Manitoba Hansard — 1 October 1996 (Sitting 57, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-57

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 57- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 1, 1996 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Atl"diation Name. Constituency &r4 ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Rob lin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Alben, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charleswood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. - EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HELWER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norben P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Ponage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupensland N.D.P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. Kirkfield Park P.C.

STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D.P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Ross mere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Tunle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fon Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosano Swan River N.D.P.

3875 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, October 1, 19 96 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Pharmacare Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Peter Korbutiak, Esther Finkle and Gerry Finkle requesting that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider reversing their plan to cut Pharmacare in 1996. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Economic Development Second Report Mr.

Peter Dyck (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Madam Spea ker, I beg to present the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following as its Second Report. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Friday, September 27, 1996, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report for the Communities Economic Development Fund for the year ended March 31, 1996. Mr.

Wakeling provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report for the Communities Economic Development Fund for the year ended March 31, 1996. Your committee has considered the Annual Report for the Communities Economic Development Fund for the year ended March 31, 1996, and has adopted the same as presented. Mr. Dyck: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honoura ble member for Riel (Mr. Newman), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Bon. Eric Stefan son (Minister of Finance): Madam Spe aker, I am pleased to table two reports.

The first is the Report to the Legislature pursuant to

Section 56(3) of The Financial Administration Act at March 31, 1996. The second is the Report to the Legislature pursuant to

Section 7(2) of The Loan Act for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1996. Bon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation for '95-96 and the Annual Report of the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund for '95-96. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members, firstly, to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have this afternoon His Excellency Volodymyr Furkalo, Ambassador of Ukraine to Canada.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. Also, seated in the public gallery, we have 10 visitors from the Applied Linguistics Centre under the direction of Ms. Greta Gibson. This centre is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

3876 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 *

(1335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Regional Health Authorities Act Withdr awal Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Last week, we talked about the autocratic policies that were described by management groups in the regional health bill as being undemocratic and abhorrent.

Over the weekend we have been made aware that a number of religious organizations and churches have been circulating letters and other material dealing with the government's proposed autocratic superboards and calling on their parishione:rs and supporters to write the government, write the Prcmrier and write letters to the editoc calling on the government to reinstate the values of their conummity and reinstate the rights of the community in the health care area .

Would the Premier, today, please agree that this bill is undemocratic, autocratic and it should be withdrawn from this Legislative floor on bl�half of Manitobans? Bon. James McCr ae (Minister of Health): Apart altogether from the fact tlul1t the Legislature has before it Bill 49, which can be the: subject of debate and is the subject of debate, Madam Speaker, we have consistently as a government recognized the role, the tradition and the history of faith-related organizations in the delivery of health care in Manitoba. The Premier (Mr.

Filmon) and I and others have been working very closely with representatives of the Interfaith Council to ensure that th1eir concerns, as put to us in meetings we have had with them, are appropriately met through amendment to the l'egislation. This is something I told the Interfaith Council last June that I would be considering this fhll, which liS what we are doing.. We are engaged in discussions with them to find accom modations to meet their legitimate requirements. Mr .

Doer: Madam Speaker, this letter circulated through the Menn onite churches over the weekend and other letters that have been circulated speak to the competency of this Minister of Health. We have seen the Minister of Health close emergency wards in community based hospitals before he consults with the public. We have seen this minister propose to privatize a hundred percent of home care and, of course, we witnessed the public reaction.

We witnessed the debacle on the two different pamphlets that were out on Pharmacare changes fum this minister, and now we hear that this government is going to consult with the communities after they table the bill in the Legislature. Will this Prcmrier withdraw this bill and give us a minister who will consult with the public, consult with the patients before legislation is introduced in this Legislature rather than after the fact, as we see from this incompetent Minister of Health? Mr. McCrae: The honourable Leader of the Opposition is quite incorrect in most of the things that he said in his

preamble, Madam Speaker. For example, he ref erred to a proposal for 100 percent contra cting-out in home care when he knows full well that the original proposal was 25 percent. Even the Manitoba Government Employees Union agrees that 20 percent ought to be the subject of contracting-out, so the honour able Leader of the Opposition ought to get his facts straight before he comes in here making judgments about the government.

Madam Speaker, the points that he has raised respecting faith-related organizations are appropriate to be raised, and they are being settled as we speak in discus sions with the Interfaith Council and their representatives. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, we have people that are experts on medicare concerned about the two-tier elements of this health care bill and what it will mean for user fees in the future.

We have workers that are concerned that they no longer will have the right to determine their bargaining agent; it will be determined by a govermnent, a Premiec -appointed czar of the workplace, which is probably contrary to the ILO. Not that this autocratic Premier cares about that. *

(1340) We have management saying that this bill is undemocratic and abhorrent. I would like to ask the

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 77 Premier (Mr. Filmon), in light of the fact that the Minister of Health has had to do a full reversal on his ill thought-out plans on the religious-based, community based boards, will he be withdrawing all the other disfavourable, autocratic and authoritarian elements that are contained within this bill and go back and give us a bill in health care that all the community can work with rather than just the dictatorship that we see across the way from this Premier? Mr.

McCrae: If you check the record, Madam Speaker, you will see that at every step towards the reconstruction of a quality health care system, we have been opposed by honourable New Democrats opposite. In no area, other than perhaps in certain areas of mental health reform, and even then you have to poll each and every individual New Democrat separately because their policies do not mesh with that of their Leader or that of their Health critic-they have relegated themselves simply to a party of protest. They offer no constructive counterproposals or alternative proposals or even constructive criticism.

They have relegated themselves to being a party of protest. In fact, NDP probably now stands for Neanderthal dogmatic protesters. Regional Health Boards Aboriginal Representation Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): My questions are for the Minister of Health, as well. Madam Speaker, a week ago I attended the Aboriginal Nurses Association of Canada Annual General Assembly in The Pas, at which health care issues in the North were the major issues. As the minister is aware, Madam Speaker, the majority of the population north of the 53rd parallel is aboriginal.

I was also present at a meeting between departmental health officials and the community people of The Pas, in 1994 I believe it was, the fall of 1994, where I listened to people like Jerry Henderson from the Cree Nation Tribal Health Centre advising the ministerial staff who were there that when they formed the regional health boards they had to ensure that at least 50 percent of the repre sentation on a board be aboriginal people to properly reflect the population.

I would like to ask the minister, Madam Speaker, to advise the House as to how many First Nations people are sitting on the Norman board, for example, on the Burntwood board, and on the Churchill board. I would like to ask the minister to advise the House as to what those numbers are. Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, in my discussions with MKO and other organizations representing First Nations and/or aboriginal people in Manitoba, the subject of representation on regional health authorities has indeed come up.

We advertised quite widely for nominations for the regional health authority boards, and frankly we were disappointed that there were not more aboriginal people nominated for positions on those boards. I have communicated that disappointment, and I have also said to the leadership that when vacancies arise that will be an opportunity for us to address the shortfalls that we acknowledge exist. But, Madam Speaker, as I have to repeat, we were quite disappointed that there were not more aboriginal nominations made at the time that the nominations were called for,. but we are finding that there is an interest.

We are delighted with that and we have undertaken to attempt to address the shortfall that does exist. Health Care System Northern Manitoba Mr. Oscar Lat hlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he is aware that under the new regime of these regional health boards that he has created a lot of difficulties for the aboriginal people in northern Manitoba, as difficult as things are now.

For example, in the Norman region people from Puka tawagan who normally travel to The ·Pas for services, their tribal council and Cree Nation Tribal Health Centre is headquartered in The Pas but under the new regime they now will have to be required to travel to Thompson instead of to The Pas like they have always had. Could I ask the minister to explain if that is fair? *

(1345) 38 78 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 Bon. James McCr ae (Min ister of Health): Madam Speaker, I did not quite wtderstand what the honourable member was getting at. He said people now have to travel to Thompson when at one time they would only travel as far as The Pas. If there are some reasons that are unbeknownst to myself about why someone should have to take that sort of circuitous route, I would be very happy to look into any individual problems that have arisen. This is something that I, my office and my department do on a regular basis.

The honourable member and some of his colleagues regularly inquire about individual-type things that arise, and we certainly try to deal with them on that basis. If it is something more of a structural or syst1emic matter, I would be happy to discuss that further with the honourable member, too, if he could provide me with more details. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for The Pas, with a final supplemen�y question. Regional Health Boards Aboriginal Representation Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas): Madam Speaker, I will table a document here that I received from the Cree Nation health board in The Pas.

It illustrates some of the rep resentations that were made to the ministerial staff who were in The Pas that I witnessed and also it expresses a lot of the conce rns that I was just raising here this afternoon. Lastly, I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he could provide this House documentati on of any sort about these nominations that he has talked about recently.

Could he table, if not now, later on at a later date, any documentation that he has as far as inviting aboriginal people to be nominated amd any documentation that he may have received from those organizations in terms of their nominations of people and any documents, such as the one that I have tabled this afternoon, expressing those concerns? Bon. James McCr ae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I will make available, I will give the honourable member a recitation of the various efforts that were made to try to encourage nomination.

I will also give the honourable member the numbers of nominations from known aboriginal organizations so that he will know a little bit about the problem that we face as we attempt to structure our regional health authority boards. Pharmacare Costs Mr . Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, when the government destroyed the Pharmacare program in the spring, they said they were saving money and that they were improving the program. Of course, as usual, we find out that the government was wrong on both counts.

We found out in the annual report that the governm ent has spent an additional $19 million on the Pharmacare program because of their hasty change, because of their poor planning and because of the fact they did not consult with anyone prior to changing this program. Can the minister today confirm that at least $1 0 million of that $19 mill ion is as a result of citizens going out and buying drugs in advance to quite rightly try to save money as a result of this gov ernm ent destroying the Pharmacare program? Bon.

James McCr ae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I do not have the exact number of dollars that were the cost that were the result of people stockpiling medicines as a result of changes. I think steps are being taken to try to ensure that does not happen again, and at the same time that people use the Pharmacare program in a way that is safe and in a way that is appropriate to the program. I have to take issue with what the honourable member said first.

We have a program in Manitoba, even after the changes that were made earlier this year, which provides a better and fairer type of coverage that you see pr etty well anywhere else in Canada. I do not know what the honourable member-how he can be against providing more protection for poor people and people who need more medicine and less protection for people who are not )XXX' and do not need as nwch medicine. What is it about that principle ofPharmacare that the honourable member opposes? I would like to know. *

(1350) Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my supplementary, perhaps to the Premier (Mr. Filmoo ): Can the Premier try

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 38 79 to explain to the public of Manitoba how their improved Pharmacare program that was supposed to save millions of dollars is costing $90 million more, has caused chaos in the system, has cut off two-thirds of the people who get Pharmacare from the benefits, how this Premier can keep this minister responsible for a program like that and have any confidence that the health care of Manitobans is being protected? Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, it is not enough for the people of Manitoba for the honourable member simply to say, well, now, here are all the programs and here are all the ones we are opposed to, without giving a reason. you cannot do that anymore. The people of Manitoba want to know why the honourable member is against providing more coverage for people who are poor and less coverage for people who are rich. The honourable member should answer that question so we can under stand where his credibility comes from. Consultations Mr.

Dave Chorniak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, can the minister who finally today, six months after they gutted the Pharmacare program, introduced some changes to the Pharmacare program to take care of this difficulty, explain how it was that they went about doing this without consulting with Manitobans, without consulting with people involved in the pharmaceutical industry, and why these changes were brought in, except that the government was attempting to make savings on the backs of sick Manitobans? Bon.

James McCrae (Minister of Health): Clever phrases like the kind the honourable member resorts to-and his Leader from time to time-no longer work with the people of Manitoba. They are a little smarter than the honourable member for Kildonan or the Leader of the Opposition combined. The people of Manitoba know that we need to provide health services for people, including Pharmacare services for people who need that, who cannot afford the expensive drugs that are out there and that structuring the program in the way that we have has been done with regret, yes, but with support, yes, too.

The honourable member is out of touch with the people of Manitoba. He is one of those Neanderthal dogmatic protesters I talked about a few minutes ago. Workplace Safety Inspector Reduction Mr. Da ryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Sp�er, yesterday, another very serious workplace a�ctdent occurr ed when an excavation site collapsed, trappmg the worker inside. Our thoughts today are with Mr. Nickoshie and his family, considering the seriousness of the accident in which Mr. Nickoshie was involved .

Also yesterday, it was my understanding that another sc�old coll apsed at a worksite, endangering lives in the ctty of Winnipeg here. I want to ask the Minister of Labour to explain why one of the first acts of his government upon assuming power was to cut the number of Workplace Safety and Health inspectors, the construction inspectors who would normally go out and inspect sites such as these. Why did this government cut these inspectors? Bon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): The member for Transcona is wrong. The number of inspectors has remained constant. Mr.

Reid: It is the minister's own document, and he says here clearly that it is a reduction in the construction inspection and training activities. I want to ask this minister a supplementary question. Can this Minister of Labour explain why his government has reduced the total number of Workplace Safety and Health field inspectors from over 58 in 1989 to just 42 officers today, 16 less officers, when there are over 40, 000 companies in operation in this province? How can we expect to inspect all of those companies with 16 less officers? *

(1355) Mr. Toews: The member, I note, did not table the docum ent he referred to, and I assume that he in fact will table that document. In respect of the activities that the inspectors are required to perform and the nature of their duties- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Labour, to complete his response.

3880 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 Mr. Toews: -the numbe:r of hours dedicated to field activity has in fact remain(:d constant. Mr. Reid: That does not jibe with his own budget document of this year. Madam Speaker: Ord1!r, please. The honourable member for Transcona, wid1 a final supplementary. Fines Mr.

Da ryl Reid (Tramcona): I want to ask the Minister of Labour to explain what message his government is sending to the employers of this province who violate The Workplae<: Safety and Health Act when companies continue to risk the lives of their workers by working in unshored excavation sites when documents from the courts show that employers and companies with employees working in urtShored excavation sites are charged and fined only $150? What message is that sending to the workers aJ[).d to the companies of this province? Hon.

Vic Toews (Ministl!:r of Labour): If my learned friend would care to review the statistics, it is clear tha t accidents and serious time-loss accidents and deaths in this province in workplace-related matters have steadily decreased as a result of this government emphasizing an internal responsibility sys�em. For example, at a timt: when we now experience, regrettably, yes, one or two deaths in the mining secto r, in the 1970s when that party was in power, there were 17 deaths a year.

We have reduced and we will continue to reduce deaths and injuries in the workplace because that is in the best interests of Manitobans. Health Care System Funding Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madani Speaker, the withdr awal of Bill 49 in fact would be a very positive thing for all Manitobans. My question is for the Minister of Health. The creation of the regional health boards is in fact to allow this government to avoid taking responsibility. In fact, in Alberta where they have the same model, they starved the system of over $1 00 million.

My question to the Minis� of Health: Is it thi s governm ent's intention also to cut back on money going into health care and allow for the super regional boards to take the blame? I ·will table the document that clearly dem onstrates the types of cutbacks that have been implemented through the regional health boards in Alberta. Hon. James McC rae (Minister of Health): The ho nourable member makes comparisons that are not justified by any facts that exist here in Manitoba.

I understand that the figure in Alberta is that some $500 million have been taken out of their health care system in Alberta, and I suggest to you that no matter what syste m of governance you might have in a jurisdiction where you take out that kind of money, the effects are certainly going to be felt all do�n the line. That is not the case here in Manitoba. In fact. in 1995- 96, the last fiscal year for which we have the complete report, we spent $60 million more than we actually spent in the previous fiscal year in the Department of Health.

In Manitoba, at 33. 8 percent of all spending being on health, Madani Speaker, that is the highest level any where in the country. So the honourable member is certainly not making any valid comparisons at all here today. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question. Regional Health Boards Oven pending Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madani Speaker, can the Minis� of Health indicate-with the Alberta experience, the regional health authorities overspent by $100 million-is it this government's intentions to put in a pennanent cap that would not allow them to overspend? Hon.

James McC rae (Minister of Health): Responsible governm ents do their best to live within their means in the same way as responsible individual citizens do, and that is not going to change in Manitoba. There are times when we are a little over budget in Health and that is always a concern, but it is driven very much

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3881 by the demand for the health services that we hav� in our province, so that whatever structure is set up under the regional health authorities, we are not going to be able to avoid ttying to live within our means in the health system and in every other system. When I say that, I remind the honourable member, too, that nowhere will you find more of a financial commitment to health care than you will find right here in Manitoba. *

(1400) Cost of Implementation Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Can the Minister of Health tell us how much is this useless level of bureau cracy that this minister is creating through Bill 49 going to cost the taxpayers of Manitoba? That money is coming out of the same health care budget that should be administering health care to Manitobans. Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, if there was any lack of clarity before about the honourable member's position about regionalization, that has disappeared with his last question.

You know, he does not mind standing in his place and going against the advice of the Northern and Rural Health Advisory Council, which went throughout-in the fundamental recommendations to set up regional health authorities, and after all of that work, involving thousands ofManitobans, public hearings and all the rest of it, the honourable member stands here today and condemns the whole thing. So much for his credibility. Point of Order Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, Beauchesne's- Madam Speaker: On a point of order? Mr.

Lamoureux: Yes, on a point of order, Beauchesne's is fairly clear in the sense that the minister has an obligation to answer the questions as briefly and as directly as possible. The minister imputed motives on my behalf and stayed a mile and a half away from the actual question itself The question was, how much money was being spent by this government for these boards, and the minister did not even make any recognition of that whatsoever, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, on the same point of order. Mr.

McCrae: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I certainly did not intend to impute any unworthy motive to the honourable member and if I did that I would certainly like to withdraw that, but I do not see any other motive than a motive here to try to see which way the wind is blowing. Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the ho nourable member for Inkster, I believe that the hon ourable Minister of Health was attempting to apologize to the honourable member for Inkster, but I am not certain that he accomplished that with the last portion ofhis statement.

I would ask the honourable Minister of Health to unequivocally restate the first portion of his apology. Mr. McCrae: Madam Speaker, I do that without hesitation. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable Minister of Health. Rail Line Abandonment Impact Study Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): My questions are for the Minister of Transportation. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for F1in Flon was recognized to pose a question, and I am experiencing great difficulty hearing him . Mr. Jennissen: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Transportation. Recently the member of Parliament for Dauphin-Swan River has been putting out information claiming that the abandonment by CN of the Winnipegosis and the Cowan subdivisions are windows of opportunity for the region. Has this government done an impact study on the cost to the provincial taxpayers of the loss of these lines, and

3882 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 if so, has he shared it with the federal Liberal M.P.s from this province? Ron. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportati on): Madam Speaker, the member addresses the issue of abamdonment of lines in various locations in Manitoba. Clearly it is of concern to the government because it is a road bed that can carry significant tonnage that would then end up on the roads if the lines were closed.

We have been strong advocates that these lines should be offered for short line opportunities for other people to invest in to operate them as profitable economic return lines for that particular area In that context, our staff has wotked with interested panjes who want to look at short line operations, and we have legislation in place to facilitate that process. Bay line Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Madam Speaker, can the minister tell the House whether CN has agreed to consider the bayline network as a complete unit or is CN still attempting to portion off all lines north ofThe Pas? Ron.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Tr ansportatio n): Madam Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that we: have met with very senior officials of CN the last two or three weeks here. I met with some more of those officials last week in Vancouver. Certainly we have been asking that they offer it in that fashion as a complete unit.

That is a process that they will ultimately do in the way they want to market the lines, but I am very confident that they will offer the lines in northern Manitoba for short line opportunities for the bettennent of the mining industry, in terms of the grain export industry and in terms of the people that live along those particular lines currently there. I am also of the opinion 1that several interested parties are viewing those lines and looking at the opportunity of making that investment. Govemmen1t Involvement Mr.

Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): Since several people on the Sherridon line told my colleagues and myself over the weekend that CN was in fact attempting to sell the Flin Flon and Sherr idon line as a separate package, can the minister tell the House what direct role his government is playing in these negotiations? Ron. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): We have offered our services to CN and to the interested parties, and where it is deemed app ropriate, we participate We are not going to be involved directly in terms of the financial side of the package.

We are there to facilitate to help the two parties come to some process that leads to an agreement that those lines will be operated by somebody else. Manitoba Telephone System Privatization Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, it is ironic that the Minister of Highways and Transportation, who is conctm ed here about the impacts of privatization of CN and the potential loss of service, is also the Minister responsible for MTS, which is privatizing.

I would like to ask the minister if he will show the same kind of concern, and indicate to Manitobans why there is virtually no guarantee under the privatization of MTS that in the future northern Manitobans, rural Manitobans will not be faced with exactly the same situation, in the fact that they "Vtill not get the investment in the new technology under a private company that they have been getting very succes sfully under publicly owned MTS. Bon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible fo r the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, the member mentions pressure on capital investment.

Yes, we have invested some $600 million in private lines, but that modernizes us to today, and that technology that is there that the public wants in the future is going to require several hundred million more of investment. That is fundamentally the issue. The member for Concordia (Mr.

Doer), in the past, has made this statement, going back to 1987 when he recognized: We have pressure in terms of a capital plant that I believe needs massive infusion of capital, and that is precisely the issue. [interjection] Madam Speaker, if the member for Concordia wants to take such pride in what they might have done, let me put -

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3883 the figures on the record. The figures on the record from '81 to '87, when they were in power, Manitoba Telephone System lost $19 million, in the eight years subsequent, made $160 million. In their tenure they took the debt to- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, if the members want the facts, I want to give them the facts. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister responsible for the MTS, to complete his response. Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, along the way they took the debt to equity ratio from 83.9 up to 91 percent.

That is because they were losing money. They did not have the resources for capital investment. Since we have been in power we have brought it down from 91 to 78, plus we have funded the pension plan, which they never did. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question. *

(1410) Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I note the minister did not quote his own Leader in 1995, who said they would not sell MTS, and I would like to ask the- Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on a point of order. Point of Order Bon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I know that the member opposite does not want to put falsehoods on the record, and so I want to correct him to tell him that when I was asked the question, I answered it directly and said that we had no plans to sell the Manitoba Telephone System, which was absolutely accurate and not as the member has put it, which is absolutely a falsehood, and I would ask him to withdraw it. Mada m Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr.

Ashton: On the same point of order, I have absolutely no intention of withdrawing that, because the Premier not only made the comments during the election campaign, the first question in this session of the Legislature. The first session after the election I asked him again, and again he said he was not going to sell MTS, and, in fact, I think the Premier should be the one apologizing to the people of Manitoba for misleading them in the provincial election, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

On the point of order raised by the honourable First Minister, the honourable First Minister does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary question. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister then, which way are we supposed to believe on MTS? Are we supposed to believe his comments now which suggest that MTS is in good financial shape, or are we supposed to believe the comments the minister makes outside of this House in suggesting we have to privatize because it is not in good shape?

Which way is it? Since we are making a profit in MTS, why did we sell it? Madam Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, the member clearly leaves out certain basic facts that he just fails to realize. This is no longer a monopoly telephone company. As recently as 10 or 15 years ago, yes, it was a real monopoly. Today, 70 percent of the revenue base is under competition and hundreds of millions of new investment is required.

I think it is a lot safer if that investment comes from investors from the private sector as opposed to using govermnent dollars which are badly needed in health care, in education, family services. We do not need to put taxpayers' money at risk in a Crown corporation when the investment capability- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. A very serious question was asked, and I would appreciate the co-

3884 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 operation of all honourable members in permitting the minister to respond to the question asked. The honourable Minister responsible for MTS, to complete his response. Mr. Findlay: Madam Spe:aker, when this privatization is complete, eight out of nine tel cos in Canada will be in the private sector. Six out of those nine have been in the private sector for umpteen years.

We operate very well undt!r the umbrella of the Stentor group of companies in Canada, and we have really followed the example all over the world where 36 telephone companies that were government owned either have been privatized or are: in the process of it, becaus e of the competition that it is under, because of the need for capital, because we want to guarantee to our Manitoba citizens they will have 1the best telecommunication services in the future without putting the taxpayer at risk along the way. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a final supplementary question. Mr.

Ashton: Madam Sp1�er, I am wondering if the minister will explain to Manitobans that in the vast majority of cases where t<:lephone systems have been privati zed, it has led to dramatic increases in rates, reduced service, particularly in rural and northern areas. In fact, if he would only look at the province of Alberta where it was privatized under the Conservative govern ment only five years ago, that is exactly what happened in that province, and that is exactly what will happen in Manitoba when MTS is privatized. Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the member continues to try to present to the public falsehoods, statements that do not have any basis in fact. Some Honourable Member s: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Findlay: Rates are not controlled by the Manitoba government; they are not controlled by the Public Utilities Board of Manitoba. They are controlled by the one regulator that serves eight of those nine telcos, CRTC.

No rates can increase without their approval; no change in service can happen and there is a mandared level of service required to serve not only all Manitobans under CRTC but all Canadians. Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, may I answer a question that the member raised yesterday in terms of whether MTS was meeting with people in Manitoba? As the result of inquiries that came in, letters were sent out to people, and senior staff have had meetings in 48 locations all over Manitoba-generally initiated the meetings because of falsehoods put forward by that member when senior- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. would remind all honourable members that "order, please" has been called at least three times and the clock is running. Point of Order Mr. As hton: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would, first of all, ask that the time not be taken off our Question Period since the disturbance was coming from that side. Second of all, on the point of order, the minister used the term "falsehood" which, under Beauchesne's Citation 489 and Beauchesne's Citation 492, has been listed as being unparliamentary.

Madam Speaker, I would also like the minister to correct on the record the fact that in fact in Alberta rates have gone up because of the privatization. That is a fact, and I am wondering when the minister will start telling the truth to Manitobans about what will happen once MTS is sold off. Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson, I will take the point under advisement. I have been advised that it appears and has appeared on both lists, but I want ro review the context within which the word was used. The honourable member for Dauphin.

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3885 *

(1420) Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Thank you, Madam Speaker- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister responsible for MTS. Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, if "falsehood" is a word that should not be used, I withdraw it. But I was not quite finished my answer, if you please. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I have indicated to the House that I will take the point of order raised by the honourable member for Thompson under advisement and report back to the House. * * * Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, I was not finished my answer when the member for Thompson- Ma dam Speaker: I had recognized the honourable member for Dauphin. Regrettably, I stopped my watch and I cannot ascertain how much time the honourable minister had consumed in responding to his answer. Order, please. There is approximately one minute remaining in Question Period. The honourable member for Dauphin, with a very short question. Forestry Industry Cutting Allowances Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, the First Minister should take some kind of responsibility for the statements that he made in this House.

This government got an F from the Sierra Club and a D-minus from the Endangered Spaces campaign because, in their words, it became clear that Manitoba's commit ment to forestry and mining exceeded its commitment to biodiversity. This government signed an L-P agreement behind closed doors before public hearings. It failed to consult First Nations on the Repap licence. It failed to hold public hearings on Pine Falls, and it continues to muzzle department officials whose science does not fit with their corporate deals.

I ask the Premier again, why is he allowing any Forestry branch official to increase annual timber cuts by 20 percent without any consultation? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this administration has ensured that very major projects such as Louisiana-Pacific and such as the forestry plans for Repap or Pine Falls are able to go before a full public hearing and evaluation by the Clean Environment Commission. That administration approved the largest forestry complex in Manitoba without public hearings, without Clean Environment Commission hearings.

They went and they approved their forestry plans, their harvesting plans for 20 years at a time-no public hearings. They approved the largest single development project in the history of this province-Limestone-with no public hearings and no Clean Environment Commission process, and they have the audacity to say that we are not doing something in the environment. It took us millions of dollars of clean-up to clean up their mess at Manfor. They had the worst record in environment in this entire country, and he ought to be ashamed to get up and put anything on the record with respect to the environment.

Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Centre Medical De Salaberry Dist rict Health Centre Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): Madam Speaker, it is indeed my pleasure to rise in the House today and tell my fellow members about the official opening ceremonies of Centre Medical De Salaberry District Health Centre, opening last Saturday. I had the pleasure of attending, along with the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).

In 1994, Manitoba Health approved the construction of a new 14-bed hospital, major renovations and con struction of 22 personal care beds to better serve the residents of the De Salaberry health district. The new

3886 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 combined fucilities offer a maintenance-free setting, with departments that easily integrate and allow for any future expansion or alteration. There is office space for four physicians and expanded community service office space. Included is a dental clinic that has up-to-date equipment and dental suites to accommodate increased volumes of clients. Very recently the health district board was successful in receiving approval for a salaried-physician program.

This program provides for the employment of 2.5 equivalent full-time physicians to serve the health district. Madam Speaker, it was commendable to see the support that the residents of the district have already shown. The board itself has raised $120,000 and the hospital guild has raised about $125,000. These significant contributions have been generously given by the public, which acknowledges the benefits that the new hospital and personal care home will bring today and in the future.

Madam Speaker, I beli(:ve that the opening of this wonderful facility is an example of what can be accomplished when govenunent and community work together. This government is committed to doing just that, and the opening of thlis facility proves that we are dedicated to working with <:ommunities in provi.ding all Manitobans with accessible and high-quality health care. Winnipeg School Division No. 1 Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, this morning the member for St. James (Ms.

Mihychuk) and I had the honour of attending the Winnipeg School Division No. 1 125th anniversary celebration, the opening ceremonies of a month-long celebration for 125 years of service to the people of Winnipeg. Madam Speaker, several hundred students, teachers, principals, administrators �md supporters of the public school system in the city of Winnipeg celebrated this morning. As well as greetings and other comments, we heard the Elmwood High School band, which was a remarkable band, showing us what can be done with extracurricular activities in the public school system.

The Tyndall Park choir made up of Grades 4 and 5 students did an amazing job of not only singing the national anthem but sharing with us several other songs. They were a very well-disciplined delightful choir. We also heard from a very unique group called the Neebin Nobin Singers, six young women from Children of the Earth, and they did a drum song for us that was quite remarkable. Madam Speaker, Winnipeg School Division No. 1 has served the city and the students for 125 years. In 1871, 25 students under the direction of Mr. Luxton met for the first time.

Since then, the school division has served the community in a number of ways, with unique programs such as nursery school, language immersion and alte rnative schools such as Argyle and Children of the Earth. I hope all honourable members will join with us in celebrating, for the month of October, 125 years of public school system in the city of Winnipeg, Winnipeg School Division No. I, and we wish them another 125 years of good health. Thank you. Keeping Safe at Work Program Mr s. Shir ley Render (St.

Vital): I am pleased to tell the members of the House about a program that our gov ernment introduced on September 24 called Keeping Safe at Work. This is a campaign that is aimed at people who work alone or who travel to and from work by themselves and who may be unaware of some of the things that they can do to make the workplace more safe for them. This initiative is primarily focused on women but obviously it can be used for any of us. The campaign has three parts to it.

First of all, there is a brochure with practical inf ormation, such things as what to be aware of, safety tips to consider when going to and from work, what employers can do to maximize safety and a business security checklist. The second part of the campaign is public information sessions. These are provided by specially trained staff of CIBC and the staff of the Women's Directorate. These sessions can provide assistance in developing a safety plan for every workplace as well as tips on how to conduct a workplace safety audit. The third part of the campaign is a display portion.

These will be posters that can be put up at participating

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3887 wmksites to help create a wider community awareness of this very important issue. Madam Speaker, Keeping Safe at Work would not have been possible if it had not been for a number of partnerships. These were very innovative partnerships involving both government, CIBC and the police services. CIBC provided the funds and staffing to help in both distributing the pamphlets and the posters and also by participating in the train the trainer sessions at their employment development centre.

Workers Compensation provided funds for this campaign and Workplace Safety and Health contributed their expertise in ensuring that the information contained in the pamphlet reached a large audience through their workplace W orkSafe bulletins and by placing this material on the Internet. So once again, Madam Speaker, we are pleased to be a part of an effort to make people involved in keeping themselves safe, to bring everybody in the community involved into this very important initiative. Thank you. *

(1430) Dreams of the North Youth Conference Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): On September 27 I was privileged to attend the opening ceremony and banquet of the Dreams of the North Youth Conference in Cranberry Portage. The opening ceremony, banquet and dance were held in the Frontier Collegiate Institute gymnasium. Ninety-one students from such diverse communities as Hollow Water, Grand Rapids, Norway House and Flin Flon were in attendance. Live entertainment was provided by Cranberry Portage's own accomplished singer, Ms.

Rikki McLean, and the capable young fiddlers from Sherridon, the Kississing Lake Metis Fiddlers under the direction of Mr. Blaine Klippenstein. Mr. Gary Settee was the master of ceremonies. The next day, Saturday, was a working day, and the youthful participants could choose six out of nine available workshops at Frontier Collegiate Institute. There were workshops on AIDS, on traditional culture, on physical fitness, on staying in school, on gambling, on youth and the criminal justice system, on aboriginal self government, on planning for post-graduation and on diabetes in northern Manitoba.

It was particularly gratifying for me personally to see two of my colleagues, the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) and the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), acting as facilitators for this conference. The member for The Pas in fact is a graduate from Frontier Collegiate Institute. It was a very worthwhile weekend for our young participants from the North. I thank Frontier School Division in general and Frontier Collegiate Institute specifically for hosting this Dreams of the North Youth Conference. I thank the workshop facilitators and the young participants and their supervisors.

I know many travelled long distances and slept on cold gymnasium or school floors. Also, a big thank you to the key organizers of the conference, Tina Umperville, Gloria Whitford and Gary Wesner. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Police and Peace Officer Memorial Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): On July 11, 1977, Constable James Kirkwood, 21 years of age, was shot and killed in the line of duty. He only had four months on the job when he was shot and killed. This dramatically affected the Ottawa police force. As a result, at his funeral that was held- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please.

I wonder if I might ask for the co-operation of those members having private meetings to do so in the loge or outside the Chamber. Mr. Kowalski: At Constable Kirkwood's funeral that was held three days later, the officers of the Ottawa police force decided to have a memorial service the following September. So, on September 24, 1978, a service was held to commemorate the death of Constable James Kirkwood. This has now resulted in an annual memorial service for all police officers killed in the line of duty that is held in Ottawa, and this last Sunday, September 29, the service was held again.

3888 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 The memorial recognize� the 331 peace officers who have been killed in the line of duty in Canada since Confe deration. At this ye:ar's service, the names of six officers who had been killed since last year were read, and I would like to read their names into the record for Hansard so that in the Manitoba Legislature we recognize the contribution made by these officers.

Those officers were: Kdled on November 27, 1995, Constable Odette Pinard of the Montreal police force; killed on February 17, 1996, Patricia Sharber of Saskatchewan, Department of Social Services; killed on April 2, 1996, Constable Michael Gula of the Ontario police; killed on April 29, 1996, Constable Andre Lalonde of the Montreal police force, and Sergeant Derek Burkholder and Constable Leo Francis of the RCMP. I know all members of this House join all politicians and all members of the public to recognize the sacrifice made by these 330 police officers. Thank you. Committt:!e Changes Mr.

Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I have some committee change s. I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Agriculture (for this evening at 7 p.m.) be amended as follows: the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the m«�mber for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) for the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura). Motion agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Bon.

Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet on Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m. to consider, in this order, Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Production Tax and Oil and Gas Amendment Act, as well as Bill 43, The Municipal Assessment Amendment, City of Winnipeg Amendment and Assessment Validation Act. I would also like to ask you to call, when we have finished these announcements, bills in the following order: Bi112 5, Bill II , Bill 66, Bill 52, Bill 62 and Bill 67.

Madam Speaker, if you could canvass the House, I think you will find that there is agreement at 4:3 0, instead of going into private members' hour, that we revert to or we enter into Opposition Day Motions and consider the motion as it appears on the Order Paper. I believe it is the motion of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and I would also ask if you could canvass the House at that time. I believe under the rules it calls for the vote on this matter to be put one-half hour before adjournment.

Given that that would reduce the time for debate, you may fmd that there is agreement to have that vote called at 5:15 instead offive o'clock which would allow member s more time to debate the matters at hand. Madam Speaker: Firstly, I will make the announce ment regarding the standing committee. The Standing Committee on Municipal Aff airs will meet on Thursday, October 3, at 9:30 a.m. to consider Bills 21 and 43.

Is there leave of the House to waive Private Members' Business? [agreed] Is there leave of the House at 4: 30 p.m. in lieu of Private Members' Business to have Opposition Day Motions dealt with? [agreed] Is there leave of the House to change the rule regarding the time of the vote preceding the end of Opposition Day Motions to 5:15? [agreed] Mr. Ma rcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Madam Speaker, it has been brought to my attention by the Clerk that I had made a slight error yesterday when Bill 4 7 was before the House for second reading. I had stood the bill in the name of the honourable member for Transco na (Mr.

Reid) when it was still standing in the name of the hon ourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I apologize to the House. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I thank the honomable member for St. Norbert for that clarification.

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3889 DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 25-- The Jury Amendment Act Ma dam Speaker: To resume debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (M rs. Vodrey), Bill 25, The Jury Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les jures), standing in the name of·the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Madam Speaker: No. Leave has been denied. Mr. Gord Mackint osh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, I believe this bill was adjourned for me to make comments before any other comments from the other parties in the Legislature. *

(1440) We are dealing here with amendments to The Jury Act It is interesting; I came across a Manitoba government news release that boldly proclaimed: Jury act amendments to protect jobs while on jury duty, and later, in the local newspapers, the headlines: McCrae puts some teeth into jury law. Indeed it was under the name McCrae because that news release was back in 1992. What happened? Because there is a new press release out now, in May of 1996, promising that The Jury Act amendment would protect jobs.

What happened, I think, reflects on the incompetence of the other side and I think reflects on how the former Minister of Justice was not paying close attention to what his duty was. In 1992 The Jury Act was amended to protect the employment of people who are summ oned to serve on jury duty because an individual in Thompson lost her job when she was so summoned. Why is it that amendments had to be brought back into this House so soon after those other amendments?

Well, it was not long ago that Mary Goodwin, an employee of Best Care Cleaners on Main Street, a place I go by every day, lost her job when she told her boss that she was called on to serve her duty as a citizen and serve her duty on a jury. When she was fired, lo and behold, those 1992 amendments caused great difficulty. It was unfortunate that it was only a short time after the 1992 amendments were enacted that Ms. Goodwin was fired. Unfortunately, the case of Ms. Goodwin went to the Provincial Court; it went to the Court of Queen's Bench and it went to the Court of Appeal and then was sent back again to trial.

At both the Provincial Court and the Court of Queen's Bench, it was found that nothing could be done to prosecute Ms. Goodwin's boss. Fortunately the Court of Appeal saved the day and with some innovative thinking, with a liberal

interpretation being applied to the written laws, they were able to find that prosecution was possible. But, Madam Speaker, this bill is really responding to not just the inconvenience, if you will, of the great burden put on Ms. Goodwin as a result of the uncertainty oflaw, but was because of the damning indictment by both the Court of Appeal and the Queen's Bench. In the Court of Appeal, although the majority, as I stated earlier, came through and saved the day, the judgment of Mr. Justice Kroft I think is a very strong indication of the problems of the amendments from 1992.

After noting how the Queen's Bench judge demonstrated the inadequacy and uncertainty of the Manitoba legislation, he went on to talk about the Manitoba legislation being, to use his words, poorly drafted. He concluded by saying, and I quote: Notwithstanding that I have been persuaded that Justice Clearwater, Queen's Bench, applied the wrong standard of

interpretation, I am convinced that the Legislature would be well advised to reconsider the language which it used in attempting to pursue what is undeniably a laudable social objective. He said: Surely those employed to draft our statutes should be able to use words that say what the legislators mean. I would add that I think it is important that legislators also review what the drafters say.

I think what we see in this Legislature today, and not just with the banter that is taking place in this Chamber but the decision, the conscious decision of members opposite, to either not speak at all, which was the original advice to us, or to speak to only 10 bills or so or those that they find most in need of defence, speaks loudly to the problem. When this Legislature is not vigilant, when this Legisla ture and its members are not both answering concerns of the opposition and are not reading statutes

3890 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 19 96 that are brought in here in bill form, problems as occurred following 19 92 rure apt to reoccur. There were two issues that were discovered at the court level stemming from the 19 92 amendme nts. The first issue was whether an individual, in this case Mr. Loscerbo, Ms. Goodwin's boss, could be classified as her employer, when in fact Mr. Loscerbo was a principal of a corporation. Justice Clearwater laments that the Manitoba law did not include the good

definitions of "employer" and "employee" that are found in Saskatchewan legislation. If the Saskatchewan

definitions had been included in the Manitoba law, Justice Clearwater said thalt clearly Mr. Loscerbo would have been an employer. The second issue raised is, I think, more troublesome. As Judge Clearwater noted. the act either deliberately or inadvertently worded the s1mction

section different than the prohibition section. In 'The Jury Act, as amended, in 19 92, a response to a summ ons is required before the legislation can come in and provide a remedy or provide an offence and penalty. Of course, Judge Clearwater found that Ms. Goodwin was only summoned to serve as a juror and not responded to a summons and therefore could not find against Mr. L:>scerbo. He laments that the Manitoba wording did not accomplish the intention of the legislation. (Mr.

Marcel Lauren deau, Deputy Speaker., in the Chair) So it is important, and we agree with the government, that the legislation be clarified. Although the Court of Appeal did save the day, ilt is important to avoid future uncertainty but what an unf ortunate series of even ts. Ms. Goodwin was fired on July 28 of 19 92, and the Court of Appeal had not even finished its deliberations by April of 1994, almost two years late:r, and even then the Court of Appeal ref erred the matter back to trial.

I think this is a good instruction for members, to be careful of the legislation that they are agreeing to, that they have within their hands. It shows the impact of uncertainty on the lives of individual s, the people that we are here to give tools to and to protect. * (1 450) Now will the government get it right this time, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Upon reviewing the legislation it appears that the objective is adequately reflected in the wording, but then that is just with regard to the issue of

definitions of employer and employee and the issue of not requiring a response to a summ ons before the legislation kicks in. There is another issue that is raised in the bill, and that is the one I want to address right now. As a preliminary matter, the bill imposes a penalty of $5 ,000 on an employer who threatens or dismisses an employee because ofjwy duty. We ask if this is a serious deterrent. Why $5 ,000? There is other legislation in this province that deals with discriminatory decisions made by employers, for example, under The Workplace Safety and Health Act. The sanctions there go way beyond any $5.000.

It talks in terms of penalties of $15, 000 for a first offence and $30,000 for subsequent offences But the main issue that I want to address now is, why did this government create the ability of the court to order compensation to a victim, to an employee who is fired because of jury duty, but has so halfheartedly done so that it really brings into question the ability of this govern ment to understand either the needs of people, of employees and the importance of juries in our system of government.

What the government says here is that now employees will be able to claim-in other words have a compensation order-for\\age loss up to $5 ,000. Why $5,000 is set as a limit I have no idea 1be government went partway and recognized a princ iple, the principle being that the court should take affirmative approaches to these issues and, on behalf of the victim, seek compensation, not just an offence and a penalty . But why cap it at $5 ,000? If the loss for being fired because of serving on a jury is greater than $5,000, then there should be an award for the amount that is lost.

If $1 0,000 is lost, if$ 20,000, if someone cannot get back into the workforce for a year because of market conditions, because of other factors, then why is that individual not compensated? To go further, why is there not compensation for all losses incurred, not just \\'age loss?

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3891 The Law Reform Commission, it was back in 19 80, made recommendations to better protect the employment of people serving on juries. They acknowledged that the recommendations must provide for a remedy of reinstate ment because, it said, in many cases it is unre alistic to expect that liq uidated monetary compensation can compensate for loss of continuing employment. Did the government not read that recommendation? Did they not think this through? Why not order reinstatement in this bill?

There are other ramifications of being fired for discriminatory reason s. They can be loss of benefits, loss of seniority. They can be personal expenses. There is injury to dignity, to feelings, self-respect, and we ask, why is the government re jecting the notion of full compensation rather than req uiring the individual to have to go to the civil courts , hire a lawyer and pursue a wrongful dismissal case?

Having gone part way and acknowledging that at least there should be some wage loss compensation, it has a duty to fully embrace a principle of compensation and do, for example, as the Human Rights code enables, and that is to include the ability to order that an employer refrain from doing anything contrary to the purposes of the act, to rectify the circumsta nces, to fully compensate all fmancial losses sustained and expenses incurred and benefits lost, general damages for injury to dignity, feelings and self-respect.

Indeed, in Manitoba, in wrongful dismissal actio ns, general damages, albeit modest, can be awarded, and why not the ability to order exemplary or punitive damages? It has been ordered in Manitoba. I think of the UGG case, for example, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I go back to the Law Reform Commi ssion report, which not only recommended a fuller compensation package but recommended a legislative provision to make officers or agents of corporations personally liable if they have authorized or acqui esced in the contravention of the prohibition section.

The Law Reform Commission also rec ommended that it would be advisable to include a provision putting the onus of proof on the defendant if the employee was dismissed while serving on jury so that the defendant had to prove the employee 's jury service was not the cause of the dismissal. So it is important, not only for compensation but for deterren ts, and it is important that there be full compensation because of the importance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of jury serv ice. Why this half-hearted commit ment to juries?

This half-hearted commitm�nt is not compatible with a society's need for the jury system to operate without protecting the employment. You know, it was Blackstone that called the jury "the glory of the English la w." Sir James Stephen wrote that trial by jury interests large numbers of people in the administration of justice. It makes them responsible for it. It is difficult to overe stimate the importance of this. It gives a degree of power and of popularity to the administration of justice which could hardly be derived from any other source . Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I suggest that now more than any other time in recent history it is important to pursue that objective . I refer you to a document, and I do not think the members opposite have ever read this, the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report. It states there on page 377 that a jury "guarantees community scrutiny of the criminal justice system." * (1 500) The whole objective of the Law Reform Commission report in 19 80 was to point out that we had to have substantial improvement to the jury system. It said: The personal well-being of jurors seems at times to be neglected under the present practices.

So it recognized the need for not only increased protection of the juror's emplo yment, but also the need for juries to more nearly represent the random cross-section of the community and a system to ensure that jury duty was not a hardship for Juro rs. Now what is the fear on the part of the government on giving effect to the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission report from 19 80 and from giving meaning to the observations of many, including those from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, who note the importance of juries? It is a great democr atizing institution, juries are.

Are they afraid of greater community scrutiny? Do they not want to fully embrace the educational role of juries, the participation by ordinary people in the criminal justice system? Are they afraid of empowerment in a real way? I think that one of the best observations of the role of the jury was in the Law Commission report. It said: Jury

3892 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 19 96 service requires the public to participate directly in an important government proc ess. It informs people about the worki ngs of the criminaJ justice system. It educates them about the aims of the penal system, the values of procedural due process. It <!ngenders a sense of efficacy among the public by permitting them directly to influence the implementation of the c:riminal law and do so on a equal basis with everyone else. It reaffirms the duties of each individual owing to society.

It compels judges and lawyers to proceed in a manner understandable to laypersons. By permitting people to view and participate in the system firsthand, the jury decreases the mystique of a criminal justice system and increases its acceptability. Why does not the government embrace this? Where is the full compensation that should be available to jurors, not by having to go to the: civil court system, not by having to hire a lawyer and carry the burden of litigation? It could be accomplished simply by coming through on the bill that is currently before the House. There are some other issues, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that we regret are not being addressed in the amendments to The Jury Act. Way back when the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry said, and I quote: "We believe the jwy system in Manitoba is a glaring exampie of systemic discrimination against Aboriginal people. . . . Aboriginal people are significantly underrepresented on juries in northern Manitoba and are almost completely absent from juries in the city of Winnipeg.

"Of all the ways that aboriginal people are under represented in the justice system, this is one of the most disturbing." Then it concludes, in accordance with the conclusions of the Law Reform Commission: "If a significant portion of that public is not properly represented on juries, it would not be swrprising to discover that a portion of the public never comes to view the justice system as anything other titan a foreign and imposed system." There are many excellent recommendations in the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report dealing with juries.

What a sad comment One of the darkest clouds over this government is how it has responded, or failed to respond, to the inquiry's report. It is an affront to all Manitobans, not just aboriginal peoples. How can they bring in amendments to The Jury Act, these niggardly amendments, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, in the face of the recommendations from the inquiry report, recommendations that ask after a solid research and investigation throughout this province that juries should be held in local communities, that people who cannot serve be replaced by people from local communities, that jurors be drawn exactly from within 40 kilometres, they said? I think that is a statement of objective, 40 kilometres of the community in which a trial is to be held.

They urge that the Manitoba Jury Act be amended to permit an aboriginal person who does not speak and understand either French or English but who speaks and understands an aboriginal language and is otherwise qualified to serve as a juror that in such cases translation services be provided That was modelled on legislation enacted in the Northwe st Territories that resulted in a significant change in the representation by aboriginal peoples and juries.

One other matter that has been ignored by this government up to now and unfortunately is not addressed by the amendments to The Jwy Act is the need to better deal with the financial pressure on jurors who serve and indeed deal \\ith the pressures on small businesses and others when jury senice is called for. You know, the per diem rate for jury sen ice has not changed in Manitoba since 19 87. The government has frozen.

Despite the intelligence that is off ered from the Law Reform Commission to deal more effectively \\ith how we can ensure supports and income for jurors, this government goes on its merry way and ignores these 1ssues. In Newfoundland salaries must be paid by employers when one serves on a jury. That raises lots of questions. What is the impact on small businesses if that legislation is enforced? What happens, for example, to the per diems that are paid? Should they be paid in the event that wages are paid?

But I would urge the government to consider the recomme ndations on page 68 of the Law Reform Commission report, particularly Recommendation No. 2, that the daily remuneration, in order to remain relevant in terms of the cost of li"ing and to avoid frequent adjust ment by legislation could be based on the provincial minimum wage or expressed as a percentage of that sum.

October 1, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3893 But these are issues that must be canvassed. Unf ortunately the government has not had the gumption or seen it as a priority to pursue despite the importance of juries to our system of government and the criminal ju stice system. We should also deal, of cour se, with trying to reduce the waiti ng time fo r jury selection and unnecessary trips to court, but the government here acro ss the way did not get it right the first time back in 19 92, and are they going to get if right this time? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Mackintosh: No, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they are not. This legis lation misses the mark and they should come in with amendments. We will certainly be pro posing those as this moves to committee. Thank you. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, just to add a fe w more comments to the member's for St. Johns, and I think we agree with his position on this bill, that it is a step in the right direction, but it is like the first step in a marathon, there is a long way to go. We wonder why the government has not gone further in this amendment to The Jury Act. Is it because, after listening to the member fo r River Heights (Mr.

Radcliff

e) talk about the resolution yesterday about benefits to part· time employees, that maybe they are scared that by making it more harsh fo r employers not to give fa ir benefit to people serving on juries that they will create a hostile environment fo r busin ess? From the member for River Heights' comments, I think he would like the min imum wage to be dropped by half, to have the workweek be 80 hours a week, have no workp lace health and saf ety regula tio ns, and we would double the jobs in Manitoba.

I do not know how long the people would survive in those jobs, but it makes me wonder if that is why this Jury Amendment Act does not go much further to make employers recognize the value of their employees doing their civic duty and serving as jurors, and it does not go anywhere near what the Law Reform Commi ssion said on this subject. So as the member fo r St. Johns said, there is room fo r many amendments when this goes to committee and we welcome it to go to committee so that can be done. Thank you. * (15 10) Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready fo r the question?

The question before the House is second reading, Bill 25. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Point of Order Mr. Mackintosh: On a point of order , I am just wondering if the government House leader can advise this Housewhether the Attomey General (Mrs. Vodrey) , who is responsible fo r this legisla tion, is going to respond to the issues raised by this side of the House. Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member fo r St. Johns did not have a point of order . * * * Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready fo r the question? The question before the House- Point of Order Mr.

Mackintosh: On a point of order, it is a time honoured and tested tradition in this House that when signifi cant matters are raised on the second reading of a bill, the minist er who is responsible fo r piloting the legislation through the House will get up and respond to those points, so there is full discussion on this. It does not have to happen all the time, but I think in this case there are signific ant issues rai sed. I ask, will the Attorney General not do her job and stand up here and defend her bill? Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

I have already advised the honourab le member that he did not have a point of order . * * * Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question bef ore the House at this time, is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered .

3894 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 19 96 Billll -The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 11 , The Court of Queen's Bench Surrogate Practice Amendment Act (Loi mooifiant la

Loi sur la pratique relative aux successions devant la Cour du Bane de la Reine), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). Is there leave that this matter remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Leave has been denied. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the principle of this bill is to increase the value of an estate from $5,000 to $1 0,000, that can be administered in an expedited way without all those formal requirements to post a bond or a surety or pursue a formal grant of probate or administration and without the need to conduct an extensive search for errors. The amount increas ing from $5,000 to $10,000 does not seem out of line with inflationary trends. We note that the threshold was $1 ,000 until 19 83, when then it becam e $5,000.

In other words, the amount has been $5,000 from 19 83 to 19 96, so we see no reason to oppose this amendment on these grounds. The executor still is bow1d by the terms of the will, bound by the duties on an executor, and the beneficiary still has the right to the passing of accounts. With the increase in the threshold, beneficiaries arguably must become more vigilant, but we will certainly see this bill to committee. If any concerns are raised either there or beforehand from the commwlity, we will be interested in hearing those. Thank you. Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): The member for St.

Johns, once again, has outlined the main points of this bill, and we are looking forward to seeing it going to committee and see if the public brings presentations or any concerns that should be addressed at the committee stage. Thank you. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading Bill 11 . Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Biii66-The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act Mr.

Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Sport (Mr. Ernst), Bill 66. The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act (Loi modlifiant la

Loi sur la Comnlission de la boxe et de la lutte) standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed] Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am, as you can see by my desk here, trying to prepare to deal with a Yariety of issues, including a lot of docwnen tation that is related to this bill. It raises a lot of issues related to the regulation of \iolence as entertainment, particularly related to boxing and wrestling. I am speaking of Bill 66, which is an amendment to The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act.

We have a number of issues that we want to raise in relation to this bill, but I want to begin by just describing what this bill does and then talk a little bit about another bill that was passed by the Legislature in 19 93, which has a more substantive number of amendments to the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, and which has not yet been proclaimed. I am hoping we would have some clarification from the minister as to how that legislation could have been left sitting without being proclaimed, and now we have more amendments.

I am wondering if they are all going to be proclaimed in one bunch or if we are going to see these outstanding issues not addressed. It was disconcerting when I first was reviewing the bill. It was amending sections of the acts that were not in the legislation that we had on our books, and it was necessary to go to the library and discover that there was this other, more lengthy bill that has not yet been proclaimed. The goverrun ent is, in this bill, deregulating \\Testling. What that means is it is no longer going to be licensed

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3895 under this commission; it is going to be considered entertainment. There are some issues, I think, that are related to that that are of concern. I am going to speak in detail later about the emergence of a number of new types of combat-some would call them sports; some would call them just brutal violence-that are emerging.

One of the concerns that we have with the deregulation of wrestling is that there will be ongoing new types of wrestling that will be considered entertainment and will not have any regulation at all under the commission and are going to proceed to show very violent, disturbing activities, and we do not have any indication from the minister of how that is going to be dealt with, especially if it is live bouts.

I mean, some of us may be surprised to find out that they are saying now that wrestling is choreographed, that it is not necessarily real, that it is not a real fight, and some may think that is hearsay, but that is in fact what the commission and, I would suggest, the minister are doing with this bill: saying that wrestling is entertainment.

It is interesting, though, that I have been assured when, talking with the commissioner for the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, these deregulated wrestling bouts could still be in violation of the Criminal Code with respect to assault, I would think, because now they are also going to require the Criminal Code to deal with other areas with respect to this bill. * (152 0) The other thing that this bill does that is of concern is that it changes the definition of boxing, and it is going to broaden the definition of boxing and the ability for the commission to regulate in the area of kick boxing and other martial arts and any similar sport.

This is part of *e area of the bill that I find also disconcerting. We know that, when the Boxing Commission regulates a bout, they have regulations around safety. They also will then receive 3 percent of the revenue from the bout, and that is all going to come to bear on these new forms of combat sport, kick boxing. I am told there are four diff erent types of kick boxing, and there is one muai-Thai that is particularly a problem that needs to be monitored. So there is going to be some framework to regulate those, and that is positive.

I am concerned that the consultations for those regulations on the bill would have public consultations, as well as only consulting with the parties that promote and train and put on the bouts, because I think that the public would have a great deal to say about the type of violent entertainment that this bill is dealing with. One of the things I wanted to put on the record is that as the minister is going forward in bringing in the regulations with respect to that

section of the bill that he broadens his consultation to include a general input from the public and not just those who are directly involved in putting on and staging these kinds of events. The other

section of that part of the bill that is also a concern in terms of changing the definition for boxing is where it says, or any similar sport, and what that means is then the Boxing Commission can get into the business of developing regulations and licensing any new violent sport, combat sport, that is emerging. I am going to get into some detail in a few moments talking about extreme or ultimate fighting, because we know that one of the big concerns right now in this whole area is how to regulate these emerging combat events, very violent combat events.

I am concerned that with the way that this bill is worded right now that some other commission, perhaps under some other government at some time in the future, could license and could develop regulations to license more brutal, violent sports like this ultimate and extreme fighting which have very limited rules. I have some

definitions here that talk about ultimate fighting as mayhem, where two combatants are locked in a steel cage with the understanding that only the meanest will survive. I have information about how one young man was killed by fighting in one of these contests. He was not really aware of what he was getting into. He was in his early twenties in the United States, and his mother has now taken upon herself to try and bring in some regulation of this type ofbrutal sport, if you want to call it sport. The promoters of this kind of violent entertainment bill it as the most brutal event in the history of sport.

They describe it as a 15 -minute contest of human cockfighting, and they have some pretty graphic descriptions in some of the information that I have about the kinds of holds and moves that are undertaken. I have never seen any of this. I understand that you can get it on video. There are lots of ways you can have access to this type of event, but I would think that those of us who are concerned about limiting violence in our society would take a keen interest in ensuring that this bill is not in any way going to open

3896 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 19 96 the door for an increase in the licensing of any additional types of these kinds of violent sports. I see the minister is shaking his head, negatively he is shaking his head, and I want to suggest, and I am going to get into this, that there are many other jurisdictions that are out and out banni ng these kinds of bouts. There are 30 states and provinces in North America, including Quebec, that have banned this kind of ultimate or extreme fighting by their boxing commissions.

I have with me a regulation from Minnesota, where they have in the regulations dealing with their Boxing Commission specifically listed tlte kinds of holds or moves that are not allowed. That is the kind of thing I think that we should have in Manitoba so that it is very explicit that this kind of thin g can be prohibited in our province.

Now, in Manitoba the way that this is going to be dealt with is simply by not licensing these events under this current commission and under this current government, and then the police or RCMP authori ties would have to be called to intervene and to lay charges and to use the Criminal Code to deal with any kind of fight. I think that that could be strengthened lby specifically ensuring that there is a banning on the kit1tds of fights that I have been describing. Other jurisdictions are dealing with this as well. know that in British Columbia there was recently a fight that was in a field.

There was a biker gang that was involved in hosting it. They gave out hand bills to try and promote the fight. There was also another inst ance in British Columbia where a fight was stopped because they were trying to host it in a publicly funded venue, and I am going to follow up to see the current ownership at the Walker Theatre because, the minister knows because I raised this in the House, tl1ere are concerns about the broadcasting of one ofthese bouts at the Walker Theatre . Perhaps we could use that same approach in dealing with that fight that occurred.

The Tacoma, Washington state, the general assembly there is seeking to limit combat sport known as ultimate fighting. The lawmakers there voted 138 to three to increase the regulatory powers of their Consumer Protection commissioner to ban this. There are a couple of U.S. senators that have taken upon themselves to try and sort out how both the broadcasting and the live bouts can be control led. I have with me also something from the American Medical Association, which is opposed to these new kinds of fights and are doing their part to try and ensure that the proper regulation is put in place.

I also want to make mention that the last council meeting on September 25 in our own city of Winnipeg, the City of Winnipeg passed a resolution unanimo usly. It was introduced by Councillors Vandal and Thomas that the City of Winnipeg urge the Province of Manitoba to explicitly outlaw extreme fightin g in their current revision of The Manitoba Boxing and Wrestling Act and urge the federal government to regulate the broadcast of extreme fighting in the public venue. So I think that there has been a lot of concern at different levels of governm ent in how to deal with the regulations of this.

In British Columbia the Attorney General has released September 16 a commitment to ensure that there is an investigation into the bouts that occurred in British Columbia. *

(1530) I want to speak a little bit more specifically about the difficulty of the dealing with the regulations around the broadcasting side of this. We know that we can try and ban, through our own Boxing Commission here, the licensing and the fights that are going to go on live. The problem is, as occurred at the Walker Theatre, when they are brought in through closed-circuit TV, when they are linked in live via satellite. I was inter ested to find out, unf ortunately after I asked the minister the questions in the House the other day, that the

section of the Boxing Commission regulation I was referring to,

Section 25, was repealed in 19 95, and I am wondering if the minister has followed up on that to contact the CRTC to ensure that they will close thi s loophole and make sure that there is goin g to be some regulation to deal with the closed-circuit broadcasting by satellite of these kinds of violent fights? The Canadian Association of Broadcasters also has taken an interest in this area. They have guidelines that have an outright ban on broadcasting of gratuitous violence. They have, as of this past spring, April or March, banned the pay-per-view broadcast of this kind of violent entertainment .

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3897 The Canadian Advertising Foundation, in its code of prac tice, responds to public complaints about adverti sing in the media. They have a

section on taste and public decency that says advertising must not present demeaning or deroga tory portrayals of individuals or groups and must not exploit violence, sexuality, children, the customers, et cetera . So I am also concerned about the way that this is promoted and if there are not, through CAF, the Canadian Adverti sing Foundation, ways that they can limit the way that it is promoted. But I want to fo cus a little bit more on the CRTC and what they could do. Yes, I have just been reminded that this is on video fo r rental . Those of course would have to be classified by our Film Review Board.

It is intere sting that the bout that occurr ed two Fridays ago in the Walker Theatre, they contacted our Film Review Board and they tried to figure out if they had to classify it. Because it is not taped, it is via live satellite, they do not have to get a classification fo r it. They gave it their own classification of PG17. It seems that they are being quite confident as they go about phoning the diff erent regulatory bodies that they are going to be able to continue to broadcast this type of event.

So what we need then is an amendment to the broad cast act, which currently does not include regulations on or jurisdiction over trans mission of programs that is made solely fo r perf ormance or display in a public place.

I would think that if the minister is serio us, as he and his Boxing Commission and his Sport Manitoba have said, that they want to make sure that these kinds of violent combat sports are limited, that they would fo llow through with the fe deral regulatory bodies and make sure that this is going to be dealt with, especially since they were told by their legal department to repeal the sections of the boxing regulation that previously had dealt with closed-circuit broadcasting of boxing and wrestling. I want to speak a little bit about the use of the Criminal Code in regulating this.

I am glad the City of Winn ipeg has gone as fa r and put fo rward their resolution, because it would be the City of Winnipeg police that would have to go in. It is

Section 83 of the Criminal Code which prohibits any prizefight from going on that is not licensed by the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, and infract ions under that

section of the Criminal Code have two years of incarcer ation.

Section 264. 1 of the Criminal Code also has two years penalty, and that deals with the issuing of threats . That has been used in other jurisd ictions to close down some of the bouts that have gone on.

Section 265 of the Criminal Code has a 14 -year penalty, and that is fo r aggravated assault. So all of those also could be used and should be used to deal with these fights. The problem is, and this is where we have to look at the whole issue of broad casting of these bouts, the logic of allowing something in Manitoba to be broadcast live by a satellite that would not be allowed if it was live. I think that we have to try and make sure, with the challenges of the new technologies that are being developed very rapidly, that we keep up with regulation.

If they can do it for Pay Per View, they can do it fo r the kind of bout that occurred here at the Walker Theatre. I might also make mention that there was also a tough man- a You Think You're Tough contest they called it-in the Clandeboye gravel pits not too long ago. I would think that if the Boxing Commiss ion knows about these things, then they have to make sure that they use the regulatory powers that they have to enf orce the regulations and make sure that these types of bouts do not get a fo othold and get a fo llowi ng.

I know that the minister and the members opposite would be concerned about the problem of having a gang-related-biker gangs or whoever, other unseemly characters involved in this kind of event or activity. We are calli ng on the government then to have something similar to what they have in Minnesota, where they explicitly define the bouts or the kinds of holds that are prohibited, and that there would be a clarification in Bill 66 that the words "any similar sport" that could be brought under the auspices of this commi ssion will not include that kind of violent fight.

With that said, I want to turn my attention to what time is left to deal with some of the other issues that have fa ced the Boxing and Wrestling Commission in Manitoba over the years , and I want to urge the minister, as he is developing new regulations and legis lation in this area, to turn the attention to enf orcement. We have in this House also had discussions about the inadeq uacy of the enf orcement of the Boxing Com mission to ensure that boxers have EKGs and a heart test

3898 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 1996 and an EEG, which mooitors the waves of the brain prior to being able to fight. We know that there have been many cases where the boxers have not properly had their health certified. We also know that there have been violations of agreements on d1e weights of boxers. When the cards are developed, a bOJrer is mandated only to fight boxers of a similar size and weight, and in Manitoba we have had examples of where that is not in force. The cards are allowed to be quite imbalanced, and, of course, that puts the saf ety of the boxers at risk.

So I think it is important that the Boxing Commission would take seriously its rol1e of ensuring that we do not have a return to the era of the gladiators and the kind of brutal violence that is bei1ng billed as entertainment. When I was reading dlrough so me of the material, I could not believe how so me of the promoters were exalting this on the one hand and saying it is the most brutal and violent thing you could evc::r imagine, and then on the other hand they were sa ying, but it is only entertainment; no one is getting really hurt here.

But the blood has been r�:al and the deaths have been real, and we know that there are also deaths in boxing which is more regulated and I guess culturally accepted by some members of the community. I think we want to move in the direction of reducing the kinds of violent combat sports dlat we have in our community, the kind of violence as entertainment, not paving the way for increasing the kind of violent entertainment that many of us find so disturbing and so distasteful.

I have with me, as weU, a number of documented studies that show very clearly, particularly with children, that watching violence affe<:ts their behaviour; it affects their attitudes; it aff ects their relationship s, and I am horrified to think that children will have access to this kind of fighting on videotape and that they will then try to enact that in their play with their siblings or their peers. 1bat is what we want to try and make sure we are avoiding, so whether it is via satellite, whether it is via videos , we have to make sure that these kinds of violent entertainment events are regulated and not influence particularly children . * (154 0) There are many of us who still shade our eyes and turn our heads when there is violence in a movie or violence on a television show.

Statistics Canada shows that by dle time most Canadian children are 12 years old, they have seen up to 12,000 violent deaths on TV. They show that children's TV programming actually contains 68 percent more violent s cenes than programming for adults . You can bet that the chil dren who watch those kinds of programs are going to have that affe<:t their behaviour and their attitudes.

I think that as responsible representatives of the public, we want to do everything we can to follow up on the kind of research that has been done dlat shows very clearly the relationship between the consumption of violent entertainment and the behaviour and actions of individuals. So with that I think I will conclude my remarks and just once again urge the minister to get back to me.

I notice that I have sent him other letters as far back as March 12 , 1996, which I do not think he has responded to, or I raised a number of issues with respect to the Boxing Commission, including some irregularities respecting the Auditor's Report. I will look forward to the committee hearing on this bill. I do not know if we will have very many presentations. This is something dlat has not got a lot of attention, but I will do my utmost to make sure that Manitobans know that we can have better regulation of violence as entertainment and we want this government to do as much as it can. Thank you. Mr.

Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not kmw if it has already been outlined that this act sets out a structure and responsibili ty of the Boxing Commission in Manitoba. All professional and ama teur fights fall under its jurisdiction. Amendments to the 1987 Boxing and Wrestling Commission Ad have not been proclaimed. This act will correct that omission. Nevertheless, boxing is sometimes a very politically sensitive topic. Boxers have been known to die in the ring. It does have a popular following, but a great many people would like to see boxing banned outright.

Medical doctocs have spoken out against the sport, but it is our opinion that if boxing was banned outright, it would just go underground. You will never do away with the sport. So it is important to have a strong Boxing Conunission to prevent the emergence of extreme fighting and other unregulated events.

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3899 This act does nothing to explicitly ban extreme fighting, although it is unlikely any promoter will be given per mission to stage such an event as long as we have a strong Boxing Commission. So we look forward to seeing this bill go to committee and hearing public presentati ons. Thank you. Ms. Diane Mc Gitf ord (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and join with my colleague from Radisson in order to make a few remarks about Bill 66. I am speaking today particularly as a critic for the Status ofWomen.

I have discussed this bill with women and with women's groups in the community, and they have some concerns, and so I am speaking in that capacity. I underst and from the minister's remarks at second reading that the bill removes professional wre stling from the act but broadens the Boxing Comm ission's jurisdiction to include other forms of combat sports and kick boxing, full contact martial arts or any other similar sport and, here I am quoting, any other similar sport in which blows may be struck by the fist or by both the fist and the feet.

Personally, I cannot even pretend to understand combat sports like boxing or like martial ar ts. As I have been telling my colleagues, personally, they have neither charm nor interest for me, nor do I think that the vast majority of women in the province of Manitoba are ter ribly interested in those sports , but perhaps those remarks are irrelevant to this particular bill. Martial arts are properly and effectively regulated that they do have a place in amateur and professional sport. That is what I have been told.

What really disturbs me in this bill is the language and particularly that ominous phrase and, again, I am quoting, or any similar sport in which blows may be struck by the fist or by both fists and the feet. The phrase disturb s me because it appears to me, and I could well be cor rected, but it appears to me that this phrase may well make room for extreme or ultimate fighting in the province of Manitoba and especially because it is not specifically banned by the bill. Like my colleague from Radisson (Ms.

Ceri lli), I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Winnipeg city councillors who last Thursday unanimously agreed on two points, and these, I understand, are they: first of all, to urge the government of Manitoba during this curr ent re vision of the act explicitly to ban extreme fighting; and, secondly, to urge the federal government to ban radio and television tra nsmission of extreme or ultimate fighting. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I specifically want to extend my personal congratulations to Councillor Daniel Vandal from St. Boniface for his leadership in this matter.

It was through his initiative that these matters were brought to City Council, and I think he deserves our admiration and our respect for doing this. I trust that the Minister of Sport (Mr. Ernst) will now follow Mr. Vandal's example and either introduce an amendment to this bill or possibly support amendments regarding extreme fighting that the opposition might choose to propose at the committee stage. I also want to take the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr.

Gilleshammer) and suggest that he get together with the Minister of Sport so that they might work as a team and work with other provincial ministers in pressuring the federal government and the CRTC to ban the trans mission of extreme or ultimate fighting. My most recent inform ation, like that of my colleague for Radisson (Ms.

Cerilli), is that a couple of weeks ago when the Walker Theatre screened extreme fighting they were not required to obtain a broadcast licence, but I am told that the theatre arb itrarily dream ed up a new film classification PG1 7-Plus and labelled the performance with this new classification.

Now clearly this kind of arbitrary action flies in the face of the Film Classification Board and insults the work that these excellent people do at the Film Classification Board, and I am sure that the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship will agree that this matter requires his inunediate attention. * (15 50) Most of us have some familiarity with the excesses of extreme or ultimate fighting. They have been well documented by the media. I think we have all read about them in the print media.

Some of us have seen them on television or pieces of them on television or certainly heard about them via television or via radio. The phrases that appear to be connected with extreme or ultimate fighting are words like "blood sport, " "cuckfighting," "bashing," "braw ling." These are the kinds of words that

3900 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 19 96 are used to characterize this kind of fighting. Commentators , and this is based on my research and reading, frequently link this kind of sport, and I use the term advisedly, link this kind of activity with the gladiatorial combats of a declining Rome, and I think they do this for some pretty obvious reaso ns. Personally what I want to do today is link extreme fighting with the violence that generally characterizes our society and incr easingly characterizes our society.

For example, link it with violence in the media, violence in movies, street violence, violence in our schools, gang violence, child abuse, and domestic violence, and I mention domestic violence at the end because women are so often at the end of the pecking order and women are so often on the receiving end of fists swung in anger and, of course, I do not mean to forget kicking, slapping, pinching, burning, str angling, biting, eye-gouging, torturing and even murder . This kind of activity, we are told, and we know from research, goes on in one out of I 0 Canadian homes.

If one hears a litany of the crimes committed against women, it certainly sounds a lot like extreme fighting. It has been frequently said that a society can be properly judged by its aberrations and by its extremes, and personally, while I hoJPe for a world where we will not feel a need to bash each other about even in the carefully regulated manner prescribed by the Boxing Commission, I know that that world is not with us yet. Mr. Deputy Speaker, lest we be judged by barbarians and show our selves to be brurbarians I do ask the Minister of Sport (Mr.

Ernst) to take the necessary steps to ensure that extreme and ultimate fighting are banned in the province of Manitoba. You know, as politicians, I think we often shake our heads and wring our hands and wonder, especially these days, what we can do to stem the tide of violence. Here is one very small concrete step. So I do again urge the Minister of Sport to demonstrate some moral, social and political leadership and ask him to signal thumbs down on this most recent version of gladiators in the arena, that is, of course, extreme fighting.

I want to add that when he is done, I ask hin1 to take the next step and work with the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) to ensure that the transmission ofthes1e violent and cruel brut alities are stopped. Finally, let us remember that it is illogical to condemn violence on the street and violence in the home and violence in the school; it is illogical to brag about zero tolerance and at the same time to allow the transmi ssion of extreme violence and not explicitly to ban extreme fighting in this curr ent Boxing and Wrestling Commission Amendment Act.

With these ren1arks I will take my seat, and I welcome the opportunity to have spoken today and brought the concerns of women of Manitoba to this House. Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to make a few comments today regarding Bill 66, and I think at the outset that the government here has the opportunity to do the right thing and specifically ban extreme fighting in this bill. The minister just minutes ago muttered a comment about censor ship, and I really think that it is incumbent upon this government to take a stand against violence in sport .

That is what this boils down to, and at the root of the problem is that it is all about money. Violence sells in this society. We have violence in sports like hockey, football, in fact all sports , and as much as we try to restrict the violence in the sports and do something about it, at the end of the day unless the sport is violent it does not sell tickets, and it does not go an}where in society. That is one of the fundamental problems .

In fact, every tin¥: that violence is regulated or attempts are made to curb violence in hockey, for example, rules are made to linlit it in some ways but promote it in others, because the owners of the sport, the promoters of the sport, know that is what sells the tickets and that is what puts people into the sport. Now, it is-[inteijection) Well, the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister) talks about volleyball. This is a very, very serious issue. Society is grapp ling with a problem of widespread violence, increasing violence in society.

When we have an opportunity-at every opportunity that we have to deal with the issue we should deal with the issue decisively. The City Council of this city has made a move in the right direction with CO\mcillors Vandal and Thomas passing a resolution on the matter, encouraging the province to do something about it. We are encouraging, and the city is encouraging, the federal government to amend the broadcast act to take care of the broad casting part of the

October 1, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 390 1 issue. These issues have to be dealt with; you cannot simply hide your head in the sand and hope that they are going to go away. Children learn from what they see, and we cannot allow this trend to continue. I mean, we are paying for it in so many different areas right now with the youth gang violence problem, and these things are connected. They are all interconnected, and they feed upon themselves. When we are in a position where we can do something about it, then it is incumbent upon us to do so.

Now our side of the House is proposing, has proposed an amendment to this bill that will specifically exclude extreme fighting. * (1 600) The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has pointed out that there are at least four different types of kick boxing that probably should be outlawed as well or at least monitored, and we are in a situation, the government is in a situation, where it is basically a permissive-it is essentially attempting to facilitate what it sees as business. For these people, that is what it all boils down to-business.

When they consult on the bills, they consult the business sectors to see how it affects them; they consult the business sectors to get the rules set up as favourable as possible for the businesses, all the while knowing that it is self-defeating, that at the end of the day when this bill is passed and over a period of time there will be more violence in society and not less. The member for Radisson talked about Minnesota as being an example of a jurisdiction that has prohibited and defines certain types of bouts, fairly restricts different types of bouts that can occur, and that is essentially what we need.

She made reference to a number of states, I believe 30 states, that have banned extreme fighting outright, Mr. Deputy Speaker. These are examples of jurisdictions that are attempting to deal with the problem, the general level of violence in sports and the increasing level of violence in society in general.

There is no use pretending that somehow you can compartmentalize it and departmentalize it and say, well, we will deal with it through the Justice department, we will deal with the gang issue over here, but then on the other side of the coin in the area of the Sports department, we will promote aggressive behaviour in sports, we will promote various types of violence in sports. That is essentially what the state is doing in this area [interjection] Well, you know, the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) talks about kids.

The fact of matter is that the system is structured in such a way that coaches and referees in hockey-coaches in the hockey system in this country push the kids to act in violent ways. So the minister certainly cannot sit there-the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) cannot tell me that somehow the system is not organized in such a way that promotes violence in sports. You tell me how it is or why it is that hockey violence is not promoted. It certainly is. [interjection] Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the member for Lakeside talks about this as socialist tinkering. The result of action not being taken.

Let us suppose for a moment, the member for Lakeside, that the 30 states in the United States had not banned extreme fighting. If they had not banned it, and they were allowing extreme fighting in those states, does he not feel that would promote violence? Does he want to live in a society, as in southern Florida, in Miami, where the murder rate is very high, where people are afraid to walk on the streets? Now I know he is a very big fan of the American system and he has done many things to promote the integration of Canada into the United States. I have always suggested he wants to be a senator.

His desire is to be a senator, and he understands that it is an American senator, not a senator in the Canadian House that he is interested in. So we have to understand here that violence in sport is at all-time levels. It is fuelled by a system that promotes the violence. For example, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when fights are promoted out of Las Vegas, if the fights do not last very long or if the fights are not bloody enough, the tickets are not sold The Walker Theatre will be empty. It is in the interests ofthe system to promote a bit of blood and gore in these bouts.

The promotion of this blood and gore and violence sells the tickets and allows the promoters to fill the stands. This is what we have to fight against, and I know that we are basically just chipping at a very big problem. We are not going to solve the problem overnight, but we have to start somewhere. I would suggest that this government and the members of this government wake up and recognize that it is a

3902 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA October 1, 19 96 problem, recognize it is a problem and perhaps even introduce the amendment themselves or support our amendment to ban extreme Jfighting and to try to clean up sports in this province an1d show Manitoba in a good light, show Manitoba as an example for other jurisdictions in this country Ito follow in terms of trying to restrict and diminish the amount of violence in sports in this province. And with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to conclude my remarks. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is second reading ofBill66. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? An Honourable Member: Agreed. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 52-The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Al.1 Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister ofNorthern Affairs (Mr.

Praznik), Bill 52, The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur I' accord de mise en oeuvre de Ia premiere nation de York F actOI)' relatif a Ia convention sur Ia submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed] Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): I ju st want to make a few remarks on Bill 52, lbe York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act.

This, like Bill 53, which we spok1e about last week, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act, these two bills, with this one that we are going to touch on this aft«:rnoon, Bill 52, formalize the Hydro flooding settleme111t agreement with these two communities, with two remaining, Cross Lake and also Norway House.

It stems back, of course, to the Northern Flood Agreement that occurr ed in 19 77, an agreement that took place between the Manitoba gov ernm ent, Manitoba Hydro and the five aflected First Nations, which included, of course, Nelson House, York Landing, Split Lake, Norway House and Cross Lake. We on this side are very pleased that these agreements have been finally reached with the approval of both these communities, the bills that are currently before us, Bill 53 and this one, 52.

We have had the opportunity in the past to be in York Factory and also in Nelson House, and both these communities, including the York Factory First Nation, were very seriously affected by past hydro development. My colleague the MLA for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the member for Thompson, talked in detail about how these people came to be in the current camm unity they are now in. These people originally came from York Factory, which was the capital of northern Manitoba at one point in Manitoba's histol')·.

It was a central location, much like Norway House was the capital of northern Manitoba at one point, but York Factory being situated near the bay, near Hudson Bay, served as a trading post to many of the northern First Nations people who occupied much ofnorthern Manitoba.

In the '50 s, of course, the people of York Factory were moved to where they are currently located now at York Landing, which is not too far of a distance from the Split Lake community. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) One has to consider the human and social costs that hydro development placed upon these people and other communities affected by projects, and it cannot be rectified by simply dollar figures, because indeed the hydro development that is now benefiting many southern Canadians and southern Manitobans particularly, many will never see the devastating effects it had on the people of York Landing and the other affected northern communities that were part of the northern flood bands, as we come to know them today. * (1610 ) Unfortunately, as well, it has become apparent that as negotiations have gone on and on, it has become more than clear to us that lawyers and professional negotiators themselves have be

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-57
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 57.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6a6443440dbc11cf26f9173c5534fdeaf6020d77

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