Manitoba Hansard — 5 July 1985 (Sitting 84, 32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-84

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Friday , 5 July, 1985. Time - 10:00 a.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . PRES E NTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPEC IAL COMM ITTE ES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, reports progress and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for Concordia, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTE RIAL STATE MENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: I am pleased to table the Annual Report of the Ombudsman for the year 1984. Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. R. DOERN introduced, by leave, Bill No. 97,

An Act Confirming Legal Consequences of Invalid Statutes; Loi confirmant les consequences juridiques de loi invalides. HON. R. PENNER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 98,

An Act to Validate an Expropriation Under The Expropriation Act; Loi validant une expropriation effectuee en vertu de la

loi sur !'expropriation. ORAL QUE STIONS Social assistance - tiling of liens MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Health indicate whether it is the intention of the government to stop the practice of filing liens against people who have received social assistance? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Hea lth. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could direct my honourable friend to the Minister responsible for ... MR.

SPEAKER: Th e Honourable Minister of Employment Services. HON. L. EVANS: I wonder if I could ask the honourable member to repeat the question. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the question is, is it the intention of the government to stop the practice of filing liens against people who have received social assistance? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member refers to a practice that has been common among Manitoba municipalities.

We have now received a letter from the Honourable Jake Epp, Federal Minister of Health and Welfare, indicating to us quite clearly that this is in contravention to federal law and regulations; therefore, we are now in the process of discussing this with the municipalities. My colleague, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, is in dialogue with various municipal governments to discuss the implications of this, but it would seem that we will have to move in a way in this Legislature to come in step with the federal requirement. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, my understanding is that Manitoba is the only province that carries on this practice. I would ask the Minister if it is his intention to introduce legislation at th is Session of th e Legislature? HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, it's a practice that is not followed by th e Province of Manitoba as a governmen t. lt is a practice followed by municipalities in Manitoba. lt is our intention to bring in legislation to adjust this, but I don't believe we'll be able to do it in this Session, given the lateness of the time of this Session, but we would hope to bring it in at the next sitting of the Legislature.

I think it's incumbent upon us to act as quickly as possible, but the Federal Minister understands that we do need some time to consult with the municipalities and give them an opportunity to adjust th eir administrative practices. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that this practice tends to punish people who have received social assistance at one time or another, for whatever reason, and who have moved out of that situation and have acqu ired a home and employment and then they find that upon going to register a transfer of land in the Land Titles Office, they have to find a social assistance lien; and many people are affected by this practice on a continual basis.

I wonder if the Minister could advise wh at the government intends to do with people who are going to buy a home during this coming year, for example, who are being requ ired to pay and discharge these liens before they can obtain proper title. Will there be any retroactive effect to any legislation th at th e government proposes? 3624

Friday, 5 July, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The provisions which allow for the establishment of liens attached to social assistance are contained in

Section 444 of The Municipal Act.

Section 721 of that same act provides for the discharge of those liens. The directive from the Federal Government related to those forms of social assistance under CAP which would not be attached to an asset and the acquisition of an asset. Liens would still be permitted for those under the CAP Agreement signed in '76-77. Wh at we are now discussing with municipal government is the question of how we deal with liens that have been in place during the period that CAP has been in place; and the procedures for changing the system that will be required when legislation is enacted.

There's no question that legislation will be required to address this. The question of how we deal with retroactivity and any liens that are being put in place now is something that's being discussed with municipalities. I expe ct that, after that consultation process, both with regard to the practice in terms of how we deal with the past, and with new procedures for dealing with the distinction between social assistance that is not attached to an asset and that social assistance which provides for payments for its assets will be worked out and that will be part of the legislative program.

There is in the letter shared with me by the Minister of Employment Services and Economic Security from the National Minister of Health and Welfa re, an Indication that this whole question of retroactivity and existing liens is something which is not part of the CAP requ irement for us to address in the present, but rather something that he recommends we address. We agree with that recommendation and we're consulting with municipalities on it. French translation of Statutes MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, a further question to the First Minister.

Over three weeks ago, the First Minister undertook to supply me with a list of statutes which the province had translated prior to the start of this Session of the Legislature and could have been brought in for enactment at the beg inning of this Session. About 10 days ago, I asked him again about it and he said he would bring that information forward. He still hasn't. I wonder if he has that information now. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I will see if I can obtain those lists and probably provide them during my Estimates.

Certainly I have had many other weighing concerns in preparing that list of statutes, but we'll see if we can do it during the Estimates for the honourable member despite many more pressing problems that we're confronted with at this point. SFM Compensation - bargaining team MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elm wood. MR. A. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the First Minister in regard to the Franco-Manitoban Society's latest preposterous proposal for compensation. Could the First Minister indicate who will comprise his bargaining team? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, I don't know of any bargaining team. Maybe the Honourable Member for Elmwood knows of some bargaining team that he's dreamed up this morning but I don't know of any bargaining team . MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that it would not be the same team that negotiated the last deal that was brought into this Legislature. I would like to ask the First Minister in regard to his previous record in regard to compensation being in favour of payments to Spanish Civil War veterans or Japanese Canadians, is he receptive to issuing compensation payments or cheques to all French speaking Manitobans? MR.

SPEAKER: Oral Questions. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I ask whether the First Minister has a mee ting planned with the SFM to discuss this latest proposal and whether in meeting with them when this proposal is discussed if he's going to stand up for the rights of all Manitobans up against a small lobby group? Deer Lodge Hospital - strike MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakesi de. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of Health.

I wonder if the Minister of Health can confirm that a settlement has, indeed, been arrived at at the Deer Lodge Hospital facility in the labour dispute that was going on there. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm very pleased to confirm that. The settlement has been arrived at in the wee hours of the morning. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker , a supplementary question to the same Minister.

I recall earlier both the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health by word and by letter indicated very specific guidelines that the health facilities had to adhere to in the coming fiscal year. We have passed the Minister of Health's Estimate that confirms the monies provided for those facilities. Can the Minister give us some indication of whether or not the settlement arrived at at Deer Lodge falls within the guidelines and the monies 3625

Friday, 5 July, 1985 allocated to that facility in this year's Estimates, or has the Minister had to consider supplementing the monies to· run the Deer Lodge facility? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the agreement will have to be ratified; it's a little early to give that information - to be able to get that information, to start with. My information is it'll be very little cost, if anything, very little additional cost. Hudson Bay area - Oil and gas exploration MR. H. ENNS: I thank the Minister for that answer . Mr. Speaker, I have another question on another subject matte r. I direct it to the First Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I note in this morning's Globe and Mail that the Government of Ontario has an interest in the well exploration and oil exploration that is going on in the Hudson Bay area, along with several other companies. The Premier and the Minister of Energy and Mines often indicate that the reason for our involvement with our own mineral, oil and gas exploration company is to have a window on the industry. Has the Government of Manitoba any interest at all in securing just a little part of the action with respect to the oil exploration that is currently going on in Hudson Bay? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines . HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr. Speaker, the province was approached, or Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation was approached by companies asking if we would be interested and indicated to us that the stakes would be very very high for these initial wells, something in the order of $100 million.

We would be asked to take a portion of that and it was determined on a business basis that it is premature , but at the same time, we're pleased that we have a group that can monitor the situation and determine whether in fact, from a business perspective, it would be a proper investment at the proper time. Headingley Jail - Escape of prisoners MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rhineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Community Services.

Can the Minister say whether the two inmates from Headingley who escaped from a highway work crew yesterday have been apprehended yet? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker , the information I have at the moment is that they have not yet been apprehended. MR. A. BROWN: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. These inmates were protective custody inmates. Can the Minister say how many protective custody inmates have been allowed to work on work gangs outside prison walls? HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, it has not been the custom for protective custody inmates to be part of work crews. These two were part of an experiment. We are at the moment not continuing with that practice and we will reassess but the people who were taking part were chosen on the basis of there being no previous escapes, no absences without leave, people who are usually in on a short sentence, complemented by an individual assessment. Again, this type of assessment is never 100 percent accurate, but it was felt important to try to find work opportunities for as many inmates as possible.

This is only the second escape that has occurred in 10 years on a work crew. Again, we will be reassessing; for the moment there will be no further protective custody inmates taking

part in work outside of the institution. Headingley Jail - training for employment MR. A. BROWN: My question is to the same Minister. Wh en will the Minister provide meaningful training for employment within prison walls so that people such as this who are under protective custody could get training which would make them employable upon release? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the increase in work opportunity both inside and outside the institution at Headingley has gone at a very rapid rate during the last year and a half and I'll be happy to report on statistics during the Estimates process.

Tender applications re land at MDC - Number received and price MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. l. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for Government Services. On two previous occasions, I have endeavoured to get some information on advertisement for tender on four parcels of government land located at the Manitoba Development Centre in Portage la Prairie. Closing date for tenders received was April 30th.

In view of the fact that it is now into the third month of the closing of the tenders, could the Minister indicate to the House how many applications he received on each of the four parcels of land? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, I should have that information for the member very shortly. We have had a number of tenders on each of those for agricultural lease and they were awarded shortly after, but I haven't got the complete table before me at the present time. When I do, I'll be sending it over to the member. 3626

Friday, 5 July, 1985 MR. L. HYDE: The next question then, Mr. Speak er, to the same Minister is, will the Minister indicate who the successful bidder or bidders were on each of the parcels of land and at what price? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will do that. lt would be awarded to the low tender in each case and we would have the names and I would provide them to the memb er. Highways Department - Dauphin Office investigation MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Highways and Transportation.

In view of the questions I asked him yesterday, I wonder if he is now able to advise the House if he was able to confirm that an investigation was going on within the Highways Department in the Dauphin area. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, firstly, I'd like to correct my last answer. They are awarded to the high tender, not the low, in this particular case.

In terms of the answer to the question from the Member for Minnedosa, I stated clearly yesterday during last question period, that I was not aware of any investigation and that certainly has been confirmed in checking with the department. MR. D. BLAKE: Just following that question, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if he has been able to confirm that there is no RCMP investigation going on in connection with the Highways Department. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speak er, again, the answer Is the same. Riding Mountain National Park - fire damage to trees MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W.

McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Natural Resources . I wonder if the Minister would advise the House if any meetings or discussions have been held with the Federal Government regarding permission for Manitoba farmers and others to go into Riding Mountain National Park to cut the trees for rails and posts that have been damaged by fire. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, it may very well be that there is discussion of policy with respect to the use of that park, between officials of my department and the national government officials; but certainly not at my level and I'm not at all aware of anything that is happening in that regard. MR. W. McKENZIE: I wonder, could the Minister then advise if he would consider opening negotiations with the Federal Government regarding the possibility of local farmers or others in the area going into Riding Mountain National Park to cut those burnt trees for posts or rails. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I'm not sure that it's a proper role for the Ministry of the Province of Manitoba to provide that kind of service. I think there is a direct link between the residents of the area and the National Government, through their MPs, and indeed, through their Ministry. If a case can be made for intervention, certainly we can look at it; but I'm not sure that it's the proper approach. Winnipeg Free Press - expropriation matters MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Urban Affairs.

In light of the government's move to validate certain expropriation matters dealing with the Winnipeg Free Press, I'm wondering if the Minister has taken it upon himself to sit down with the owners or the managers of the Free Press to try and resolve this conundrum, because the step that is being taken by the proposed legislation is rather drastic in affecting certain rights of the Free Press. I'm wondering if we couldn't, through negotiations, work our way out of a rather difficult position. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Urban Affairs. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speake r, the request came from the North of Portage Corporation that was unanimous in making that recommen dation. lt went to the three partners, Mr. Epp, representing the Federal Government; the Mayor and myself . Your leader - excuse me - the Leader of the Opposition was contacted by Mr. Epp, who tells us that fine he sees nothing wrong with that. This was done then in the name of all the shareholders • we have to do it - the province. it's a collective decision made by all concerned. The Mayor, Mr.

Epp • and I was supposed to go - I had to cancel at the last minute, but I'd have certainly gone along with them -t o travel to Toronto a few months ago to do exactly that, to discuss with the Free Press, at the time, to see if something can be done. The city - (Interjection) - the officials of the Free Press and Mr. Nicol was present at that meeting, I understand. The city has offered to trade the lane that is immediately behind the Free Press • that belongs to the city - to the Free Press.

The re's been some talk even, at one time, of reducing the property that would be taken from the Free Press and a commitment has been made. They've tried to work in co-operation with the Free Press to make sure that they would not be 3627

Friday, 5 July, 1985 distu rbed , that the trucks , and so on, could ce rtai nly make the deliveries. So I do n't kn ow what else has bee n do ne. If not, the n you would treat the Free Press diffe rently than all the othe r busi nesses out the re. lt probably would delay the construction, and so on, of the facilities. So it's not somethi n g to emba rrass or to hi nde r the Free Press. All co-ope rat ion will ce rtainly be acco rded to the Free Press. I know that the provi nce has discussed that also.

We certai nly would want to co-ope rate and I do n't know what else could be do ne but it's a joi nt thing of all the shareholde rs. it's ce rtainly not the provi nce alo ne. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. I would remind the honour able member that he should not ask questio n s on a matte r which is set down on the Order Pape r fo r discussion. Martens Report MR. SPEAKER: T he Ho nourable Membe r fo r Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speake r , I add ress my question to the Mi nister of Highways. On several occasio ns over the last· month and a half, I have asked the Minister to release .. . HON. R.

PENNER: Clayton, you have the same effect on me. MR. C. MANNESS: And you look it, Rollie. Mr. Speake r , I'm wondering if the Mi niste r can tell us why now it is taki ng so lo ng to release the repo rt. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi niste r of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speake r , I believe I sig ned a letter yesterday that is bei n g se nt to Mr. Martens who had se nt the repo r t in, and a copy to the honourable membe r . He should have it today. Certai nly, it should have go ne out in the mail eithe r today or yesterday. Vicon - Location of assembl y plant MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem be r fo r Rhi neland. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speake r , my questio n is to the Mi niste r of Indust ry, Trade and Technology. Has Vico n made a deci sio n to establish in Ma nitoba as yet? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi niste r of Culture. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Yes, I responded to that ver y poi nt just the other evening in committee. They have, as I respo nded some time ago, made a decisio n to locate in Manitoba. They have not as yet found a specific location. NON -POLITICAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Membe r fo r Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Tha nk you, Mr. Speake r.

I wo nder if I could have leave to make a non-political stateme nt. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable membe r have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Membe r fo r Swa n River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. A couple of weeks ago the Swan Valley Ba ntam Baseball Team wo n the right to represe nt Manitoba in the North West Territor ies fo r the national fi nals which are to take place in August. I would ask all membe rs of the House to joi n with me in exte ndi ng co ngratulatio ns and best wishes to this baseball team in their effo rts when they go to the Northwest Territo ries . COMMI TTEE CHANGES MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Membe r for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, just befor e we proceed with the busi ness of the House, could I indicate a change in committee membe rship : Birt substituting for Mercier on Statuto r y Regulatio ns and Orde rs. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Membe r fo r lnkster . MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. I've got sever al cha nges fo r the Committee of Privileges and Elections. The Membe r fo r Flin Flon will be replacing the Membe r for Thompson ; the Member fo r Fort Rouge will replace the Membe r fo r St.

Joh ns; the Membe r for Tra nscona will replace the Member fo r Rupertsland; the Membe r for Lac du Bonnet will replace the Member fo r lnterlake; the Member fo r Brando n East will replace the Membe r fo r lnkste r . For the Committee on Industrial Relatio ns: The Mem be r fo r lnkste r will replace the Membe r fo r Thomp so n and the Membe r for St. James will replace the Member for Kildo nan. ORD ERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Gove rnment House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker .

I would ask , first of all, befo re we proceed to the Orde r Pape r to deal with some items which have not yet appea red on the Orde r Paper, and I would ask for leave fi rst, Sir, to advance to committee stage, the th r ee reprinted private bills which had previously been sent to commit tee. They are, Si r , Bill No. 96, Bill No. 95 and Bill No. 66. MR. SPEAKER: Leave has bee n granted. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you , Mr. Speake r. Si r , would you please call on the Honourable Member fo r Niakwa; the Ho nourable Member fo r Conco rdia and then I, Si r , will move the fi nal bill on behalf of the Membe r fo r Ste.

Rose. SECOND READ ING BILL 66 -

AN ACT TO INC ORPORATE "NIAKWA COUN TRY CLUB"; LA LOI CONSTIT UAN T EN CORPORATION LE "NIAKWA COUNTRY CLUB" MR. A. KOVNATS presented, by leave, Bill No. 66,

An Act to ame nd

An Act to inco rpo rate "Niakwa Country 3628

Friday, 5 July, 1985 Club"; Loi modifiant la loi constituant en corporation le "Niakwa Country Club", for Second Reading. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 95 -

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE "THE WINNIPEG REAL ESTATE BOARD"; LA LOI CO NSTITUANT EN CORPORATION "THE WINNIPEG REAL ESTATE BOARD" MR. R FOX presented, by leave, Bill No. 95,

An Act to amend

An Act to incorporate "The Winnipeg Real Estate Board"; Loi modifiant la loi constituant en corporation "The Winnipeg Real Estate Board", for Second Reading. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 96 -

AN ACT TO INCORPORATE LES R�V�RENDS PERES OBLATS IN THE PROVINCE OF MANITOBA; L'ACTE POUR INCORPORER LES R�V�RENDS PERES OBLATS DA NS LA PROVINCE DE MANITOBA HON. A. ANSTETT presented, by leave, on behalf of the Member for Ste. Rose, Bill No. 96,

An Act to amend

an Act to Incorporate Les Reverends Peres Oblats in the Province of Manitoba; Loi modifiant I'Acte pour incorporer Les Reverends Peres Oblats dans la Province de Manitoba, for Second Reading. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask further for leave to advance the reprinted Bills No. 69 and 83 to their previous level of passage in the first version. MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Government House Leader . HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, the first bill, Bill 69, had been advanced to adjourned debate on second reading and had been adjourned by the Member for Lakeside. BILL 69 - THE MUNICIPAL ACT; LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITI�S HON. A. ANSTETT presented, by leave, Bill No. 69,

An Act to amend The Municipal Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur les municipalities, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speak er, we've had an opportunity to view the contents of this bill. On behalf of my colleague, the chief critic with respect to Municipal Affairs, the Member for Virden, we're prepared to move this bill on to committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the next bill in its previous printing was standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Virden, for the information of members. BILL 83 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL ACT AN D VARIOUS OTHER ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE; LOI MODIFIANT LA LO I SUR L'�VALUATION MUNICIPALE ET D'AUTRES DISPOSITIONS STATUTAIRES HON. A. ANSTETT presented, by leave, on behalf of the Honourable Member for Virden, Bill No. 83,

An Act to amend The Municipal Assessment Act and Various Other Acts of The Legislature; Loi modifiant la

loi sur !'evaluation munici pale et d'autres dispositions statutaires, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: I want to adjourn the debate. Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. Norbert, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, there are three bills on the Order Paper for second reading, Bill No. 57, 59 and 74. I would ask leave, Sir, to add two bills distributed, one yesterday , Bill No. 86,

An Act to amend The Consumer Protection Act; and Bill No. 62 distributed this morning, The Charter Compliance Statute Amendment Act, to the list for second reading today so they can be introduced for second reading. MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave to add those to the list of bills for introduction on second reading? Leave having been granted, the Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you then please call those bills, all of which stand in the name of the Attorney-General, for second reading, in chronological order; and following that, move to Adjourned Debate on Second Reading in chronological order. 3629

Friday, 5 July, 1985 BILL 57 - THE LAW SOCIE TY ACT; LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA SOCIE TE DU BARREAU HON. R. PENNER presented, by leave. Bill No. 57,

An Act to amend The Law Society Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur la Societe du Barreau, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, prior to January 1, 1983, government lawyers - that is, lawyers employed by the Government of Manitoba - were exempted from paying the assessment for professional liability insurance to the Law Society.

After lengthy discussion between representatives of the Attorney-General and representatives of the Law Society and extensive debate within the society itself over a period of many months, the society changed its rules, and by those change in its rules required the government lawyers to pay the insurance levy, effective January 1, 1983. Since a term in the collective agreement between the government and its Crown Attorneys require that the government pays Law Society assessments, these charges have, in effect, become a charge to the Government of Manitoba amounting to between $50,000 and $60,000 a year.

In discussions with the Law Society, it was pointed out that government lawyers have only one client, namely, their employer, the government. Moreover, the government carries its own insurance policy which has a professional liability component. Thus the government, Sir, is being required, and the taxpayers of Manitoba, through the government, are being required to pay approximately $60,000 a year to the society for insurance coverage it does not need in any way. The amendment being introduced today proposes a change in The Law Society Act prohibiting this assessment.

This brings the situation back to where it was for 10 years, from 1973 to 1983, without any problem. lt should be noted that this exemption does not include Legal Aid lawyers who do act for clients in the usual way and therefore will have to have the insurance certificate from the society. In addition, this exemption would not apply to Crown lawyers who carry out any kind of outside practive on their own. They will have to then have the Law Society insurance. After careful consideration, the government has decided to include in the proposed exemption lawyers employed by a municipality.

The government believes, Sir, that it is wrong in principle for the taxpayers of this province to be required to pay an insurance fee where no insurance is required and accordingly recommends this bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, a question to the Attorney-General. Has he discussed this proposed amendment with the Law Society and, if so, does the Law Society concur in this amendment to the act? HON. R. PENNER: I discussed this with the Law Society ...

Well, the Minister of Finance says "ad nauseum" but my discussions with the Law Society are always at a decent level. Yes, it has been discussed with the Law Society frequently and as recently as the last few weeks . The Law Society does not concur in this amendment. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, it's interesting to see how this government operates. This Minister shortly will introduce a bill to validate an expropriation, to validate an expropriation process under The Expropriation Act which Is in itself an overwhelming power for government to exercise.

Here we have a situation where the government has a collective agreement under which they are required to reimburse government lawyers for such levies and because they're required, they haven't been able to come to any agreement with the Law Society, now they're going to amend The Law Society Act to benefit the government. Of course, the Attorney-General will say, also the taxpayers. I would simply say, Mr.

Speaker, I would hope the Minister will provide the Law Society with a copy of this act today so that their representatives can come to the committee if they so wish and make their case and let the committee decide for itself whether the use of this legislative power that the government has is being exercised properly and let the committee judge the merits of the position of the Law Society; so I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Law Society will receive a copy of the bill so that they can give some consideration as to whether or not they wish to make representations to the committee when this bill is considered. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General will be closing debate. HON. R. PENNER: Just very briefly then, Mr. Speaker, yes, the Law Society will be advised and the copy of the bill forwarded to it today. I should just note that we have the phenomenon of a private society, albeit one governed by statute, by a simple change in its rules, imposing on the government and the taxpayers a liability to $60,000 asking, in effect, the government to purchase a commodity it doesn't need. Now that is an awesome power and I think government has to be able to correct that. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

BILL 59 - THE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT (FAMILY LAW) ACT; LOI MODIFIANT LE DROIIT STATU TAIRE CONCERNANT LE DROIT DE LA FAMILLE HON. R. PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 59, The Statute Law Amendment (Family Law) Act; Loi modifiant le droit statutaire concernant le droit de la famille, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. 3630

Friday, 5 July, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney -General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, Bill 59, The Statute Law Amendment (Family Law) Act, gathers together amendments to four statutes affecting family law in the Province of Manitoba. it is hoped that this presentation will allow members to understand better the relations between the amendments than would be the case if they were scattered through the main Statute Law Amendment Act. In the second Session of this Legislature, significant changes in family law were fully debated in this House and were enacted into law.

Moreover the County Court was abolished and the concept of illegitimacy was banished from Manitoba law. That all happened at that time. In that Session the House accepted the principle that where a man and a woman cohabit for five years, the dependent common-law spouse should have a right to apply for maintenance under The Family Maintenance Act; and it is only logical that this right should not be cut off by the death of that spouse.

Accordingly, this bill introduces to The Fatal Accidents Act and The Te stators Family Maintenance Act, the same right to apply for relief as it is provided in those statutes, as the common-law spouse would have if living to apply under The Family Maintenance Act. This right is subject to the same safeguard, that it will not apply where there was an agreement between the common law spouses to the contrary.

The bill further removes obsolete references to an illegitimate child and to the County Court and makes technical changes requested by the courts and the practitioners of family law, in order to make the system proceed more smoothly. The thrust of these amendments is, in each case. to give the court greater flexibility in the conduct of hearings and in the granting of relief. I shall, of course, be prepared to provide the honourable members opposite with full explanation of these technical changes, should they require them, when we get into committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have had an opportunity to review this act and there may be some questions at committee. I would raise one item with the Attorney-General and perhaps he can comment on it when he concludes debate, or else in committee, and it's with respect to the first

section of the act which amends

Section 11 (2) of The Family Maintenance Act. At present the

section provides that where a man and woman who were not married to each other , cohabited for a period of one year or more, either the man or the woman may apply for an order that the other may not enter the premises or that the other may not molest, annoy or harass the other or any child in the custody of the other spouse. This amendment would delete the words, "for a period of one year or more," so the criteria would be where a man and woman who are not married to each have cohabited - I suppose that could be for as little as a couple of hours. A MEMBER: Sometimes it Is. MR. G.

MERCIER: I suppose it sometimes is. The Attorney-General may have more experience at that than I have, Mr. Speaker, but it begs the question as to the lack of real criteria to be used in the application for such orders. Now certainly where those type of situations exist that require that kind of order , then one would surely want to allow for that type of order to be made, but it does - it seems to me by virtue of this amendment - lead to a situation where there is very little criteria for obtaining such an order and perhaps the Attorney general might explain the rationale for that amendment particularly. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Attorney-General will be closing debate. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, just very quickly in response to the member's question, but I will answer it more fully in committee. I think the reason - well I know that the reason for the proposed change - is that practitioners have encountered situations in which indeed there is genuine cohabitation; that is, it was not a matter of just a couple getting together for a brief period of time, coming together with an intention of living together is what the term "cohabitation" I think implies.

But if things didn't work out and if it was a situation in which separation was taking place, under the one-year limit prescribed by law as it presently is, the court was powerless to grant an order for non harassment, and this sometimes led to very difficult situations that the court was powerless to deal with. That is the rationale behind the amendment, but I will deal with it a bit further by example in committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL 74 - THE EQUAL RIGHTS STATUTE AMENDMEN T ACT; LE DROIT STATUTAIRE AFIN DE FAVORISER L�GAL IT� DES DROITS HON. R.

PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 74, The Equal Rights Statute Amendment act; Loi modifiant le droit statutaire afin de favoriser legalite des droits for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speak er,

Section 15 of the Charter was proclaimed on April 17th of this year. On that date I introduced the present bill for First Reading; on that same day in proclaiming "Law Day" in Manitoba, I pointed out that

Section 15, perhaps more than any other

section of the Charter, impacts on every facet of socie ty, for it guarantees the quality before and under the law and equal protection and benefit of the law for every individual. I pointed out that

Section 15 goes further than any other

section of the Charter because it specifies that 3631

Friday, 5 July, 1985 this equal protection and equal benefit of the law is to be applied without discrimination; and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age, or mental or physical disability. Mr. Speak er, I am proud of the fact that the Government of Manitoba did not wait till April 17th to begin our work on Charter fulfillment. In 1982 I commissioned a study by Dale Gibson of the Faculty of Law at the University of Manitoba on Charter compliance.

Based on that study and on our own initiatives, we made major Charter-related legislative changes prior to April 17, 1985.

I refer, of course, as I did in the News Service Release which was distributed on Wednesday last, to at least six major Charter-related enactments already made including the repeal of The Legitimacy Act; changes to The Vital Statistics Act; The Change of Name Act; The Marriage Act; changes to The Social Allowances Act with respect to sole support fathers, and certainly the most important of them all, the 1984 amendments to The Pension Benefits Act and the introduction in this Session of The Pay Equity Act.

No one, Sir, should doubt for a moment, in my view, that as important as are some of the amendments in this bill being introduced today dealing, for example, as it does with sexist language, extension of benefits to common-law spouses and the introductio n of parental and adoption leave, that changes in government legislation the programs will at best be cosmetic if they do not deal with fundamental economic discrimination as the changes to The Pension Benefits Act and The Pay Equity Act do.

I note, perhaps more in sorrow than in anger, the rear guard action of Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce to these equality reforms, part and parcel, I suppose of what might be styled the counter-revolution of the rich. I would like to say to these anachronistic defenders of an antediluvian economic morality, you err. You err because you cannot and you will not turn the clock back on that kind of social and economic democracy which the ordinary people of Manitoba not only understand, but which they demand.

You e rr because you fail to understand that the best engine of the economy is the purchasing power of consumers and anything which helps to raise that helps the economy . You err because even if equality bears a price, it is a price which our basic human morality tells us must be paid even if there was no Charter requiring us to act. This bill with its amendments to 131 provisions of 42 statutes is somewhat too lengthy to explain in a detailed way on second reading. Accordingly, I propose to distribute to every member of the House later this morning - I've already given some to the opposition - the

summary explanation of the major amendments contained in the act. I would ask members to review them and to move this important bill to committee as soon as possible because it can best be debated on a clause-by-clause basis. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read in part from Wednesday's press release. "There may still remain, indeed there does still remain many issues to be addressed, many of them very complex and requiring further study.

Studies are under way or will shortly be announced pertaining to such issues as sub-minimum wages for disabled employees in sheltered employment situations, a very complex question; possible anomalies in Autopac rate structures and benefits, that is under study; succession statutes such as The Dower Act and The Married Woman's Property Act are presenting on a reference by myself, understudied by the Law Reform Commission with a view to recommending changes in light of the Equality of Right

Section of the Charter. I fully expect that an even larger amending bill will be introduced at the next Session of the Legislature. The work of departmental solicitors, the Law Reform Commission, augmented as it is by valuable work being done by such organizations as the Charter of Rights Coalition and the Manitoba League for the Physically Handicapped is invaluable in the long road, Sir, we must travel to make equality in and before the law a reality in Manitoba. I recommend this bill. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to make a few brief comments with regard to Bill 74 which the Minister has just introduced. This is one of these bills, Mr. Speaker, which I believe from time to time puts the people dealing with it in a bit of a quandary because there are many things in the bill which I know I can support, but there are a few things which I can't. The difficulty with the procedure that we have before us right now is that when one gets up and votes against the bill, what happens is - to use the old adage - you throw out the baby with the bath water.

I want to tell the government opposite that when they introduce legislation which deals with six weeks paternity leave for males - that's absolute nonsense. That's nonsense, Mr. Speaker. What you're doing here is you have a total lack of understanding of what's happened, not with the large corporations with the small business people. Mr.

Speaker, this means that somebody can take six weeks off maybe at the busiest time when a small businessman employing two or three people is trying to eke out a living, trying to pay the heavy property taxes, trying to pay the payroll tax - and now he is forced by law to give somebody six weeks off. Mr. Speaker, I know the government will argue, they'll say it's without pay. That's fine, but you have never run a business then.

To take a key employee out for six weeks and try to replace that person - (Interjection) - and you have to provide that job for that person when he comes back, or she, in the case of an adoption. Mr. Speaker, it's nonsense. lt's tinkering with the marketplace and it's the type of legislation that the government shouldn't even have looked at. it's ludicrous legislation and I tell members opposite, it won't affect the large corporations who have a large labour pool to draw on, but it's going to really hurt the small entrepreneur. lt's another thin edge of the wedge.

I tried to get hold of the UIC people in Ottawa this morning to see what kind of impact this would have and whether or not a person who is going to take advantage of this six weeks can get on UIC. Mr. Speaker, you can bet your bottom dollar that that is the next move; that's the next move that somebody's going to say should happen. 3632

Friday, 5 July, 1985 Here we are trying to be competitive internationally. The Federa l Government just announced they're continuing the quotas on Japanese imports. Why, Mr. Speaker, are the quotas there? it's because we are not being as efficient and as productive as the Japanese are - that's why they're there. it's been proven that we as Canadians are all paying $1 ,500 more for every car that we purchase , new car, because of the quota restrictions. What happ e ns, Mr. Speaker, the Japanese aren't stupid. What they do now is they bring in their top line products .

If you're only allowed to sell 10 ,000 automobiles, you're not going to sell the $7,000 ones and make 10 percent on 7,000; you're going to seil the $14,000 ones and make 10 percent on 14,000 . What that has done is allow the other large multi-national corporations like GM and Ford and everybody to raise their prices because they have no more competition at the lower levels . Mr.

Speaker, what has happ ened is that you have a company like Hyundi from Korea which isn't faced with restriction, comes in with a car lower and suddenly is the second-largest import dealer in a matter of ·a year in Canada because the multi-nationals have vacated and have bumped the prices up higher. Wh en members opposite talk about that being garbage , that we're not comp etitive - we're not. By restricting, we are causing an increase consumers' costs in this country. Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is we have to be realistic.

To put in legislation before us which will hurt the small businessman, not the multi-nationals, not the UAW. Mr. Speaker, they have a lot of people to stand on a production line. I say, as a small businessman , when I had my business, when my top mechanic leaves for two, three weeks on holidays, I tell you it really hurts, because that is the person that does the fine work in the shop. I cannot replace that individual. To say now that, by law , somebody can get six weeks off because of paternity leave - Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to that.

I'll tell you it's the type of nonsense that we have come to understand from the members opposite. They bring in some good legislation, but then they throw in a few pieces of garbage like that. I'll tell the members opposite he makes some comments about the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and that, but if it wasn't for the type of opposition very often that we got, the Minister of Labour would not have backed off from the plant closure legislation and he would have lived up to the promis es , and that would have been another horrendous piece of legislation that we would have had to deal with .

Thank goodness, there was enough op position and the government bowed to public pressure from the opposition as well as groups, the Winni peg Chamber of Commerce, and they brought in legislation which I think will work. I have announced yesterday, subject to what happ ens in the committee , that I have no difficulty in supporting it. But it's this type of thing - if it is not opposed , Mr. Speaker, and opposed vigorously it will lead to all kinds of misuses in the system.

You can bet your bottom dollar that in the next couple of years if this passes in its present form, the next step is in the collective bargaining to start bargaining for a week , then two weeks, then three weeks paternity paid till you get up to there. So not only will the people be given the opportunity, Mr.

Speaker, to go ahead and have that leave, they will then be paid for it; and the pressure that puts on the small businessm an , and I reiterate, the large corporations that are doing business in this province, it will not affect them really, but the people that are employing two or three or four people, it will really affect them. Take a small farming operation that has three people. it comes to combining season . . . A MEMBER: Take a small law office. MR. R. BANMAN: Somebody now says, I'm giving you four weeks notice as according to law and I'm going away for six weeks.

I'm having a family and I'm going to go away for six weeks. A MEMBER: I'm having labour pains. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, that farmer cannot afford to go through the whole thing and hire somebody new and keep a spot open for this individual. lt shows, Mr. Speaker, I believe , a total lack of understanding of what the small businessmen are facing in this province today. Mr. Speaker, it's a matter of having a little common sense and the people out there, the average pers on , the ordinary person that the members opposite refer to as being their constituents, they really chuckle at this. A MEMBER: Right on , Bob.

MR. R. BANMAN: For a male to get six weeks off if his wife has a baby, Mr. Speaker, by law, is absolutely ridiculous and I cannot support that

section at all and I can't understand the thinking of members opposite. lt shows they do really live in some kind of a cocoon and really don't know what's happ ening out there in the real world. A MEMBER: Right on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, I'll be brief because the only reason I want to bring something to the honourable member's attention is because of the sort of funny chattering we heard from a couple of the members of the other side when the Member for La Ve rendrye stated that it would have an effect on small business and because there was competition from other areas that were very great concerns to small business; and I refer to the Small Business Report that I just received this morning which is put out by the Manitoba Business Development and Tourism. it refers to an

article about Ancast. Mr. Clyde Mc Bain , in the

article is talking about his impro-share at Ancast , meaning a type of profit sharing. Mr. Speaker, Mr. McBain says some people are reluctant to buy in on shares , recognize that in small companies there is a limited market when it comes time to sell. They are just looking for greater liquidity, but here's what he said: "McBain says the main reason 3633

Friday, 5 July, 1815 for wanting to employ a participation program was a strong desire to remain competitive with foreign markets. He realizes that to compete with the cheaper labour, companies from abroad, Ancast had to look at new ways to compensate its employees and increase productivity." So right in your own brochure you're saying that there are companies in Manitoba - and it's being stated in your own brochure - that there are companies in Manitoba that have got competition from other than Canadian companies and certainly from offshore. Mr.

Speaker, knowing the particular foundry that's been written up here or any foundry whatsoever, they are highly trained people to handle very hot molten metal products and they have to be highly trained; and to have one of those people just go for six weeks could probably upset a production line within this company and that very same thing will happen with many other companies , Mr. Speaker, and I just wanted to point out that even in their own small business report they say that small business in Manitoba does have competition from outside sources.

They say this in one report and then they have legislation to do completely the opposite and that's the type of thing we've learned to expect from this governmen t. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urabl e Member · for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I only want to make one or two comments on this bill because unfortunately I won't be here to see the final debate on it.

As the Member for La Ve rendrye has stated, there are pieces of legislation that contain many good parts and many good points in it, but when you slide in one or two that are objectionable it becomes a problem of throwing out the whole bill or voting against the whole bill when you may support certain parts of it, which was a good case in Bill 72. With some amendmen ts, the bill could have been acceptable probably to all members on this side of the House. There were one or two sections in there that we objected to very strongly.

I would only be paraphrasing the Member for La Ve rendrye if I stated my objections to the paternity

section of six weeks leave in this particular bill because I know , in my constituency, there are very few if any, employers that employ a large number of people. They're all two and three .and four and five employee businesses and there are none of those that can afford to let a key member of that business go for six weeks without a complete disruption and probably devastating effects on that particular business. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to record my strong objections to this particular

section of the act. As the member stated, there are other parts of the act that are quite progressive and could be supported quite easi ly; but when they throw in a

section of the bill like this that is absolutely ridiculous to those ordinary people out there. I've had calls already as a result of the headline that it got in the paper, that the average guy out there just thinks this is absolutely ridiculous to even consider it and, as the member stated, that's only the thin edge of the wedge. The next will be to have a paid leave and there is no possible way that I can accept a ridiculous piece of legislation like that. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I move , seconded by the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Cree k, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 86 -THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT; LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION DU CONSOMMATEUR HON. R. PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 86,

An Act to amend The Consumer Protection Act; Loi modifiant la

loi sur la protection du consomma teur, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I'll be brief. The primary purpose of the proposed amendments is to allow for variable interest rate credit instruments in Manitoba. The act at present allows only for a credit written at a fixed interest rate. The Bank Act regulations were amended by, of course, the Federal Government in April of 1983 to allow federally regulated institutions to provide variable interest rate credit.

As a res ult, provincially regulated institutions - one need only thin k of credit unions, Calsse Populaire and so on - finance companies, trust companies and retail vendors have been at a competitive disadvantage because in the market there's quite a demand by consumers of financial services for variable rate interest at a time when interest rates are quite volatile. In the general case, variable interest rate instruments provide , at the outset, for lower interest rates at the time of the signing of the contract because the risk of providing credit is reduced for the credit granter .

Over the entire life of the contract, total interest charges to the consumer could be less, more or the same for variable or fixed credit contract. The outcome, of course , will depend upon the movement of interest rates in the market. While interest rates can move sharply in relatively short periods of time - and we've all seen that happen - consumers using variable credit can always protect themselves by using the existing right to prepaid credit agr eements without penalty and move to a more advantageous credit facility for themselves.

As the amendments would provide both consumers and credit grantors with a wider choice of credit instrumen ts, and would also reduce the competitive disadvantage for provincially regulated credit grantors, I recommend this bill to the House. I should point out that the secondary purpose of the proposed amendments is to extend a consumer right that currently exists with respect to the use of vendor credit by the use of credit cards. At present a consumer is entitled to a rebate of credit charges , where a vendor does not deliver goods at the time agreed upon. lt is 3634

Friday, 5 July, 1985 proposed in the bill that a similar right be provided where credit cards or other forms of variable credits are used in the purchase. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. I'd like to thank the Attorney-General for seeing me this morning to discuss the merits of this bill. I hadn't realized it was going to be "Attorney-General Day" in the House, but I appreciate the few moments he gave me.

The thrust of the act is primarily to allow the true cost of borrowing to be passed on through the consumers, and it seems ironic that under The Consumer Protection Act, you'd be providing provisions for basically money lending institutions, being credit unions, caisses populaires, etc ., to pass through the true cost of borrowing. But it's an important and I think a necessary ingredient because having been a vice president of a credit union when the rates were going high and you were locked into fixed rates that you soon caused havoc with the financial sheets. So I think it's important that it be there.

The only concern that I have with this type of legislation is that - and I've expressed this to the Minister in our earlier conversations - there is provision for increasing and decreasing of the cost of monies during the term of the contract, and I can see where the particular individual would want to give notice and raise the particular cost where the rates go up. We're left to assume that these same institutions will lower the rates when, in fact, the cost of money does go down, and I think in most cases this will occur.

If it doesn't occur, there doesn't seem to be any penalty or anything in place to ensure that the moneylender or the supplier of service, in effect, is adjusting the charges to the consumer to match those with his costs. I can appreciate that there is provision for the consumer to find alternate financing and you can discharge the loan and perhaps get a cheaper loan, if this does not occur.

But it seems to me that something should be done, either through consumer education programs and/or something to be added into the act that would make it mandatory that the lenders reduce the cost of credit as well as having that right to increase it. But that's the only concern I have on it As the Minister indicated, it brings us in line with the federal situation and the other credit granting institutions in this province. I think it is long overdue, and I'd be prepared to move it to committee stage. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speake r.

I can see no reason for not moving the bill on to committee stage. I just would like to comment; I have felt that there was always the provision there for institutions other than banks to vary their interest rates. I know that I had a personal experience where I was advised that my interest rate had gone down, and it wasn't a banking institution. I promptly took it to my banker and said, how many times have you written to your customers and said that your interest rate is going down?

The one factor I can see in it that may cause maybe a greater freedom in interest rates and those in the world of finance will have some concern, possibly in being able to regulate their portfolio in some way. As we all know, the money flows to the credit institutions from the marketplace. They receive money in at a fixed rate and they lend it back out at another rate and hopefully there is some profit in the spread that they're able to obtain.

There may be some problem now in managing their portfolio in such a way that they can put their credit out at a fixed rate and know that is the return they're going to receive on that many dollars for a certain period of time. I don't think you can take away the privilege of the borrower from saying, well, I realize that I borrowed that money for one year at a fixed rate, but I really don't like that rate six months down the road and I can get it cheaper somewhere else. You have to have that privilege of paying it off, if he could get that money at a cheaper rate somewhere else.

But there may be some small difficulties there in the financial institutions planning their portfolio, in trying to get a fixed rate for a certain period of time, if they were able to arrange it. I can see the consumer being the beneficiary of any fluctuations or any changes in interest rates and that certainly is all to the good. So I can see no reason, Mr. Speaker, for not allowing the bill to go to committee, and we may hear some representations that may enlarge upon the implications that this may have. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

BILL 62 - THE CHA RTER COMPLIANCE STATUTE AMENDMENT ACT; LOI MODIFIANT DIVERSES DISPOSITIONS L�GISLATIVES AFIN D'ASSURER LE RESPECT DE LA CHARTE HON. R. PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 62, The Charter Compliance Statute Amendment Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speak er, in many ways the bill that I am now introducing is I think not only the most important of those that I've introduced this morning, but, on reflection, I think many members might agree one of the most important of this Session.

Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights, with which this bill deals, prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. This prohibition has necessitated a number of amendments to provincial statutes. I think, as I go through them, members will agree changes in many circumstances is long overdue . Through the amendments, the concern has been to balance the 3635

Friday, 5 July, 1985 individual's right to security and privacy with the public interest and the effect ive enforcement of provincial laws, mainly in the instances I will be covering, taxation laws. The following then is a

summary of the major changes. First of all, with respect to taxation enforcement powers. it is intended that amendments to the enforcement provisions in provincial taxation statutes will meet the requirements of chartered clients without jeopardizing the collection of revenues. The statutes are being amended in four basic areas; first of all with respect to forfeiture of goods. Under current provisions, taxable goods which are imported in bulk without payment or the required tax may be seized just like that. Unle ss the goods are redeemed by payment of double the tax owing, they are forfeited to the Crown.

The goods are then sold and the procee ds of the sale are applied firstly to the double tax liability with the surplus of any to be returned to the individual. This procedure is unrelated at present to prosecution which may or may not follow and thus operate outside the protection of court revie w. The provisions in our view are unreasonable in that they require the individual to pay up or forfeit without the require ment of an objective determination of tax liability.

Under the new provisions, an individual will still be given the opportunity to, in a sense, admit liability by redeeming the goods - he can still do that - howe ver, if the person fails to pay the double tax, a prosecution must commence in order to provide the taxpayer with an opportunity to put his case before the court with respect to the goods. The proceeds of sale from the goods will be kept rather than escheated to the Crown pending the outcome of the prosecution and will be returned to the accused upon an acquittal. In any event, the proceeds bear interest until their disposition is determined by the court.

So if the court says no there was no wrongdoing; there should be no tax penalties; the goods should be returned or - and we are dealing here in the main with perishable goods which may have had to be sold - the proceeds plus interest are to be returned to the taxpayer. Secondly, extra judicial enforcement powers: All of the taxation statutes we have, as is the case with other provinces, grant to administrators the statutory power to enforce alleged debts to the Crown through a variety of procedures.

Present ly these powers can be exercised without a court judgment to establish the legitimacy of the alleged tax debt. The amendments we propose, Sir, will require a court judgment or admission of liability or some similar confirmation of indebtedness before the statutory power can be exercised . Additionally, the department may take enforcement proceedings upon the commencment of a court action to recover the debt allegedly owing but, in this case, and this is quite similar to garnishment, the money is to be paid into court pending the resolution of the case.

Finally, where a tax liability has not been clearly established, the department may still act to enforce the debt but the alleged debtor then has the right to apply to court for an order of restitution. The third area in the taxation statute deals with inspection, search and seizure. Inspection powers grant authority to enter premises on a random basis to inspect physical activities and records therein to determine compliance with the particular statute. These powers have been left virtually intact. In our view a random inspection probably is not a search within the meaning of the Charter

Section 8 and that issue has not yet bee n determined by the Supreme Court and certainly is not unreasonable given that Inspection powers are essential to ensure compliance with regulatory law. Howev er, the present statutory requirement, and this is what we're getting at, that the taxpayer answer all qu estions asked by an inspector creates an unreasonable obligation to provide information prior to possible litigation and has accordingly been removed.

Also the power to enter private dwellings where business records are purported to be kept will be restricted to the power to enter premises only where there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that business records are kept therein. I now deal with search and seizure powers. Search and seizure powers grant authority to officials to enter and search for evidence of a violation of a statute and to seize the evidence for use in court proceedings.

These powers are being amended throughout to meet the requi rements enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in the recent Southam Press decision - that's Hunter, Lawson, Hunter vs. Southam Press. The exercise of these powers will require a judicial warrant, and I think that's right. To obtain such a warrant, the following conditions will have to be met. There must be reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a violation of the act has occurred.

There must be reasonable and probable grounds to believe that evidence of the violation is to be found at the place of search and that the application must be supported by evidence on oath of the reasonable and probable grounds to which I've just referred. The concern, which is a real concern, that evidence might be destroyed if warrants are routinely required for seizure is met by allowing warrants to be obtained when necessary without prior notification to the party whose premises are the subject of the proposed search.

The amendments also introduce a standardized procedure whereby warrants may be issued by a justice of the peace, magistrate or provincial court judge. This conforms, Sir, to the Southam finding of the Supreme Court that warrants need issue only from a person capable of acting judicially, not necessarily just from a judge. At the same time, this amendment will provide easier access to an appropriate official authorized to issue warrants. We have, for example, justices of the peace who are available to the government at any reasonable time.

Finally, and this I think is very important, we are proposing to repeal all existing statutory provisions allowing for search and seizure without warrant. There will no longer exist in our statutes provisions for search and seizure without warrant. Access to records: Amendments have been made to expand the right of the taxpayer to get access to records which have been seized by or handed over to the Tax Department. Upon request, and where the document is reasonably required for business purposes, the department must return the records or provide a copy of it to the taxpayer.

Furthermore, new provisions req uire that seized items, including records, be returned within 180 days of the seizure unle ss a court authorizes an extension for purposes of court proceedings or an ongoing investigation. 3636

Friday, 5 July, 1985 I move to a second major area, industry compliance powers. Under a number of statutes - The Consumer Protection Act, The Landlord and Te nant Act, The Employment Standards and so on - an administrator is given authority to enter premises to investigate alleged violations of the particular statutory obligations. We are proposing amendments which will create a uniform procedure throughout these acts and which will preclude the use of the power to investigate, simply in order to conduct fishing expeditions.

The amended sections provide that the right of access arises only for the purposes of investigating a specific complaint and only where there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that specific records relevant to the complaint are to be found on the premises. A person has the right to refuse consent to enter. Where entry is denied the administrator may apply to a justice of the peace, magistrate or a provincial court judge for an access order. However, an order will issue only where specific conditions are met.

There must be reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the premises contain specific relevant documents and the authority for access must be reasonable and necessary for that investigation. Also, Sir, we are proposing to remove the requirement that a person under investigation provide any further information which the investigator may desi re . We are strengthening throughout , the right of a person to remain silent and say I'll see you in court . Liquor Act amendments are the third category in this bill.

The very sweeping enforcement powers under this act have been limited to make them consistent with the powers contained in other similar statutes. We are proposing to repeal the current provisions respecting forfeiture of vehicles involved, incidentall y, in liquor violations. That's a horrendous power. Now mind you, it's not used now as it was in the past, but it's there and it could be used - it's been taken out. Some of the reverse onus provisions which put the burden of establishing innocence on the accused are also being removed. That is clearly wrong, that is to have that kind of a reverse onus provision.

In conformity with the taxation statutes that I've talked about earlier the blanket power of search and seizure has been modified. Although the right to seize liquor which is the subject matter of a violation that has been reta ined, provided that the seizure is made in the course of duty by a constable or inspector. Administrative subpoenas : Some statutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker , give administrators the power to compel oral testimony or the production of records as a means of enforcing the regulatory authority.

The impact of Charter 8 on these provisions is an issue presently before the Court of Appeal in this province. it's being heard and we're waiting for judgment, therefore possible amendments regarding these powers have been postponed pending judicial resolution of the matter. Mr. Speaker , as I said at the outset, I regard this bill as a major step forward in fulfilling the mandate of the Charter.

If I may be so bold, I would call it a new Bill of Rights for the taxpayers of this province. lt establishes a benchmark for other provinces. it's an important aspect of the development by this governme nt, of a made-in-Manitoba equitable tax system for ordinary Manitobans. I want to say it has the full support, not only of the government in Caucus, but especially I want to make note of the strong support I've had throughout of the Minister of Finance. Thank you, I recommend this bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker , just a question for clarification on the bill to the Attorney-General. Could he indicate whether he is amending The Liquor Control Act with respect to the restrictions on advertisin g? HON. R. PENNER: No, that proposal which has been considered is not contained in any of the bills introduced so far. MR. G. MERCIER : Is that something that can be done by regulation or does it require an amendment to the act? HON. R. PENNER: lt would require an amendment to the act because there is a specific provision.

The so called, I think it was Campbeii-Sterling Lyon compromise of 1967 that led to the present provision and it's still there; and perhaps if those two gentlemen could get together and come up with a proposal we could deal with it, or we might deal with it in committee. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Morris, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBA TE ON SEC OND READING BILL 18 -THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT; LE CODE DE LA ROUTE MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Highwa ys, Bill No. 18, standing in the name of the Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speak er, I adjourned debate on this bill on behalf of my colleague, the Honourable Member for Minnedosa. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Speaker, Bill 18, on perusing it, is basically a clean-up bill, although there are one or two sections in it I think that would bear some comment.

Firstly, I was glad to see the amendment they proposed that deals with mobility vehicles, which are the advanc ed stage of mopeds , I suppose, that handicapped people have to use to transport themselves around, uptown for shopping and various short trips like that, that are limited to a minimum speed of 15 kilometres and not more than 50 maximum - but I don't think you'll get too many of them that will go up around 50 kilometres an hour. 3637

Friday, 5 July, 1985 We covered this

section fairly well in the Minister's Estimates. The Member for Virden had an ideal case that we covered at some leng th, and I think the amendment that's now being proposed in Bill 18 will certainly cover those types of vehicles and also give some flexibility to the Registrar of Motor Ve hicles that he might be able to - for the lack of a better term - bend the rules a little bit to provide licensing for these particular ve hicles so that th ey would have some insurance coverage and other protection under the act that other vehicles have. There's another

section of the act that deals with suspension and this stems from a ruling by the late Judge Ferg recently on th e section, "N otice of Suspension", just merely being mailed out was contrary to the Charter of Rights, where a notice of suspension merely mailed was not sufficient because there was no conclusive proof that the recipient had received the letter and was aware th at his licence had been suspended. So those changes in the act, Mr. Speaker, will probably solve those problems and clear up that area that was somewhat grey.

The amendment with the use of flashing red lights is a good addition to the act I think, Mr. Speaker , because I know I have used that method of indicating that there was a slow moving vehicle myself, on many occasions, not realizing that it maybe was contrary to the law. I find that my hunting dog can run three or four miles alongside of the car much easier than I can keep pace with him out on the road, so I've used that warning signal to any traffic that may be approaching, that my vehicle was moving at a little slower pace than I normally travel on the highway.

So I think that amendment is an amendment to clarify some fuzziness that was maybe in the act. The licensing also is a move to clear up the licensing of utility trailers, the sale of utility trailers and boat trailers. Those selling utility trailers are no longer required to post a $25,000 bond, which I think is probably a good clarification in the act; as well as the

section to indicate lane changes on the divided highways that are used in heavy traffic ind icated by arrows. I guess there has always been some confusion in that particular

section of the act, Mr. Speak er, but there was never any clear indication of when the change of lane signals should have been used, or whether the indicating arrows were completely clear on wh en someone should signal a change of lanes. So, Mr. Speaker , as I mentioned earlier, this is largely a clean-up of the various sections of the bill. The item on educational driving courses, the 15-1 /2s, those sections of the act I think provide more clarity in what can be accomplished in that area, and also I think gives the Registrar of Motor Vehicles a little more direction on what his powers are.

I note the ability is still there to suspend a licence for those young drivers who are not complying with the req uirem ents of their learner's permit and I think that's a good

section of the act. Also those younger drivers who have had their first driving permit if they're convicted of traffic offences or have a couple of accidents within a short period of time on their first year's driver's licence can have that licence cance lled probably fairly quickly on them that would indicate pretty strongly to them that their driving licence was a privilege and not actually a right. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't have too many more comments to make. As I mentioned, the act is to clear up a lot of grey areas . I think the

section that deals with the deletion of the 30-day time limit for appeals to the Medical Review Committee is a good one. There are many cases where drivers' licences have been suspended on some medical grounds that maybe were not completely clear and there maybe wasn't complete justification for them. Also it appears to give some more direction, through the act, to those on the review panel .

I have had a couple of instances in the past year with those who have unfortunately suffered from small strokes and have been incapacitated in one way or the other but are still reasonably capable of driving, whether it be under a restricted licence or under a full licence.

There has been a great deal of inconvenience and frustration caused with the necessity to come into the city for a review panel and find, when they got in here with some difficulty and inconvenience, that some little requirement that they weren 't aware of or some small tec hnicality that they were unable to have the review or were unable to complete it successfully enough to obtain their licences. I think these provisions in the new act with regard to the Medical Review Committee will clear that up to some degree and that is something that we can support, Mr. Speaker.

With those comments, we can move the bill on to committee and hopefully there will be presentations made at that stage if there are some of those that have strong objections to it. But as I say, at the outset, it looks like largely a clean-up piece of legislation and two or three of the items that I have covered certainly required some clarification and this act appears to do that to a very large degree. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways will be closing debate. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr.

Deputy Speak er, I don't want to comment in any length at all but just simply to thank the member for his positive comments t') the hill ;md look forward to passing it through Law Amendments Committee, hopeful ly, very quickly. lt seems that most of the amendments that have been proposed are acceptable to the opposition and I appreciate the positive remarks from the member. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL 53 -THE PAY EQUI TY ACT;

LOI SUR L'EGALITE DES SALAIRES MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour, Bill No. 53, standing in the name of the Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Mr. Speaker , I'm happy to make a few remarks on the Pay Equity Bill. As indicated by the Member for La Ve rendrye, we will be in support of this legislation. Equal pay for work of equal value is not a new demand. In the United States, The Equal Pay Act of 1963 specified work of equal value and established an evaluation criteria . Fourteen Ameri can states, including our immediate southern neighbours, Minnesota and North Dakota, have similar legislation. The most 3638

Friday, 5 July, 1985 progressive example in terms of legislati on is New Zealand's Equal Pay Act of 1972. I'd like to put some facts on the record about women in the workplace and I know we've all heard them before, but 77 percent of the women in the labour force are in five of 22 major job categ ories : retail sales, clerical, service industry, health and teaching - often low paying , dead-end jobs. Women earn 64 cents for every dollar earned by men. Women in 1982, with university degrees, earned the same as men with high school education.

Last year women acc ounted for 71 percent of all part-time workers, providing less security, fewer benefits and promotions; and yet, in 1984, it was forecast that women will account for 67 percent of new bus iness starts, but the barriers there are great, both for accessing loans and financing cred it. Women's contributions to the economy , as both employees and entrepreneurs, have increased, but women have not benefited in proport ion to that contribution. Mr. Speaker, changes in thinking are needed.

In the mid- '70s, workers at the Health Sciences Centre negot iated a job evaluation committee and consequently the disparity between salaries of nurses' ai des and order lies was erased . Nobody wants inequality in the workplace. lt is time for att itudes to change. lt is to the advantage of everyone that women become financially independent. How much better to utilize this wonderful resource than having our taxes keeping women on welfare or pension supplements. One of three Canadian marriages end in di vorce.

Educators and parents must insist our daughters persevere in Mathematics and Science while they are at schoo l. These are the prerequ isites for new technologies, the prerequisites for jobs. In the bill, on Page 5, the General Objects and Purposes, it says: "The objects and purposes of this Act are to establish the principle of pay equity in Manitoba; and to inform employers, employees and bargaining agents, within the public and private sectors, of the principles and practices of pay equity." Mr.

Speaker, businesses in Manitoba have been fighting for years, for the last number of years, and are still fighting to keep their heads above water. Naturally they fear this legislation because they see it as an added cost. lt is imperative that this legislation, pay equi ty, be explained to them, to show them that they should have nothing to fear from this legislat ion. I think it's incumbent on the government, when they bring in legislation like this, that they don't have one segment of the economy oppo sed to a piece of legislation that they see as possibly hurting themselves, hurting their business.

I think that's one of the things that must happen in government and through this legislation. We would like to see it work; as a woman, I would like to see it work and its time has come.

On Page 11 of the bill, its "Referral of failure to implement plan of wage adjustme nts," it says: "W here the government fails to implement wage adjustments required by this act, the executive director or the association may refer the matter to arbitrat ion." Now when I was talking to some people in the hospitals that this bill will affect, the external agencies, I think one of the fears is that the funding will not come through as it should; will it include the fringe benef its?

I think this is something that we're going to have to watch very carefully because we certainly don't want to see our hospitals underfunded because of legislation that is brought in, and I think the health care of our citizens has to be paramoun t. So that is something that is going to have to be very carefully watched , that the government lives up to its end of the bargain when it's bringing in this type of legislation.

The Min ister of Labour, when he spoke on the bill, spoke about in 1842, in Britain, The Mines Act was passed prohibiting the employment of women and girls underground and setting boys age limit to age 10. Of course, this is the beginning of discrimi nation against women working in non-traditional jobs, and from there on we want it to protect, certainly the young girls and the young boys, from these practices, but this was the start when they included women in areas of non traditional jobs. I think that certainly nothing much has really improved in the last years.

The government also talks about the dual strategies whic h are pay equ ity and aff irmative action and mentions that affirmative action is in place in the Civil Service. Well I'll deal with that

part later. The Member for Wolseley indicated how delighted she was with the bill. I must say that I am pleased to see this legislation come in, as well, but she went on to say that it didn't pop up in government caucuses in March, April or May, but I have a feeling that it did pop up in January or Februa ry, that this is a - (Interjection) - Ye s, the Minister mentions, or at least the Member for Wolseley mentions, that it was brought up in 1981. Well it's significant that this is 1985 and we are getting the legislation in the last days of the Session.

I think that women have been fighting for this and we're happy to see that it is coming about. When the Member for Wolseley was also referring to the Member for La Ver endrye's words, and I'll use her words, "absolutely adorable," because he talked about caring for his fellowman; and I hope that she will think that the Min ister of Labour's words were absolutely adorable when he said, referring to the same bill, "not a giant step for mankind, this." Old habits die hard and I think that it's really so easy to criticize and I think it's better to encourage in this area.

Most women today do work because they need the money and they need jobs that pay a living wage. But when the Member for La Verendrye spoke about women, who we sometimes forget, women who stayed at home till their children were grown. These are the women who do the majority of the volunteer work in the community today; they volunteer in the schools, day cares, Meals on Wheels, community clubs, crisis centres - they are working all our crisis centre phones, not paid staff, these are the women that have chosen to stay home.

These are the women who feel that they must apologize because they don't work outside the home. These are the women the Member for La Ve rendrye was talk ing about, and he's right. After all, the years of being unpaid and totally undervalued - at least that's how they see themselves in society today - these women are wanting a sense of achievement and a sense of accomplishment, and the only way they see that they can get this is by being paid. I really feel that the Member for Wolseley was mak ing a fundamental error when she made comparisons about 3639

Friday, 5 July, 1985 women in need and the women who go into the wo rkplace not because of di r e need. Dr . Alice Bou lding (phonetic) made the po int, and I will quote , "The role of women, in simply carrying out the tasks and meet ing the fam ily challenges of everyday life, is now becom ing seen as a badly ignored fa ctor . We have ignored it to ou r det riment" We shouldn't be pola rizing, any of us.

As feminists, while most of ou r energies are spent on the needy women in the wo rk fo rce, there is a large group of women who are at home and who are need ing the suppo rt, and I th ink they are badly fo rgotten at times. So I would hate to see us get into a pos ition of compa ring women in need and women maybe who are not in need. They have di fferent ki nds of needs and, as women, we want to pull togethe r because we want the suppo rt of all women, not just the suppo r t of people that are considered in the lowe r end of the so cial economic st rata.

I th ink it's really one of the th ings that fem inists should pay mo r e attention to because I know that they really are concerned about this, but it's not com ing out. But, in spite of what the Membe r fo r Wolseley put on the record, the Conse rvat ives unde rstand very well the dist inctions between pay equity, equal oppo rtunity and aff irmat ive action. The problem somet imes I th ink with Hansard and speak ing, that everything that you don't put into the record is considered that you don't understand or that poss ibly you' r e not in agreement with. Not at all.

When someone has made the poi nt, I don 't see it necessary to constantly make it ove r again. We have seen this gove rnment's actions, or I should say non-action, when it comes to affi rmat ive action. We saw it in Gover nment Se rvices where they said they were go ing to start a prog ram. Now this was in the prom ises that the Premier made du ring the election about affi rmat ive action. We're in the dy ing days of this Session with an election upon us and all of a sudden we see a bi ll for pay equity, which we appreciate, and affirmat ive act ion sta rting now. Where was it befo re?

I go back to the chairman of the Manitoba Telephone System. When a man was in the pos ition, it was $35,000.00. A woman, all of a sudden, can take that same positi on, but it can only be part-time because obvi ously they don't feel that they need the same input Th is to me is a putdown , bec ause pe rcepti on is eve rything, and the pe rcept ion he re to me and what we have is a woman tak ing a job fo r $25,000, but what on ea rth was the fellow that was in there - who was it that had that job fo r MTS tak ing $35,000 - if it could have been done for $25,000.00.

If staff were able to do it now, they should have been able to do it befo re. I take ex cept ion to that, because now that job has been downgraded, and a woman is in it. I don't see whe r e the aff irmat ive act ion helps in cases like th is. We see in Commun ity Se rvices fi ve out of si x executive dir ecto rs that we re named to the new Ch ild and Family Servi c e Boa rds, five out of six men, one woman. What about aff irmat ive action there? And he re, Mr. Speaker, we have a woman Minister .

Th is is a woman who is go ing to Na irob i with the Status of Women, talk ing about women and yet in her own depa rtment, I see sitting there day afte r day, six or seven men who are obv iously in the top jobs, one woman. Then they change and another woman, but always the men. So there is a lot of wo r k to be do ne. The Membe r fo r Wolseley indi cated that the women in the labou r fo rce are not all go ing to be bosses, and I ag ree with that. They 're not all go ing to be bosses. But I do feel that when someone is in a job as a secreta ry, we want to make su r e that they get the oppor tunity to move up.

They don't have to move from the secretary to the boss, but there are other steps, and educat ion is not a barri er to movi ng to another level. Th is is the so rt of th ing that we' re not seeing. So I hope that pay equ ity is not go ing to take the place of this ki nd of movement ; that they're go ing to say oh well, fine, the secretaries are now ea rning the same as a Clerk 1, or whatever the compar ison is. What I want to see as well is that these women have a chance to advance; that they don't end up in dead end jobs ; that they can move up in the system .

So far, th is gove rnment has fa iled mise rably in do ing that so rt of thing. I have to say that, as a gove rnment who talks about women all the time and then they br ing in a piece of legislation like this whic h is good and which is needed, I get the feeling that eve ryone's go ing to relax and say oh, we've done this; and we won't pay as much attention to the oppor tunities fo r women to move and advance. I have been watching the pape rs ve ry closely for the advertis ing fo r jobs. So cial wo rkers is a good example.

Practically every job that's wo rth its salt, that has any good money attached to it, is look ing fo r Masters Deg rees. Why is that? Because no rmally, what has happened is the woman is ma rried in most cases. She is look ing afte r the home. She's got her degree in Social Work. She doesn 't have time to go out and get that Maste rs Degree.

Yet · he re we have a case of di sc rimination because of educat ion requ irements and I th ink that's someth ing that has to change. it's the so rt of th ing that the gove rnment could have been look ing at in these past fou r years, and these are changes that could have been made. Mr. Speake r, I look fo rward to hea ring from the public when th is bill gets to commi ttee. I'm just sorry that it has come so late in the Session that people are not go ing to have the same oppo rtunity, when we' r e into summer, a lot of people aren't go ing to have the same oppo rtunity to speak to th is bill.

I'm hop ing that we hear some ve r y good presentations on it. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Membe r for Fo r t Ga rry. MR. C. BIRT: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Membe r fo r Assiniboia, that debate on th i s bi ll be adjour ned. MOTION preaented and carried. MR. SP EAKER: On the pr oposed mot ion of the Honou rable Attorney-General, Bill No. 63. The Honou rable Minister of Lab our. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speake r , could you call Bill No. 63, please? Mr. Speake r, Bill 63. Oh, you called it? MR. SPEAKER: Bill 63, the Honourable Gove rnment House Leade r . HON. A. MACKLING: I bel ieve, Mr.

Speake r , that bi l l was to be left, wasn't it? Yes, it can go to comm ittee. 3640

Friday. 5 July. 1985 Well, just a minute. No , no, have this stand, Mr. Speaker. This is a sleeper, Mr. Speake r. MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. The debate is befor e the House, and it is in the name of the Honourable Gove rnment House Leade r . If he does not speak to it and if it is not stood, then it co mes to a vote. HON. A. MACKLING: Stand . MR. SPEAKER: Stand. BILL 73 - THE SPECIAL SURVEY ACT: LA

LOI SUR LES ARPENT AGES SPECIAUX MR. SPEAK ER: On the pr oposed motion of the Honou rab le Atto rney-Gen eral, Bill No. 73, the Honou rable Member for St. Norbe rt. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, this bill has been on the Order Paper fo r so me ti me because when the Attorney-General introduced the bi ll I asked hi m if he had consulted with the Land Surveyors Association and he had not.

At my request he did , and I've now received from hi m, and I thank hi m fo r providing me with th i s info rmation , a copy of a letter from the Land Su rveyors Association in which they outline thei r meeting with offic ials in the Atto rney-General's Depa rtment wherein they reco mmend amendments to this bill, which I understand the Attorney-General is prepared to agree to and I take it will introduce when the bill is in co mmittee . So, on that basis, Mr. Speake r, I think we can pass the bill on to co mmittee and deal with the Land Surveyo r's concerns in co mmittee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL 75 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT AND OTHER ACTS OF THE LEGI SLATURE; LOI MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE PAIEMENT DES SALAIRES ET D'AUTRES LOIS DE LA LEGIS LATURE MR. SPEAKER: On the pr oposed motion of the Honou rable Mi niste r of Labou r, Bill No . 75 , the Honou rable Membe r fo r La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speake r . Bill No. 75, I believe flows from a numbe r of initiatives that have been taken over the last , I believe, 10 years within this Legislature. I remember a numbe r of years ago when the previous ND P Gover nment, I believe , introduced som e legislation which would have seen the worke rs' wages take precedence ove r the first mortgage on a prope rty.

I believe that was back in 1976, or maybe even 1977.

At that ti me it was introduced by the fo rmer Schreyer Gove r nment, and I remember sitt ing on that co mmittee and diffe rent lending institutions , as well as private 3641 individuals, co ming fo rwar d and indicating to us at that ti me that if you did away with the fi rst mortgage philosophy, and the fi rst mortgage right, what would happen is that - we used the exa mples of a widow who is selling he r farm and is taking a mortgage back - she would then be subject to not being su r e that she would get the money that the mortgage, indeed, had stipulated and the money that she would be having co me to he r fo r her reti rement or fo r use in he r da ily living.

The gove rnment at that time realized that there was a prob lem and withdrew that bill and, as a result, within the next couple of years, the previous government, the Lyon administration, introduced a program whereby the payment of wages was paid out of a fund which was provided for by the taxpayers of Manitoba. Mr.

Speake r , I believe at that ti me particular legislation was passed unanimously by the House, all members recogni zing that the re was a pr ob lem, and that employees who did have wages co ming from bank rupt co mpanies should be at least given a chance to recover a po rtion of it and not bear the brunt of the closur e or the bank ruptcy because, in very many instances they went th rough the traumatic expe rience of, fi rst of all, losing thei r job, which they might have had for many years and then, on top of that , we all realized that people who are involved in hous ing and ca r payments and that, they did have ce rtain co mmitments and, of course, if they then had to lose their wages with rega r d to that ba nk ruptcy, that would pr oduce a seve re hardship.

So I believe everybody in the House at that ti me recognized the fact that the wo rker, in this instance, had to be looked after and , the refore, the previous Lyon ad minist ration established a system of payment of wages which I believe has served the province well.

I think the figu res that were put fo rward this year , du ring the Ministe r's Esti mates , indicate that the recove ries of those funds are starting to co me in on an annual basis. lt is my understanding, from the bill befo re us, that this will streamline the recove ry of those funds and also allow the payment of wages, people involved in em ploy ment stan da rds and that ar e ad ministrating The Payment of Wages Act, to go ahead and try in som e instances to collect funds a little faste r and maybe go afte r so me of the di rectors who form part of the co rpo ration .

Since it is a bill which, from my understanding, and I put this caveate fo rward to the Minister, that I look forward to hea ring so me presentations at co mmittee ti me at which so meone might point out so me proble ms with the bill. I wou ld be open and receptive to see if there are any problems being caused by the changes which affect di rectors, because we are getting into mo re corpo rate law business, and I would be anxious to see what would happen there.

But, I think, as the Minister indicated when he introduced the bill, the bill is really trying to st reamline and trying to tidy up so m e of the problem s that the depa rtment has encountered ove r the last number of years in, not only disbursing the funds to the emplc;ees , but also at a tim e when they are trying to collect so me of the funds back, eithe r from a receive rship or from som e di recto rs. So , Mr. Speake r , this bill has had a histo ry of co ope ration in this Legislature. I say to members opposite that I cannot see any proble ms with it at the present

Frtct.y, 5 Juty, 1985 time; but I would, again, file that caveat with the Minister, if there are some technical presentations made at committee, I would want us to have a good look at those because, as I said, I'm not an expert in that particular field and, hopefully, the presentations will deal with any of those smaller fine points that might be causing some problems to certain segments of the population. So, having said that, Mr. Speaker, we pass the bill on to committee. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to raise a small point with the Minister for consideration. On behalf really of the Member for Virden who has provided me with a copy of a letter to the Min ister, dated January 28, 19 85, from Mr. Frank Meighen from Brandon, a well-known lawyer who I'm sure the Minister knows. He wrote to the Minister with respect to claims under The Payment of Wages Act against various directors of the Co-operative Birdtail Equipment Co op Ltd., in which claims were made against 10 directors for total wages of $3,548.05.

The individuals appealed that decision, but under the terms of the act had to pay the monies into court. Now the appeals were filed on behalf of all of the 10 directors and according to Mr. Meighen, the act requires that each director pay the amount claimed against himself or herself so that, in effect, 10 times the amount claimed -t he total amount claimed of $3,548 - had to be paid into court. In this case, Mr. Meighen advises that they paid in a total of $1 1,871 which was less than what is actually required under the legislation, but still was three times the total amount of wages claimed. Mr.

Meighen, I think, rightly points out that this did cause some hardship and that the monies were held in court for some 15 months. Now we're all, I think in the House, agreeable, or of the same position that claims can be made against directors for unpaid wages. but it seems to me - and I would ask the Minister to consider this point - of an amendment in committee so it would be clear that the directors do not have to pay into court more than the total amount of wages that are being claimed. I think that is a reasonable position for Mr.

Meighen and the directors of the Birdtail Co-op Ltd. to take and t think one that is worthy of consideration for an amendment in committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister of Labour will be closing debate. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, I wan1 to thank both the Member for La Verendrye and the Member for St. Norbert for the constructive critricisms and observations they've made in connection with this proposed legislation. I appreciate the concern latterly raised by the Member for St. Norbert.

I do recall that correspondence and the concern - and I'm not sure whether that really is affected - has been dealt with under this legislation. 1 doubt that it has and I'll discuss that with my staff and see whether it is possible to work something in that would do it, because I think it would be desirable to be able to make a payment into court of just the amount that's owing rather than many times that.

I don't know whether it can be done readily but I'll cert ainl y look at th at and if there are any. other constructive suggestions tha t are made, as the Honourable Member for La Verendrye has said during the course of hearings, I'll certainly welcome any constructive advice as well. I appreciate those comments. Thank you. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL 76 - THE PENSION BENEFITS ACT LA

LOI SUR LA PENSION DE RETRAITE MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hono urable Min ister of Labour , Bill No. 76, the Honourable Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, we dealt yesterday with a bill before us which was introduced by the Minister of Education, at which time we saw some pension benefits given to a certain group within society which is funded to a certain extent by the Manitoba taxpayer.

We are dealing with a bill before us now which again, if I could paraphrase really what the Minister said, that it's tidying up some of the loose ends from the old bill and again I have to plead somewhat, not ignorance, Mr. Speaker, but not as fully apprised of the facts about pensions that I would like to be and possibly should be. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I know from my own experiences in dealing with my own businesses, that there is a growing concern among employees all over the province - and I would imagine generally across the country - with regard to the establishm ent of pension plans.

I will take this opportunity to put a few thoughts on the table and maybe make a few suggestions to the Minister. One of the things I think we really fall short of is explaining to a lot of small employers how we could better use the RASP system in starting to provide pension plans for small employers; because what's happening now If you talk to - and I speak with a little bit of experience because I'm going through that myself.

I have a couple of small businesses which employ three or four people each and as a result it is not a big enough plan. or there aren't enough employees to get into a large plan which has to be registered with the province and really the advice that the provincial people are giving, I would imagine myself and some other people, is to use the RASP vehicle because it provides the employee with the benefit of having that fund very portable, because he or she can take it with them if they move on to other employment; but it also means that there is a lot less paper work for the employer because you don't have to get into the registering of the plan and adhere to all the different sections of the act and the different responsibilities that you have in reporting as well as investing the funds in other things. 1 know there's a system now in place whereby most of the chartered banks and I believe some of the trust companies, will even administrate this RASP on a joint 3642

Friday, 5 July, 1985 contribution basis between employer and employee and to that extent I was happy to see, Mr. Speaker, that the Federal Government raised the exemption level of RRSP s because it will now provide a vehicle for a lot of people who are. in many of the instances, retail operators who are probably paying bonuses to staff and as we all know, the retail businesses are cyclical. What happens is you might have a good year and a bad year.

But I say to members opposite that I would ask this Minis ter to review the RRSP system very carefully before he or his Min isters take the approach that it is only for the rich; because I see that as becoming a very im portant vehicle to provide pensions for emp loyees of very small businesses and because it becomes very hard and there is a very cumbersome vehicle in place for small busine sses to do that. I speak now of experience, because I'v e gone through it. I've been trying for the last six months to put a plan in place.

Now I know some of the companies will come and sell you the plan, but there are then service charges and other things which I have to say that while I want to see these guys making a living too, but I would rather see the benefits accrue to the empl oyee rather than worrying about the di fferent levels of inves tment, whether they should take a higher risk on some, maybe not so blue chip stocks and that type of thing, and you have to choose the dif ferent levels. But I think the RR SP, for instance, the credit union at home, the banks at home are providing an excellent interest rate on a longer term.

I notice now that one of the larger employers in my constituency is starting to go to a profit-sharing program, and the RRSP vehicle is one which I believe is going to start to be used very effectively to try and get people, who now do not have any pensions in place at all, to move them into an area where they can build up something for retirement and build up a little bit of a nest egg.

So I say to the members opposite that before you take a hard swipe at the RRSP system and say it's only for the rich, I want to tell you that there are going to be, I believe, many people who are concerned about their employees' welfare and are concerned about their employees' well-being and want to see them save some money for their old age or for their retirement, are going to be using the RRSP system because, in my looking at it, it seems to be one of the best ways, one of the most secure ways to provide pensions that are, not only of a meaningful nature, but also of a portable nature to small busine sses that employ only a few people.

So I say to members, and I point out to the Mini ster, that I think maybe his department and some people should have a good look at that because there might be an opportunity here to put a small booklet together to explain how this is done and that will have it a benefit to, not only the employer but, in this case, the employee who really in many ins tances needs 1is type of protection and is willing to make the contribution.

I say to the Mi nister that it's much easier if - and we are all like that - if the deduction is made before you get the mone y, it's much easier for a person to put it away than to wait at the end of the year and then having to go borrow the money or things like that.

If you don't get it mto your hands and it's put into an RRSP or a pension fund, it seems to be a lot less painful because for any of us, and I think we are all like that - I know there are a few disciplined people in our group who are putting away so much money a month - but it becomes very hard, there is a tendency for all of us to spend it if it is in our account.

So I say to the Minis ter, I believe, that while this act is really of a caretaking nature, there are certain things that we can do, especially in the field of small busin ess, where we can try and help the entrepreneur and the employee get together and get into a plan which is not cum bersome and will provide some benefits for the emp loyees when they move on. I would also like to say to the Min ister that, as I mentioned, there are a number of emplo yers now that are going into a system of profit sharing and, again, the RRSP system is an excellent way of doing that.

I say that because I come back to what I just said a little earl ier, one of the difficulties I have found with profit sharing is that when the money is given to the emplo yee at the end of the year in the form of a bonus, or on a monthly basis in the form of a commission, what happens is that that money then becomes part of the daily standard of living that individual is involved with.

I know in my business, the automobile business, is very much like farming; we have good years and we have bad years, so some years the employee will make a fairly good cheque - this happened to me a numb er of years ago - the emplo yees were all paid a fairly good cheque and so they incorporated that in their living standard. They took the money home, went out and bought maybe some new furniture and that, and next year anticipa ted receiving that same amount.

Half way through the year, the employees found out that the cars were not selling as well, there was a low point and, as a result, what happened is that we were faced with not providing any bonuses. Yet the family at home and the employee had already counted on that money because they had it the year before and they spent it. So their lifestyle had been put into a position - and we are all like that, I am not saying that we are any different - but we all incorporated that money. As we all know, it's much harder to cut back than in crease your spending.

So the RRSP is also a vehicle where people are getting into the profit-sharing program, and if they are involved in a retail or a farming type of business, it allo ws them to put the money away before it really passes through the hands of anybody and then, of course, if it's put away, the tendency of drawing it out becomes much less. So, Mr.

Speaker, I put that on the record; I think there is an opportunity within the different programs that are being provided by private groups, as well as by credit unions, trust companies and banks, that there are vehicles being developed which will see more and more people putting away money, saving money for ! :ture retirement or for future emergency needs. So having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I pass the bill on to committee, again saying to the Mi nister that I am rot as knowledgeable as I would like to be about the bill, about the finer points, but that I would be open to suggestions from people who might be appearing before the committee should the suggestions prove to be )! banefit in trying to either tidy up or maybe make 3643 thi future be of be

Frld•y, 5 July, 1985 the bill a bette r bill for the employees and the employers in this province. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready fo r the question ? The Honourable Minister of Labour will be closing debate. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Spea ke r, I have an extensive reply, at least a half an hou r in length but , in view of the very constructive obser vations of my colleague, the Membe r fo r La Verend rye, I will dispense with that. Ther e are obvi ously great st rides that we have made in respect to pension legislation in the province.

Th is, as the honou rable membe r po ints out, affects some of the technical impr ovements that are necessary in the legislation. I, li ke the honou rable membe r , am not particularly expe rt in this field, and it ta kes some tho rough analysis to really understand some of these prov isions.

When I, from my seat . indicated that the fede ral init iatives in respect to RA SPs will benefit the rich most, it's my concern that because of the increased si ze of the allowance that the Fede ral Gove rnment will permit in respect to RA SP loading that it will he l p the rich mo r e than the average or the smaller income ea rner , and that is true. I am not completely negative on RA SPs; they do provi de, as the honou rable membe r I think has been indicating, a tremendous amount of flexibility,

part icularly for the small business pe rson. However, in respect to pensions, ou r pension law doe s provide fo r a mo re thor ough treatment of the monies that are held fo r reti rement. So, Mr. Speake r , with those few words, I commend the bill to the House and to commit tee . QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The time being 12:30 and Private Membe rs' Hour. HOUSE BUSINESS MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minister of Health. HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Spea ke r, I think the re's an inclination to dispense with the Private Member s' Hou r , but before adjou rning the House I would like to make this announcement. The Industrial Relations Committee will meet Monday, July 8th at 10:00 a.m. in Room 254 to conside r the bills refe rred. On the same mor ning at the same time , in Room 255, Privileges and Elections, to consider Bill 12. On Tuesday, July 9th at 10:00 a.m. in Room 254, Municipal Affai rs Committee to consider bills referred, and also at 8: 00 p.m. the same day, if necessary.

Statuto r y Regulations and Orde rs, Tuesday, July 9th at 10:00 a.m., and also at 8: 00 p.m., if necessary; that would be in Room 255 to conside r the bills refe rred. Private bills, Wednesday, July 10th at 10:00 a.m. to conside r bills referred in Room 254. Finally, SRO , Wednesday, July 10th , also at 10:00 a.m. in Room 255. MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave to dispense with Private Members ' Hou r today ? Leave has been granted . On the proposed motion of the Honou rable Minister of Health, Bi ll No. 85 , the Honourable Membe r for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speake r , I would as k to have this mat ter stand .

I believe the Act ing House Leade r indicated to you , Sir, that we wish to dispense with Private Membe rs' Hou r and adjou r n the House at th i s time. MR. SPEAKER: If the re is a motion to adjourn, we will so adjourn, but othe rwise ou r time is . . . HON. L. DESJARDINS: I so move , seconded by the Ministe r of Labour. MOTION preaented and carried and the House adjour ned and stands adjour ned until 2:00 p.m. on Monday. 3644

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-84
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 84.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	61bc967830dc417af39f2cd6f0469a18caa317ec

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