Manitoba Hansard — 29 June 1982 (Sitting 86B, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-86b

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Peti tions ... Reading and Receiving Petitions ... PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ell ice. MR. B. CORRIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Privi leges and Elections. MR. ACTING CLERK, G.

Mackintosh: Your Standing Committee on Privi leges and Elections beg leave to present the following as their First Report: Your Committee met for organization on March 4, 19 82, to consider persons suitable and available to be appointed as Ombu dsman for the Province of Mani toba, as referred to in subsections (1) and (3) of Sec tion 2 of The Ombuds man Act. It was agreed that the position be wid ely advertised in a numb er of local and national newspapers with a deadlin e date set for April 15 , 19 82. One hundred and ni nety-two (19 2) applications were received from across Canada.

Dis cussion meet ings were held on April 22, May 6 and May 27, 19 82 to review all applicaions. Subsequent to these meetings, it was agreed that interviews would be held wit h ten (10 ) select ed candidates. Interviews were held on June 10 and 11, 19 82. Your Committee met again on Jun e 29, 19 82 and agreed to make its report t the Lieutenant -Governor in-Counci I with respect to the person recommended to fulfil! the duties of Om budsman for the Province of Manitoba. All of which is respectfully submit ted. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellic e. MR. B. CORRIN: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Burrows, that the report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Health Servi ces Commission for the period ending March 31 , 19 82. MR. SPEA KER : The Hon ourable Mi ni ster of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I would lik e to table the Teachers' Retirement All owances Fund Board 19 81 Annual Report. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion ...

Introduction of Bill s ... The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. POINT OF ORDER MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that on the Order Paper before us there is an error in that it shows that during Adjourned Debates on Th ird Readings, the bills which we dealt wit h at this morning's Sitting are Adjourned De bates on Second Reading. MR. SPEAKER: I regret the error that does appear in the Or der Paper. Bill s 44, 48, 49 and 59 should be listed as for Second Reading, not for Third Reading. ORAL QUESTIONS . MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Mini ster of Health. I would like to ask the Mini ster of Health if Dr. Harry Prosen has been asked to prepare a report on deli very of mental health services in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, yes, we've asked Dr . Prosen to give us the benefit of his experience. It's not an official report. I mentioned during the debate in my Estim ates, that at my request we had a few meet ings and he's had some ideas and I asked him to put it on paper. If you want to call that a report, yes, he has been. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, a suppleme ntary to the Min ister of Health. Will Dr. Prosen be meeting with members of the public in the preparation of his report? HON. L. DESJA RDINS: No, Mr. Speaker, it's not that kind of report. We al ready have his report; it's a study; it's his ideas. After discussing with different people, we intend to meet with Dr. Prosen some time next week to see how we could get the val ue out of this report and discuss it with staff, with different groups that are interested in the mental health field.

I might say that one of the reasons for that is that there is a good chance that we might lose the service of or: 3659 Prosen, that he might be leaving the province. He's received quite an attractive offer. We've done every thing to try to keep him here and I don't know if we'll be successful, so he's offered to work with us to give us some of his ideas. I think we know that he is quite respected in this field and this is wha t we've done. MR. B. RANS OM: Mr. Speaker, I'd be interested in knowing how broad the terms of reference were for

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 this study, and also whether or not the Minister will be providing the report to the Members of the Leg islature. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I've tried to explain that it is not that kind of report with terms of reference and so on. It's a discussion that we've had with Dr. Prosen; he's talk ed about different ideas and I've asked him to put it on paper. I consider that an internal document and I don't thin k that it would serve any purpose to release it at this time.

It might be that once this is studied and discussed with other people, we might have a report, or this might lead to certain policies that we might have in the department, and of course we'll make that known when the time comes. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would direct my question to the Minister of Education, and would ask her whether she could confirm that her department is proposing to cut back the num ber of teaching staff at Falcon Lake from the current level of three to a reduced level of two staff. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Min is ter of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Member for La Verendrye for giving me notice of this question so that I could get the information for him. The enrolment at the school has gone from 40 last year down to 29 students. It dropped to about 37 in the middle of the year. They are proposing to reduce one teacher at that school. Last year with three teachers, one teacher had a K-3, one teacher had a 4-5, and one had a 6-8.

This year they're looking at organizing so that one teacher will be teaching from grades 1-4 with 14 students, and one will be teaching from grades 5-8 with 15 students. I must say that I have some concerns in matters lik e this, not just of the num ber of children that are being taught, but the range of clas ses that those teachers will have to teach. This teacher that has been hired is exceptionally qual ified in terms of Music and French and will be able to handle those programs very wel l.

We are looking at hiring a teacher aide to give additional support to those teachers and I thin k that we will be looking at that very seriously in the next year. We will want to make sure that the quality of the program does not go down and that the teachers that are there can ade quately handle the program. So I thank him for bring ing this to my attent ion and will be looking at it very seriously. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A sup pleme ntary question to the same Minister.

In light of the fact that the enrolments have fluctuated over the last nu mber of years because of some of the transient population; in spe cific, the people that are stationed there from the Trans Canada Pipe Lin e, would the Min ister ensure the House that should there be an influx of students, back to a level of 34 or 35, that the department would again be reinstating this position to ens ure that the people out in that particula r part of Manitoba can receive the best possible qual ity of edu- cation with regards to this K-8 school that is presently out there serving the residents of the Falcon Lake area?

HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, the Member for La Verendrye is quite right whe n he talks about a tran sient population. For instance, the RCMP member is leaving this year. He's leaving and taking two children and the replacement is sin gle and doesn't have any children. I'd like to indicate to him that in a situation like that, we will be watching and monitoring it very closely, and if there is an increase in the num bers of children we will be prepared to meet the enrolment requirements of that school. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Energy. Mr. Speaker, through you to the Min ister of Mines and Energy, could the Min ister of Mines and Energy confirm that the new oil fields or the newly developed oil fields in the Waskada district or in the area of Waskada, Mani toba, whi ch is in the extreme south west corner of the province, are probably one of the most active and the most promising oil fields anywhere in Canada? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARAS IUK: Mr.

Speaker, I think I've indi cated that the drilling in Manitoba has been going ahead at a much faster pace than in previous years, and this is, I thin k, a cumulative development and the probabil ity for drillers is that if they find anythin g in Manitoba they have a probability of finding oil. In other areas they are finding gas, and gas right now doesn't create cash for them so there's been a lot of activity in southwestern Manitoba. MR. J. DOWNEY: In view of the fact that all that activ ity is taking place, Mr.

Speaker, and the Minister of Mines and Energy at the meeting of the Surface Righ ts Owners Association in Virden on the 25th of March of this year, the Minister committed himself to forward ing legisla tion that would give protection to the sur face rights owners; and in view of the fact that I, Mr.

Speaker - and I know the Minister is aware of certain particular cases whe re landowners are not getting along as wel l as they could with some of the oil com panies in that area -not all of the oil companies, some of the oil companies are treating the land owners very wel l, but there are some specific difficulties that are taking place and the people have requested surface rights leg islation to protect them -how does the Min is ter plan to give those landown ers the protection with out the legislation that he has promised that he would give them, Mr. Speaker? 3660 HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I indicated I would be trying to bring in surface rights leg islation this Session, but that I couldn't commit myself to doing so in that I wanted a full consultative process, and I asked the Surface Righ ts Association to themselves send in a brief commenting on the Nugent Report. I also asked various other parties to send in briefs on this

29 June, 1982 and that consultative process has taken a bit of time and as a result I am not able to bring the legislation in this Session; I hope to bring it in right at the beginning of the next Session of the Leg islature. At the same time, I think I made the gen eral parame ters of policy known; that we do want to have farmer represe ntation on a Surface Righ ts Board; that we do want to take their interest in to account more so then might have been the case in the past, and in the inte rim we do have a minin g board that can adjudicate in these matters if in fact that's required.

In most ins tan ces to date, historically the two parties have been able to work this out. We hope that'll continue, and we hope that all parties will bear in mind that wh ich we want to accomplish in the next Sess ion with the sur face rights legislation. MR. J. DOWNEY: In view of the fact, Mr.

Speaker, that a lot of the decisions made are dealing with the agri cult ure community and the feel ings of the agricultur e commun ity, I bel ieve, should be protected, and in view of the fact that he hasn't moved with legis lation, would the Min ister of Mines and Resources move to put an agricu ltural person on the Mining Board so that those people in rural Man itoba, in the farming community, can feel that they have an individual who understands the costs and the spe cific cases that they in fact have to deal wi th?

Will he move to put an agricultur e person on the Minin g Board so they can be assured that they are heard fairly on their own behalf ? HON. W. PARASIUK: Since the Mining Board deals with a wh ole set of other cases, I don't think I can make that commitment, but I can undertake to discuss this matter wi th the Surface Righ ts Association. I certainl y have been told by them that they felt they've had good access to the Min ister, to the department, over the course of the last six months and we certainl y would like to pursue that, and I 'II certainl y take the member's suggestion under advisement. MR. J.

DOWNEY: A final supp lement ary to the Mini s ter, Mr. Speaker. During the Esti mates of the Min ister I'm not sure if it was the Esti mates of the Min ister or the Resource Development Corporation - I had asked . the Minis ter if he would forward to the Min ister of Highways a request to upgrade some of the major roads and the arteries that haul that oil out of the southwest corner, Mr. Speaker, because a lot of the parti cula r roads are traveled by school bus es, extre mely dusty, and there is a danger factor, plus the weight which is going over those roads, Mr. Speaker.

I would ask the Minis ter if he would proceed to upgrade those roads or prepare to do so this coming year, because with the app earance of all the oil activity taking place wit h heavy equip ment, amount of oil moving, that in fact, that kind of service should be provided, because, Mr. Speaker, I'd have to ask the Min ister if that isn't the only bright spot that they have in the whole Province of Man itoba in the economy at ttiis time. HON. W. PARASIUK: Mr.

Speaker, I indicated to the member that I will be going through the area with representatives of the various oil compan ies that are conducting exploration and development in the area. I hope to take a look at the situation firsthand. I cer tainly hope that I might meet with some of the munici pa lities at that time, and I would then be forwarding any recommendations that might arise from those meetings to the Min ister after that Session. MR. SPEAKER: Th e Honourable Member for Robli n-Russel l. MR. J. McKENZIE: Than k you, Mr . Speaker. I have a question for the Honourable Min ister of Education.

When could the Min ister advise the House if they can now put their finger on the problems experienced in Gr andview School, envir onmental problems, a few weeks ago? MR . SPEAKER: The Honour able Min is ter of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I think at the time we commun icated wh at the cause was at that particu lar school. As I recall, it was a situation where a venti lation duct was bl ocked and that was corrected. I also indicated at the same time that we were commun icat ing to all school divisions to ask them to do inspec tions to en·sur e that there were no problems in other schools. MR. W.

McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the Hon ourable Minis ter who is now responsi ble and must pay for the charges to upgrade the environ mental system in schools such as Grandview, Neepawa, and there are other schools in the province that are facing those kinds of problems? Is it left to the local school division or is the province going to ass ume some of the costs? HON. M. HEMPHIL L: Mr. Speaker, I think we would look at each individual case and look at wh at the situation was.

There is a budget in the Miscel laneous Capital Grants in the Departm ent of Education, and it is quite possi ble and probable that in extraordinary circumstances that are beyond the control of the school division whe re the costs are high and would be a burden to them, that we would look seriously at giving some financial support. MR. W.

McKENZIE: I wonder could the Min ister advise the House of the fact that she or the department or the government now are prepared to go out and take a look at some of those schools from that era and see if there's other problems in some that hasn't been anticip ated up to now but may show up in the next whil e, or is that maybe not a fair question? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker, I thought all ques tions in this House were fair.

I think that we are looking at undertaking a Capital Projects Review in the Prov� ince of Manitoba to determine the state and the qual ity of the existi ng schools and the need for either renova tions or additional schools. It will take a little while but it is a project that we're going to be undertaking in this next year. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My 3661

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 question is to the Mini ster of Environment. Some months ago, I raised the question with the Min ister of Agricu lture, as well as the Minister of Environme nt, regarding the financial difficult y that the operators who removed dead farm ani mals were having and since that time, I understand some of the Ministers have been meeting with the operators and gave some indication that there was possibly some financial help could be forthcoming.

Since that time, I'd just like to indicate that the operator in Neepawa has been closed as of today and Pilot Mound and Beausejour are clos ing , I bel ieve, Ju ly 1s t. I'm just wondering if the Minis ter can indicate whether they are still planning to proceed to give any assistance, and when? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Mr.

Speaker, as the Min ister of Agricult ure indicated when he responded to much the same question a couple of days ago, we did meet wit h a nu mber of operators in the province and he sug gested at that time that there were discussions under taken and that there were some activities that were ongoing in respect to reviewing the situation.

It's my understanding that those activities are still ongoing and from the perspective of the Envi ronmental Man agement Divis ion, all I can add to it at this point is that there are regulations in place which will be enforced if, in fact, it is found that they are being violated in respect to the proper disposal of such ani mals. MR. A.

DRIEDGER: To the same Min ister, in talking with the operators they indicated that if there was some assu rance coming from the government that there would be some assistance possibly forthcoming that they might continue to operate, but the concern that they have is the time frame that is involved. Can the Min ister indicate whe ther they are planning to initi ate a program at all and if so, could they get back to the operators and indicate the time frame that they can be looking at? HON. J.

COWAN: What I can do is take that question as notice for the Min ister of Agriculture who is now involved in those discussions and I will forward the concerns of the Member for Emerson on to the Minis ter of Agricult ure and ask him to respond to him in respect to that specific question. I'm sorry I can't pro vide him the answer right now, other than to say that we did meet with the groups, we had wha t I consi dered to be productive discuss ions wit h the groups and that it was left that the Minis ter of Agricu lture would, in fact, be in contact with them.

While I'm on my feet and addressing the question from the Member for Emerson, I'd like to also answer a question whi ch he'd asked some time ago in respect to whe ther or not my department or the Environment Manage ment Di vision had issued a directive cancel ing chemical spraying on Crown lands and road allo wances. I can indicate to him that we have not issued any such directive. MR. SP E/lKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Fort Ga rry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Honourable Min ister of Health.

I would ask him whe ther the wage guidelines announced by the Fed eral Minist er of Finance last night for the federal pub li c sector, and urged upon the provinces and upon Canadians in general bY the Federal Minis ter, will have any bearing on the current status of negotiations between the MMA and thEl Health Services Commis sion on a new Medicare fee schedule? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, the Premie r left for Ottawa earl ier this afternoon and he will meet with the Federal Governme nt.

I guess we'd want an expla nation of some of the thin gs that were said. We are to meet in a spec ial meeting of Cabin et later on early next week, so I don't think that I'm in a position to answer that at this time. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister advise the House whe ther, at the present time the Health Services Commission's offer to the Manitoba Medical Association is holding at 10 .5 percent? HON. l. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, as I reported a few days ago, actually what's on the table now, I think it's around the 10 percent; I'm more familiar wit h the figure- I don't think percentages mean that much -it's $9,500. A final decision hasn't been made on that, but actually that's wha t's on the table now. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister advise whether the MMA has requested any meetings at this time, in this current space of time, these 48 hours or these next 72 hours, to resolve this decision. or are both sides going to wait and see wha t comes out of the federal-provincial meetings relative to the Budget and to the wage gwidelines that are being proposed by Ottawa? HON. L. DESJARDINS : Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear, the position of the government. The MMA would have an agreement now if they would have settled whe n it was supposed to be the final meeting.

I don't think that anybody would have reneged from that unless there is some understanding between the Fed eral Government and the provinces. The situation is that I haven't had any requests other than the letter that I read here a few days ago, that I informed them that the Manitoba Health Services Commission would not put any more money on the table, but if they want to discuss the division of the money, they would be gl ad to meet with them . MR. l. SHERMAN: A final supplem entary, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister and the Commission set tle with the MMA if the MMA asked for a 10 .5-percent settlement this afternoon? 3662 HON. l. DESJA RDINS: The Minister and the Com mission would have gl adly settled a few weeks ago when we upped the ante to make it attractive, to have a settleme nt; that was refused. It wasn't recommended. In fact, the executive recommended against it and a very small majority rejected it.

29 June, 1982 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member forTux edo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My ques tion is to the Honourable Min ister responsible for Housing. In conju nction with the Budget about seven weeks ago the Min ister an nounced a $50-milli on pro gram of expen ditures on housing initiatives in the province. As well, under questionings a little whil e later, the Minis ter indicated that he would be able to define the programs for which this money will be spent prior to the end of the Sess ion, I believe.

We have not yet had an announcement and I wonder if we could have some announcement from the Min ister, an indication for wha t types of programs in housing these funds will be used. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, yes, it's quite true that I indicated that I'd hoped to be able to put some definitive outline before members in respect to the $50 milli on tha t we have targeted for housing develop ment.

I did indicate in the statement that I made in connection with the Core Area Ini tiatives Housing Rep air that $1 o million of the $50 mill ion that we had committed was appropriated for the funding aspects of that program. In respect to the balanc e of the $40 milli on, my department has been work ing very closely with repre sentatives of Central Mortgage and Housing Corpora tion and in consultation with the Federal Government in respect to the Federal Govern ment programs and in itiatives in this area, such that we would coordinate our efforts in respect to housing development.

We were awaiting decisions in respect to a program that the Federal Government had enuncia ted in respect to housing development.

Subseq uent to that, of course, there have been some new decisions taken by the Federal Government and at the present time, the staff of the department of the corporation are pe rusing these latest announc e ments in order to determine how we can coordinate our program with these further initiatives because we want, of course, to utilize the federal init iatives in · conjunction with our programs so that we're not dupl icating and we're tak ing full advantage of all of the federal monies that are available in these programs. MR. G. FllMON: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we're disap pointed to learn that an nouncement then was indeed not a $50-million program but a $40-million program, because the $10 mill ion in the Core Area had been committed, prior to the taking of office of this government, in the $96 mil lion Core Area In itiatives Program as part of our provincial contribution. As wel l, Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the Min ister is not prepared now when he gave wha t I belie ve was a firm undertaking to lay the detail of the program out when the item was being considered in Supply. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Chairman, I'm not sure wh ether that was a question, but I feel obliged to respond to that statement. In respect to the $1 O million that we've referred to, it is my understanding that is not tied in with the Core funding initiatives of $96- some-odd million that's involved in the Tr ipartite Agreement. This is a housing initiative that is com plementar y to that thrust, so it's $10 million additional housing in respect to the Core Area Initiative. MR. G. FILMON: My further question, Mr.

Speaker, which the Minister perhaps missed, was why are we not in a position to deal with this as the item is consi dered in Supply as he had earlier promised? HON. A. MACKllNG: Wel l, Mr. Speaker, I thought I'd indicated to the member and to all members that we have been work ing closely with Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Federal Government 's agency in respect to Housing, and they had announced a program recently and the deadline was yesterday in respect to the take-up of that program. We have to know the take-up of that program in order to adjust our program.

We were just getti ng that information on program take-up when we learned that there was going to be a new Budget announced and last night the Minister of Financ e of the Government of Canada in Ottawa indicated a further housing initiative - apparently some hundreds of mil lions of dollars that will be involved in the housing sector. We are, at the present time, examining those proposals so that we' ll be able to know how we can coordinate our initiatives with those federal proposals. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I direct this question to the Honourable Min ister of the Environ ment. There are disturbing reports coming from Sas katchewan about fairly serious outbreaks of Encepha litis in the Saskatchewan horse population. First of all, can the Min ister confirm that that is the case, and can he confirm that his department is monitoring the situation as to possi ble spreading to Man itoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Northern Affairs. HON. J.

COWAN: Basically I can confirm that we have in place, as a government, the interdepartmental committee which has been in place previously , the Arborviruses Surveillanc e Committee. We also have senti nel flocks out in the field to do the type of testing which is done as a matter of course at this time of year.

I've just recently perused the Minutes of the latest meeting of that group, which was in June , and they indicate that there was no sign of Encephalitis at this time but that they were going to be continuing their monitoring in an expanded way as a result of last year's activities and the lessons that were learned from that. I'm also pleased to be able to tell the member that the Cle an Environment Commission is still considering the wh ole aspect of spra ying with different larvicides as well as insecticides and that we expect a report from them very soon.

So, I think the interdepartmental committee at the staff level is undertaking the activities wh ich are necessary to ensur e that we have a complete under stan ding of the situation. I'm certain they are looking at Saskatchewan, in fact, they feel that the lessons or the experiences that are being gai ned in Saskatche- 3663

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 wan at this time are of value to this particular province. They will be making the appropriate representations. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the Min ister to confirm whe ther or not the situation is serious in Sas katchewan? Has he taken the time or has this commit tee, that he's talked about, been in contact with the officials in Saskatchewan to confirm whe ther or not there are serious outbreaks of Western Encephalitis occurring in that province? Secondly, the direct question, particularly as a result of last year's experience: are we prepared with an emergency plan of action? HON.

J. COWAN: What I can indicate to the member, and I did indicate to the member and will do so again, is that the interdepart mental committee is in fact mon itoring the situation. I am certain that their monitoring of the situation takes into account the experiences of the ju risdictions which are closest to us.

Whether or not they have spe cifically contacted Saskatchewan, I would not be able to tell him at this time except I would be able to inform him that in the past they have under taken that sort of commun ication in respect to this problem, so I would have to inform him that I would be of the opinion that they had done so in this instance as well. I'm certain that they wi ll flag any spec ific or immediate concerns that they have.

I can als o ass ure him that the activities that are taking place this year are in no way out of the ordina ry except that we have exp anded the surveill ance program and I hope that provides some assurance to him. In respect to his specific question about an eme r gency program I think to discuss details of that type of program at this particular juncture would certainl y be premature. MR. H. ENNS: I direct a question to the Minis ter of Health, I may get a more straig htforward answer, Mr. Speaker.

I'm assuming that the Depar tment of Health, of course, is a very major part of that committee that is monitoring the situation. My simple question to the Min ister of Health is (

a) is he aware of a possible situation that could arise with the current conditions in Saskatchwan and the current weather conditions, I might add, Mr. Speaker, moist, and now with heat coming on that brings on the mosquito populations? Finally, is his department or is he as Min ister, if faced with the kind of situation that the Member for Fort Garry was faced with not so long ago, would he be prepared to recommend the various measures and steps taken including the use of Bayg on, should it be called for? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Health. HON. l.

DESJARDINS: The member had a choice as to wh ere to direct his question as two departmen ts are working quite closely together. I could have given a short answer; he received the long answ er. I don't think I can add too much except that my department is in contact with Saska tchewa n. The situation in Mani toba here is much better; in fact it's one of the best that we've had so far; there's been a press release issued on that. If and when there is a decision to be made, we will be ready to make the decision.

In the meantime, something that was organized by the former Min ister of Health and Financ e and by the Depa rtment of Health there was a conference of peo ple not too long ago who addressed themselves to that and as announced in the House my confrere here, the department, is also looking at that; we should have a report pretty soon but if and when we have to move we'll be ready. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Min ister of Co-operative Develop ment.

Yesterday he took as notice a question on my behalf and if he could provide me with the answer, I'd be greatly pleased. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Munici pal Affairs. HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I'd be most pleased to respond to the question I took as notice yesterday; I was just waiti ng for the appropriate moment to catch your eye, Sir. In regards to the question regarding MANCO, an operation review was conducted by Tarry and Associates which is a management consultant firm.

This review was conducted with the consent and approval with the Board of Directors and manage ment of MANCO and commissioned by the Depart ment of Economic Development. The report was reviewed by officials of the Department of Economic Development and Tourism, the Department of Agri culture and the Depar tment of Co-operative Devel opment and subsequently presented to MANCO's Executive Committee on Friday, Ju ne 25th, 19 82. The Executive Committee of MANCO's Board is desiring to implement the recommendations of the report as soon as possible. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Since this matter of the two plants at Pi lot Mound and Rossburn are of great concern to members on this side, would the Min ister be prepared to table the report that he received on the 25th so that we can avail ourselves of the recommendations in that report? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, the report was under taken by the Department of Economic Development. It is a confidential document regarding the internal operations of MANCO in view of the fact that they are having some difficulties at the present time.

MANCO has been apprised of the report and they are attempt ing to implement those recommendations as soon as possible in order to turn the economic situation around that they presently face, Mr. Speaker. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little diffi cult with the promise of an open government that the Minis ter will not allow Members of the Oppos ition to have access to a report which affects the jobs of con stituent s of ours at Pilot Mound and Rossbur n and the lives of their families. Mr.

Speaker, a couple of questions to the Min ister. 3664 Are tile recommendations in that report in any way binding upon MANCO; and secondly, were the man agement of the two plants at Pi lot Mound and Ross-

29 June, 1982 burn contacted to offer their opinions as to the operat ing capacities of the cheese plant s at Rossburn and Pil ot Mound? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I'll respond to the first part of the question. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker. would the Min ister of Co-operative Development care to ans wer the question as to whether the management of the two plants at Pilot Mound and Rossburn were in any way contacted to have their input and recommendations into this report? HON. A. ADAM: Mr. Speaker. I was attemp ting to respond but the Memb er for Roblin said. no.

I took that to mean that he didn't want me to respond. Per haps he should go and pick up dead ani mals lik e he's picking up pigeons. In reply to the first question. Mr. Speaker. I don't think it would be in the best interests to make publi c internal operations of MANCO. In regard to the second question. the second part of the question. I haven't completely read the report as yet; I'm in the process of doing so. Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. there's so much rabble coming from members opposite it is difficult to reply. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Economic Development. HON. M. SMITH: Yes. Mr. Speaker.

I'm happy to report that there has been a very thorough study of MANCO carried out with the financial assistanc e of our department. With regard to the publ ication of such a report, Mr. Speaker. these types of reports. when you're dealing with a private company or in this case a co-op, it's done for the benefit of the operators or the mana gers of the private company and in a sense the report is their property because they're the ones who want the information and who need to take wha t ever action they choose to. after having the benefit of a consultant's report Mr.

Speaker. ifs not a report that was co mmissi oned by the government to determine governme nt . policy. it was a report of the sort that our department often helps to fund to enable a company to make the best management decisions in its own interests. Mr. sure that if the mem bers opposite want to go and speak to the management of MANCO and if they choose to share wha t is in the report with the members opposite, that would certainly meet with our approval. MR. D. ORCHARD: Tha nl< you. Mr. Speaker.

Since the Min ister of Economic Development seems to know an awful lot more about the study into co operatives than the Min ister of Co-operative Devel opment does. I hope she has given him a report so that he can avail himself of the information. My question to the Min ister of Economic Develop ment. Mr.

Spea ker. is does she know if the mana ge ment of the cheese plants at Rossburn and Pilot Mound were contacted to give their input into this report and the direction given to the operations there. particular ly with a view to the unemployed workers in those communi ties. and to the fact that milk is still being dumped at Rossburn? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker. MANCO consists of several plants. They have a central management group and then each individual plant has its own man agement.

The nature of the report is such that wha t was being exam ined was the total pictu re with the view. as all consul tant reports are. to giving an objec tive. if you lik e. third-party opinion to the management so that they can take wha tever actions are approp riate. So. Mr. Speaker. certainly all of the relevant mana gement personn el o! the group of companies were involved and I'm sure they all have access to the finding s of the report. MR. SPEAKER: Or der. please. The time for Or al Questions having expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tux edo. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker. with the pe rmission of the House. I wonder if I could make a non-political statement. MR. SPEAKER: Does the memb er have leave? (Ag reed). The Honourable Member for Tux edo NON-POLITIC.Al STATEMENT MR. G. fllMON: Mr. Speaker. I'd like to extend con gratulations to the Charleswood 16 -year-old soccer team who this past we ekend won the Modern Dai ries Cup in the 16-and-under age bracket and I'm pleased to say. Mr.

Speaker. and for the benefit of the Member for Flin Flon. that most of the members of the team reside in the constituenc y. happily. of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition. including my son. and some of the members of the team. happily, live in the Consti tuency of Tuxedo. So, on behalf of myself and I would hope all members of the House. I'd li ke to extend congratulations and best wis hes to them as they embark on the Western Canadian Championshi ps later this sum mer. MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader. HON. R.

PENNER: I think it's only fitting that I follow that up by announcing tha t the results of the first annua l baseball game between members of Cabinet and Caucus on one side, and Executive Assistant s and Legisla tive Assistants on the other was a clear victory for Cabine t and Caucus and that the Govern ment House Leader was 2 for 2 in the batting order and. without authorization. I issue a challenge to the members of the Opp osition to a game in the fall - (I nterjection)- baseball. we're tal king about baseball. MR. SPEAKER: Is that a non-political statement? HON. R. PENNER: That is a non-political statement.

MR. SPEAKER: The Government House Leader. 3665

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, would you please call the f\leport Stage on Bill s 21 and 58 in that order? REPORT STAGE BILL 21 -THE COMMUNITY CHILD CARE AND STANDARDS ACT MR. SPEAK ER: Shall the Report of the Committee on Bill 21 be concurred in? The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, with respect to Bill 21 , I wish to move, seconded by the Honourable Member forT uxedo-1 believe, Sir, that the distribu ted amendment says the Honourable Member for Kirk field Park, but due to that member's absence at the moment, I will substitute as seconder the name of the Honourable Member for Tuxedo That Bill 21 , The Communi ty Child Day Care Stan dards Act, be amen ded by renumb ering

Section 32 Further Assistance as

Section 32 su bsection

(1) Further assistance, and that the following new su bsection 32(2) Special Assistance, be inserted immediately following the end thereof: 32(2) Special assistance. Where the director is satisfied that (

a) a child of an empl oyed, single parent is in need of day care: and (

b) the employment of the si ngle parent is neces sary for the child's and the parent's livel ihoods; and (

c) the hours of the parent's employment fall sub stanti ally outside the hours of operation of a facili ty to which the parent, if his hours of employment coin cided with the hours of the facility's operation, would otherwise reasonably seek and could reasonably expect admission of his child; and (

d) the pa rent, during his hours of emp loyment, is bearing a financial expense to provide supervisory care of the child; the director may, in accordance with and subject to the regulations, authorize payment to the parent of an amount of special assistance toward the financ ial expense of providing that supervisory care. MOTION presented. MR. l. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, the amendment that has been proposed to the House, Sir, is precisely the same as the amendment that was proposed to the Standing Committee on Statutory Or ders and Regula tions a few days ago when we dealt with Bill 21 in clause-by-clause procedure. At that point in time, the amendment was discussed, debated and ulti mately subjected to a vote and failed to carry. I moved it agai n at this point in time, Sir, because I would lik e to put it to the House in formal sitting with, Mr. Speaker, in the Chair. Mr.

Speaker, when I spoke on Second Reading of Bill 21 , The Child Day Care Standards Act, I referred to it as mechanis tic in the content that's available to the Memb ers of this Ass embly and to the public at the present time, tha t content being limi ted, of course, to precisely w hat is in the bill and the bill being limited, of course, to being an enabling piece of Legisla tion which says nothing about what the ultimate standar ds in community child day care will be.

The bill as it's currently written appears simply to establish the parameters for a structure that is not revealed in terms of its form and its relationship to people and will not be revealed in that respect until the regulations are drafted by government and enacted. I, therefore, described the bill at that time as mech anistic.

I was hoping that I would be disabused of that impress ion by the govern ment, by the Min ister and his colleag ues, as we exam ine d the legislation beyond Second Reading through committee stage, but nothing that I've seen in the Committee evaluation and exami nation of the contents of this bill, Mr. Speaker, con vinc ed me that my description of it was inaccurate. In fact, Sir, I would have to say that the conclusion that one must come to, certainly the conclusion that I've come to is quite the contrary. I l;lelieve my assess ment of it has now been confirmed.

Everything about Bill 21 and virtually everything that has been said about it and, certainly, everything that's been said about it by its supporters on the government benches, both in this Chamber and in Committee, ill ustrate that it is overwhel mingly concerned, Sir, with one thing, sys tem, SYS TEM. That is the thrust and direction and preoccupation of the bill. It is not concerned with people; it is not concerned with individual children; it is not concerned with individual parents or individual needs or individual circumstanc es faced by people.

It's c:oncerned with the system and with a piece of social machinery, no matter how desirable , machin ery nonethele ss and, therefore, as I suggested earlier , highly mechanistic. Everything is subordinated to that objective. The Minis ter rejected the proposed amendment, the one that's before the House at the present time when it was in front of Committee, Mr. Speaker, on the grounds that it is inconsistent with the theme of the bill.

The amendment seeks to help single -parent shift workers who need day care for their children and who are denied the opportunity to take advantage of or make use of day care for their children because of the hours which they work.

The Minis ter rejected it on the grounds that it's inconsistent with the theme of the bill; that it speaks to a special social circumstance that would better be addressed, Sir, under other legis lation, social allo wan ces legisla tion, for example; that it fl ies in the face of the principle of the bill, wh ich apparently is a pri n ciple geared to establishing the ground and the ground rules for a day care syste m, a system that I have said takes precedence over everything else in the thrust and direction of the bill and a system that, like all govern mental systems would be highly structu red and regulated. 3666 It's !his syst emization and the enshrinement of this idea ol syst emization that is obviously the goal of the government in this legislation.

Unf ortunately, Sir, because there is such empha sis and preoccupation with that goal, there's little, if any, room at all left in the legislation to respond to people and their problems. The amendment addresses a problem of people, individual people and individual problems for those people, parents and children who are denied the use of and access to day care because of circumstanc es affecting their means of livel ihood, their hours of

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 work, the shifts that they work on thei r jobs. Where better to address problems of that nature. in a bill that purports to be interested in child day care, than in a Child Day Care Bill. But, the Min ister, Sir, says that this idea, this concept in the amendment, is somehow foreign to the theme and the princi ple and the intention of the bill.

To support his defence of this emphasis on the system and his rejection of the amendm ent that would help some individual people, the Minister cites the weig ht, Sir, and the preponderanc e of a numb er of subm issions, in fact, the majority of su bmissions and representa tions, on the bill that were made to the stand ing committee by various groups and organiza tions from the day care commun ity, particularly the Coalition for Day Care and others who subscribe to the coalition's proposed recommendations.

Those groups, all of them, made excel lent representations; certainly, the Coalition on Day Care made a very help ful and valuable recommendation. The Min ister though, makes the quantum leap from there that that is wh at it's all about and all that's neces sary to take into consideration.

He says that those active spokesmen for the day care communi ty who appeared before the committee and in the main, they were active spokesmen, legiti mately for the day care community, commended the government, in the main, on Bill 21 which they did; sal uted the government for bring ing forward this vague legisl ation and stressed the need for meas ures desig ned to create an organ ized, well-s upervised day care system.

He says that the preponderance of those presenta tions lay on the wei ght of the need for a syste m; the desirabil ity of a structured, organized syste m; that they put system first I don't dispute that; I don't deny that. But it's the Min ister's job to weigh all considerations and factors in a sens itive way. I find nothing unusual about the fact that most of the represe ntations made before the committee should have put some considerable emphasis on system. Nobody disputes the desirabili ty of organization and stand ards, Mr. Speaker.

We, in this party support Bill 21 in its intention and that is to define, deline ate and introduce standar ds in the commun ity child day care field that will guarantee access ible quality day care for the famil ies of Manitobans. But we do not think it is desirable , Sir, that the Minis ter and the government should be so hung up on system that they are bli nded to the benefici aries whom, after all, day care from its inception, has been intended to serve, namely, parents and children.

It seems to us that in the bill as it's presently drafted and in the approach taken to it by the Minis ter and his colleagues, and particularly in their unwilling ness to look at this amendment seriously at committee stage and accept it, there is clear indication of the fact that they are blind to those persons wllo should be the main beneficiarie s of any day care leg islation or any day care in itiative, i.e. parents and children who need day care. Surely, any day care system, Mr. Speaker, should be desig ned first to serve people.

That's wh at should come first one would think in the spectrum of objec tives of a day care program or syste m. In this case, we've got a legislation and a thrust by the govern ment that seems to derive its whole emphasis from an intel lectual amb ition for organization and order. That is one of the major difficulties that we have with the bill. As I said, Sir, I don't find it difficult to understand why many of the representati ons made to the Minister placed heavy emphasis on the requirement forgetting this day care system organized and set in place.

It's quite logical that should have cons tituted the pre ponderance of that testimony. Most of the subm issions and most of the represen tation came from day care professionals thems elves and professionals whoever they be; wh oever we be; wher ever we are, are always quite legiti mately inter ested in professionalizing our professions and that process requires organization and systemization.

Secondly, a considerable nu mber of representa tions and arguments came from groups like the Mani toba Federation of Labour, who have a strong profes sional in ter est in the concepts of struc tur ed organization and system. There's nothing wrong with that, Mr.

Speaker, except that the Min ister should not then just close his eyes and say wel l, these views encompass the gl obal world of day care thinking, because they don't; they encompass the gl obal world of the professional day care worker and the supporter of the professional day care worker who has interests all ied with the processes of organization and system. The voice of the professional day care commun ity is a large one and a vigorous one, as is the voice of many of those who supported the position taken by the coalition on day care, e.g. the Man itoba Federation of Labour.

That voice is large, vigorous and expe rienced, Mr. Speaker, and it's natural to expect that it would and it should, make itself very effectively heard in any public or legisla tive forum studying the field of day care. It's also quite natural that it should place consid erable emphasis on system as it did. There's also the other voice, Mr. Speaker.

There's the voice of the individual citizen who works hard; who does his or her job: who pays his taxes; who works all day or all night to support his children or her children and who kn ows only that he is deprived by special and unavoidable circumstances from access to day care that others enjoy and that his child needs and that he would enjoy or she would enjoy if he were working from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., instead of working the night shift or the overnight sh ift Th at voice, Mr.

Speaker, is not as well organized or as experienced as the professional voice, or as the vested interest voice, and it is that voice that attemp ted to make itself heard by the Minister although it was obviously not as loud or as evident as the professional voice because this voice, the voice of the individual citizen in this case, is certainl y in the minority for obvious reasons.

This voice, however. attempted to make itself heard by the Minis ter and heard by the committee and it's this voice of the individual parent with the individual problem whose plea was at the centre of the Special Assistance Amendment that was proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party in committee and rejected by government and is being reproposed here at Thir d Reading in the House, with hopes that it will this time be acceptable to the government. It's that voice, the voice of the individual citiz en in special circumstanc es and difficulties that is at the heart of 3667

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 this proposed amendment. Mr. Speaker, let me als o note, in attempting to make the case for the issue at hand and for the persons who legitima tely deserve the kind of help proposed in this amend ment. that in addition to his and the bill's preoccupation with system before people. the Minis ter and his governme nt colleagues have raised a nu mber of other arguments to try to jus tify their rejec tion of the amendment in committee. Sir, I want to address them briefly for just a minute or two here because at this stage in debate, which is the final stage of debate on the legisl ation.

I would assume that if he has not come to the view that the amendment is acceptable he will raise these arguments again. These are arguments that he advanced in committee as rea sons for rejecting the proposed amendment and I suggest that none of them stands up to scrutiny.

In the first instanc e the Minister said the Progres sive Conservative amendment before you, Sir, amounts to little more than a pa id baby-sitting service for shift workers and it therefore flie s directly in the face of the bill wh ose theme is not social services in general, as I've indicated earlier in quoting the Mini ster, but whose theme is exclusi vely day care and specifically our day care system. On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I sugge st to the Minis ter that the amendment does indeed speak specifi cally and exclus ively to day care. If he reads the amendment I think he could not deny it.

It does meet his criteria. The very first claus e in the proposed amend ment requires. Mr. Speaker, that the child must be in need of day care and the third claus e specifies that the child would in all probabili ty be in regular day care if the pare nts' hours of work pe rmitted it. In addi tion to that, Mr. Speaker. I have to ask wha t is repug nant about a paid baby-sitting service if we're into day care. Is n't that how day care and day nurseries really got started? They're generally much more than tha t now of course but some of them can still be described, Mr.

Speaker, in the main, as an alternate form of baby sitting, and presu mably, just as regular day care evolved out of the concept and the idea of baby sitting, ultima tely night day care or night care or 24- hour day care would evolve out of that concept of baby-sitting in nightime hours but there has to be a first step. There has to be a start. Mr. Speaker. in conclusion, the Minis ter says that it would cost too much and with lim ited funds we have to be sure we spend the money wh ere there is a greater need.

He cites that greater need as the con ventional day care space requirement s and the impleme ntation of the necessary new standards. Wel l, that argument can be very vigorously chall enged. Mr. Speaker. First I ask the Minister, isn't the single parent shift worker a taxpayer too? When he talks about this concept costing too much and sug gests that he's got to put that money into the conventional day care sys tem on the 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. or 9 a.m. to 5 p. m. day side of thing s, isn't the singl e parent shift worker pay ing for part of that? He or she is pay ing taxes that are going to that program.

He's going to provide some of that new money, even though that new money is lim ited, so why shouldn't he have some benefit from the applica tion of that money to the day care programming that's in place? Further to that, Mr. Speaker. I don't think there would be an enormously expensive take-up of this kind of assistanc e for the si mple reason that there aren't huge numb ers of persons in the category that is addressed by the proposed amendme nt.

The amend ment makes it very clear that it would apply to persons who could reasonably expect to have their children in a day care facil ity if they were on daytime hours. In other words. there would have to be a day care facility in that neighb ourhood, in that commun ity, to which their child would be admitted before they would be considered qualified for this kind of special assistance. So, Mr. Speaker.

I suggest that the arguments that the Min ister raised in Committee for rejecting this amendment are artificial and tran sparent; that they do not stand up to fair scrutiny; that they are derived simply to defend the syste matic, mechanistic, highly structuraliz ed objective that he has and his colleagues have, wh ere this leg islation is concerned and that they are intende d to protect that kind of organization. That denies the interests and the requirements and the needs of individual people and fails to take those needs and requirements into fair account and I there fore.

Sir, on behalf of my colleagues, the Progressive Conservative Party, take pleas ure in recommending this amendment once again to the consideration of the Minis ter and this time to the full House for its consideration. I bel ieve that wha t the governme nt is intending to do in the day care field would be greatly assisted by providing this additional ack nowled gment and recognition of the special citizen in our community who deserves and requires some consideration in leg islation of this kind and I recommend the amendment to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. COMMITTEE CHANGE MR.

R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd li ke to make a Committee change since the Committee is sitting at 3: 15 I wonder, with leave from the House, whether I could do that or not? I'd lik e to, on the Private Bill s Committee substitute the name for the Member for Emerson for the Member for Kirkfield Park. 3668 MR. SPEAKER: Agreed? (Agreed) The Honourable Min ister ol Community Services. HON. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief because we're real ly repeating debate that occurred a few days back in the committee, Statutory Regula tions. that dealt with this particular matter, with this particular legislation.

As I attempted to point out at that time, the pro posed amendment by the Member for Fort Garry is virtually equivalent to an income trans fer of some kind. It's an income transfer to people, to famil ies in particular circumstances; namely, famil ies. either singl e parent or two parent, wher e there is one or two working in the even ing or off hours so that no regular day care facil ity or family care facilities are availa ble . What this amendment would esse ntially do is provide some income to such famil ies and to that extent. Mr. Speaker, I would sugg est it's somewh at similar to the

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 CRISP Program, the Child Rela ted Income Supp le ment Program; it has elem ents that I find in that par ticular program. The other point I would make, Mr. Speaker -and I made this in the committee - is that probably this is not the area of greatest need in terms of paid or subsid ized baby-sitting service. If you want to make a case for subsidized baby-sitting service, it's not necessari ly during the evenings.

You'd probably find more people during the daytime who are unable to have their child or children pla ced in a regular day care setting because no such day care facil ity exists in their com munity or their part of the City of Winnip eg. So I would sugg est if one could take a survey, you'd find there is probably a greater need during the daytime than in the evening or nigh ttime as referred to in this particular amendment. I also pointed out, Mr.

Speaker, to the members of the committee and I will point out now to the members of the House, that we do have some programs in pla ce to help those people in greatest need; those people who are in the greatest financial need, of course.

It may be looked after through the Social Al lowanc es Program and, indeed, there are funds that can be and are provided for assistance for child care under that program and, in addition, we have the so-call ed homemaker service in another division of the depart ment whic h is available to provide an initial minimum of six months service in the home to help a parent with their child or children and this can be extended to another six months. The other point I would make, Mr. Speaker, is that the adminis trative costs of this proposal are likely to be very high.

In other words, it's been suggested we help certain categories of people with su bsidized baby-sitting services beyond those who are on Social Allowanc es, and I would submit that this would require us to have staff in pl ace that would have to check and investigate, examine, the income levels of the appl icants. In other words, there would be a means test imposed in order to gear this program to income level. So you would, therefore, run into con siderable additional administrative costs.

The last point I would make is that the subsidized baby-sitting thrust for nighttime hours or off hours suggested by the amendment proposed by the Member for Fort Ga rry is contrary to the intent of the legisla tion. What we're attempting to do in this legisla tion is to raise standards in the care of children, community care of children, and we want to ensur e that there is quality care; we want to ensure that there's the fine st child care facilities in the country in the Province of Manitoba.

That is tile intent of tile legislation and that is tile message we got from the vast majority of the delegations that appeared before us, that this is wha t they wa nted and this is the need they wa nted us to address. So, Mr. Speaker, I'm ple ased that our legisla tion does provide the basis for that particular thrust. At this po:nt I see no val ue in supp orting this amendment as proposed by the Member for Fort Gar ry and would suggest that the members of tile House vote against this particular amend ment. QUESTION put on the amendment, MOTION deleated. MR. l. SHERMAN: Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. MR.

SPEAKER: Call in the members. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Banman, Brown, Downe y, Dr iedger, Enns, Filmon, Gourlay, Graham, Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, Man ness, McKenzie, Mercier, Nordman, Mrs. Ol eson, Messrs. Or chard, Ransom, Sherman, Steen. NAYS Messrs. Adam, Anstett, Ashton, Buck lasch uk, Car roll, Corrin, Desja rdins, Mrs. Dodick, Messrs. Doern, Ms Dolin, Messrs. Evans, Eyler, Fox, Harapiak, Harper, Mrs. Hemphill, Messrs. Kostyra, Lecuyer, Mac kling, Parasiuk, Penn er, Ms Phillip s, Messrs. Plohman, San tos, Schroeder, Scott, Mrs. Smith, Messrs.

Storie, Uruski, Uskiw. MR. ACTING CLERK: Yeas 21 , Nays 30. MR. SPEA KER: The amendm ent is accordingly defeated. QU ESTION put, MOTION carried. Bill NO. 58 - THE WORKPLACE SAFETY AND HEAl TH ACT MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 58. Shall the report of the committee on Bill No. 58 be concurred in? Are you ready for the question? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: The Committee on Private Bill s, which had just begun its meeting when the division bel ls rang will continue its mee ting immediately. There are counsel for various of the corporations waiti ng. 3669 MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Op position House Leader. MR. B. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I bel ieve that when a motion is brought before the House that there shouldn't be any other busi ness considered until that motion is dealt with. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minis ter of Northern Affairs I would move, seconded by the Honourable Attorney-General tha t Bill 58 be amen ded by numb ering

Section 2 thereof, as printed, as

Section 4 and by adding thereto immediately after

Section 1 thereof the following sections: Cl. 24(

a) rep. and sub.

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 2 Cl ause 24(

a) of this Act is repealed and the follow ing claus es are substituted !herefor: (

a) without a warrant and without prior notification enter any pl ace or premises in which he has reason to bel ieve workers or self-employed persons are work ing or were working, other than premises used for personal residential purposes; (a.1) under the authority of an order made under subsection (2), enter any prem ises used for personal residential purposes in which he has reason to belie ve workers or self-employed persons are working or were working; Subsec. 24(2) added. 3

Section 24 of the Act is further amende d by num bering the section, as amended, as subsection (1) and by adding thereto, at the end th ereof, the following subsection: Or der for entry into residential premis es. 24(2) A safety and health officer may apply to a judge of a county court for an order requiring the person in possess ion of any residential prem ises in which the safety and health officer has reason to belie ve workers or self-employed workers are work ing or were working to permit the safety and health officer to enter the residential premis es for the pur poses of inspecti ng them and, if the judge is satisfied that it is reasonable and necessary for the adminis tra tion of the Act to grant such an order, he may grant the order.

MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, thanl < you, Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the Min ister of Natural Resources for tak ing the opportuni ty to make certain that this pro posed amend ment came before the House at Report Stage. The amend ment flows from the concerns which were exp ressed by members opposite during the committee discussions on the inclusion of domes tics under The Workpla ce Safety and Health Act.

At that time they suggested that the inclusion of domes tics allowed for a potential for abuse of the powers of a safety and health officer by allowing that safety and health officer to enter into a private domicile without warrant or without prior notification. Th is, of course, takes on added sign ificanc e in respect to the Charter of Rig hts and other activities which are tak ing pl ace in other jurisdictions.

At that time we discussed a numb er of ways by which we could alle viate their concerns and, having taken those sugge stions back to my own caucus, it was sugge sted there that perhaps the best way to do it would be to put an amendment to the Act that would specifically prohibit a safety and health officer from exercising those very wide powers which they have in regard to entr y into a personal residential home.

The amend ment that you have before you is, in fact, desig ned to make certain that if a safety and health officer is dealing with a residential home, that safety and health officer must obtain an order from a county court judge to enter that home if that permission to enter the home is not given voluntari ly by the homeowner. This, I think, would take care of most of the con cerns of the members opposite. I've discussed it briefly with them and I'm certain that they will take an opportuni ty to place on the record their thoughts in regard to the proposed amendment.

But I do take seriously the powers which we have as legisla tors and take seriously the responsi bil ity which we have as legis lators to ensure that we do not leave open a potential for abuse wh ere we need not have to do so and this is one ins tance wher e, I think, opposition working with govern ment was able to come up with a satisfactory resolution of a problem which they had first brought forward and I want them to have all due credit for having first brought it to our attention. I hope that wha t we have before us now does, in fact, satisfy those concerns.

I can as sure the members opposite we'll also be looking at other bills to make certain that the legisl ation which we pass and which has been passed by previous admin istrations and governm ents does, in fact, protect the rights of those individuals, as in this par ticular instance individuals who are personal homeowners and who might have suffered unduly as a result of the previous wording, or the lack of this wording in the Act. I must point out that it does not take away the power of a safety and health officer to enter into a commer cial undertaking; th ose powers have always been there.

I also must point out that the safety and health officer has always had the power to enter into a private domicile if there was a contractor working in the dom icile, if there was a gardener working outside and that this removes that right as wel l. So while it's been designed specific ally to address the difficulty that would arise out of including the definition of "domes tics" in the Act, it also takes care of some other prob lems which existed previous to that amendment.

Having said those few words, I just wish to point out that I think this is a classic exam ple of how an opposi tion and government working together can, in fact, bring forward legislation whi ch is of the best possib le benefit to the citizens of the province. 3670 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Min ister for r1is comments and for his change of mind sinc e last Saturday. Mr. Speaker, I think the amend ment does satisfy the major concern that we had over the entry into homes. But there are other, Mr.

Speaker, inves tigative and regulatory powers in this Act and in other Acts which must be assessed and reviewed and looked at and I would hope, Mr. Speaker , that those would be reviewed seriously by the government before the next Session of the Leg isl ature, and we might see at the next Sess ion simil ar amendments to some of the other Acts that do allow the same sort of potential abuses to occur, Mr. Speaker. I make one particular comment about the amend ment in Clause 24(a) .

I don't really bel ieve that the word "p ersonal" is required before the word "residen tial." I think that the word "residential" by itself would be satisfactory but I assume that by the addition of the

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 word "p ersonal" that it will not affect the amend ment that greatly. Mr. Speaker, we welcome the amend ment; we wel come the Min ister responding to the concerns that we expr essed in debate on Second Reading and at the committee meeting last Saturday with respect to this Bill and we only hope, Mr.

Speaker , that the govern ment will carry this concern further and review other legislation that was referred to, particularly at the Comm ittee meeti ng, and bri ng forward simil ar amendments at the next Session of the Leg islature to halt potentia l abuses that could occur under this power, Mr. Speaker. QU ESTION put on the amendment, MOTION carried. QUESTION put; MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. R. PENNER: Mr.

Speaker, would you please call the Adjourned Debates on Second Reading in the following order, Bills No. 45, 46 as they app ear on page 4; to be followed by Bill 44 on page 2; and subse quently on page 3, Bills 48, 49 and 59? AD JOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READINGS BIL L NO. 45 -THE STATUTE LAW AMENDM ENT (TAXATION) ACT (19 82) MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Min ister of Fina nce, Bill No. 45 standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker , in dealing with Bill 45 there are a numb er of issues of principle in this bill, even though it is a Statute Law Amendme nt Act, and one of those, Sir, has to do with the additional taxation that the members opposite pla ced on the banking institut ions. Mr. Speaker, I sugg est that this change in the taxation was done, not really out of an understand ing of the financial condition of banks, but as a means of taking some sort of puni tive action agains t the ban king institutions which the New Democratic Party likes to portray as being among the most evil ins titu tions that we have in our country.

Of course the banks, Mr. Speaker, are not responsi ble for the present interest rate situation and I think anyone who has followed at all the committee looking into bank profits will realize the situation the banks find thems elves in, that under circumstances where interest rates are rising the banks do benefit from higher profits than they would otherwise and when rates are dropping they find their profits reduced. It's over the long period of time that we should be concerned about the performanc e of the banks and I think we should be concerned with the stabili ty of our banking institutions.

I sometimes gather from lis ten ing to the New Democratic Party that they would be happier if the banking institutions were unstable in this country; if they weren't making a profit that they would be somehow happier. Mr. Speaker, it is to be hoped that in this difficult economic situation that the cou ntry finds itself in today, it is to be hoped that six months from now and a year from now that we can still look at our banking institutions and say that they are sound. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some reference to the changes that were made in the Corporation Capi tal Tax.

I would commend the governmen t for continu ing the practice of the previous governm ent in exempting a few more businesses from that capital tax. That is a tax which I bel ieve ultima tely should be the objective of any governme nt to remove, because it is an unfair tax that ends up bei ng placed on assets that corporations don't even own. It's not the sort of tax that I think anyone would regard as being progres sive, but we are happy to see that the govern ment at least has made that small chang e. Mr.

Speaker, there are sections in this Act which, along with Bill 46, have attracted attention of the peo ple who are concerned with the rights of individuals as indeed we al l should be, in this House espe cially. When we look at the opportun ity, the powers that this Act provides for the search, for ins tance, for sampling of fuel by a Peace Officer or any other person autho rized by the Min ister for the purpose of taking a fuel sample. Mr.

Speaker, it was brought up in the House not that long ago about nonun iformed officers of the Tax Department stopping people on the roads, and subseq uently identif ying themselves by means of some card identification.

The situation that was men tioned in the House was one wh ere a woman was driving by herself on a country road and was stopped by two men in an unma rked car, and only after they show some sort of identif ication is she in a position to know who it is that has stopped her. 3671 Sir, I believe that irrespective of wh ether or not that power has been in any Act before, that it should have been reviewed by this government before they impl e mented again further expansion of that type of power. Especial ly, I think people are sensit ive now, Mr.

Speaker, to this sort of thing because of the Charter of Rig hts which the cou ntry now has, and under the Legal Rights

Section of the Canadian Constitution it says "Everyone has the right to be secure agains t unreasonable search or seizu re." Well, Mr. Speaker, I know that over time the courts are going to determine wha t is unreasonable search or seizure and I know that those lawyers in the House will have some fairly definitive concept in mind about wh at un reasonable search or seizur e is, but for those of us who aren't lawyers, unreasonable search or seiz ure is something that we have to interpret in the terms that laymen would think about these things.

I bel ieve, Sir, that this aspect of the bill that is before us would certainl y be considered to be unreasonable search by a vast majority of the pub lic and because these bills don't go to Committee outside of the House, Sir, and the pub lic doesn' t have the right to make a submission on them. The Manitoba Associa tion of Righ ts and Liberties, for ins tance, doesn't have the opportun ity to come before this House and to comment on these bills.

I think it behooves us in the House, and the government especially, to pay particu lar attention to these sections and perhaps they should be following the advice of the advice of the Manitoba Association of Right and Liberties -pardon me, I may be misquoting the source of that - I think it was Mr. Matas had suggested that provisions in Bill

46, at least, simply be deleted, provisions that were somewha t simil ar. So. Mr. Speaker, I think the gov ernment should give consideration to making changes in these sections of the Act: if not this year. in su bse quent years. I could commend the govern ment agai n, Mr. Speaker, for their implemen tation of assistance grants to busine sses and fuel dealers that have been operat ing close to the Saskatchewan border because of the removal of the gasoline tax in Saskatc hewan. Of course. it has made it very difficult for dealers to remain competitive in the areas close to Saskatche wan.

It's something that some of my colleagues had brought to the attention of the government on a numb er of occasions and I commend the government for having impl ement ed that feature in their Budget. Mr.

Speaker. a further problem I bel ieve. which is going to arise with the personal income tax su rtax which is being put in pl ace through this Act. is that at the time the government announced their surtax. of course, there had been some room provided by chan ges that the Federal Goverment made in the November 12 th Budget, in that they vacated some taxation room and the province then moved in to take up some of that room and announced at the time that the net effect of it in many cases would not be as great as would app ear to be the case. and perhap s even some people would still be paying less tax even with some provincial tax. because the Federal Government had backed out of some areas of taxation.

Now. Mr. Speaker. we have a situation wh ere the Federal Government is partially deindexing income tax so that people are now going to be hit to a greater extent than the government had antici pated before, but I think that's an area that the Provincial Govern ment is going to have to look at rather carefully now. With respect to the Capital Gains aspect of it, Mr. Speaker. some help of course is welcome.

I'm sure that the farm community will welcome wha tever help the government provides. but there are questions as to why should there be restrictions pla ced upon the purchaser with whom the sel ler can do business and still qual ify for the tax exemption? Is the purpose of this Act to help the family farm operator recognize some of the fruits of his labour over the years or not? Because if that's the purpose of it, Mr. Speaker. then there should be no restriction pl aced upon the pur chaser to whom the farmer could sell his land.

Another feature that I believe the govern ment should address and should change is the date for qual ifica tion for the Capital Gains Tax refund. The date which they have set is December 31 , 19 81 . Mr.

Speaker, when we assu med government in 19 77, we had made a commitment to do away with succession duties and gift taxes and we did that in an immediate Session. shortly after being elected, and we made the effective date the date of the elect ion of our govern ment. because that was a commitment which we had made during the elect ion and the most appropriate date was the date of the election then to make that change effective.

I think the govern ment should have done the same thing in this aspect, that they campaig ned upon this, it was one of those promises that they made during the election. it's one of the promises that they kept and therefore. Mr. Speaker, I think tha t date should have 29 June, 1982 been chan ged to November 17 , 19 81 , rather than December 31 , 19 81 . Mr.

Speaker, I'd lik e to also refer to some of the other aspects I should perhaps have referred to ear lier, that in respect to the demand for information and obtaining the appropriate records, I bel ieve that this Act is extremely strongly worded and grants rather extreme powers to the insp ectors within the Depar t ment of Financ e to obtain records. Perhap s the Min is ter of Financ e should have some examination done on the taxation bills under the taxation laws that are in pl ace to see if in fact the provisions that are in pla ce are appr opriate in light of present concern about rights and li berties.

I recall a situation several years ago wh ere an indi vidual, who now lives in my constituency, had looked out the back window and saw two people taking gaso line out of his lawnmo wer in his garage and on closer ins pection he discovered that indeed these two peo ple taking gasoline out of his lawnmo wer were inspec tors of the Department of Financ e, checking to see if there was purple gasoline in his lawn mower, without saying anything to the owner of the property at all.

Now that sort of high-handed action by government is sim ply unwarranted, although the power is in the Act and they were wi thin their rights to do that. So I think that the Minister should have a review conducted of the powers in these laws to see if they're really necessary. I could commend the Min ister briefly, Mr. Speaker, on one small change that he made having to do with the refund of tax for vehicles wh ere more than one vehicle is traded in. It's the sort of commonsense thing that is quite acceptable to the public and I don't mind congratulating the Mini ster on making some of those small adjustments.

Mr. Speaker. Those are all the comments that I have on this bill, Mr. Speaker. 3672 MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, J. �torie: The Honourable Member for Rh ineland. MR. A. BROWN: Thank you. I would just like to make a few comments on this bill and some of the concerns that I have, some of the problems that this bill is going to create.

First of all, I'd lik e to speak on the gasoline situation on the Saskatchewan border, which we have elimin ated to a certain extent by a gradual increase in price the farther away you get from the border. but in my area we have the same effect that the increase in diesel fuel tax is going to have in regard to some service station owners over there who have to com pete with the price in the Un ited States. The price in the Un ited States at the present time is quite a bit lower than wha t it is in Canada.

The sales of this particular gasoline station already are down by 40 percent and with this extra diesel fuel tax that will be put on diesel fuel , this means that we 'll just drive this particular person into ban kruptcy and there's about two or three dealers I understand that are in th at par ticular situation.

They sell fuel mainly to big trucks transporting produce in the north/south direction and wh ere they used to traditionally fill up at these particu lar stations, they no longer are filling up, and if they do stop, the y will buy $10 worth of diesel fuel or oil or wha tever is going to take them across the border to the first service station. So. I hope that the Mini ster is

29 June, 1982 going to look into this and that he hopefully is going to find a solution to this particular problem, because if he doesn't then there is going to be quite a problem created. There's another problem as far as the diesel fuel tax is concerned and it creates quite a problem for those contractors who bid on work last year under last year's diesel fuel tax.

Th ey find themselves in a great deal of difficulty at the present time because the price of the fuel that they're using is going to cost so much more and some of them actually say that they're going to be losing quite a bit of money on the jobs on whic h they have bid. So, I would lik e to see if the Minis ter could rectify some of those problems and maybe give those contractors, who have these bids that were accepted last year, some concession on the tax. I thank the Min ister for coming in wi th the Capital Gain s Tax Refu nd; it's something that we've all been wai ting for.

However, I find that the way that it is worded it is rather difficult to understand. I discussed this with about three of my colleagues and each one of them had a different

interpretation of how this thing was going to work, so I would appr eciate it if the Min ister could give us an example of how the elim ina tion of capital gains tax would work. Like, for example, could he give us an example of a farm sale, let's say, wher e the farm is selling, for easy figuring, $1 ,000 an acre and how the particular capital gains refund would apply? I think that if we had some clarification we would really know better just exactly how this was going to work. Mr. Speaker, those are some of the concerns that I have on this Bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C.

MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll attempt to make my comments brief. First of all, I would just li ke to make a few comments regarding a few aspects of this Bill. I suppose the first

part I'd lik e to draw attention to is

Part II, the amend ments to the gasoline tax and comparing this to the existi ng Act, one sees the whole new

Section 11 (2.2) all the way through and we beg in to see again a whole new area of heavyhand edness of government and, of course, it's obvious when you start to border against a jurisdiction that possibly does not levy a tax on fuel to the same degree that we do, that you have to put in some very strong measures by which to prevent the importing of gasoline. I don't supp ort them, but I guess I can see why the Min ister says they have to come forward in

an Act. When you see headings like the seizur e of goods and the release of goods on payment of penalty and forfeitures of goods on failure to pay pen alty and on and on, and when, of course, you see a

section without warrant you become quite !ear ful. I suppose one becomes somewhat hardened to the introduction of these types of items because you don't only find it in this bill, you find it in many new bills. The Min ister of Fina nce says, "Don't worry, you'll find it in all existi ng bills." I took his challenge and I looked and certainly he was correct.

I supp ose one of the most disturbing thing s, when you consider tile fact that you're imposing this type of tax on an item that can flow very easily from one ju risdiction to another, you realize the problems that are fast coming - and maybe they're here already - wi thin this country.

I've been part of a signa tory team that has attempted to prevent this sort of thing coming into supply -managed goods in agricultur e wh ere, in fact, the only out, the only solution to some of the problems app ear to be set ting up provinces and, in effect, not only measurin g but preventing the flow of product from one area to the other. I would say that this borders and this is a very close relative to that solution to that particular concern. So, I say this is wh at happen s, of course, wh en one ju risdiction becomes uncompetitive with another in any tax related area.

I'd lik e to move to page 13 , Clause 28, and again acknowledge and su pport and compli ment the gov ernment for the new

Section dealing with the provi sion for those dealers of gasoline who are in close proximity to the Saskatchewan border. Moving to

Part IV to The Amend ments to the In come Tax Act, Clause 35, on the Personal Inc ome Tax Sur tax, we kn ow the reason, of course, for which it was introduced, but I think we should not forget wha t my colleague, the Member for Turtle Mountain, said this morning that some of the rationale that was used to introduce this particular surtax on the Budget even ing, in fact, has disappeared because of deindex ing and I would be very interested to kn ow wha t now the surtax means to the individual who may be earning $25,000 or $30,000.00.

How much will that person -of course, the limit here, I think, is now $25,000 -but wha t does it mean to the individual now earn ing $35,000 with federal deindexing in effect, because all of a sudden that surtax isn't a minor item. I would suggest it'd be a very major item and to an individual earning between $30,000 and $40,000, I really wonder how far from $1 ,500 that surtax may amount? 3673 The reduction in the small busi ness tax deduction from 11 percent to 10 percent, provincially of course, is welcome.

It's, I sup pose, another acknowledgm ent of the strong role that small business in all forms, and certainly in corporate forms play in our provinc e. That sup port I think should be acknowledged and accepted. Un der the Manit oba Capital Gains Tax Refu nd, I bel ieve it's Cl ause 44, there's one particu lar item that struck me and I think it was the fourth line and again it jus t ties into wha t the Member for Turtle Mountain said and he used the par ticular aspect on the third line, Dece mber 31, 19 81.

I'd like to read just beyond that because it says "to a qualified purchaser" and I don't know if the attempt of that was presupposing some type of land leg islation that is coming or was coming or may be coming again, but maybe the Minis ter may want to attempt to redefine !hat particular account Clause 55 and, of course, this is new but it's not new in concept. I supp ose the Federal Government came onto this whole area of being able to requisition for monies owing directly to the bank.

Now I see, in fact, that our Department of Financ e has decided to incor· porate ii into this particular Act, and no doubt -which Act is this , by the way? This is un der the Manitoba Capital Gains Tax? We'll see it in other tax leg islation too. I suppose it's another very bitter pill to swallow. You feel in many ways that your bank account is sacred al most and it's something that's yours and

29 June, 1982 your operating line should be held in al most the same way. -(I nterjec tion)- The Member for Pembin a reminds me that possibly 'overdraft' is a better word. Mr. Speaker. what I sense here is that our Financ e Department and every finan ce department in exist ence seems to spend most of their time out-scrutinizing all the other fina nce departments and every time they see somebody else find a new way to go out, it's heartily endorsed and it's brought forward and it's brought back very quickly into that jur isdiction.

I think the main thing that concerns me. particularly over the next two years. is that with all this legislation that is at the hands of government, I belie ve that much of it is going to be tested. I'm going to be wat ching very carefully, maybe even in my own case personally, but certainl y in everybody's case as to how government is going to use this because I say that there are going to be reasons, because there are going to be many peo ple in default tha t'll cause them to want to make that decision as to whether to use it or not.

Clause 67, and I think the Min ister explaine d well the reason for upgrading the diesel fuel as a percen tage of gas, but under Clause 68 sp ecifically, whatever subsect ion 1 O was under some Act, it was moved up to 10 0 percent and I'm wondering wha t the particular item was, if he could maybe tell me, and maybe it was in his sp eaking notes, wha t specific item that was, maybe he could give me some comment as to wha t he was thinking.

Again, with in this particular amendment, this now is the amendment to The Motiv e Fuel Tax Act, those seem to correspond with the chan ges within The Gasoline Tax Act and again the greatest part of that whole additional sect ion now is in the area of enforcement. I see under Clause No. 76 that the pena lty for the use of purple gas in cars is increased and possibly the Min ister in giving us his final remarks, may indicate why; maybe he may want to tell us specif ically what the in cidence of purple gas using is as far as those that have been caught. Does he see some opportun ity here to again do well?

Is it a source of fine revenue th at in fact he has an opportu nit y of exploiting? Probably the final comments I'd lik e to make are, first of all, the one in supp ort of Cla use 85 by increas ing the minimum for the food and drink exemption. Under

part 10 , the amend ments to The Tobacco Tax Act, I found it intriguing that with in two very close sections under Cla use 93 that there's a reference made to a metric figure and there's one to an imperial figure, maybe there's good reason for that. I notice under 93(

c) we're talking about -well it makes some change, but in the old Act (

c) refers to 7 cents for every half-ounce and under (

d) it's 17 cents for every 25 grams. You may want to look at that and maybe there's some good reason for it. In concluding, under The Gasoline Tax Act the only thing I think I can add is again a concern that's been expressed. first of all by the Member for Lakeside and als o some ten min utes ago by the Member for Turtle Mountain. I, too, had a constituent who was stopped by an un marked car on the highw ay and two very unk empt individuals rushed out and flashe d some card and this individual, of course, turned the win dows up very quickly and didn't kn ow wha t was going on.

Fin ally, she had enough trust in the ind ividuals that she turned down the window somew hat and they said they wanted to look at her gas. They did and, of course, thank goodness for my wife, there was no purple gas in the gas tank, but it was a situation that happened very close, of course, to home and I say to the Min ister that hopefully some review again in this whole area can be undertake n.

It's a very difficult thing to accept, I'm sure, for all of our citizens, but certainl y rural people that drive the same route many, many times, when all of a sudden they're stopped for what appears to be no good reason. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: I want to make two brief comments and they will be brief, the other comments I'll keep for other bil ls. The point that is raised about the provincial share of the capital gain refund, Mr.

Speaker, I would li ke to make the point again with the Mini ster of Financ e. because I belie ve that there were certain people in the Province of Manitoba voted for the pres ent government on the strength that they would, in fact. benefit from a removal of the provincial share of that capital gains. Mr. Speaker, I would only think it would be fair to revert back some time prior to the first time that announcement was made by the govern ment last fall, because it has been traditional that a lot of people in the fal l of the year sell their property.

I think that a lot of inn ocent people, people who felt they were getting some rel ief under this particular announcement of program, who sold last fall. find out that they do now not qual ify and that, I think, Mr. Speaker, is unfair. I would hope the Min ister of Financ e would take a look at the amount of money that would be involved because I think it would be very. very small amounts of money. It's not a matter of recommending exorbitant expen ditures but a small amount of money to help a few committed agricultur e people who are sel ling their property prior to the end of December 31 st.

It's not a large amount of money but a few people - I know one or two in my own constituency -feel a little bit put off. I could say, that they aren't now able to qualify because of the fact they sold last fal l. That is one issue that I hope the Min ister would at least take a look at the dollars and be pre pared to move on it if at all possible. The second point, and I as well want to say that I think the fuel dealers and the people who have filling stat ions or pr ovide gas oline outle ts along the Saskatchewan-Manitoba boundary do. in fact, appr e ciate the move made by the Min ister.

I think that's certainly been stated prior to this. One of the concerns that have been brought to my attention, and I have to register it with the Min ister, and that is the mechanism or the system used to either allow people exemption of tax or the collection of tax. The bulk dealers. in particul ar, Mr. Speaker. have some severe difficultie s with some of the mechanisms that are put in pl ace to admin ister the program and I want the Min ister to take into account that kind of mechan ism he's using to either exempt people from paying tax in the boundary towns or take a review of it. I give a specific example.

One bulk dealer, for example , indicated to me that he was asked to sign an 3674

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 affidavit wh en a particular person fill ed up with a bulk tank at his particular outlet and he had to be responsi ble for how that fuel was used. He. as a dealer, alter the truck leaves the par ticular prem ises, I don't bel ieve should be held responsible and I think there are other mechanisms to police the taxation mechanism that's been put in place and have the end consumer of that commodity be responsi ble for how it's used and penali ze him or her.

So again, I want the Min ister to know that it's appr e ciated in western Man itoba but the question is, can he in fact strea mline the policing of it or the exemption of that particular program, through the bulk dealers. so that it takes some of the onus off them and they aren't subject to severe penalties when, in fact, the general public are benefiting from that particular program. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MF!. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If there are no further com ments, the Honourable Min ister will be closing debate on Bill 45. The Honourable Min ister. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do apologize.

I missed the first several speeches but I caught the rest of them. The Member for Rh ineland asked for an example of wh at happens with respect to the Capital Gain s Tax rebate and you can't really do it on the basis of the price per acre. What you can do it on is the bas is of sale value as opposed to purchase price or as opposed to V-Day value, Decem ber 31 st, 19 71.

So if you have a farm that you paid $1 00,000 for after December 31s t, 19 71 or was worth that amount on December 31s t, 19 71, and you sell it for, say, $500,000 today, you're deemed to have a $400,000 Capital Gain minus wha t ever the value of your farmyard is. or $1 ,000 a year, whic hever you decide to take. So assuming your farmyard is worth $50,000, you're down to a Capital Gain of $350,000.00. What this program will do is enti tle you to a refund of that portion of your capital gain, $200,000 of that $350,000, would not be ta xable in Manitoba.

You would pay the tax initially when you file your return to the Federal Govern ment and then apply for a rebate of that portion. Of course, on a $200,000 Capital Gain, by the time you convert that into income, it's $1 00,000 worth of taxable income. and that would be the amount you would be entitle d to deduct from your income for that year. In terms of the surtax, several people have referred to the surtax and the fact that there will be some numb er chan ges because of deindexation.

First of all, that change will not take pl ace for taxpayers for the 19 82 taxation year, as I understa nd the Budget, that is something that will kick in for next year and so the numb ers are correct for the year 19 82. When we get into our own 19 82-83 year that we're dealing with here, in the last month or two of that year, there will be changes because we will be at a 6 percent indexation rather than possibly 11 percent.

I'd indicated to the Member for Turtle Mountain this morn ing that we will be sending him a revised copy of the table that had been provided in the Budget documents. as well we will attempt to ascertain the percentage of taxable income that people in the highest brackets are required to pay out in total taxation. As I recal l the numb ers from before the cha nge s, last year maximum taxation for Man itobans was appr oximately 65 percent if you were in the highest bracket.

This year, with the changes and the surtax, we're at about 55 percent of taxable income as a max imum bracket; so there's approximately a 1 O point reduction in total taxation, a provincial reduction for those who are above the qualifying inc ome. Now, there was a reference made to

Section 68 by the Member for Morris.

That was an increase from 80 percent to 10 0 percent on railway fuel and wha t that does is maintain the tax relationship that exists between diesel fuel used on highway and that used off highwa y, that is, specifically railway locomotives. so that's the explanation for that one. 3675 We've also had a numb er of members refer to the fact that the Department of Financ e does have some revenuers out there who are occasionall y examining motor vehicle s for purple fuel and one of the regretta ble facts of life is that occasionally they catch some body using purple fuel -(I nterjection)- yes, farmers are colour blind.

They can see green very we ll though and we can all tel l stories about these ins tances. In an earlier incarnation, when I was practising la w out in the country, I recall an instance wher e I had a farmer come in to see me and he explai ned how he had been at a wat ering hole or a pl ace wh ere -(l nterject ion)- of course, he didn't kn ow a thing about it. I have never yet run into an individual who had purple gas in his or her vehicle who actually fil led the vehicle with that purple gas.

It was their friend, their neighb our, their son, their daughter, their wife, whoever and I suppose, because we have these other people who do these thing s we wind up in this position wh ere the law is wr itten the way it is and, of course, that has gone back many many years. In terms of the enf orcement, the enforcement has been there through chan ges in gov ernment as well. There was a specific complain t by the Member for Morris that the people were unk empt and tha t does concern me.

In fact, we are currently considering issu ing some form of clothing to the officers in order that they can be identifie d as individuals who are com plia nce officers under The Gasoline Tax Act because I recognize that there is a concern out there. If people are stopped in the middle of the even ing by people who are driving an unma rked vehicle, they have no clothing identification. there's an initial strong reluc tance to comply with any request made by them.

Cer tainly, that same reluctance isn't present when it is RCMP officers who do it, so that's something the Member for Lakeside had previously raised the con cern about and we have been looking at that and hope to be able to come up with a solution very quickly. The former Min ister of Agriculture the Member for Arthur, indicated that there were some difficulties with respect to the operation of the reductions in sal es· tax as in the border communities.

The Member for Rh ineland also referred to some problems along border communi ties with a different border - the American border -and those are items that are under consideration, they are under review. As the members will un derstand, when we ini tially im posed the change s. it was done after the Saskatchewan changes had been in effect for only several days and it was a very quick response. We are now going to wait a few

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 months to analy ze what gasoline sales have been sinc e then; wha t diesel fuel sales have been since then and. if necessary and appr opriate, if we can make changes that will be beneficial to Man itoba individuals who are in busine ss out there which will not be a large cost to our Treas ury, then we will certainly look at those changes later on.

I should say, although I expect that probably the Member for Turtle Mountain will get into this in more detail under the Health and Post Secondary Educa tion Bill that I do have, I will make some comments at that time with respect to invasion of privacy, etc .. and the taxation provisions. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 46 -THE HEAL TH AND POST SE CONDARY EDUCATION TAX LEVY ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed resolution of the Honourable Minister of Financ e. Bill No. 46, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker.

I'd lik e to make a few comments on this Bill 46, The Health and Post Secon dary Education Tax Levy Act, otherwise kn own as The Payroll Tax Act or The Health Care Premiums Act, depending upon how far the Min ister want s to go in drawing the analogy between this and the On tario situation. Mr. Speaker.

I have just a few points to make on this bill, one of the thin gs being that it has been brought up in the Howse on a numb er of occasions that the gov ernment is attempting to imple ment this tax in a rather casual fashion. to say the least. that the government and the Minis ter should have been aware that there was some concern about the constitutional ity of the Act.

But when the Mini ster was asked in question period on one ocasion wh ether this Act was constitu tional or not. he treated it in a rather offhand, flipp ant fashion and said that he had a legal opinion from the Attorney-General - and it was quite evident the Attorney-General had simp ly given to him between the time the Minister was asked the question and the time that he answered the question -and, Mr. Speaker, I think it was a legi timate question for the Op position to be asking.

Now, the govern ment has sought a legal opinion and I haven't had an opportunity to look care fully at that myself. but I understand that perhaps it does recommend tha t the govern ment is going to have to tighten up their wording of the Act. The legal opinion that we have from the Legisla tive Counsel is somewha t contrary to the one which the government has obtained.

It would seem to me that it would be wise for the government to immediately seek the agreement of the Federal Government to pay the tax. as on the basis that they have been paying a similar tax in Quebec. and tha t there are other taxes which they pay by agreement; other taxes not being the health care premiums, for instance. which they pay on behalf of emp loyers in, for example, the Prov ince of On tario. because of negotiations tha t take pla ce between the emp loyers and the employees. Mr.

Speaker, I don't belie ve that the Minis ter should pursue that analogy because, as I pointed out, if it's pursued very far it's very easy to see that this levy could well be interpreted as a health care premium, whi ch the government, of course, says they would never want to institute. Mr.

Speaker, the bill has a numb er of provisions in it which outside people have once again taken excep tion to -and I say again because the bill doesn't go to committee wh ere the public has an opportunity to make subm issions on the bill and to raise their objec tions - I would li ke to make reference to some of those objections that have been dealt with in the press. For example, in the Winnip eg Free Press of Ju ne 25, there are comments made by Mr. London, the Dean of the Law School and by Mr. Matas, the lawyer well known for his advocacy of civil rights, civil li berties. Mr.

Speaker, they took particular exception to the reverse onus cla uses that app ear in this bill and there's a quotation in this

article from Mr. London in which he says and I quote: "I think in any offence. to reverse the onus onto the (accused) is not only unde sirable, but ill egal," London said, and I quote again: "I thin!< it's an improper provision." Mr. Matas said that the

section placing the burden of proof on the emp loyer should be struck out of the proposed law and he said and I quote, "This looks to me lik e a clear violation of the Charter of Ri ghts." A further quotation, "It should just simp ly be taken out." There are other quotations that I perhaps should put on the record. Mr. Speaker, this one also from Mr. Matas in which he said and I quote. "That is wid e open." This by the way, is in reference to

Section 18 .2. He said, "Tha t is wide open. It's clear that this law was not drafted with a fine concern for civil li berties." Now I'm sure that is not the kind of comment that the memb ers opposite lik e to hear being made about bills which they have drafted and brought before this Legislature. So, Mr. Speaker, I bel ieve the government should pay particular attention to the comments that have been made by such people as Mr. London and Mr. Matas, espec ially since they're unable to appear before Committee and make representat ion directly to the Committee. 3676 The headline. by the way, on that

article said, "Ex perts Say Proposed Act a Violation of Righ ts," and I referred earlier to other provisions in the previous bill which might be considered to be the same sort of violation. Mr. Speaker, I put those on the record. It's something that I'm sure could be dealt with at great length. It's the sort of thin g that the former Member for Wel li ngton, the present Mcimber for El lice, would have dealt with at least 40 minutes on every occasion he could. and I'm quite surpris ed that the Member for Ell ice is not standing up now and spea kin g to these provisions of the bill which Mr. London and Mr.

Matas say are clear violations of the Charter of Ri ghts and a reversal in its claus es are something that the govern ment simply shouldn't have. So I don't kn ow wh ether the members opposite have changed their position or whether the front bench has been able to impose their will upon the Member ior Elli ce but in any case, Mr. Speaker, it's the sort of thing that I would have expected the Member for El lice to stand up and fight against. There are a few things within this Act, Mr. Speaker, which should be referred to. Perhaps the Minister can

just confirm as he makes his comments, that this is indeed going to be one more sort of reporting proce dure that every small busi ness, every employer, is going to have to make in terms of the paper that has to be dealt with every month.

I know this ma y seem a small thing to the Min ister; it may be a small thing, indeed, to companies and emp loyers who have peo ple hired to do those sp ecific pieces of work, but bel ieve me it's not a small thing for the farmer or the small busi nessman wh o's struggling, tryin g to do all these thin gs himself or herself, and then to have some of the provisions that are in this bill where the Min ister simpl y may assess fine s, penalties, agains t the person who hasn' t filed their return. If it's read very carefully, Mr.

Speaker, it's really quite a frighten ing array of powers which are given to the inspectors to enforce this bill and I think a nu mber of people have made the point, that this is not the sort of tax whic h requires even the same kind of powers that might be required with respect to the collection of income tax, for instanc e. This is really quite a simple thin g to determine wha t sort of a payroll an employer has and that these sorts of powers are perhaps simp ly not required. Something else that caught my eye in this bill, Mr.

Speaker, was the fact that it seems the government here is going to have first call over the wage earners in cases wh ere a company is going bankr upt or has gone ban krupt, tha t the governme nt is going to step in and take their pound of flesh before the wage earner gets theirs.

Now I'm su rprised in a case lik e this that the Min ister of Labour and the Min ister of Northern Affairs, would not be objecting to this sort of provi sion, or the Member for Ellic e, because I recall discus sion, debate, in the House over the past two or three years wh ere those members fought tooth and nail over issues wh ere mortgage holders were pla ced above the priority of the wage earner. Now wha t are those members doing bringing in this kind of provi sion i n this kind of bill? I'd like to know the Minister's rationale for doing that. A little thing perhaps in here as we ll, Mr. Speaker.

Why doesn't the government pay the same rate of interest on overpayments of money under this tax as they are going to charge people for late payment? Why is it that the govern ment on one hand can charge a certain rate for people who haven't paid and when they turn around and make a refund, they're only obliged to pay three-quarters as much as the individ ual would have to pay? Where is the equali ty in that from this government that lik es to think of thems elves as being so much in favour of justice and equality?

Surely that's a little thing that could have been done to make this invidious tax less dilficult for people to sw all ow. Maybe the Min ister would consider bringing in an amendm ent and changing that provision of the Act. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask, if it isn't too late for the Min ister and mem bers opposite to go through and look at the various provisions in this Act that grant such strong powers to the people who are going to be enforcing it and such strong powers to the Min ister who has the power simply to assess penaltie s against people who fail to file a return and penaltie s that are provided, be assessed by the Min ister for the failure to supply information. 1982 There's a

Section in here, Mr. Speaker, which as a layman I read to be something that I find rather repug nant, that the right to examine records, for instance, that the Min ister or director, or if duly authorized for the purpose, any person appointed by the Min ister or peace officer, may from time to time at all reasonable times and without warrant enter upon the business prem ises of any empl oyer or any premis es wher e the business records of an emp loyer are kept, other than a private dwel ling house that is not used for busi ness purposes. Wel l, Mr.

Speak er, wha t if the private dwel ling house is used for business purposes, as many homes are? Is this another case wh ere the inspectors can enter the home without a warrant because it's used for busi ness? Now, I hope I'm wrong on that, Mr. Speaker, but perhaps the Min ister would clear that up. The

section itself says only at reasonable times; it doesn't say that the reasons have to be reasonable, it only has to be at a reasonable time. The power is simply there that if duly authorized they may enter and search and seize. So, Mr. Speaker, I'd li ke the Min ister to have a careful look at that

section as well. The re are other provisions in this Act, again these are the reverse onus clauses, I guess, Mr. Speaker, and deal with things lik e a person having a notice served upon them that has been mailed. The onus is on the employer to prove otherwise, to prove that he hasn' t received it. Well now, given the postal system that we have in this country how do I, as an employer, set out to prove that I haven't received something that the Min ister says was put in the mail? That's the sort of provision, Mr. Speaker, which simp ly shouldn't be in

an Act like this. I don't care if it's in other Acts before, it's time to start examining these provisions and see whe ther they're really necessary. I expect that's one of the claus es that the gentlemen to whom I referred earl ier were also referring to in the reverse onus clauses. 3677 Again, there is a further claus e, Onus of Proof, wher e the onus is on the emp loyer to prove that no tax is payable. Und er the appeal process, Mr.

Speaker, it's necessary, again, that when an employer app eals the decision of the Min ister, and by the way the decision of the Min ister as I read it in one of these cases, is where the Min ister can sim ply assess a pena lty against the employer for various reasons; and the emp loyer can then appeal to the Min ister, the same person who has assessed the penalty to begin with, they ultimately can appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench, but the onus shall be on the person to disprove the assess ment as affirmed or amended by the decision of the Min ister.

As a layman, I read that to mean that the employer is going to be guil ty unl ess he's able to prove himself innocent. I don't think th at's the kind of provision that this Legisla ture should be passing. Those are some of the concerns that we have with the bill, Mr. Speaker, we also have a lot of concerns with the principle of this tax which the Min ister terms a health and post secondary education levy. It is not an equitable tax as the Min ister has said in his Budget, Mr. Speaker; it's not equitable because it hits upon all areas of the economy, upon the consu mers of food, for exampl e.

People who are on low incomes and fixed incomes that, of course, have to have the basic fun damentals of life, are hit with this tax because of the increases that it's going to bring about in the cost of

Tuesday, 29 June, 1982 food. It is inequitable as it treats busi nesses that are in different financial condition; the busine sses that are making a profit are not hit as hard by this tax as those that are already in difficulty because those that are makin g a profit. of course. are able to declare it as an expense. write it off agains t their tax payable . partly to the Federal Government, partly to the province. Those that are already losing money are in difficulty because they can't get that sort of writ eoff.

It's a tax that the Min ister has pl aced on empl oy ment at a time when thousands and thousands of people are unemplo yed in the province. I'm sure that someone looking at our situation from the outside could view it objectively and see wha t the circumstan ces were in terms of unem ployment and the need for economic activity in the provinc e and they would see the government imposing a tax on employment. they would think that surely that was a most perverse action to be taken. We also kn ow, Mr. Speaker, that this tax is going to be placed upon.

I bel ieve by the Minis ter's own figures. payrolls that are already tax supported in the range of 17 percent to 19 percent of the revenue that's going to be derived from this tax is already taxation money. So !he very large portion of this tax is going to be taken from one pocket and simpl y put into another. So. Mr. Speaker, I think that the Min ister in settling upon this tax had perhaps done it on rather short notice without examining all the impl ications of it. In fact.

I think the First Min ister told the House that this was a tax that it was only in the last couple of weeks before the Budget came in that they settled upon this tax. I can quite appr eciate the discussion that took pl ace that someone had sugge sted that. ah. we have a tax here that we're going to put it to the feds; we're going to recover some of this money from the feds; we've al ready built up this expectation that there's going to be a sales tax; we're going to avoid that so that we' ll be able to say, ah, we didn't have to bring in a sales tax that everybody was expecting.

We're going to bring in this tax that is going to impin ge upon the Federal Governmen t; we're going to get back some of our money. But I don't think they fully realized some of the other impl ications of this bill. Mr. Speaker. we've dealt with those before and I'm not going to dwel l any longer now but, of course, Mr. Speaker, we will be unable to support this bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Rhi neland. MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I rise to supp ort the statements made by the Member for Turtle Mountai n. My concerns are very simila r to the concerns that he expressed and I don't t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-86b
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 86b.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8578e20457f6cd0230a9c6afe8e210215c171a17

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