made public, they don't want an issue made of it, even though th ere are those in public life today who are trying to make an issue of it and making it very difficult for the emp loyees and the company.

So I am prepared to keep my part of the confidentiality of the situation; the employees have asked me to and so has the company, in that sense. The other question relates to the conditions of the legislation toda y. At this moment I think it is adequa te; that opinion could be changed in the future. MR.

COWAN: Well, I am well aware of the instance tha t the Min ister is tal king about where the emplo yees do not want it to be made public and they have also talked to me in tha t respect and you will note there at least two people in public life who are not making it public, although I suggest that there are many more people in public life who know about it and are respect ing the wishes of the emp loyees in that instance.

So I don't want the inference to be on the record tha t it is our party or the Mini ster's party that is trying to make a political point at the expense of workers who have suggested that it might harm them in their endeavours, so I think tha t has to be on the record. MR. MacMASTER: I see in one particular instance, they certainly are concerned about public utterances and if the Member for Churchill wants to leave it there, I'll leave it there. If he wants to continue with it, I am prepared to continue that. MR.

COWAN: Well, now let's ... please, we have run so sm oothly, gentlemen and others - (Int erjection)- I don't think it's a matter of the Min ister contro lling anyone else, I th ink in tha t instance it was a matter of self-control on the part of the Minister.

However, the fact is, that we are not atte mpting to make it a public issue and I don't want to get into it any further because I think the Min ister knows where tha t will lead and th at will lead eventually to enough information being provided tha t we would inadvertently work against the int erest of the workers and the emp loyers, in that instance, and we don't want to do that. The Min ister ind icates tha t th ere ha ve been inst ances of, right now, there are two active notices; how many noti ces were provided under tha t particular

section in the last year, in total? MR. MacMASTER: could get that information, but if I had to guess I'd say six or seven, maybe more. On at least two occasions it was worked out with the Union, I think there was change of shifts, shorter work week and they got through the difficult time. On another occasion, for sure I think two, the lay offs did not have to take place. MR. COWAN: To use a couple of the few rem aining min utes to speak to the issue because I think it is an 1133

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 imp ortant issue. The Min ister says that he is not currently reviewing the legislation as it exists today in regard to advance notice provisions, although he reserves the right of course to initiate such review in the future. I would like to encourage the Mini ster to initiate that review now. As I said before, we are star ting to see an inc reasing num ber of plant closures; we will see more and more, it's a symptom of the economic times in which we exist and the Minister is as much aware of that as anyone else.

What we have to do is look at the existing legislation which was intended to serve a function at a given time and determine if it is in fact, meeting the needs of .the ti mes as they are now. Advance notice provisions, I would suggest as they exist in Manitoba law today, are not fully meeting the needs of the workers; in th at I mean that the y are no t comprehensive enough; that they need im provement and that will be for the benefit of the entire society.

There is also a number of side issues which we may or may not discuss which revolve around trying to put in place legislation which discourages plant closures rather than allows them to go uni mpeded so that we have an unf ettered fight of capital rather than a system where we can bring to bear the legislative mechanisms that we have to try to prevent plant closures. Let us talk now specifically about advance notice provisions. They have three basic purposes. One is to warn the individual workers that they are about to lose their job.

That is a very im portant function because it allows them an opportunity to put their advance financial affairs into order; it allows them an opportunity to examine ways of dealing with their impending unemp loyment. That is very im portant to me; unemployment is a very stressful situation in one's life. The Minis ter kno ws full well, in the discussions he's had with individuals, especially older individuals who are in the 45 to 65 age category, where statistically we know and by experience we know, they are going to have difficulty finding new jobs; that unemplo yment has even more of an effect on them.

The longer the period of advance notice, the longer the period of time that they have to try to deal with that very stressful situation. The other, of course, is to notify all levels of government, or at least in theory should be to notify all levels of government, that mass terminations are about to occur because mass terminations don't only affect the mass of indivipuals who are involved but also affect all levels of government. If there is a mass termination the mun icipal government must put into place mechanisms to deal with the strains on the social system.

There needs to be a certain amount of lead time in place to do that; they must also try to figure out how to deal with the financial loss they are going to suf fer and invariably do suffer in plant closures if it is a fact of a plant closure; they are going to have to provide more social services at a time when their tax base is being eroded by the plant closure itself because that plant is no longer going to be providing taxes to the mun icipality and the workers are no longer going to be providing taxes to the government.

They are going to become a strain on the system rather than a positive input into the system. So we need periods of advance notice in order to notify all levels of government to enable th em to try to deal with the fiancial difficulties, to provide them with a specified period of time in which they can set up support mechanisms for affected workers and commun ities. We know the federal government is taking some action in respect to the economic dislocation created by plant closures on communities and on workers and they are looking at several areas, advance notice being one of them.

In the case of more developed plant closure legislation, which we hope this province will have in the near future, advance notice periods allow for a specified of time for any review commit tee to perform its work. There are some difficulties and we talked a bit earlier about sett ing up different classes of workers in respect to domestics, the fact that certain dome stics are protected by legislation, other dome stics are not protected by legislation. Well, the fact is, when you put into effect mass termination provisions invariably, perhaps that's too strong a word, generally you create artificial distinction.

As we have in Manitoba now, if it is a group of less than 50 people, they have different requirements for advance notice than a group of greater than 300 people or a group of 200 people. So, let us use the example of a cut-off level of 100 persons. If you were 99 out of 99 being laid off you may not be entitled to, as a matter of fact you would not be entitled to, the same length of advance notice as were an individual who were 100 out of 100 being laid off or as were those 100 individuals.

So one has to deal with that and that is a distinction and a disparity and an inequity that is built into Manitoba's legislation, one which I'm not certain that we can entirely erase, but one which we must review to see its effect and one which we must come up with, I believe, some more positive options.

The Member for Rossmere, sitting next to me, brought this matter to the attention of the Min ister on several occasions during the question period, ther e is an assu mp tion tha t emp loyers can manipu late their work forces in such a way as to escape the major im pact of existing advance notice legislation in the province today. Now, it is more difficult than if ther e were no advance no tic e legislation, but there is certainly an opportunity for that to ha ppen. The Member for Rossmere was talking about a specific instances of which we are all aware.

I'm not saying that that happened in that case, as a matter of fact, the Minister has assured us that it has not ha ppened in that case. However, we still reserve the right to question the situation and to apply the specifics to a more general situation.

I believe the Minister could not assure us that it is not possible for that type of a procedure to occur, given the existing legislation; that an employer, if he or she did so want to do, they in fact could manipula te layoffs in order to escape coming under the provisions of the mass termination legislation as it exists today.- -(Int erjection)- Well, now I hear the comment tha t that is true and that there's no way of correcting it.

I will have to agree that it is true with the first part and I will have to take a slight disagreement with the second part, that there are ways of developing legislation that would better ensure that it would not happen. Again, I'm holding a side conversation Mr. Chairman, I apologize. But we will have an opportunity to discuss that in more detail. I do believe that there are other jurisdictions who have dealt with it in other ways that are better ways 1134

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 and that is no reflection on the previous government or the people who developed that legislation. I think they did an excellent job in bringing lt forward; 1 think, perhaps, it was even the government before them that developed it, I' m not certain. - (Int erjection)- lt was the New Democrative government. Well, I don't mean to reflect badly on it. All I mean to point out is that legislation from time to time needs review and on the basis of that review from time to time it is found that it needs refinement and it is my opinion that, in this instance, the review is necessary.

I am going to go one step further, and in doing so, suggest that I have reviewed it myself and have reviewed the example s of other jurisdictions and have found that the refinement is probably necessary; not only is it probably necessary but it is most likely achievable. But we will have time to discuss the details of it during the other opportunities throughout this session. There is some concern on the part of some that you also created another distinction when you isolate individual terminations from mass terminations and when you ma ke necessary different legisla tiv e requirements for those two groups.

However, that is an issue which is even more difficult to deal with. Aga in, the person who is being laid off, as an individual, in an individual worksite, as a small group of emplo yees, is going to suffer much the same effects as is a person who is laid off of a larger group, however, is entitled to less protection under the law. The reason, I think, and the justification for isolating mass terminations is not so much the effect of the individual but the effect on the community and the effect on governments.

I think there is a problem in the existing legislation today where we find in some instances - and I'll ask the Minister for more details on this when we meet again - where we find in some in stances tha t mass termination notice provisions are being leg isl atively su bverted by payment in lieu of notice. In other words, when the Tribune closed down it did not give notice, it gave payment in lieu of notice.

Now that, in fact, did provide the workers with a legislative protection, but it did not provide the community with any legislative protection and that was a lay off of what, 500 or 600 people in that general area? So, I can just finish by suggesting that we need to review this situation more carefully, Mr. Chairman, and I know that we will have an opportunity when the commit tee next sits. MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to say a word - I see we have our recorder back, Ray Sly, and he's been here, to the newer members, something in excess of 30 years, long before any of us around here now were here.

I just came in this afternoon 1 guess I didn't look up, I didn't recognize Ray and 1 know he's had some health problems and I'd like to put it on the record and welcome Ray back, we have mis sed you, we hope you don't get tagged with those long long hours that we will but in any case, we welcome you back. The hour being 4:30, I move Commit tee rise for Private Members' Hour. SUPPL V - GOVERNMENT SERVICES MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Mr. Albert Dri edger (Em erson): I call this Comm ittee to order.

For the consideration of the Committe, were are on page 71, Government Services, Resolution No. 73, Item 6, Acquisition /Construction of Physical Assets - pass - the Honourable Mem ber for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss with the Min ister - basically 1 want to deal with the main construction program of the Government but since we did delay a discussion on the sound system in this Chamber this certainly would be an appropriate time to just review the matter with the Mini ster.

I have to tell the Mini ster that I certainly enjoyed his demonstration the other day of using a lariat and some rodeo tricks that he picked up down at the Morris Stampede - about spinning around your ear plug and so on and he really was in fact im itating the boys in Ottawa and what they do with these devices when they are standing up asking questions. That was all in good fun and I don't object to that and but I do want to say again to the Mini ster I'm serious about this matter and that's why I've raised it a numb er of times.

I think the present sound system is a comple te failure and all you have to do is to watch our question period or our debate in this Chamber and simply observe that who ever has the floor doesn't have any particular focus of attention or clout, in comparison to people who are carrying on conversations or heckling; that a heckler has equal auditory status to the person who is holding the floor. lt strikes me that is a bad feature of the present system.

I said to the previous Min ister - I asked him whether he would attempt to supplement the sound system in the Chamber so that a person who is on the mik e recogn ized by The Speaker or The Chairman will have a greater amplification of their voice.

Now I know that there's a value in those who want to have ear plugs and I know that some of our ML A's are hard of hearing and I know that certain parts of the Chamber are difficult to hear from, but at the same time, I think most MLA's have good hearing and prefer to listen with their natural ears; they don't want to; it's not a question of vanity; they find it discomforting to have an ear phone or a head set or anything else, and I simply say that the previous system was superior. Now we've expended $70,000, we have a system which is worse.

I was quite shocked when 1 came into this Chamber a month ago and participated in a debate and found out what kind of a system we had.

Everyone expected an im provement. it's not an im provement, it's worse than the previous system. 1 simply say that it surely would be a simple matter for the Mini ster to ask his staff to go into this question with the people who in stalled the dev ices and provide some supple mentary amplif ication in the Cham ber, so that we'll have, I think, more control and it'll be a more reasonable situation, because 1 find the present situation totally unsa tisfactory and so do many others.

I kno w the Min ister said everybody should be wearing their ear phones and so on - well, I'm looking around - I guess there's about eight or ten of us here one is wearing his and the others aren't, and on many days, many days the ov�rwh�lming numb er of people are not wearing the1rs s1mply because they prefer to listen to the debate without any mechanical aids. I asked the Minis ter whether he would instruct his staff to make a determination of what it would cost and what could 1135

Wednesday, 25 February, 1981 be done to simply ampli fy or supplement the present system . MR. DEP UTY CHAIRMAN: The Honou rable Min ister. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (Morris): When the sound system was renovated in this Chamber it was done for three reasons, the first one being that the old system had deteriorated to the point that ther e were gaps in the transmission, it was very difficult for the recording staff to get continuity and it was di fficult for the people who were doing the transcribing to accurately reflect what was being said in the House. There was no question that the system needed renewi ng.

Secondly, we had been using sound systems in the commit tee rooms that were I believe rented, and since we renovated a second committee room it was felt desirable that the system be one that would enable us to utilitze the system that is being used in here in order to provide the sound for both of the other committee rooms. Thirdly, it was felt, that in the light of the Supreme Court decisiion last year, there would come a time when it may be necessary to have official translations in this Chamber. One does not know how far away that day is, the possibility does exist that will happen.

If that day does arrive, then the system is in place and it will not be necessary to install a new one, a di fferent one in order to acc ommoda te that translation. So for those three reasons the system that was chosen was one that would enable us to perform all three of those functions. Now my honourable friend suggests that there should be an amplific ation of the existing sound in the Chamber and I can sympathize with him, if he is standing in his place and wanting to be heard while there are some disturbances in the House, as there is frequently from time to time during the question period in particular.

But at the same time if my honour able friend is wearing the hearing device that is provided, and he has the floor, then his voice comes loud and clear above all the din and noise that is taking place in the Chamber. So he has a way of overcoming it and it is the way that is being used in other areas.

The House of Commons has had such a system for years and it would virtually imp ossible to have a sound system in the House of Commons that would enable members to hear the voices of the members and at the same time have a system that could accommodate the translation, and so all the systems that are developed for that purpose have the hearing devices that you find in this Chamber and it maybe difficult for my honourable friend to get use to it, but under normal circumstances granted the system is not required because, as of right now I believe that it's quite easy to hear what is being said, and we expect tha t this Ho use operates under normal circumstances most of the time, so it is not necessary.

I find it difficult to understand why my honourable friend, the Member for Elmwood, persists in wanting a system that was th rown out because it was inadequate, a system that dates back to many years ago, and why it so difficult for him to adjust to the twentieth century. This is the system that is being in use in this Chamber. I think it's is far superior to what we had. I think that once one gets accustomed to it, there's no great discomfort in using the hearing devi ces that are provided and under normal circumstances they are not even necessary, as they are not necessary at the present time.

I might add that if an amplification of the sound that currently exists in this Chamber were provided I'm willing to bet my honourable friend that he would find that a much greater discomfort then the hearing device that is provided for him, because then all else would be drowned out. You would not even be able to carry on the normal conversations with your seat mate as happens from time to time because the sound would prevent that from happening.

It would mean that your voices would have to be raised in order to make yourself heard and it would be much more difficult to then hear what is being said by the person who has the floor. I looked at the possibility of amplifying the sound in this Chamber and I can tell my honourable friend that I doubt very much if he would be satisfied with it or if anybody else would be, because I believe that it makes it much more difficult in this House to operate in a normal fashion if the sound were amplified to the point were it was booming out at you from all sides. MR. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN, Wall y J.

McKenzie (Roblin): The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, just on this point, I don't think the Minis ter is being reasonable on this matter. I have bee