Manitoba Hansard — 21 March 1977 (Sitting 23A, 30th Legislature, 4th Session)

30-4-23a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 FOURTH SESSION - THIRTIETH LEGISLATURE of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Vol. XXIV No. 23A 26 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Peter Fox Speaker 2:30 p.m., Monday, March 21, 1977 Printed by P.N. Crosbie - Queen's Printer for the Province of Manitoba

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY of MANITOBA Monday, March 21 , 1977 TIME: 2:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Honoura ble Peter Fox (Kildonan): Before we proceed I should like to dir ect the attention of the honourable mem bers to the gallery where we have some 20 mem bers of the Rosh Pina Senior Group accompanied by Mr. M. Carrol. This synagogue is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for St. John' s. We also have 20 mem bers of an adult group from commun ities across rural Manitoba studying the Provincial Legislative System un der the leadership of Mr.

Don Meadows, who is the cou rse co ordina tor. On behalf of all the honour able mem bers, we welcome you here this afternoon. Presenting Petitions; Read ing and Receiving Petitions. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMM ITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St. Vital. MR. D. JAMES WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the first report of the Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. MR. CLERK: The Standing Com mittee on Statutory Regu lations and Order s begs leave to present its fi rst report. In accordance with

section 66.2(5) of the Legislative Assembly Act, the Report on Fam ily Law and the recom mendations of the Manitoba Law Reform Comm ission as to legislative action thereon was referred to the Stand ing Comm ittee on Statutory Regu lations and Orders vide Order in Cou nci l No. 1112 /76 for consider ation and report to the Legislative Assembly and to the Lieutenant Governor in Coun ci l. Your Commit tee met on Thursday, Novemb er 4, 19 76 for organ ization and on Tuesday, November 16 , 19 76 for di scussi ons with the Chair man of the Manitoba Law Reform Comm ission.

Your Com mittee also met on the following dates to receive public representa tion with respect to changes in Fam ily Law: Tuesday, November 23, 19 76 - at Winnip eg. The Coalition on Fa mil y Law - Alice Stein bart The Voice of Women - Terry Gr ay N. D.P . Status of Women Comm ittee - Aleda Tur nbull Mona Brown - Private Citizen of Sper ling, Man. The Provincial Council of Women of Man itoba - - Jean Carson Berenice B. Sisler , Private Citizen. Mrs.

Terry Sharpe - Portage La Prai rie The Man itoba Progressive Cons ervative Women's Association - - Elizabeth Will cock Young Women' s Christian Association - Kay Harland Frank Peters - Private Citizen Winn ipeg Council of Self-Help Group s - Mrs. Frances Roskevich Winn ipeg Chapter, Canad ian Cong ress of Women - Mrs. Jackson Brief on behalf of Prof.

Cameron Harvey, Faculty of Law, Un iversity of Manitoba - Laurie Allen Man itoba Action Com m ittee on the Status of Women - -Marilyn McGonigal Man itoba Association of Regis tered Nur ses - Bonnie McDonnell and June Cummings Charles Hub and - Private Citizen Manitoba Teachers' Society - Mrs. Helton NDP Status of Women Comm ittee - Maxine Prystupa and Mary Jo Qu arrie Fort Garr y Law Reform Com mi ttee - Ju dy Brenan Spi rit of Truth - Ralph Raphael Thursday, November 25, 19 76 - at Brandon Commi ttee on Status of Women, Women's Centre - Judy Springer Region V, National Farmers' Unio n - Mrs.

Eleanor Brown and Mrs. Isabel Proven Childr en's Aid Soc iety, Western Mani toba - Mrs. E. Cr istall and Bruce Fraser Canadian Federation of University Women - Georg ina Boux Mi riam Bowen - Private Citizen Luci lle Tolaini - Private Citizen Keith Honeyman - Private Citi zen Thursday, December 2, 19 76 - at Thompson Gail Rebbeck - Private Citizen 947

Monday, March 21, 1977 Linda Donahue - Private Citiz en His Honour, Tom Farrell - Mayor, City of Thompson Brian Cam pbell - Private Citizen Thursday, Decem ber 9, 19 76 - at Winn ipeg Mount Carmel Clinic - Mrs. Anne Ross Catholic Women's League - Mrs. Evelyn Wryzykowski and Mrs. Shi rley Scaletta Christ the King Parish Cou ncil - Mrs. DeBaets and Mrs. Jean Carson Famil y Services of Winnip eg, Inc. - Miss Lois Emery Shi rley Munr oe - Private Citizen Mrs.

Mary Tracey - Private Citizen Jake Feakes - Private Citizen Roman Burak - Private Citizen Murr ay Smith - Private Citizen Janet Berl<owski - Private Ci tizen Winnif red Havelock - Private Citizen Tuesday, February 8, 19 77 - at Winnip eg Parent Finder s of Winnip eg - Laurie Joan Mason Written br iefs were di stribut ed on behalf of the following organ izations: The Widows and Wido wers Gr oup Fam ily Services of Winnip eg, Inc. Fami ly Law Su b-Section, Manitoba Div ision of the Canad ian Bar Associ ation.

Of the br iefs presented to the Comm ittee, most expressed supp ort for the Law Reform Comm ision' s recommend ations general ly, but were opposed to the following recomme ndations specifically: 1. Relieving parents of responsibil ity to supp ort and main tain an unma nageable child. 2. Fixing a comm on-law spouse with secondary responsi bil ity tor supp ort and mai ntenanc e of the other spous e's child; the brie fs suggested that the province should assume this kind of responsibil ity. 3. "Fault" as a factor in determ ining spousal mai ntenance. 4.

"Deferr ed " sharing of assets; the brie fs favoured instantaneous shari ng. 5. Un ilateral cont racting out of standard marital regime as to prior assets, with retroactive effect. Your Comm ittee met on Februar y 3, 8, 15 and 22, 19 77; and March 1, 19 77 to consider the recom mendations of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission. Except as noted below, there was general concu rrence among commi ttee mem bers with the Fam ily Law recommend ations of the Manitoba Law Reform Commis sion. 1.

Parents to be relieved of responsi bili ty tor supp ort and mai ntenanc e of un manageab le child. (Page 111, para.4 ) There was concern that, un der the recom menda tion , the provi nce might well find itself saddled with the expense of su pporting a child of wealthy parents. 2. Right of one spouse to inf ormation relating to the income, etc., of the other spouse. (Page 11 4, para. 1) There was concern that in some cases it might well be imp ossible tor a spouse to comply with the recom mendation wi thout discl osing in formation as to the personal inc ome, etc., of the spous e's busine ss partners. 3.

Obl igation of one spouse to consult with the oh other spouse before any expendi ture of inc ome. (Page 11 4, para.2) There was concern that this recommenda tion mi ght be extremely onerous in practice. 4. Right of each spouse to personal allowances. (Page 11 4, para.3). Some commi ttee members thought that this recommen dation might have a restrictive and gener ally un desirable effect in many cases, if strictly adhered to. 5. Fau lt, as a factor in determ ining mai ntenance. (Page 11 6, para.4h) .

Some commi ttee members were concerned that the "fault" ap proach being advocated in maint enanc e may create hardship and unne cessary friction in the famil y. 6. Appl ication of mai ntenance provisions to common-law unions. (Page 116, para. 5) Some commit tee memb ers were concerned that this recommendation migh t have gone too far in broadening the existing provision on the same su bject in the Wives' and Childr en's Maintenance Act. 7.

Hom estead defi ni tion. (Page 121, para. 1) The qu estion was raised as to whether this defin ition ought to remain the same, particul arly in terms of the amount of land that should be consid ered appur tenant to a 948 .. •

Monday, March 21, 1977 homestead dwelling. 8. In dependent legal advice in comp leting agreements to contract out of the standar d marital regime. (Page 12 1, Para 3) There was concern about the requirement for two separate lawyers that this recomm enda tion appeared to im ply. 9. Deferred sharing of post-nu ptial proper ty. (Page 124' para.1) There was cons iderable discussion about the feasibi lity of extend ing the defin ition of mari tal assets to inclu de proper ty being used by the family uni t, such as furn iture, automobiles, sum mer homes, etc. 10.

Filing of "contractin g-out" agreement in public registry. (Page 12 4, para 3b) Comm ittee mem bers felt that many persons would not wish to have particulars of their personal dome stic affairs available for publi c scrutiny. 11 . Shareable estate of a spouse never to be reduced to a negative value by debts and liabili ties. (Page 12 5, para.1 0) Some memb ers quer ied the ju stification for requir ing a spouse to share all with the other spouse, but not losses that happen to accumu late to exceed the net value of the accumu lated assets. 12.

Accountability of a spouse for assets sq uande red dur ing preced ing six years. (Page 12 8, para. 21) There was concern about the diffi cu lty of defi ning "squand ered assets" whether it was correct in principle to require this kind of accounta bi lity and whether the period of account abil ity should be six years. 13.

Recovery of excessive gifts within six years. (Page 12 9, para.22) There was concern that this recom menda tion went beyond the point of a mere accountin g as between spouses and could actually prevent title from passing to the recipient of a gift, and that the recipient mi ght therefore not know for years whether or not the gift wou ld have to be returned . 14. Unilateral opting out of standard mar ital regime in its retroactive appl ication to prior assets. (Page 13 1, para.27c and page 133, para. 31

b) There was concern that this recom menda tion wou ld permit a spouse to determin e without the consent of the other spouse that certain assets would not be shared, and that the recomm end ation appeared to go contrary to the general equa l-sharing principle of the standar d marital regim e. 15 .

Maximum time allowable by a court for paying off the amount of a ju dgement for an equalizing payment. (Page 12 5, para. 11 ) Instead of the five years recomme nded by the Com mi ssion, the comm ittee agreed that no specific time lim it should be imposed by legislation , and the cour t should have full di scretion to determine the time limi t, if any, in each case. 16.

Court's discretion to extend the limitation period for commencing an action for an equalizing payment. (Page 130, para. 25) Instead of the un fettered di scretion recomm ended by the Comm ission to allow an action after expiry of the specified lim itation period, the comm ittee agreed thatthe court should have no di scretion to extend the limit ation period beyond six years from the date when the right of action arose.

The Comm ittee recom mend s that the Attorney-General proceed to submit a bill to the Legislature dealing with the principles discussed in Comm ittee, reserving and recognizing the right of each member to debate and/ or propose amend ments to any particular proposal or

section in the bill. FOOTN OTE: The page references given refer to the Mani toba Law Reform Commission, Report on Family Law. Parts I and II. MR. WALDING: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Gimli, that the report of the Commi ttee be received . MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Min isterial Statements or Tabling of Reports; Notices of Motion. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Assin iboia. MR. STEVE PATRICK introdu ced Bill (No.36)

an Act to amend MOTION presented. The Emplo yment Standards Act. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labour. HONOURABLE RUSSELL PAULLEY (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I wou ld make a request of you that you consider the adm issability of the bill proposed by the Honour able Member for Assin iboia. I note reference was made in the Throne Speech to matters pertaining to overtime. I have received a 949

Monday, March 21, 1977 copy of the proposed measure introduced by the Honour able Member for Assinib oia, a copy which I received from the legislative Coun sel, Mr. Speaker, in which he draws to my attention in accordance with the rules of the House that this bill deserves special attention. So, Sir, in all du e respect to the desir es of my honour able friend and in accordance with, as I und erstand the rules . of the House, the rules of Beauchesne and others, I respectfully suggest that you take un der advisement the adm issabil ity of this bill. MR.

SPEAKER: The Chair find s itself in the position of not having had either bill that the Minis ter proposes or the one that the Honour able Mem ber for Assi nib oia proposes before it. It is only for introduction at the present tim e so neither one is pri nted and I can't make a decision on something that hasn't been pri nted . The Honour able Mini ster of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a ... maybe it was because of the wordin g that I used .

There are not two bills but ju st one bill proposed by the Honour able Member for Assinib oia, and while I can appreci ate the fact that you may not have a copy of the said bill, I di dn't want proceed ings to occur to the degree that I could not draw to your attention the point that I did. more than pleased to forward the copy of the bi ll that I received from the legislative counsel but of course bills are not normally print ed and distributed except after due course.

But I was suggesting to you, in all due respect, that consideration be given to reference to the emplo yment standards which is contained in The Throne Speech notwithstanding the fact that I may have a copy of the proposed legislation . MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Assi nib oia on the same point of order. MR. PATRICK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the same point of order. I hope that the Min ister un derstands that there may be many various factors concern ing overtime.

The second point that he raised that the legislative cou nsel said that the bill needs special attention, I believe that is placed on almost every private mem ber's bill by the legislative couns el. MR. SPEAKER: I shall take the matter un der advisement until I get further inf ormation on it. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Rock Lake. MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Mr. Speaker, I dir ect this qu estion 0487 02 to the Min ister of Agricu lture, and in view of the overwhelming defeat of the recent Manitoba Beef Marketing Board with the powers desig nated . . . MR. SPEAKER: Ques tion, please. MR.

EINARSON: ... I wonder if the Mi nister can ind icate whether he is now prepared to allow the beef producers the opportunity to proceed with some of the impr ovements that they have been asking for. That is mai nly in the marketplace. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agricu lture. HONOURABLE SAMUEL USKIW(Lac du Bonnet): Well, Mr. Speaker, that is a very vague ques tion . Some of the point s that were made by some of the groups in the debate requir e authori ty of The Natural Products Marke ting Act wh ich they in fact voted against. So I'm not just sur e what it is they want to do. MR. EINARSON: Mr.

Speaker, then I think I mu st put it plain to the Min ister and ask him . Now that the prod ucers of beef have made their decision through a referend um, is the Min ister now going to stick to the slogan that he used earlier in the campaign that it's either a marketing board or nothing at all? Is that the und erstand ing that I get from the Min ister's answer? MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Member for Rock Lake that he should not suggest fallacious comments to this House, or make fallacious comm ent in this House. MR. EINARSON: Well then , Mr.

Speaker, I should like to ask the Min ister, then, in view of the fact the beef producers of this province would like to know where their next step is as to what dir ection they are going to go, I'm merely asking the Min ister, Mr. Speaker, is the Min ister prepared to co operate with the beef produ cers of this province to assist them , if it is necessary, with a marketing plan through the Marketing Board, to help them solve some of the problems that they still have. MR. USKIW: Well again, Mr.

Speaker, the Memb er for Rock Lake should not want to presume that he is going to carry the message forward because I don' t know what it is he is suggesting to me. People have an open door to my office and if they have some suggestions to make they are welcome to make them . MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. HARRY J. ENNS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I dir ect a question to the Honour able the Fi rst Min ister. I note with concern his di sabili ty and I trust that it didn' t come about as a re sult of any serious discussion he had with his Min ister of Agricultur e over the week-end.

But my question to the Minis ter, Sir , is, is he considering making any changes in his Min istry as a res ult of the vote last Friday. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Fi rst Min ister. HONOURABLE EDWARD SCHREYER, Premier(Rossmere): Mr. Speaker, I can assure my 950 ll .. t

Monday, March 21, 1977 honour able friend that whatever disabil ity I may have today is only of short term du ration, that it has nothing to do with the beef marketing vote. Indeed , over a month ago, I indi cated that whatever the result of the vote that the government would accept it with good grace and that matters will flow from there. There is every opportun ity for those that are actively in volved in beef production to meet and to bring forward alternative proposals.

Where the government will find it proble matic is a proposal that wou ld have to do with some com puls ory measure, of whatever degree of profundity, without any kind of soliciting of opin ion of the producers themselves. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for River Heights. MR. SIDNEY SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, my que stion will be to either the First Min ister or the Min ister of Fi nance . The consumer price index for the regions was just publi shed and I wonder if the government is in a position to explain why the apparent rise in the cost of living for the Winnip eg area. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Finance. HONOURABLE SAUL A. MILLER (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker, these figur es are pub lished regularly and as the member knows, it does ind icate a rise in the consumer price in dex for Winnip eg. On the other hand, it does indi cate an even greater rise in some citi es to the west of us. What mu st be remember ed is the base from which this all starts. What we have here is the rise from one period to the next, and there is a rise of 7 .6 percent, I think it is, in the February, 19 77 over February, 19 76.

But it is not with other cities in Western Canada and it simpl y proves again that we are not an island ourselves and that as inflation affects Canada, so it shall also affect Winn ipeg . MR. SPIVAK: I wonder if the Minis ter in reviewing the figures has not consider ed that there is a danger signal by comparing the rise for this past month with the previous month for the cost of food, housing and all items. The rise is su bstantial ly higher than other areas. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, it simply in di cates it hit us a little later than it did other areas.

I migh t point out that insofar as Win ni peg and other cities across the country, they are comparable. It's a qu estion of taking a particu lar poin t in time and comparing it with another point in time. Certainly, these costs are affecting us, I wou ld be surpr ised if they wou ld not be affecting us. MR. SPIVAK: I wonder if the Finance Min ister is in a position to in di cate why Manitoba has led in the incr eased cost of housing in the country both last month and in this month. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, Win ni peg housing has for many years been below the national average.

All that is happening is the adjustment and recogni tion that in fact it's catching up to those two. MR. SPIVAK: To the Finance Min ister . I wonder if he can ind icate whether his department has un dertaken any study to specifi cally support the proposition he just put forward , that incr eased cost is for the reasons he suggested. Does he have any study that wou ld indic ate that? MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, I have no specific study in front of me but I do know thatoverthe years, Win nip eg has been sometimes loser and sometimes higher than other cities just as Manitoba has sometimes been lower and sometimes higher than other provinces in the development and as costs move forward . It is on the average, in line with what has happened over cities providing you don' t take one camer a or snapshot in time but look at the overall figur es from over a period of years. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for Assin iboia. MR. PATRICK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a qu estion for the Honour able Min ister of Northern Affairs. Can the Mini ster indic ate to the House if the thi rty-two trucks with cargo that started over the weekend to Allan Lake were able to com plete their trip through the wi nter roads. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister for Northern Affairs. HONOURABLE RONALD McBRYDE (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, since the member failed to give notice, I'll take the que stion as notice. MR. PATRICK: Supple ment ary, Mr. Speaker, I und erstand that all if not all of them, most of them turned back from Hoe Lake, I believe, Hoe River.

Can the Mini ster indi cate will the government be paying for the cost of the truck s not getting through or what is the arrangement. MR. MCBRYDE: Mr. Speaker, the road of which the member talks was open and open for a su itable amount of time for the fri to be moved in . The road was officially closed, some truckers decided to use the road at their own risk and they are allowed to do that. They use it at their own risk. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon our able Mem ber for Riel. HONOURABLE DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr. Sp eaker, I have a qu estion for the Mini ster of Muni ci pal Affairs .

It is in relation to the activities of the assessment di vision of his department. Inasmuch as the City of Win ni peg is assessing houses extra that include in their construction solar energy facilities, I wonder if he can advise the House whether that is a practice of the Department of Muni cip al Affair s. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Mun icipal Affairs. HONOURABLE BILLIE URUSKI (St. George): Mr. Speaker, the member no doub t is aware that the City of Winn ipeg has its own assessment department.

The Provincial Assessment Branch follows the determi nation in the Act and I will, with respect to the speci fics that he is talking about' take that un der notice to find out if they have had any experience at all out of the City of Winnip eg. 951

Monday, March 21, 1977 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, on the same topic, I would like to dir ect a question to the Min ister of Fi nance and ask him if consideration has been given again in energy conser vation measures to removing the sales tax this year from insula ting goods. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, as the Honour able Memb er for Ri el knows, the government is always will ing and ready to consider almost anythin g for the benefit of Manitoba. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Min ister wou ld indic ate, sin ce the government voted against such a Private Mem ber's Resolution last year ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The qu estion now is argument ative. Wou ld the honour able member rephrase. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I want to know specifical ly if the government is giving any consider ation in the way of financial measur es to energy conservation including the removal of sales tax on insula tion . MR. MILLER: Well, the honourable member, Mr.

Speaker, should know that it would be im proper for me to advise the House at this point and it would be im proper for him to even suggest that I pre empt the Budge t Speec h. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Ste. Rose. MR. A. R. (PETE) ADAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The Memb er for Rock Lake was asking the Min ister of Agricu lture if he was going to ... MR. SPEAKER: Quest ion, please. MR. ADAM: I would like to ask the Min ister of Agricu lture if it is correct that he has advanced $34 mil lion in the past two years un der the Beef Assurance Program to beef prod ucers of this province. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agricultur e. MR. USKIW: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is correct, although I don't know what it has to do with the question that was put to me by the Mem ber for Rock Lake. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I have a qu estion for the Min ister for Urban Affairs. I was wondering if he could ind icate to the House when we might expect the legislation amending the City of Winnip eg Act and whether it will be done with in the next week or two. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Urban Affairs. MR. MILLER: Mr.

Speaker, soon, and tha t migh t translate to a couple of weeks, and it mi ght be longer. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, considering the ind efin iteness of the Min ister's answer, cou ld he ind icate whether he has had any discussions wi th City of Winnip eg officials to determ ine what kind of time they would need in order to prepare for any reorganization or set-up change in the admini strative or bou ndaries of the City of Winnip eg. MR. MILLER: No, Mr.

Speaker, there are no specific di scussions taki ng place but I think the Department of Urban Affairs is aware of the techn ical matters that wou ld have to be taken into account. MR. AXWORTHY: Sup plementary, Mr. Speaker. Cou ld the Min ister indic ate whether he'd be prepared to release or provide those techn ical papers and assessments for mem bers of the House so that they cou ld have them available for when the debate occurs. MR. MILLER: No, Mr. Speaker, the techn ical matters I was referring to are the matters that the member brought up .

The question of the city machin ery being able to respond, those really are within the city's pur view. They know what they are and I'm sug gesting that the department knows them as well. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Wolseley: MR. ROBERT G. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Min ister in charge of the Civil Service, wou ld the Min ister confirm that Mr. Wi lson Parasiuk is a government emp loyee and a suggested candi date for the Transcona riding? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Muni cip al Affairs. HONOURABLE BILLIE URUS KI: Mr.

Speaker, I believe that he may very well be, but he doesn't work for my department. MR. WILSON: A supplem entary then. Wou ld the Minis ter confirm that Mr. Parasiuk was arrested or detained by police as an election stunt at the Gr iffin Steel lin e in the Transcona riding MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Fi rst Min ister. MR. SCHREYER: Mr. Speaker, that kind of innu endo is no more fitti ng here than to suggest that someone got hi mself dressed down by a Que en's Bench ju dge as an election stunt. MR� SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for River Heights. MR. SPIVAK: Mr.

Speaker, my que stion is to the Fi rst Mini ster and it relates to statements made by the Cultur al Development Min ister of Que bec in whi ch he indi cated that the Prime Min ister should be lecturing Man itoba for its treatment of the French Canad ian mi nority. I wonder if the Fi rst Min ister 952 •

Monday, March 21, 1977 has made a response or in tends to make a response on behalf of the government in connection with this statement. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Fi rst Min ister. MR. SCHREYER: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we wou ld want to ascertain if anyth ing the lines that my honour able friend is sug gesting was in fact said if it was said, we certainly have a ready response. MR. SPIVAK: Mr. Speaker, on another question , bu t partially related .

I wonder if the Fi rst Mini ster can in di cate whether there have been any studies und ertaken by the government with respect to the various options that the Prime Mini ster of Qu ebec and others who are a part of the Min istry have suggested with respect to opting out of Canada, whether there have been any undert akings by the government with respect to the economi c im pacts for Man itoba, for western Canada, whether in effect any .... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The qu estion is on a hypothetical area. It is out of order. MR. SCHREYER: Let's not choose to proceed on fatalistic stud ies. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for Radis son. Order please. MR. HARRY SHAFRANKSY: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to revert to the routine proceedings on presenting petitions? MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honour able Member for Radis son. PRESENTING PETITIONS MR. SHAFRAN KSY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of praying for the passing of

An Act to amend

an Act to incorporate MR. SPEAKER. It will be entered under Presenting Petitions. Questions. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for Fort Garry. MR. L. R. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my que stion is to the Honour able the Mini ster reporting for the Civil Service and I would ju st ask him, Sir, whether he has any information now pertain ing to a qu estion I asked him some days ago with respect to ident ities of civil servants who had been arrested on the pick et line at Gr iffi n. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Muni cip al Affairs. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, as the honourable memb er well knows I ind icated to him some days after the question, that those names that he asked me to inquir e about were not available to me, that when those persons appea red in cou rt on the cou rt dock et they would be released.

I indi cated as well to the honour able member that the role of the in dealing with staff is the role of an app ellant body and each department and each Min ister in his own department wou ld have the role of determ ining whether emp loyees were not at work when they should have been and any di sci plinar y action would be under taken by the relevant department and their managers. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-General. HON. HOW ARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr . Speaker, I wonder if I could with file a retur n to an Order of the House MR. SPEAKER: Does the Minister have Leave?

ADJOURNED DEBATES - SECOND READING MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi ni ster of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would call the adjourned debates on second reading in the order in which they appear. MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. BILL (NO. 2) -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SECURITIES ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Wolseley. MR. WILSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Upon examining the bill and the proposed Act to amend The Securities Act, it appears to be main ly a change in brought on by the in troduction of The Companies Act are some things in it that are of interest I wou ld think that it does properly exempt the credit uni ons as really there was sort of a dup lication of service and certainly in a year when we are trying to save mone y, we want to uti lize our staff si nce the credit uni ons were already bei ng su pervised by another department, it seemed fitting that they should be exempted. defi ni tions it really and describes the Mani toba Securities Board now responsi bili ty for the Real Estate Brokers Act and the Mortgage Brokers and Mortgage Dealers Act.

And rig htfully, it clearly defines some of the big powers of cou rse the former Min ister, I called him the Min ister of Power, I would have hated to 953

Monday, March 21, 1977 have some of these powers un der him, but I think the Minis ter now responsible for this department has rightfully gone along with these changes to clearly define when it comes to freezing trust accounts and preventing people from operating. I think these are rightfully watered down.

Many of the proposals in the bi ll are of sort of a cosmetic nature and I would think that we cou ld possibly deal with it more thoroughly in Com mi ttee, getting int o the bill One of the clear thin gs of course means that all these prop sectuses that are put out through Man itoba-based companies have to be cleared through Man itoba even though the mi ning shares of the XYZ min ing company mi ght be flogged in the Vancouver Stock Exchange where a lot of these pen ny stocks are floated the Calgary, or for that matter the Toronto Stock Exchange.

It seems we have got to give Man itoba a bit of a lift in the investment field because Vancouver certainly has a bad name for floating penny stocks, operations, and over-the-counter that out a very small nu mbe r in the past, but certainly one or two have turned out to be Man itoba compan ies I think our im age needs protection and I welcome this particular change in the Act.

So without going in to too mu ch further detai l, I do think the fact that the mu tual funds have dropped the responsibil ity of auditing and now the governm ent is going to be sending out a questionnaire for some means of control has been an original statement by the Minis ter that it wou ldn' t involve any extra staff but I am wonderi ng, if these people answered the que stionnair e wrong if his depar tment would be able to handle the workload , or wou ld they be hir ing audit ors from outside firms? In other words, is there an added expense? Does he envision an added expense?

And if not, he cou ld poss ibly clear that up. clarification it seems there may have been a possibil ity of cou rse I don't believe a case was ever tested, but this Act does away with what could have been a field day if it became public knowledge for the legal profession because it seems that ma ny of these term deposits that someone put in say, two years at percent, if he sudden got married or something and decided he wanted to take out the money, then he would be penal ized and be given a pale figur e of something li ke say, 5.5 or 6.5 percent. would seem that there might be a legal argum ent that the credit un ions cou ld have in fact been in a bit of trou ble with the federal people pertaining to their responsi bili ties un der this section.

So I think to keep the credit unions out of the cou rts and to allow our cou rts to do other func tions more meaningf ul, I would think this is a good point as well. So I will be talking to the Min ister about this bi ll in mor e detail in Commit tee. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Assinib oia, that debate be adjour ned . MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill (No. 3), the Hon ourable Memb er for Rock Lake. (Stands). Bill (No. 4) , the Honour able Member for Portage la Prairie. (Stands) .

Bill (No. 5) , the Honour able Member for Fort Rouge. MR. AXWORTHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Last week we had the opportu ni ty to comment up on Bill the bill in troduced by the Min ister of Public Works given to land acqui sition. As we poi nted out to the House at that time, it was both a serious comm ission of errors in terms of the amendments that were being made, and perhaps more se riously, an om ission of errors because of the lack of any attempt in that bill to deal with the que stion of how to control the pric es of public pu rchases of land . And it does go to the heart, Mr.

Speaker, of one of the central issues that we debate in this Legislature that is the question of the management of government affairs. I think Bill Mr. Speaker, has the same seq uence of errors in it, both omission and comm ission , perhaps going to a much more fundamentally im portant series of values, even beyond those of the que stion of management because there is no mor e serious act of any government than the act of expropriati on, the taking of a piece of personal pri vate property from an ind ividual by the State for its own pu rposes.

And we all recognize that the common law has acknowledge d the right of government to do that, that where it is consider ed fair and necessary, the government has the right to imp ose its own will and say, "I will take your piece of property, provided I give you fair com pensat ion." But, Mr.

Speaker, that particular act of government is one that must be done with the greatest degree of sensitivity and responsi veness and responsi bil ity to the person that is having their proper ty taken from them, that there can be no greater in trusion upon the rights of an ind ividual than that right of taking away their stake in society, what they consider to be their own , so when government does that act, it mu st do so with great care and considera tion. Mr.

Speaker, it mus t do so even more critic ally when you consider that oftenti mes those who are su bject to expropriation are those least able to defend themselves. They are those who are oftentime s - because expropriation takes place in downtown areas, in ner city areas, in rural areas, - the people are not as adequately sophis ticated with the law, with their rights, to ensur e that they get the proper protection . This is compou nded even more serio usly when there are di fficulties of language and sometimes with cultur e. I could think, Mr.

Speaker, to the problems that we experienced in this city last year when the 954 li ..

Monday, March 21, 1977 Provincial Govern ment itself was expropria ting a num ber of properties in the central part of Winnip eg, many of those people who were bei ng expropri ated were those who had recently arrived in this count ry, who came from coun tries who had very dif ferent governmental systems from ours, were oftenti mes intimid ated by the authority of the state they're com ing in to, oftenti mes handic apped by language di fficu lties and as a result, were confused and oftentimes highly ups et and anxiou s about that particular proced ure.

So the Act of Expro pria tion is something that can not be treated lightly and in fact requir es the greatest degree of sensitivity and the greatest degree of careful consideration that government app lies. I can think in some ways of perhaps only in the areas like the Act of Adoption or other areas where dealing with such personal matters, does expropri ation have that same qual ity of requir ement. And yet, Mr. Speaker, when we come to the amendm ents being proposed in this bill, they in fact are steps away from those very criteria.

Rather than expandin g and enhancing the abil ity of this Provin cial Govern ment to deal with the problem of expropriation in the most liberal-minded, open, accessible way, they in fact are a series of amendm ents wh ich begin to restrict the law and begin to pull in the requir ements of government to obey basic tentative natural jus tice whic h is fair hearing be given to all. Mr.

Speaker, again, it comes as some su rprise to me, like a great deal of su rprise to me, that other members of this House, of group s other than my own, who expressed with great frequency and vehemence their own comm itment to this issue again would allow a bill as im portant as this to pass by without comment, to pass by saying they see nothing wrong with it. Again, Mr.

Speaker, I can only stand on serious qu estion ing about the degree of dedication that is brought to that kind of commi tment if, in fact, as im portant a series of changes as the Expropriation Act are simpl y allowed to pass by with very little attention or very little seri ous address. A over yet. MEMBER: Nothing's passed by yet. It's not MR. AXWORTHY: Well, Mr. Speaker, when someone is prepared to say they su pport something in principle, I take them at their word . Su pport in pri nciple means that they are in basic agreement to the pri ncip les of this bill. We, Mr.

Speaker, are not in agreement wi th the principl es of these amendments; in fact, we are dead ly opposed to the princip les of these amend ments and we will end up asking the Minis ter to withdr aw this bill because it is such a bad bill that it has no sense to it. Therefore, when the Member for Lakeside says, "It's not over yet," I wou ld say that once someone in this House speak ing on behalf of his group is prepared to say, "We agree in principl e," then, Mr. Speaker, I think that we have no other option but to take them at their word. A MEMBER: Leave that to the Conservatives. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Order please. MR. AXWORTHV: The only system would be is conside ring the sou rce of those comments and considering the past record of dedica tion to pri nciple, then maybe there is no reason to takethem at their word. A MEMBER: Okay. We cleared that up. MR. AXWORTHV: Okay, we cleared that issue up and now we've got past thatthing, let's go to the bill itself. What in the basic thrust of the bill does it state? The first thing, Mr.

Speaker, what it really does is requir e in a fun dament al way that one of the basic requir ements of expropriation is to assure that all interested parties to that expropriation are in formed that it's about to take place and informed of their rights with in that proceed ing. Now, Mr. Speaker, if you look at this bill it8 in fact8 withd raws the right of notific ation to certain critical groups who may be affected. Tenants, as one prime example. There is a very basic standard in our law which says that all those who have an interest in the property mus t be notified.

That is withd rawn in this present sub -amendment and yet that is often in terpreted as we interpr et it in the Landlords and Tenant Act and other Acts to mean "those who have a tenant residency in those properties." Well, Mr. Speaker, if we agree with the subm ission of this particular Bill 5, then that right of advisement to those who have an in terest in the proper ty is elimin ated and therefore, they will not receive a notifica tion . Now, the Min ister may be able to argue that some someone will tell them; the word wi ll get arou nd, or friend s will letthem know.

Butthe fact that it is, I believe, absolutely essential that government have established the right to in form those who are going to be affected by law, not to rely upon word of mouth or in formal subm ission and if it creates an inc onven ience for the officials and the adminis trators inv olved, then that's ju st too damn bad . That frankly you can accept adm in istrative inc onven ience if it means that you're provi din g a greater protection of the rights of those who are involved. Mr.

Speaker, when I begin to see a government pulling in its horns ju st a little - and I know the reasons why this bill was brough t in, Mr. Speaker ... A MEMBER: No you don't. MR. AXWORTHV: ... I think we know the reasons why, we know the kind of representation that's been made by mun icip al politicians to the Min ister saying, "Oh boy, you know, when we get those 955

Monday, March 21, 1977 things, it ties us up and it takes time and we'd like to get thin gs done in a ni ce qu ick, efficient manner. " And , Mr. Speaker, we know that the Min ister hims elf went through a fair degree of aggravation only last year when he was out sort of deciding which pie ces of proper ty in which he wou ld plant his little seeds upon which his new Autopac buildin g woul d grow. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I can und erstand the feeling of the Min ister that he and his confreres perhaps on a muni ci pal level wou ld like to get these things over with.

They don't want to have them hanging around; they don' t want to extend the time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that in doing so he is really making a funda ment al error of those who have been in government too long. They begin to put admin istrative convenience over protection of basic princip les and rights. They begin to assume that being able to keep the machi nery turn ing is more imp ortant than maki ng sure that the machinery can be stopped when it has to be. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of inkling, the kind of symptom we see in this bill.

Now point numb er two is again the reflection of the same kind of interest in proceed ing with admini strative convenience. They're simply saying that we can extend the time of in vestigation of an enq uir y officer without notice. Again, Mr. Speaker, I ask why. Now, the enq uir y officer-a nd I think it deserves looking a little bit at the particu lar role that that particular person may play-t he role of the enq uir y officer in an expropriation hearing is desig ned very mu ch to ensur e that there is a fu ll and adequa te publi c representation to consider a variety of facts relating to the case.

It would seem to follow if that is the pu rpose of the enq uir y officer, whatever the enq uir y officer is about to do, all those who are affected by his or her activities should have the right to know. And it there's going to be a time extension, sur ely there should be again a way of in forming people that they have more time, particu larly when you consider the case I men tioned.

Ottentimes those who are being expropria ted are those least able to deal with them and it they are only given thirty days notice - assume that they only have thir ty days to get cou nsel, get their case put together - then ottentimes it becomes an overwhelming experience and they give up. But all of a sudden here's a case where government knows that the enquir y officer's time is extended but the people who are going to be affected sti ll have to be notified. And again the Min ister may say, "Well, look, " ... There are certain pn:�ctices that lawyers follow.

I know that several lawyers have been appoi nted enq uir y officers, do their homework before hand and then ask the Attorney-General to set them up as an enq uir y officer after they've put down the front end arrangements and that's a fair way of doing it with in that thirty day time period. But still, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back - I think what's im portant is what is written in the law and that we have a proper protection in the law as to what goes on. There are certain practices that lawyers follow.

I know that several lawyers who have been appointed enquir y officers do their homework beforehand and then ask the Attorney-General to set them up as an enq uir y officer after they put down the tront end arrangements. That's a fair way of doing it with in that thirty day time and period. But sti ll, Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to I think what's im portant is what is written in the law, and that we have a proper protection in the law as to what goes on. Mr. Speaker, that is a relatively minor poin t in this bill.

What is tar more critical, to my mind, is in tact that this bill amends the powers of the enquir y officer and begins to cut off certain areas of in vestigation or enquir y that that officer can un dertake. The bill really suggests that the enq uir y officer no longer has a right to consider matters dealing with compensa tion . Well, Mr. Speaker, what is an expropriation proceeding all about it it isn't the question of what value is my property.

It you have gone to expropriation hearings, and I have been at several and looked at the records of others, you 'll find that the guy whose house is bei ng taken over has one funda mental question in mind. What will I receive in return and fu rthermore in considering what I receive in return what are you going to pay me for the social dislo cation? The tact that you are tearing me out of my com mun ity. The tact that I have lived here tor thirty or forty years and will haveto totally di slocate my place of residence. What am I going to be paid tor that?

And all of a sudden, we are saying in this bill that those questions can no longer be considered. Que stions that go to the very heart of expropria tion . This enquir y officer no longer has the capacity to deal with. He is prevented by legislation. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I'm beginni ng to know the reasons why. That there was a great deal of consternation on the part of certain civic officials when one enquir y officer a year ago made a report on the Trizec Project and started suggesting what com pensation should be inv olved, because it is not his busine ss to do that.

Well I consider it to be his busi ness, because Mr. Speaker, when it comes down to a question if there is going to be decision in the cou rts relating to compen sation, the way that the cou rts now deal with the matter they are prep ared to accept a whole variety and. range of evidence. And one of the sou rces of that evidence ... It the Min ister wants to ask a ques tion , yes, please, sure. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Fi nance. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I'm wonderi ng it I heard correctly.

Is the member suggesting that the Act today is written in such a way that in tact the enq uir y officer can deal with compensa tion. Is he suggesting that that is now the Act and that is now being taken away from him? Because if so I think 956

Monday, March 21, 1977 that he is in correct. It is my und erstanding the enquir y officer does not deal with compensation under the existing Act. Now that's my un derstandi ng and I'm wondering whether that's the under standing of the member. MR. AXWORTHY: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad the Min ister interjected because I think the way the Act reads now an enqu iry officer is not explic itly prohibi ted from dealing with those matters. Under these amendm ents he will be explicitly prohibi ted. And what has happened in past cases, Mr.

Speaker, not in all cases but in those cases where it is consi dered a necessity to do so, and I can show the Mini ster enquir y officer reports whi ch in fact have consi dered cases where compens ation should be considered.

There was a case, for example, an enquir y officer report dealing with an expropriation in Brook lands where in fact the case had gone on for a period of seven years and the person who was being expropri ated had a legiti mate right to say, look at, after seven years, don' t you think that seven years of waiting should be taken into account, and the enq uir y officer did take it into account and made a report so to state. As was also done on the Trizec expropr iation case.

So the dif ference there is that while many enquir y officers do not in terpret their function to be that, some have and they provide a valuable service. And that brings me, in fact, to another point. I think, Mr. Speaker, that rather than restricting and inhib iting and pu I ling in the rights and powers of in vestigation and areas of jur isdic tion of the enq uir y officer, far more critical wou ld be to broaden them . Rather than pull ing in, we should be broadening them out to ensur e that agai n in that very critical case that there is not those kinds of prohib itions.

So that if it does come down to a matter of disp ute in the courts, the cou rts wou ld have a full weight of evidence before them drawn from a variety of hearings and sou rces and assessments. An enq uir y officer, by the definition of his office, is seen to be an in dependent, objective comme ntator upon the merits of what is taking place, and that could and should provide a very valuable sour ce of in formation and advice the courts cou ld take in to account. And furthermore, Mr.

Speaker, even when you consider it, again this Act that we now have before us proh ib its the enquir y officer looking at questions of legality of expropria tions. Well ... A MEMBER: That's im portant. MR. AXWORTHY: I know it's im portant. Because, Mr. Speaker, let me give you the kind of example that I'll bring before the House; that again no one is arguing, I guess it has been in the common law for several hundr ed years, the right of the state to take a pi ece of property. But sur ely the in di vidual has a right to say what are your pu rposes for taki ng it.

And if in fact it's the kind of example where the Department of Highways comes along and says, we want a 60 foot wide swath for a highway. Okay, fair enoug h. Highways are imp ortant.

But if that same Department of Highways comes along and the guy says, you know, wouldn' t it be nic e if we had an extra 60 feet so we could put a little border on it, a little landscape kind of, you know, have that area protected , and we want that proper ty, too, and also that extra 60 feet may in fact cut in to or totally elimi nate any agricu ltural value, then there should be a right to question the legality of that particu lar act of government. -(lnt erjection) - MR. AXWORTHY: Oh, no.

In fact there was an interesti ng case in the expropriations of the new park out on the east side of the river where, in fact, that kind of case occurred. I think that there has to be the right of investigation by enquir y officers in to the broadest possible range of examin ation . And again, Mr. Speaker, if you look atthe bill carefully you'll see that in factthe enq uir y officer, as it is now set up, has lim ited powers, in fact, has them even more de-limited by these amendm ents.

And again I wou ld sim ply raise the fact that there have been cases in the past, and I'll give you the example of the kind of rights that should be given an enquir y officer. This government should not have the right, as it has exercised it in the past, as it exercised it last year, to prohib it, by Order -in-Counc i l, the setting up of an enquir y officer. As they did last year in dealing with the cases in downtown Winn ipeg where an Order-in-Council of the Cabi net was passed prohi biting an enq uir y officer to be established in that case, even though requested by Cou ncil for those who were being affected.

So I'm simply sayi ng, Mr. Speaker, that rather than moving towards that kind of restriction what wou ld seem to have been suggested to me by the kind of di fficulties the government itself got into last year would have been a review of how we cou ld more liberalize those activities to ensur e greater protection and greater guar antee, not to limi t them. But, Mr.

Speaker, you can even go one step beyond that, I believe, and say that again in de aling with a matter of expropriation ... when presented with this bi ll on fir st read ing the order paper I antici pated its int roduction because I felt final ly, maybe, the government will take into account perhaps the most crucial issue, and that is the qu estion of replacement cost. Or what is a proper form ula for providing people with the kind of protection that they need when it comes down to deciding their rights and grievances.

Again I can only say that we are di sappoi nted that the whole qu estion of what is fair value for property is not touched upon at all. And yet, Mr. Speaker, if there is anything that is demons trated by the Provincial Governm ent's own acts of last year, is that by sim ply registering the right of fair ma rket, which is a standard formul a in all expropriation Acts, they were in 957

Monday, March 21, 1977 fact creating a series of inj ustices upon the people whose proper ty they were taking away. I did some checking a week or so ago on several of those people who had their proper ty expropria ted last year who made the claim, which they could only hypothesize last year, that to replace their house as it was down in the central part of Winnip eg with som e form of equiv alent house in another part of Win nipeg because there was no properties available in the same di strict, wou ld requir e not mark et value for their own house but perhaps eight or ten thousand dollars more.

They were not given that. Well, Mr. Speaker, their words have turned out to be true. A case in poin t was a person who was paid only approximately about fifteen thousand dollars, what was consi dered to be mar ket value on a street in the central portion of Winn ipeg . To replace it with a house not even simi lar in standard but in a di fferent di strict because of the mark ets being di fferent cost twenty-eight thousand dollars. And for many of those people, particu larly those who are older, who don' t have mu ch in the way of their own financial resources, that becomes a very serious problem.

And many of them are sti ll facing those kinds of anxie ties. -(l nterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister for Public Works. HONOURABLE !RUSSELL DOERN(Elm wood): I would ask the honour able member this. The other day he seemed to focus up on the notion that the Land Value Appraisal Commis sion wasn't keeping prices down ; that the government was paying too much. Now he appears to be arguin g the exact reverse of his position , that the government is paying too little. Could he enligh ten us on this apparent conflict? MR. AXWORTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I only say that the conflict appears only in the eye of the beholder. That what I am sug gesting, in this case, is that the enq uir y officers role and in the kinds of gui delines that we have put down in legislation, wou ld provide a very di stinct recogn ition of a form ula that cou ld be applie d in the fi rst ins tance.

The argum ent we were making last week on the land acqui sition bill is that what happens now is that there is a great deal of shil ly-shallying back and forth and a great deal of kicking the price up because there wasn't that ini tial representation, and we are saying thatthere is an opportun ity in this expropriation bill to be gin to fix that kind of problem . To make that proper defini tion in the first ins tance where it should be made, rathertha n having to get in to a situation that is su bject, sur ely, to a series of bargai ning.

As I point out, when you get in to those bargaining situations it's only the strong who have the abil ity to really bargain, and therefore I think that in many cases the legislation should be des igned, in particu lar, to protect the weak. I wou ld say, that perhaps the Min ister's contrad ictions appear more to me to be on his side than on this side. Mr.

Speaker, I think that in order to ensure that there is this fair treatment of those who are expropria ted that not only should the que stion of fair mark et value be allowed to be more carefu lly examined but there are also other rights that are necessary to be emp loyed.

I think it should be very clearly set out in the legislation that the expropriating authority be requir ed to provide both a dir ect in vitation or offer to those that are bei ng expropria ted about what their legal rig hts are, and if they can't afford legal cou nsel to assure that they have the und erstanding that they can afford to obtain them. And if they can't afford to obtain them through their own private lawyer then the services of legal aid wou ld be available to them. And yet, Mr.

Speaker, there are many cases, again, that I've dealt with in di vid ually talked to people, where that ' has not been explained. It gets to be a tendency on the part of, you know, some guys in government side to play the role of sort of Mr., you know, sni dey whi plash kind of com ing in and sort of acting the role that they've got the mu scle, boy, and you better tow the line, and that they are not requir ed by the law to make sur e that those rights are clearly set forth.

I think that there is a principle in the American Cr im in al Law, called the Escobedo case where we all see it on all those crime programs, where every arresting offi.cer mus t read out the rig hts, saying you have a right to counsel before you can be arrested of A, B, C, and D. I think, Mr. Speaker, the same rights should be contained in this bill. I think the requir ement to state those rights is a fun damental part of the act of expropriation. A MEMBER: We have them now. MR. AXWORTHY: We may have them but they are not set out, and I mu st confess, Mr.

Speaker, having watched and observed the activities of this government in expropriation procedings last year, I frankly wou ldn't trust them. I think that the rig hts have got to be laid out clear and simple and straightforward, and that if they are not obeyed they can therefore be charged in the courts. To rest upon simply the good words and good works of the Min ister leaves me slightly cold. What a cruel blow.

I realize that while the Min ister is kindly consider ed by friends and fam ily, I think when it comes to dealing in areas of expropriation he is not a man that I would want to inv ite to sit down across the table. So, Mr. Speaker, I wou ld really make the case that it seems to me fun dament ally illogical to establish the office of enq uir y officer, give peoplet he appearance that you are offering a fair heari ng, and then take away any jur isd iction to com ment on qu estions of value or cir cu mstances pertaining to it.

Again it suggests to me that all we are doing is creating a little bit as a sub terfuge, a little bit of a palliative. Well, I can see the reasoni ng going, you know, there is going to be a lot of angry people, 958 •

Monday, March 21, 1977 let's provide a place for them to show up at, make their grievances, say what they aret ired of heari ng, and then we kind of go on with the busi ness of what we are going to do anyway. There seems to be too mu ch of that kind of attitude creeping in to too much of our legislation and in too much of our activity. So, Mr. Speaker, I would sim ply say that I think that this bi ll, frankly, should be withdrawn. I think the Mini ster should go back to the drawing board . He should go back to some fi rst princi ples of what's involved in the act of expropriati on.

He should ask himself what is really requir ed by government to ensure that its actions are of the most ju st and fair and equi table nature possibl e, take a look at the areas in the Expropriation Act whi ch are not covered in this bill. The qu estion of how do you arrive at the proper value, how do you assure that the right of those that are being expropr iated are protected, how do you make sur e that the enqui ry that is un dertaken is given the widest latitude in a proper ju risdicti on .

Those are the que stions that should be asked in expropriation and that rather than going in the area of prohib ition, restricti on, and retrenchment, simpl y to appease either hims elf, memb ers of his department, or civic officals who have got their fing ers bur nt too many times because they have been burning too many people in the way they have condu cted expropria tion, I think it's tim e that he demon strated in a much wider and mor e liberated sense of what the responsi bilit ies of government are, and if he did that he withd raw the bill and bring it back in a much highly di fferent amended form . MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: I wonder if the honour able member wou ld perm it a qu estion. I di dn' t want to interupt him but he said something about this government last year having prohi bited an enq uir y officer to make the investigation. Could he spell that out so I wou ld know what he means by prohib ited? MR. AXWORTHY: It is my under standin g, Mr.

Speaker, and I would pleased to be corrected, that last year an Order-in-Council was passed whi ch waived the setting up of an enq uir y officer in the issue of the expropriation of those proper ties bei ng used for pro vincial buildi ngs. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I had a feeling that that's what happened. And the honour able memb er, in his great enthusia sm for making a point used the word "prohibi ted". Mr. Speaker, I don' t know whether the honou rable member, with the educa tion he has ... -(lnterjection)- MR. CHERNIACK: No, I'm speaking. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St.

Johns is speaking to the motion. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm asserting the same right the Honourable Mem ber for Fort Rouge had when he spoke and I don 't know whether it hur ts him to hear me speak about it, but let me tell them that it cou ld not be a point of order because if he mi suses the Eng lish langua ge in order to create a bias, that's his privilege as a politican. It's not to his cred it to do so, but nevertheless it's his privilege. And I want to tell hi m there is a big diffe rence between waiving the requ irement for the hearing or prohibi ting .

Because prohibiting means that somebody was going to do something and he said, in my words, the government would not allow it to happ en. And if he doesn't know the dif ference then ... Oh, he knows the di fference, there's no use my pretending that he doesn't. He deli berately used that kind of phraseology as as in deed di d his entire speech make every effort to confuse the issue, to show bias, to create di fferences, to attack the government. Mr.

Speaker, I'm sorry that I di d not hear all of what he said because there may have been some things he said that were of value for consideration and to the extent they were then I would hope that the comm ittee in dealing with the, assuming that I did not hear all of what he said because there may have been some things he said that were of value for consi deration and to the extent they were, then I wou ld hope that the commit tee in dealing with the

section by

section will, inde ed , deal with the points he made if they are valid and meani ngfu l. But so mu ch of what I heard was ju st a broad axe attack on the expropria tion program.

I want the honour able memb er to know that I was, at one tim e, very mu ch concerned with The Exprop riation Act as it was some time ago, and I was party to delib erations in commi ttee dealing with The Expropria tion Act, I don' t remember which commi ttee it was, and I would say that the one person who showed a greater interest and a greater knowledge than I had was a former prem ier of this good province, Doug Campb ell, who spent a deal of time reviewing the legislation. As I recall it, we studi ed various reports made in other provinces by other authorities that were concerned with expropr iation.

I believe I recall one from Br itish Columbia or Alberta that had a great deal of content' and it was as a result of the study that was carried on that this Act was passed. It says, assented to in July of 1970. Mr. Speaker, at that time, this Act was consid ered a great stride forward in the whole concept of man datory taking away. I don' t know whether the honour able memb er really meant expropriation is the most serious thing that a government could do.

If he does, it just ind icates the concern he has for material things in life that a man's land is probably more important to him than other factors in government. But it was jus t part of the general attack he made that made him speak in superla tives. Mr. Speaker, the provision which gives the government the authority to waive a hearing by an inqu iry officer is there in a case where it is in the governme nt's wisdom an impr oper use of an inq uir y officer, an unne cessary use, a costly use, for which the government is accountable. The decisions of 959

Monday, March 21, 1977 government are accoun table. And the honou rable member would have every right to on any one or other case where the governm ent asserts the power given to it by the Legislatur e to question whether or not he shou ld have done so. But just to suggest that there mus t be an inqu iry officer in every c�se is inviting a bur eaucr acy, is invi ting a cost and is inviting a great deal of unn ecessary and di fficult delays to what may be a very necessary oper ation unless the honour able member does not un derstand the pu rpose of an inquir y officer which I am beginning to suspe ct is the case.

As I recall it, there was no provision for an inqu iry officer under the former Act. This was brough t in in order to give the communi ty an opportu ni ty to say, "If you're planning to tear down those houses and want to buil d a commun ity club or skating rink or whatever, then we in the commun ity, we the owners object to it being put her e rather than somewhere else, object to the amount of space that is being asked for it. We have to have our in put and the in_quir y officer is expected to look at all the ramifications of the needs of the land." Unfortunately, I confess that I had found this

section in the Act which deals with the responsi bilities of the inquir y officer. If the honour able mem ber knows the section, I wou ld be happy if he could give me the nu mber so I could read out of it. But the pu rpose of the inqu iry officer was certainly not to act as the ju dge on valuation. It was certainly not even to get in volved in what was being offered or what could the owner acquir e or receive by way of compensation. If he think s that is the pu rpose, then he mi sFair game. und erstands the act.

I wou ld not blame him for mi su nder standing it because I am not sur e that he really stood up in order to make a positive contribu tion to impr ove the legislation. I think he used the occasion to attack the abus es whi ch may be valid in certain cases. But those abuses do not relate to the du ties of the inquir y officer especi ally as it may affect the comp ensation pay. Mr. Speaker, people should know the pu rpose for which they are appoi nted .

An inqu iry officer should not be given the impr ession that the Honour able Member from Fort Rouge wou ld like to do, to say that you have the right to look into the need, how mu ch is being taken , how much will be pai d, you will be able to look into the whole que stion of what in formation the expropriating authority has as to the value of the land. That he should know is not the role that was envisioned, especially si nce what did happen was a much broader approach made to enable the owner to have a proper hearing as to compensation before a cour t which is of ind ependent status.

And I go on: The owner has the opportun ity to emp loy accountants apprais ers, lawyers, whatever is deemed necessary, the cost of which would be incl uded in the compensation paid as I recall it, with in reason, but that is there. But he is going further. He is going overboard in descr ibing what he think s ought to be the provisions in the Act. So, Mr. Speaker, I wou ld suggest that in the comm ittee there ought to be a review of points that have valid ity.

Certainly there will be an opportunity for people more learned than the Member from Fort Rouge to appear before the com mittee and criti cize the Act as it stands now or the amend ments as they are proposed. The honour able mem ber would seem to indic ate that the amendm ents are what is wrong

whereas I believe that his attack was on the Act not on the amend ments. Nevertheless, there wou ld be the opportunity. But let him not appear to get away with his broad attack with accusi ng without naming, accusing the government of activities and accusing the Min ister of attitudes, accusing the people involved in expropriation with - I forget in what demean ing way he described their approach to their work - but rather to act, and I would expect he ought to during the Minis ter's Estim ates or another oppor tuni ty which he will find , spell out what he is talking about.

It is a little too much to just hear this broad attack. Let him spell it out and let him remember that the cou rts are there to protect both sides, but especially that side that needs protection more and that's not the expropria ting authority. There is provision here for a great deal of protection , for a great deal of recognition of the costs in volved on behalf of the owner of the land . For example, Mr. Speaker, he attacks a

section in the bill wh ich he says elimi nates a numb er of people from receiving proper notice. I read what the

section did read, I was able to find that one, and the existing Act reads, "The confirming authori ty shall cause this order to be served forthwith upon the owners of all land affected thereby who are not parties to the inquir y. " The change appears to be that the "all owners" in the amendm ent as proposed shall be those who are ascertained from the records of the Land Titles Office on the latest revised realty assessment roll.

I don't know the exact reason for the amendment but I have enough experience and the Honour able Meer from Fort Rouge, in spite of what I said about his lack of knowledge of the Engl ish language, sur ely mu st un derstand that the reason would be that there has to be some limi t to the extent of what your notice shall be given. In other words, you have to know whom to serve before you make the service. And the way the present Act reads as I see it, it would almost be incu mbent on the authori ty to know who are ail the owner s of land, registered or not. And the way I read this

section , they at least know where to look and if I were an owner, the Member from Fort Rouge were an owner, we wou ld make very sur e that our names wou Id be on the records of the Land Titles Office. It's easy to get on there, very easy to get on to the records of the Land Titles Office if you have an int erest. But sur ely, that's all it is, instead of all the devious thoughts that were attrib uted by the Member from Fort Rouge to the people who are propo sing the amendment. Why they're trying to cut out 960 •

Monday, March 21, 1977 people. Why ' Mr. Speaker? Why should they want to do that. Act Well, the old Act did not say tenants. The present doesn't say tenants. But if the tenant has a right of owner ship, and tenants do if they have more than a year lease, as I recall the law but I am saying it the general way ' I am not practis ing law whil e I'm on my feet now, so I may be wrong, but as I recall it, a tenant who has a lease-hold interest greater than one year has a right to register a caveat.

And in deed, that's the way to do it because the Honour able Member for Assi nib oia who deals in real estate and manages proper ty should know that it is not always easy to know who the tenant is, the tenant may not be the occup ant, he knows that, too. And therefore, I in order to describe his prope rty the peop le who have a stake in it do have a right to appear before the inquir y officer or to receive the order of the confirming authority. Mr.

Speaker, I am sur e both members of the Lib eral Party present in the House at the moment know very well that a tenant whose rights are bei ng expropria ted will be able to make a claim before the heari ng, at the heari ng, to present their loss and nor mally that loss is just a reduction from that of the land lord, because if they have a loss, then the land lord has that much less of a loss in the amoun t which he will receive.

But in any event, it ali comes out in the que stion of value and the amoun t of expropria tion, the consider ation to be paid , the comp ensation as referred to by the Member from Fort Rouge. So all I am sayi ng, Mr. Speaker, is let us be a little bit more believable by being a little bit more sub d ued and by saying that there is valid ity in some of the points, not in others, and let us di scuss it for the welfare of the people of Manitoba in attempting to im prove the operation of the Expropriation Act.

And I would think that that wou ld be more helpful and I would be certain that when this matter comes before Law Amendmen ts Com mi ttee that it will be dealt with in that way as the honour able mem ber well knows. But as it is, the im provements that are being attempted, if the Honour able Member from Fort Rouge wou ld have his way, would be the withdrawal or defeat of this bill - and he's nodding his head , Mr. Speaker. I think he is im plying that he agrees, the withdr awal or defeat of this bill.

I would like to have him explain to us here in this House how he can better im prove the Act as it stands than to have this bill go into Comm ittee and reviewed in comm ittee so that the valid points made could be impr oved up on . No, he would rather destroy the efforts that are bei ng made to impr ove on the Act, and of cou rse if he think s there is no im provement, by all means he ought to vote against it. He ought to deny the opportunity of the comm ittee to review it in detail. That is the way he wants to do it.

Well, I would almost say that he will prohibi t us, if he had his way, from dealing with the Expropriation Act at the next Law Amendm ents Commit tee. That seems to me to be his objective, a prohib ition . Now I am using the words he used so wrongly when he talked about the government 's action last year where it waived the requi rement for the appo intment of an inquir y officer. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the qu estion? The Honour able Mem ber from Bir tle-Russell. HONOURABLE HARRY E. GRAHAM (Birtle- Ru ssell): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honour able Member for Robl in, that the debate be adjour ned. MOTION presented and carried. Bill No. 7. The Honou rable Memb er for Swan River. (Stand) Bill No. 15. (Stand) Bill No. 19. The Honoura ble Member for Fort Garry. Eighteen, I am sorry. That's correct. Eighteen, not 19. (Stand) The Honou rable Minister of Labour as acting Hou se Leader. CONCURRENC E MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, I sug gest that before going in to a supply debate, that I annou nce that it is our intention to advance Interim Supply as far as possible at this stage.

I call on my colleague, the Mini ster of Fina nce. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Fi nance. MR. MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Min ister of Labour, that the resolution on Interim Supply that was reported by the Com mit tee of Suppl y be now read a second time and concu rred in. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for Riel. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, we don' t in tend to bring up items on this particu lar resolution because we can get at them on the regular Estim ates themselves.

I have jus t one qu estion, although I di rected a question the other day to the Mini ster about what he used the 25 percent on, I am curious to know and want to getthe answer as to why the tax credits were su btracted out of the original Estima tes, and they seemed to have just been pul led out right about the time the Estim ates were tabled but the 25 percent is based on the fu ll amount not the amount that was the $111 milli on su btracted for the tax credits. Now, it changes the percentage wh ich trad itionally means 25 percent if you use the smaller amount.

I don't know it's of any great im portance, but it really raises the qu estion very temporari ly the government has taken the tax credit, pul led them out, calcu lated an amount of an expenditure but 961

Monday, March 21, 1977 they haven't used that amoun t in calcu lating their Interim Supply they seem to have reverted back to the origin al amount again. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister should be closing debate. MR MILLER: Mr. Speaker, I thought that rather than respond now ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Member for Lakeside wishe s to speak . MR. ENNS: Just briefly, in terms of your in dication that you were closing the debate on the matter. I don' t think that is the case, Sir, is it? MR. SPEAKER: We have a motion before the House.

We are not in Supply Com mittee, Interim or otherwise, and the proper way to proceed on a motion is mem bers may speak to it, and the Mi nister when he speaks will be closing debate because he did in troduce the motion. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Lakeside. MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I ju st have a few comments to make. They are prom pted by an occasion in the past when this parti cular item was, of cour se, used in a time honour ed and traditional way by the opposition to in fluence or attempt to infl uence a deli berate and wilful government.

I believe the then Min ister of Financ e was the Member for St. John. The using of in terim suppl y in thatmanner by an opposition has its traditional roots in the parliame ntary system , of course, not any longer with this government. This government has ind icated that it is quit e prepared to go by special warrant even while the House is sitting for any of the funds that they requir e in Interim Supp ly thereby negating any position of opposition that's available to us on this occasion .

As the Memb er for Riel has indic ated there are other times in the di scussion of the general Estimates, Capital Supply comes down, that we can dis cuss the indi vidual matters that we are now passing one quar ter of and we' ll choose to do that. I only rise, Mr.

Speaker, to rem ind the honourable mem bers opposite that a little bit of tradition has been severely tampered with by this governme nt and in fact, Sir , consti tutionally it is still in great question as to whether or not their action at that date was correct; that is by going outside of this Chamber whil e the Cham ber is sitting for Special Warrants. However, Mr. Speaker, that's I supp ose just one of the lesser constitutional argum ents that we'll be hearing a lot of in this coun try as we try to keep this country together. Mr.

Speaker, I merely want to remind him that there has been a dif ference and that's part of the reason why the ready acquie scence on the part of the opposition to the speedy passage of In terim Supply at this time. Mr. Speaker, Si r, they have pul led the traditional teeth out of the oppos ition in having us being able to use Interim Sup ply in a mor e effective way. Thank you . MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Labour. MR. PAULLEY: Mr. Speaker, thus far this session I have remaine d rather si lent in debates. I think it is the fi rst time, this session, that I did not take

part in the debate on the Throne Speech after having partici pated in many for many years. But I do not feel, Mr.

Speaker, as though I can sit qu ietly by after listening to the Honour able Member for Lakeside because it seems to me that in his remarks he was taking out of context what happened a year or so ago when the government, in order to obtain sufficient moneys for the payment of wages to its emplo yees and the cost of operation of the government did, because of the obstina cy of the mem bers in opposition at that time, had to resort in order to fu lfil the governmental responsibil ities of payment of wages, had to revert or use legislation that was passed by the previous Cons ervative government.

That is the reason for that. Mr. Speaker, it's now the 21s t day of March and we're getting closer to the end of the fiscal period and I'm happy to hear from the Honour able Mem ber for Lakeside that there appears to be no in clination on the part of opposition to withhold Interim Supply this year as in deed it took that attitude a couple of years ago or was it last year. . A very interesting occurrence has happened sinc e then, Mr. Speaker, that at the time of that debate here in the House there was a representative of the Australian Government in Winnip eg.

He had found out about the method that the governme nt was faced with having to use in order to obtain sufficient moneys in order to proceed with the orderly conduc t of government. On his return to Australia a crisis arose there of a simi lar nature that we were faced with here at that particula r time, namely the opposition's reluctance to grant Interim Supply. The net result there was a little bit different than here in that the government in Austr alia at that particula r time did n't have the benefit of legislation that had been passed by the then opposition or by the government that preceded them.

I thought, Mr. Speaker, it would only be proper for me to in dicate to the House the pleasure, apparently we are going to go ahead with Interim Supp ly. But the mention made by the Honour able Member for Lakeside, I think, is taken out of con text or at least it wasn't a fu ll di sclosure of the situa tion that prevai led at that time. The reason for the Special Warrant was because at that particular time we felt that it was necessary to proceed accordin gly.

We used Conser vative legislation to do so and whether or not it was constitut ional ly correct, my honour able friend refers to that as still a problem' nonetheless, Mr. Speaker, I know that si nce that time the matter has been considered. I've consider ed it, I've had nu merous people who are well versed in the constitutional law and at that time we were qu ite in order. So I'm happy to know that we have the co-operation of my honour able frien d. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Morris. 962

Monday, March 21, 1977 MR. WARNER H. JO RGENSON: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to move, seconded by the Member for Fort Garry, that the deba te be adjou rned . MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Labour as House Leader. MR. PAULLE Y: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Minis ter of Fi nance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself in to a Comm ittee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself in to a Comm ittee of Suppl y with the Honour able Member for Logan in the in the Chair for Health and Social Development and the Honour able Member for St. Vital in the Chair for Renewable Resources. CONCURRENT COM MITTEES OF SUPPLY ESTIMATES - RENEWABLE RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICES MR. CHAI RMAN, Mr. Walding: Order please. We have a quor um, gentlemen. The Comm ittee will come to order. I would refer honour able mem bers to Page 55 in their Estima tes Books, the Department of Renew able Resou rces and Transportation Services, Resolution 10 4(

d) Wildli fe Management, (1 )( a). The Honour able Mem ber for Min nedosa. MR. DAVID BLAKE: (Inaudi ble) ... areas that we covered Frida y. I know I mis sed some of them but I don' t know whether we covered the possibili ty that we may have a deer-huntin g season and I wonder if the Min ister mi ght tell us if the season is declared , how he plans to run the season, whether it will be on the draw basis or whether it will be an open season, what restrictions or what areas may be hu nted? If he cou ld give us some idea, or how they decide what type of season we should have. MR.

CHAI RMAN: The Honour able Min ister .. HO NO URABLE HARVEY BO STROM (Rupertsland): Mr. Chair man , as I ind icated, I believe the last day we were considering the Estima tes, the popu lation counts have just recently been comp leted and the department is now working on compiling the statistics. That work should be done shortly. They are also, on my ins tructions, looking at the alternatives with respect to deer season. The recommendations are not firm yet and I expect they will be com ing forward shortly as well and when they are, we will be announcing someth ing in due cour se.

I can 't ind icate today anyth ing definit e other than to say that generally the in itial popu lation figur es that we have ind icate that the deer popu lation is in good shape, there are good num bers of deer, and it is very likely, in fact a good, strong possibil ity, that we will have a deer season. The type and nature of the season, the regulations and admin istrative details will have to be worked out, Mr. Chairman . MR. BLAKE: Yes, that's what I was looking for, Mr. Chairman.

I just wonder if the Min ister mi ght confi rm that these regulations that will be arrived at are the decisions in consu ltation wit h wildli fe group s or group s that are in terested in the preservation of our wildl ife as well as with the people from his department, the game biologists and the other people that he would normally consult.

I wonder if he would indic ate to us that the wildl ife people, the various organ izations that have some fa ir ly size able memb erships througho ut the province that are interested in land-owners' rights as well as the deer popu lation and wildl ife management, if they will be consult ed when the criteria for the hun t is bei ng arrived at. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chai rman , for the Comm ittee's in formation , I have operated on an open door policy from the first time I was appoi nted Min ister and the wildl ife group s and other in terested group s in the province are aware of that.

At least, I have made the point on every opportu nity that I have had that I certainl y wou ld not only encour age but apprec iate the advice and su ggestions thatthe Wildli fe Federation and other group s that are in terested in the deer popu lation and other wildlif e matters, I wou ld be very interested to hear their comm ents and to have them commun icate either with my office dir ectly or with the officials in the department who have the technic al knowledge and the expertise , and who will be eventually coming forward to me with certain recommenda tions, so that they have perhaps a couple of kicks at the cat, so to speak, if they wish to com muni cate with people in the department dir ectly or with my office either now or at some time after I have received the recomm endations from the department.

MR. BLAKE: Yes, another ques tion , Mr. Chairman. I don't know whether the Min ister would have the figur es readily avai lable. He cou ld probably get them. I wonder if he mi ght be able to give us some idea of how many ai rcraft were emp loyed in the deer count and how many days or hours they mi ght have flown and what the actual cost was on the latest deer count. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chai rman , that is a detailed que stion that I wou ld have to take as notice and bring back to the Comm ittee. MR. BLAKE: Yes, Mr. Chai rman, fine.

On the hun ting season , I wonder if the Min ister mi ght be able to give us some indic ation of what the situa tion with the elk population, especially the Ridin g Mountain area, and if there is a possibili ty of an elk season next year. That wou ld apply to the moose also in around that particular area. There will be a season elsewhere on moose, I presume. 963

Monday, March 21, 1977 MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, I have not had any indic ation from the department thatthey will be recom mend ing anyth ing dif ferent than the kind of season we had last year. Although again with respect to the deer, this is a qu estion on which the department is working and wi ll be comin g forward shortly with rec omme nda tions as to seasons and so on. There is no firm recomm endation yet on either the elk or the moose seasons for next year. MR. BLAKE: Does the province do the actual elk count in Riding Mountain park or is that done by federal officials, federal parks people? MR.

BOSTROM: I believe that with in the park itself, Riding Mount ain Natioanl Park, sinc e it is a federal park , the popula tion cou nts for wildli fe are the responsib ility of the Federal Government. The province does not have the ju risdiction nor the responsibil ity to manage the wildl ife in the park. Around the peripher y of the park, certainl y there would be. This would be checked as part of the department's regular resource in ventory. MR. BLAKE: The season then in that area would only be declared in consu ltation or on the recomme ndations of the federal authorities of the national park. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chair man, there wou ld be some di scussion with them but not as to the nature of a season, I don 't believe. Si nce the popu lation with in the park itself has never been su bjected to a season, I don 't think to my knowledge, and the policy of the federal parks, with that particular park anyway, is not to have a season. So only as how it would relate to those popu lations of the park, elk or moose, that may venture out of the park, there would be some di scussion between officials but more or less on an informal basis, nothing formal ized in that respect. MR. BLAKE: Yes, before I leave that, Mr.

Chair man , I am still concerned with the reported numb er of moose on Hecia Island . I wonder ed if the Mini ster has had complaints or just what the damage may be to the lavish facilities that have been provided there at taxpayer expense, how he would be prepar ed to mai ntain the golf cour se in particula r, free from damage by large anima ls traversing back and forth across the fairway. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chai rman, that is a problem whic h has not come to my attention.

There was some public ity recently in the press regard ing one biolog ist's opin ion of the situation there, and I emphasis that it was one biologis t's opin ion and was not done wit h the authorisation of the department. The department is having regular meetin gs with sen ior parks pe ople to di scuss the wildl ife management in that park and in others, so that I believe that a comm on-sense solution can be arrived at with respect to wildli fe matters in that park and in others.

To my knowledge, there is not a serious problem there and I think, as I indic ated in earlier comm ents on this issue, that com mon sense wou ld indic ate that if in fact there is a problem wi th moose numb ers in the Hecia Island area, that the moose are in telligent enough that they wou ld find their way qu ickly off the island and onto the main land where there is an abunda nce of reasona ble habitat for them. So I don' t really think that if you look at it from a common-sense point of view that moose numb ers wi ll become a problem on the Hecia Island park itself. MR.

BLAKE: They don' t un derstand "fore'', Mr. Min ister, when it's hollered at them . Well, it certainly wou ldn' t be to me, Mr. Chair man, it would n't be a very di fficult task to check the island. It is not very large. And if there are 200-and-some-odd moose there as has been reported, it would seem an overly large numb er to be on that particularly smal l area. I know very well that they will move, nature will ind icate to them where they should go if they are not find ing enough to eat on the island .

Because there is a small amoun t of graze on the golf cou rse, I am thinking of the damage they mi ght do walking across it. It wasn't whether they were going to be grazing there or not but having made that poin t, Mr. Chair man , we won't belabour the fact the Min ister is well aware of our concerns that there may possibly be damage to that facil ity there and that is our main concern . That is fine for that item , Mr. Chair man, if some of the other mem bers of the Comm ittee have qu estions. MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honour able Mem ber for La Verendrye. MR. BOB BANMAN: Mr.

Chai rman , I would like to ju st pur sue one of the points that I have made in the last several years when this item has come up and that is with regards to the type of hun ting season that we wou ld possibly be having in the province. I wou ld wonder if the Min ister cou ld tell the Commit tee whether his department has done any studies as to im plemen ting a draw system for the deer season simil ar to what we have had for moose and elk. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chair man, that possib ility has been looked at and it will be one of the items under consider ation when in fact we are cons idering the alternatives for a deer season in 1977. MR. BANMAN: I wou ld just like to, at this time, again mention to the Min ister that I believe that if it did go to a draw system, what could happen is that you cou ld fluctuate the numb er of licences that are issued from year to year, depen ding on the type of harvestable amount, or the type of game that could be taken.

So this is my sug gestion and has been for the last couple of years, that possibly this is the appr oach to take and we could limi t the number of deer bei ng taken. If it is a good year, you raise the amount of appl ications that are given a licence and on a poor year you bri ng it down . So I leave 964

Monday, M�rch 21 , 1977 that with the Minis ter at this time. I would like to ask the Min ister as to what kind of an arrangement the Department of Renewable Resourc es has with the Parks Department as far as impl ementing seasons in parks areas?

And I draw this to the Minis ter's attention because I think as we get involved with dealin gs with the Federal Government for the imple mentation of wild ern ess parks such as he is very aware of, the one east of Lake Winnip eg, also the Provincial Wilde rness Park that is being proposed just north of ihe Whiteshell, are these going to come un der the privy of the Department of Tourism? What kind of game management is going to be incl uded in those particular areas? Are you going to issue licences in those areas? Whose ju risdiction will it be? MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chairman, accord ing to the legislation , the Min ister of Parks has the authority within the provinc ial parks, although we have been operating on a com mon-sense admin istrative procedure whereby officials from my department, meet with the officials from parks and work out the details for the kind of season and/or seasons that make sense within parks. The general criteria used so far has been a common sense one. Where there are bui lt-up areas of parks and intens ive recreational use areas, the ideas has not been to allow hun ting in those areas.

However, there are wild erness areas in parks which are remote enough from any in tensive use that have been opened for hun ting and I submit will proba bly continue to do so for many years to come. With respect to the use of the fur resource in parks, there is a separate arrangement there whereby parks peop le issue perm its in addi tion to the permi t that is issued by my department, that is, a trapper's licence is issued by the department and I believe that Parks Branch issues another perm it to them.

I believe this is for an admin istrative check to ensur e that they know who is in the park and when and so on . With respect to licences for hun ting seasons, there is the one licence issued and that is issued by the Department of Renewable Resou rces in this case. · MR . BANMA N: With reference again to the wil derness parks areas, will this come un der the jur isdic tion of the Department of Renewable Resou rces? And I am talking about game managernent.

Because if the type of development occurs as the government has every once in awhi le expressed certain int ent with regard to wild erness parks, would this be an area where hun ting wou ld not be allowed? Will that be again run by the Parks Department or will that be run by the Department of Renewabie Resou rces? · MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chair man, perhaps I didn' t make myself clear, but the legislation is clear in that it makes reference to the Minis ter of Parks having ju risdiction within parks for wildl ife, so that in effect the Min ister of Parks has the final say there.

In actual operation of course, these matters generally go before Cabi net and it is a government decision to follow a policy of hunting or no hunting, whatever the case may be. In actual practice thus far, as I have indic ated, the practice has been to allow hunting in those areas where it makes sense to allow hunting. There is no provin cial park to my knowledge that is strictly wi lderness area. All of the parks that have been developed in Man itoba by the Provincial Government have been mu lti-use in na ture. MR. CHA IRMAN: The Honour able Mem ber for Gladstone. MR. JAMES FERGUSON: Thank you, Mr. Chai rman .

I wou ld like to ask the Min ister what the arrangements are to do with this wild turkey season. I und erstand it has been annou nced there will be a season. Now as I ask when is this going to happen and who is going to be in volved? MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to preju dge Cabine t on this one. It was annou nced by way of in formal interview with one membe r of the press that we were considering institut ing a wild turkey hun ting season this year.

It has come about as a result of a request from wild life groups that have been instrumental in in troducing the wild tu rkey in to Man itoba , and they are now at the stage where it is in the department's opin ion that a harvest can be taken because of the nature of the popu lations of the wild turk ey in certain areas. I will be taking a subm ission to Cabi net next week recomm ending a wild turk ey season and recom mending the fee to be set and the way in which it will be admini stered so an annou ncement will probably be made Wedn esday or Thursday of next week. MR.

FERGUSON: Just another cou ple of short qu estions I would like to ask while we are on it, and this wou ld be, are any Crown lands in volved in the area or is this land all held priv ately? Is ther13 any negotiations going on between the province and the in di vidual owners or will this have to be done by the person who is wanting to hunt on it? MR. CHAIR MAN: The Honou rable Min ister. MR. BOSTROM: Mr.

Chairman, last year it was su ggested that we have a season and one of the things that decided us to forego the season last year was ind ications from land owners in the area that they weren' t too excited about us having a season. Most of these wild turkeys are located on private land and my ins tructions to the departmental staff were to have a look at the situation this year to see if in fact the land owners there are interested in allowing the hunt ers to go on their land, because it wou ld be academic for us to establish a season if the lancfowners won't allow people to hunt there.

In recent meetings that have been held between 965

Monday, March 21, 1977 the land owners, the wildl ife group s and the department, there seems to be a spirit of co-operation here which would lend itself well to other ki nds of hun ting seasons that are to be established. If we can achieve the kind of co-operation that reports that I've been getting indic ate, I would say that other kin ds of hunting seasons cou ld probably be model led after this one. That's the ini tial indic ations that I've had from the department, and I believe that we can now proceed to have a hunting season because it appears to have the concu rrence of the land owners in the area.

It certainly has the recom mendation of the wildli fe group s as well as the recommendations of the experts in my department that this is a good idea. MR. FERGUSON: Just one other que stion , Mr. Chair man . I'd like to ask the Mini ster, in view of the fact that there are many wild life management areas bei ng developed in the province could I ask how these are going to be classified? Will they be classified as un occup ied Crown land , or how will they be classified? MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Chair man, the department has taken the position that wildl ife management areas are classified as occu pied Crown land. MR.

FERGUSON: As occupied. Okay. MR. CHAIR MAN: Order, please. In accordance with our Rule 19

(2) I am in terrup ting the proceedings of the com mittee for Private Mem bers' Hour, to return to the Chai r at 8 p.m. 966

THE LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY of MANITOBA Monday, March 21, 1977 ESTIMATES - HEALTH AND SOCIAL DEVELO PMENT MR. CH AIRMAN, Mr. William Je nkins (Logan): I refer honour able mem bers to Page 29 of their Estim ates Book, Resolution 60(

h) Dental Services

(1) Salaries $1 ,060,90 0-pass? The Honour able Member for Crescentwo od. MR. WARREN STEEN: Mr. Chair man , we were dis cussing dental services last Friday afternoon at some length. I di dn' t have an opportun ity to say to the Mini ster some of my comments regarding dental services. The Min ister is qu oted in Saturday's Free Press as saying that the numb er of persons that have been serviced by this program is in the neighb ou rhood of 8,000 plus and that the Estima te shows over $2 milli on being spent on dental services. My qu ick calculation is that the cost of this program is around $260 per child.

The Minis ter also spent some time .... MR. CH AIRMAN: The Honour able Min ister state his poin t of order. HO NOURABLE LAURENT L. DESJARDINS, Minister of He alth and Social Devel opment (St. I Boniface): On a point of order - because his calculation will be all wrong. The 8,000 my honourable friend is talking about is for next year not th is year. I MR. STEEN: That's fine, Mr. Chair man, that's what I meant is that we're talkin g about the cornin g year's Estim ates and the numb er of persons that the Min ister feels will be serviced by the program.

The Min ister spent a great deal of time talking about the reason why the expendi ture per user is fairly high, because of the start-up charges. He made some reference to Saskatchewan. The inf ormation that I can find, Mr. Chairman, is that Saskatchewan has had their program in force now for four years and from their experience they have found that the cost per child has not come below $300 per user even in the fourth year and the program does not come down in cost even after you've paid you r start up charges.

There are a numb er of insur ance schemes available to the public in Man itoba for dental services, Mr. Chair man. Fir ms like Gr eat West Life, London Life and Blue Cross offer such a program . Blue Cross, for example, offers on a group basis, dental services to families and the cost per child is $75.00 per year; the premium . For a famil y of four the cost is $260 per year. In Manitoba there are approxi mately 15 0,000 persons that are covered by various dental ins urance schemes through group pur chases.

A good example is up in the Flin Flon area where the Hudson Bay Minin g and Smelting Company has appr oximately 3,000 emplo yees.

They have a dental program for their emp loyees and their families and yet this government feels it necessary to in stitute a dental program through the Flin Flon school di vision where in Flin Flon if we have 3,000 persons employed by the Hudson Bay Minin g and Smelting Company and if you use the rule-of-thumb that a fam ily is made up of four persons, even if we said that only 2,000 of the 3,000 emp loyees were married persons with famil ies we would have in the neighb ourhood of 8,000 citizens in the Flin Flon area covered by the Hudson Bay Minin g and Smelti ng Company's Dental Insur ance Program .

My question to the Min ister is, is a program in Flin Flon through the Flin Flon school di vision, which basical ly jus t serves the City of Flin Flon, really necessary when the company looks after the majo rity of the persons living in Flin Flon? Are we not having a dupl ication of services? Are we not letting the Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company off the hook where their insur ance carrier could be providing the dental services for the majority of youngs ters in the Flin Flon area?

I question the Min ister as to why Flin Flon was chosen when we have Flin Flon as a city which is often referred to as a company town and they have some of the best insur ance benefits available in all of Man itoba. Another area that the Min ister went into at great length on Frida y was the qual ity of service. In Manitoba in the last two or three years, we have had 75 dentis ts graduate from the school of dentis try that have stayed behind in Manitoba to practice.

Yet on the other hand the provi ncial government finds it wise to hire dental nur ses, send them out to Regin a, Saskatchewan, to take a dental program - they go there on a grant as my un derstand ing is of $3,200 the fi rst year and $3,600 during the second year. I've also been told that 50 percent of the students that enroll in this dental nur sing program either drop out of the course or are dropped out of the cou rse because of bad grades by the end of year one.

I wonder whether it is wise that the provincial government Dental Services Program goes along with a two-year program of dental nur ses when the fai lure rate is extremely high, when perhaps we could work out something with the Manitoba School of Dentistry. For example, from my un derstanding the Dental School offered the provincial government an arrangement where if they su bsid ized students th rough the Dental School they would see to it that these students up on graduation wou ld spend one year worki ng in the Dental Services Program prior to receiving their license to go out into pr ivate practice.

If the 75 students who have graduated in the last two to three years had remained in Man itoba perhaps we could be having a greater degree of qual ity and service' if we had four-year graduates from the School of Dentis try providing this service rather than dental nur ses who have two years of educational backgrou nd. · 967

Monday, March 21, 1977 The 25 nu rses that were sent off to Regina the first year to take the dental nur sing program were done so at the time that the Min ister and the Memb er for St. Johns were negotiating with the Manit oba Dental Association. I wonder, Mr. Cha i rman, if the Min ister was bargai ning in good faith with the Manitoba Dental Association in tryi ng to come up with a scheme that was agreeable to both members of their association and mem bers of the government when at the very time that they were negotiating they had 25 students off int o another province taking a dental nur sing program.

So it was obvious from Day One that the provinc ial government wanted to bring in such a program . I have three areas of concern, Mr. Chair man . One is the cost. I think it's un believable that the in sur ance compan ies and Blue Cross can provide a program tor $75 a year tor you ng people, especially the people of the same age that this provincial government is coveri ng where it is costing the government $260 per year to cover these children. He talks about the start-up charges. Saskatchewan has found from four years of experience that the cost per child does not come down.

Then when he pi cks examp les through out the province that the program should be operated in, I find it unb elievable that they would choose Flin Flon as a particular ju risdic tion in which to have this program go into effect when thr ee-quarters of the people in Flin Flon are covered through the company program . So what he is really doing is he is letting Huds on Bay Minin g and Smelting off the hook from some of their responsi bil ities.

Also, I can't help but believe that 75 new you ng gradua tes in the last two to three years couldn' t do a better job of looking after young people's teeth than nu rses that have come off a two-year program and have had mu ch less practical experience through their nur sing program than the dentists get from their tour-year program at the dental college. My fourth point is that I believe that the Min ister really led the Dental Association, and he did mention Dr. Ted Derrett on Friday afternoon, down the garden path when he and the Member for St.

Johns talked about negotiating and trying to work out a good com prom ise with the denta l association in coming up with a dental servi ces program while at the very same tim e they had 25 gir ls off into Saskatchewan taking a nu rsing program knowi ng fu ll well that they had every in tention of bringin g in this dental service program regard less of what the dental association in Manitoba thought of it or what input that they had planne d to pu t in to it. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Chairman, my honour able friend is right we did cover that qu ite extensively on Friday so I certainly will not belabour this but in all fairness my honour able friend asked some question s, he di dn' t have a chance to speak on on Friday so I'll try to give him some of the answers. Fi rst of all the cost in Saskatchewan, I will refer him to someth ing that wasn't prepared by Manitoba, the same Jour nal of the On tario Dental Association that just came out this month . I don't know where my honourable friend got his figur e. Of cou rse they are all one-sided and he's stating that as if it was the Bible.

But here I've got another figur e that it says the total per capita breakdown of SOP costs for the fi rst year's operation are available from the Saskatchewan Department of Health and it's known that the cost per en rolled child is $1 58.29, not the $300.00 that he's talkin g about. There is no doub t my honour able friend wasn't listening on Friday when I talked about when these people are on maint enance it's going to be some thing else. Now at no is time anybody talking about comparing certain work by an expert, a dentist, and somebody that has been trained to do a lim ited amoun t of work.

That is the main thing and there is nothing that would dir ect that we weren't bargaining in good faith when it was an obvious fact that we were going to use the paramedic al profession for certain things. The total cost you will see, Mr. Chairman, and through you to my honour able friend , it will come down, if it was only the dent ists involved, that's the second point. The third point, my honour able friend doesn't realize that there is a shortage of dentists. You can look at it anyway you want. I'll go back to 19 25 in the -{Interjec tion)- That's the year your dad gradua ted.

Okay, well the year your dad gradua ted there was one dentist for 6,637 in the rural area and now, 50 years later, there is one dentist for 6,400. So, you see, it's the same thing as the med ical profession . Winnip eg is not that bad off but in the rur al area there are no dentists. And talking about Flin Flon, there are two dentists in Flin Flon and there was a shortage of dentis ts in Flin Flon, too, and it is a un iversal program .

We di dn 't say, when we brought in Pharmacare, there are certain plans that are covered and so on, so therefore we're not going to cover, it will be a universal plan, but it won't be covered there. Why did we start? We di dn 't start, as my honour able friend mi ght have a point, we di dn' t start with the City because there was better coverage. We started in Flin Flon because the area was something dif ferent. My honour able friend is right. It was the city and around the city or the town and this is what we wanted to see. It's true, we found out some of the inf ormation that we wanted.

The util ization wasn't qu ite the same. Now my honour able friend's fourth que stion. He was talking about the insur ance comp any. Well the insur ance compan ies are the same thing. The uti lization wasn't that, well you can be covered but if you are not using the services, the util ization and this is probably why it would be cheaper also. They were covering about half the popu lation. Now we're covering and everybody is paying. So we 968

Monday, March 21, 1977 are covering in stead of the 40 percent, and maybe less, 40 percent is counting everybody in an area so if the uti lization was that you can ju st ima gi ne that the uti lization covered by the insur ance schemes wou ld be much lower ins tead of the 90 percent or 85 percent that- we have now, the utilization that we have now, Mr. Chai rman. As I say, I'm not going to review the whole thing again. There is no point in being repetitious. I think I went in to detail about the di scussion that we di scussed and it mus t be remember ed also that the dental profession wanted to di scuss this.

They said is there anything that we want to discuss. We're ready to di scuss anything and everything but then when they were told about the dif ferent givens well then it was a di fferent story. Well that's not my fault. I certainly agree that di scussion is going to be, all right, why is the government running this plan? Is that soci alism? And that's fine. But let's have the argument on that. To say that there was no di scussion that is comp letely, com pletely false. There was some di scus sion.

Of cou rse somebody has to make - a di scussion doesn't mean that it goes on for generations - somebody has to take the responsibil ity. We took the responsi bili ty as duly elected mem bers of this House and as the government and we'll stand behind the decision that we've made. And we're still ready to di scuss with the dental professi on. We're ready to di scuss, especially in the rural areas, the use of clin ics, of using them for sessional work and also using them for referrals. Well, they're getting those referrals.

We're ready to di scuss wi th them how best to try to and this is some thing we'll have to dis cuss with them the same as we'll di scuss with the medical profession- the possibil ity of what do we do and there is no easy solutio n. What do we do to attract people to go outside of Winnip eg because Winnip eg in Winnip eg, it's not all of Man itoba. MR. STEEN: I thank, Mr. Chair man, the Min ister for his comments. I hope he di dn' t refertha t I had said there was no di scussion because I know there was di scussion between he and the Dental Association and his representatives. I just say, Mr.

Chair man, I wonder if the government was bargaining or di scussing in good faith with the Dental Association when they had already enr olled 25 students in the Dental Nur sing program in Saskatchewan.

The reason I mention the insur ance costs and if the Mini ster doesn't know I will tell him that in all likelihood the 15 0,000 Man itobans that are in these insur ance schemes are usually people from higher inc ome areas; wage earner s in large man ufacturing plants, that the manuf acturing plants can afford group benefits such as these schemes, and in all likelihood many of the persons that are enrol led in such group plans are persons that have had some dental care through their lifetime and therefore it's obvious that the ins u rance compan ies are getting the cream of the crop and therefore can offer the services at a lower rate.

I'm not saying that the Dental Services Program should ever think that they could compe te with the in surance compan ies because of the anti-selection. reason for menti oning the insur ance company prem iums arid costs is simpl y a target for the government and for this Min ister to try and bring his costs per child down somewhat into an area, perhaps in the ballpark area of these insur ance compan ies at some future date. I admit that there are start-up charges with the prog ram and I cite Saskatchewan having a program that's costing per child just as much in its fou rth year as it did in its fir st year.

The Mini ster di sagrees with my figures. My figur es are from the Manit oba Dental Association . They are not from his department which is very obvious. So we're both getting figur es from various dental associations.

The reason I cite Flin Flon in my que stioning was that I'm wondering if the Dental Services Program and I ask the Min ister, is it letting off a major emp loyer in this province who has an excellent group program going, off the hook with a numb er of students in the Flin Flon area because the Flin Flon School Division and I gather from Frida y's conversation thatthe Dental Services Program really works through school di visions, well the Flin Flon School Division really only takes in the City of Flin Flon. Other areas 10 0 mil es away from Flin Flon are in di fferent school di visions.

So I'm questi oning the Mini ster , is he letting Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting Company off some of their responsibil ities. Is the Dental Services Program covering areas that these people shou ld be covering? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honour able Mem ber for Assinib oia. MR. PATRICK: Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a couple of questions with the Min ister at this time in respect to the same area. I know that the plan covers such things as preventative measu res be it X rays and filling , X-rays and extracting teeth.

Can the Mini ster ind icate to the House what kind of a dental educational program is also incl uded with this pla n because I think whatever we do the most im portant fact will be the kind of an educ ational program , the Dental Health Educational Program which may be a great contri buto r in preventing dis ease in certain children. I think it's a very im portant factor so I hope the Min ister can ind icate is there such a thing inclu ded wi thin this plan , any kind of a educational dental program.

The other point that I'd like to raise with the Min ister and I know that the Min ister indic ated the program will be operative in certain jurisd ictions and certain towns and certain areas. Now I wou ld like to pose to the Min ister, I don't know if he can hear me or not, but say if there is a small area that has at the present time, you know I don't want to name an area, but say if in an area that there is a 969

Monday, March 21, 1977 dental office there with about two or three dentis ts in it or four dentis ts and a cou ple of technic ians, nur ses, which wou ld no

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	30-4-23a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	30th 4th hansardpdf 23a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6aca820cf764223302b8007fb4604488fcc4d340

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