Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 42A (32nd Legislature, 4th Session)

32-4-42a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 6 May, 1985. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SP EAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports By Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Arst Minister Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY : Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to proceed with a statement, but copies of that statement will be in for distribution within the next minute or two. Do you want to wait? MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. l. DESJARDINS introduced, by leave, Bill No. 39,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act. HON. A. ANSTETT introduced, by leave, on behalf of the Honourable Minister of Employment Services and Economic Security, Bill No. 40, The Workplace Innovation Centre Act;

Loi sur le Centre d'innovation des lieux de travail. (Recommended by Her Honour the Lieutenant- Governor.) INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of members to the gallery where we have 33 students of Grade 5 standing from the Collicutt Elementary School. They are under the direction of Mrs. Chick and the school is in the constituency of Kildonan. There are 27 students of Grade 9 standing from the Murdock MacKay Collegiate under the direction of Mrs. Trush. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines.

On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Communications Service Div. jurisdiction of MR. SP EAK ER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier. Last week, in response to a question about a memo that was sent by the Premier's media secretary to directors of communication, the Premier indicated that communications directors in the various departments report directly to the Deputy Ministers of those departments.

In view of the fact that the government has also appointed an Assistant Deputy Minister of Communications Services Division, Mr. Cohen, who I assume is responsible for communications people in the govern ment, I wonder what is the reporting relationship with the jurisdiction of Mr. Cohen with respect to these people. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Arst Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, Mr.

Cohen, the Deputy Minister responsible for Communications is responsible for co-ordinating the various communications, not just of the communicators in various departments, but communications involving all areas, Including photography, all matters pertaining to the general coverage information services in regard to government, to co-ordinate the various communication necessities of government. Cohen, Mr., ADM - Responsibilities re communications MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, are we to take from that, that Mr.

Cohen, who is being paid $52,000 as an Assistant Deputy Minister, has no jurisdiction over the communications directors then? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, no. As I Indicated, the responsibility of Mr. Cohen, is a matter that I think would be well dealt with during the Estimates process of discussing the overall responsibilities for Mr. Cohen. His responsibilities are co-ordination of communications, insofar as government Is concerned, to ensure that there is no overlapping and no duplication, that there is a clear focus insofar as government communications.

Too frequently in the past there has been a great deal of overlapping, a lack of co-ordination insofar as communications is concerned. His responsibility Is to co-ordinate the various communications of government, which is, I must say, a fundamental and extremely important responsibility of any government In today's modern society to ensure that there is communication of programs relating to government activities to the public at large. MR. G.

FILMON: So, if I'm to understand it then, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Communications Division only co-ordinates the efforts, but he doesn't have jurisdiction over these communicators. Is that right? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, yes, as I Indicated, the communicators report to the various Deputy Ministers, unlike the previous situation of the previous administration where I believe - and I stand to be 1582

Monday, 8 May, 1985 corrected by th e honour able mem ber - th e communicators reported to the Min isters in the various departments. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, in those days we didn't have the 132 extra people that have been hired by this Minister, so I'm not sure where all of these people report. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Premier could Ind icate whether or not there Is any jurisdiction whatsoever on the part of his media secretary, Mr. Cramer, over these various communications officers and directors. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, not any direct responsibility, except to ensure of course that in these programs, as in fact it is with any other program that is detailed by government, there must be co-ordination and information. As I indi cated last week to the honourable member, I have made no secret of my displeasure over the memo being forwarded to the Directors of Communication by the Communications representative of my own staff. MR. G.

FILMON: We have two people co-ordinating their efforts, both the Assistant Deputy Min ister and the Premier's media secretary, but neither of them has juri sdiction. lt's the Deputy Min isters who have jurisdiction over them. I think I unde rstand it now, Mr. Speaker. CGE, threatened closure - Protection of Limestone contract and taypayers MR. G.

FILMON: My question further for the Premier is, in view of the fact that there's been a recent report in Ottawa and in the eastern news media about the fact that CGE has been put on a "fix" list by its parent company, General Electric of the United States, they've been told that they are either in line to fix, close or sell CGE.

My question to the Premier is, is there anything within the contract that his admini stration has signed with CGE with respect to the purchase of turbine generators for Limestone that will protect Manitobans against the consequences of such a decision by the parent firm, General Electric, to close CGE in Mani toba, should that occur? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, the honour able member leads with a premise that is incorrect, relating to another question. The question with regard to communications was not answered In the way that the opposition leader knows.

The responsibility of co ordination Is that of the Deputy Min ister responsible for Communications and I did not, and the honourable mem ber unfortunately misrepresented - and th e hono urable member is smarter than to sugge st otherwise - my med ia representative has no responsibility for co-ordination Insofar as the . MR. G. FILMON: Who said he did? HON. H. PAWLEY: Well, you did just a few moments ago. Insofar as the matter pertaining to Canadian General Electric, the Acting Minister responsible for Energy will respond to that question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll take that question as notice and provide the information at the appropriate time. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I have placed that question on a couple of occasions now and lt has been taken as notice on behalf of the Min ister of Energy and Mines and I'm concerned that the Premier ought to know - when his admin istration has entered Into $100 million contract, without tend er, with a company that is being thr eatened with closure by its parent company in the United States - whether or not there is any protection for the people of Manitoba and that contract. MR.

SPEAKER : The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Indeed If that comment or that statement is in order, I would ask for the opportunity to respond by way of like statement. Mr. Speaker, I think it is regrettable when we have a statement such as this in the House. We have no reason whatsoever to believe that there are any problems whatsoever in regard to the Canadian General Electric contr act. The Mini ster who is responsible has indicated that he will check into the allegations that have been raised, Mr. Speaker.

But unfortunately this is another example of an opposition In this Cham ber, that rather than wait for facts, rather than wait for Information, would prefer to spread fear and gloom and concern throughout the Province of Manitoba. lt is evidence of an Irresponsible, opportunistic opposition that is prepared to spread that kind of gloom rather than wait for factual information. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I will remind all members that question period is a tim e for asking questions and not for making statements. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, last week I placed the question and it was taken as notice by the Deputy Premier on behalf of the Premier and the Min ister of Energy. Last week I quoted from an

article In the Free Press on Tuesday, which had that story outlined. Later, on Wednesday, there was an

article in the Brandon Sun, and the Premier was in Brandon, so I assume he was made aware of it. All I ask is, is the Premier aware of anything in the contract that would protect Manit obans? I'm not trying to spread fear; I want to know if he has any information and whether or not Manitobans are protected. All I want is a straightforward answer, no rhetoric. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to be driven to premature responses by an opposition that depends on newspaper clippings and anonymous phone calls. Hudson Bay area - Oil and gas exploration MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. 1583

Monday, 8 May, 1985 MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the First Minister. lt would appear that oil and gas exploration is imm inent in the Hudson Bay area and I simply ask the Premier what his government is doing to protect Mani toba 's in terest with respect to jurisdiction in that potential area of exploration? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, so that we can provide a full and complete response, I'll accept that question as notice on behalf of the Minister. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, while the First Minister is taking that question as notice - and I appreciate that the Minister of Energy isn't here and I'm not asking specific questions relative to the oil exploration that has been announced principally from Calgary - but, Mr. Speaker, the First Min ister was around in the late Sixties and early Seventies when the Government of the Day was involved in discussions with the provinces that share the border of Hud son Bay; namely, Ontario and Quebec, that negotiations were under way to draw jurisdictional li nes into the Hudson Bay area; my question is, Mr.

Speaker, is this government pursuing discussions at the moment with Ottawa to ensure that Manitobans' interests are protected? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, let me assure the Honour able Member for Lakeside, the Opposition House Leader, that this government will pursue a policy to ensure that the people of the Province of Manitoba realize just as good a deal from the Federal Government as the Federal Government is prepared to give to the Government of the Province of Newfoundland in respect to their offshore oil resources.

We will pursue vigorously, if there are indeed offshore oil developments that can be utilized to the advantage of Manitobans - we will insist that Manitobans receive as good a deal as was hande d to the Government of Newfoundland by the Federal Government. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, all I'm trying to do is ascertain what this government has done, not what they will do. A consortium of oil companies has indicated they are spending some $40 million on exploration in the Hudson Bay area. I'd like to know from the Premier, have his representatives met with this group? Have they talked to them, and when?

While I'm asking this question, Mr. Speaker, what has our own oil company, ManOII, had to do in bringing about this exploration program? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would ask you when indeed a question is in order if it's repeated a second and a third time in this Chamber, when I have already indicated that I will be giving to the House a full report. Hudson Bay area exploration - Impact on environment MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Min ister responsible for the Environment.

As indicated, some $40 million are going to be spent in exploration for oil and gas in the ecologically sensitive environment of the Hudson Bay. Has the Minister of the Environment met and been fully informed by the group that is carrying on the exploration, and are his officials meeting with the companies that are going to be involved in this exploration? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister for the Environm ent. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. All that I can say at this time, Mr.

Speaker, is that there have, indeed, been discussions between staff of my department and staff of my department have indi cated to me that they were preparing a status paper on this particular issue. As well, the Compensation Board has asked for updated details in terms of the operation, so that the workers in that area can be protected by compensation. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I can remember when a colleague of mine took considerable flak because of some

interpretation involving the polar bears, but my more serious question to the Mi nister of the Environment is, has he, first of all, established that he and his department has any jurisdiction in Hudson Bay with respect to environmental matters? HON. G. LECUYER: I have indicated that I've asked staff for a status paper on that particular issue and I expect that that is part of the information that I will be getting from staff. DEW Line Upgrading of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr.

Speaker, a month or so ago, the Premier took as notice the question of requesting the Federal Government to consider Churchill as a major distribution centre for the supply of goods and services for the forthcoming upgrading of the DEW line, and I wonder if the Premier has communicated with the Federal Government, and what response has he received? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, that question Is taken on behalf of the Minister of Transportation, who has been working on the entire question of the distribution centre from the Port of Churchill. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, at the recent meeting that we did have with a number of Mi nisters of the Federal Government, we were assured that Churchill would get high priority in a number of areas, one being the season extension that we've been working on for some time, as well as the continued progress on the developments that were agreed to with the previous Federal Government under the sub-agreements. 1584

Mondar, 8 May, 1985 We have received no specific assurances with regard to the re-supply activities that could be associated with revamping and upgrading of the DEW line, howev er, there have been assurances tha t Churchill would be retained as a major distribution centre in the North, and obviously this would be one area that would benefit Churchill. However, we don't have specific response to that particular area at the present time.

I feel confident, however, as a result of our meeting, that Churchill will be getting its share of consideration tor any new developments, and we will continue to make representations in those areas. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister can tell the House as to when actual on-site work will be commencing on those projects? HON . J. PL OHMAN: Mr. Speak er, I don't ha ve information as to when the actual work will begin; I can take that as notice and see if I can find out. MR. D. GOURL AY: Another question to the same Minister.

As I understand it, the sites of Beausejour and Gypsumville on the Pinetree line will be closed as a result of the upgrading of the DEW line. Will the province have any Input into discussions with respect to the implications that will have for those communities? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Speaker, without having had direct discussion on this particular matter, at the present time I can assure the member tha t we, on this side, the government, is very concerned about the closures of those areas, and we will be making every attempt.

The Federal Government, at this time, has not offered to consult with us regarding those closures. We will be making every attempt to ensure that before they are closed that we do have an opportunity to have Input into what is happening there, Mr. Speaker. At the present time, we 've received no communications from the Federal Government, except to hear tha t they are Intending to close those bases. lt is a concern because that is the main industry In those areas, especially the one up at Gypsumville.

Obviously, that's the reason for the townsite and there would have to be a massive change in the way of making a living for most of the people in that area. CMHC - increasing of rents MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Mr. Speaker, my question is tor the Minister of Housing. Over the last few weeks, I received a number of reports that CMHC ha s been increasing rents in Manitoba by as much as 8 percent, ne arly double the rent control guideline figure.

In view of the fact that CMHC, which is not legally bound to follow rent controls, has voluntarily been following rent controls in the past , I'd lik e to ask the Minister if he' s received any information from CMHC that indicates they are no longer following the rent control guidelines in Manitoba? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank the Member for Thompson for tha t question.

I would confirm that, in fact, Canada Mortgage and Housing in its limited dividend housing projects has been increasing rents ih excess of the 4.5 percent guideline that we have used in Manitoba. My understanding is that Canada Mortgage and Housing is, as a matter of policy, trying to recoup some of the subsidies on these projects and will be increasing its rents in excess of our guidelines. I haven't seen the written policy, but staff is expecting something shortly from Ott awa. At that time, we will seriously consider the inclusion of limited dividend housing under our Rent Regulation Act. MR. S.

ASHTON: In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that CMHC in the case of non-limited dividend housing in the past followed rent controls to the point of refunding rents over and above the rent control guideline figure a number of years ago, and in view of the fact that this latest information indicates that there's a new policy of the Federal Government which Indicates they're no longer following rent controls for any of their properties, I'd like to ask the Minister whether he can raise this with the Federal Minister of Housing on behalf of the tenants affected? HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, as I've indicated, once we do get a written confirmation of this policy, we certainly will be discussing this with the Federal Minister of Housing and we will be giving consideration to amending our regulations to include limited dividend housing under The Rent Regulation Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

Prior to recognizing the Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek, I wonder If I might direct the attention of members to the gallery where there are 40 students from Beliveau Junior High School and 35 exchange students from the Province of Quebec under the direction, all of them, of Mr. Trudeau. The school is in the Constituency of the Honourable Minister for the Environment. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS cont'd Hudson Bay area exploration - Availability of business, Man. businessmen MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNST ON: Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Business Development. We have seen a lot of advertising for Limestone and we 've heard about the spin-off for building power plants, etc. Mr. Speaker, the announcement that there is going to be $40 million spent in the Churchill area almost immedi ately, can I ask the Minister what he has done workirg with the businessmen of the Province of Manitoba to find out what business will be available to the busire ;men of 1585

MondaJ, 8 May, 1985 Manitoba supplying that industry that is starting in Churchill? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe tha t question has essentially been taken as notice. I can assure the honourable member that my department, through the small business section, will be ensuring that whatever possibilities there are for supply and services that go to feeding an activity of this kind will be made known through a number of vehicles, including the Small Business Report that goes out from my department to small businesses in the province.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize that there's a considerable distance between those activities and many of the suppliers who may be interested, but all we can do at this point is ensure that small businesses understand what is taking place and that they have an opportunity to work with those particular investors to make sure that Manitobans benefit. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the Min ister, in answering the question, told us what will be done and he told us also that he'd be sending out a bulletin which comes out about once a month or once every two months.

Can I ask the Minister, what has been done to service a $40 million industry that's starting in Manitoba tomorrow or next week? And I also ask the Min ister, did he know it was happening? HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I can only answer the member by saying that whatever needs to be done will be done and I can honestly say that the individuals who are makin g this In vestment did not confer personally with me. I think that it is unfortunate that there wasn't that kind of consultation. Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the member that I will be taking this up with staff and we will be using whatever is at the disposal of the department to assist small businesses in both Northern Manitoba and other parts of the provinc e so that they can partake of the investment that is occurring in the Churchill area. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the announcement said that there would be a ship on the bay with staff. The ship will be supplying the drilling rigs with parts and materials. lt also said that there will be a large number of people who will be living in hotels in Churchill.

I ask the Minister again - or maybe I should ask the Min ister who has been up there to see who's going to get this business? Is it somebody from another province or has he had his people up ther e looking to find out who's getting the business, before now? Does he not know what's happening in business in the Province of Manitoba? A MEMBER: No, he doesn't. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I will confess to the honourable member that I have not had any personal information transmitted to me from the individuals who are making this investment.

Let me clear up for the individual that the major portion of this investment goes to the supplying of the drilling equipment and the ship that's going to be required for that particular enterprise. To members opposite, I'm not denying the fact that this is a significant event and it fits in very nicely with what members on this side, in particular, have seen it being important for the community of Churchill and the Churchill area, in terms of expanding its base, but, Mr. Speaker, I again say that the indiv iduals who are making this investment did not confer with me or to my knowledge, anyone in the department.

When we became aware of that happening, obviously, we will be making ourselves available and department personnel will be making themselves available to take advantage of whatever spinoffs there might be from that activity. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Min ister, has he had any communication with the Norman Development Commit tee? Has he had any communication with his development officers or do those people who answer to him as Minister not communicate with him? HON. J. STORIE: Mr.

Speaker, no, to my knowledge the Norman Regional Development Corporation has neither been in contact with my department or Mr. Ma cGuir e, nor have the individuals making the investment been in contact with Norman to see what use and what value ttiey might offer to support this project. Abortion Government's position MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Minister. I would ask him - I'm trying to locate his statement - I would ask him if he could not confirm that he indicated previously in this House in response to a question from Mr.

Doern that he, as Premier, supported the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to abortions. · MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that support the general parameters of the existing law. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, on Thu rsday, May 2, 1985, I asked the Attorney-General In the Committee of Supply, whether he or through his depar tment, made any representations to the Federal Government with respect to changing the existing provisions of the Criminal Code on abortion and the Attorney-General responded, "I personally have advised the Minister of Justice of the fact that I and my party in Manitoba, by resolution, are opposed to

Section 251 of the code," which is the

section with respect to abortion. Would the Premier like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, if the Attorney-General will be resigning or will be asked to resign, or who is speaking on behalf of the New 1586

Monday, 8 llay, 1985 Democratic Party and the Government of Manitoba , the Premier or the Attorney-General? HON. H. PAWLEY: Unlike the opposition across the way that - obviously. whether or not they do prefer a monolithic position in respect to matters that pertain to issues of personal conscience, matters pertaining to ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, the issue that is at stake, and that is most important in dealing with this entire question, is not whether or not X's personal opinion is such, or Y's personal opinion is wh atever, what is the point at stake is the responsibility of the Provincia l Government - the responsibility of the Provincial Government is to enforce the laws as they are on the statute books of Canada. Mr. Speaker, that indeed is what the Attorney-General is doing.

I would like to commend the Attorney-General for proceeding to enforce the laws despite the attempts by honourable members across the way, again to create their usual attempts to generate uncertainty and fear and confusion, so that it becomes a daily diet in this Legislature from honourable members across the way. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, it is the Premier and the Attorney-Genera l who have created the uncertainty and the confusion. The Premier has indicated that he, as Premier, is supportive of the existing provisions of the Criminal Code on abortion.

The Attorney-General has indicated that he and the NDP Party in Manitoba are opposed to the provisions of the Criminal Code on abortion. My question to the Premier is this, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier have one position with respect to the provisions on abortion in the Criminal Code and the NDP Party another position which is different from that? HON. H. PAWLEY: I'm proud to say that in our party we tolerate differing points of view and there can be differing personal point of view, unlike obviously honourable members across the way and through their party that do not tolerate different points of view, Mr.

Speaker. I'm pleased to be a member of a political party that accepts a broad spectrum of points of view in respect to issues like this. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, does the Premier intend to request the Attorney-Genera l then to advise the Minister of Justice tha t when the Attorn ey-General advised him tha t the NDP Party is opposed to the existing provisions of the Criminal Code, tha t he was not speaking as Attorney-General, he was not speaking as the MLA for Fort Rouge, he was speaking solely as a member of the New Democratic Party, and his comments are in no way to be construed as the opinion of the Premier and the Manitoba NDP Government? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether you would classify that as an argumentative question.

The Attorney-General is fulfilling a certain responsibility. In the Province of Manitoba, that responsibility is to enforce the laws of Canada. The Attorney-General is doing that, Mr. Speaker, and whether or not the existing law is the personal view of the Attorney-General is irrelevant to what is an honest, forceful job of enforcing the laws as they exist in respect to Canada, in regard to this matter. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is this: who should the government believe, the Premier of the Province of Manitoba, who says one thing; or the Attorney-General, who says another thing? MR.

SPE AKER: Order please. The question is argumentative. If the honourable member ha s a question seeking Information, he should place it. Jobs Fund - abuse of funds MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister responsible for the Jobs Fund. Can the Minister confirm recent reports that there have been some abuses of Jobs Fund programs? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTY RA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the member for that question.

Unfortunately there was a recent report in Saturday's Winnipeg Free Press that suggested that there was abuse of Jobs Fund programs and that there was no checks on dishonest employers. Unfortunately, either the reporter or the newspaper failed to provide all the information tha t was provided to it . The report that has been mentioned in this

article is not a Jobs Fund program. lt was a previous program of the previous governments with respect to job creation. SOME HONO URABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. E. KOSTY RA: The report that was public, Mr. Speaker, was going back to a program in 1982, alleged abuses during the summers of 1980 and 1981, which was not a Manitoba Jobs Fund program, but was a previous program of the previous government. SOME HONO URABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! Abortion - Government's position MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. A. DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Attorney-General following on the questions of the Member for St. Norbert and the comments of the Premier. The Premier indicated it was the task of the Attorney-Genera l to uphold the existing law ... 1587

Monday, 8 May, 1985 MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. R. DOERN: ... and I would ask the Attorney General, rather than stalling and waiting another couple of years, as he has done on the Morgentaler case - presumably waiting for Onta rio which could go on for months, if not years more - will the Attorney-Genera l commence proceedings against Dr. Morgentaler now? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-Genera l. HON. R. PENNER: Just two short responses. First of all, the proceedings against Dr. Morgentaler have been commenced. The Member for Elmwood is, as usual, wrong in his premises and I go no further with it than that.

Secondly, the way in which the issue has been raised fails to distinguish between the constitutiona l function of an Attorne y-General who must operate without political fetters and the responsibilities which I have, as an individual, and I'm proud of the position I've been able to ta ke in both respects. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Attorney General whether he would be prepared - having blown a number of opportunities - to ma ke it a condition of Dr. Morgentaler's next bail appearance to preclude him from operating his clinic? MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The question is hypothetica l and argumentative . Teacher retirement age and pension reform - Cost to taxpayers MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister of Education. I have in my hands a Manitoba News Service Release dated May 6th, tod ay, titled, "Hemphill announces lowering of tea cher retirement age ." My question to the Minister . . . SOME HONOU RABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I am shocked, first of all, that a ministerial statement was not made with respect to this.

My question is, Mr. Speaker, does not this type of change require some type of debate within the Legislature? We have had a bill that's been introduced in first reading. lt has not been ta bled. Does tha t bill bring into being some of these changes ? Wha t is the state and to what degree will those of us in the Legislature be able to debate these particular issues? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speaker, the bill that I tabled In the Legislature a couple of week s ago does have some of these elements - (Interjection) - the one that I announced will be ta bled - does have these and other matters that deal with compliance of the pension reform that was brought in by this government, so that we are introducing major changes in pension reform throughout our whole system and some of these changes apply to the teachers' pension.

I'm also happy to say that apart from that, we've been willing to successfully negotia te what is a tremendous deal for the people of Manitoba, the students of Manitoba and the taxpayers of Manitoba. MR. C. MANNESS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't know how the Minister can announce these changes if they require legislative ratification before they can be brought forward. Mr. Speaker, what will be the estimated cost of this new program - funded by the government after five years - what will be the cost of this new program to the government and the taxpayers of this province over the next 25 years? HON. M.

HEMP HILL: Mr. Speaker, I think what I attempted to say before Is that those things that require legislation will be brought in the bill before legislation and the other elements have been handled through tough bargaining and negotiation with teachers. I'm glad to say that I really don't believe in the end there's going to be any cost to the taxpayers. In fact, I think there might be a savings to the taxpayers. In the first place th e teachers have agreed to pick up the entire cost of removing the penalty for early retirement for the first five years. SOME HONO URABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear! HON. M.

HEMPHILL: That's going to cost them $5 million, Mr. Speaker, so they're picking up this full cost of the benefit themselves out of the pension fund. But apart from that, we were successfully able to negoti ate another major clause - the removal of a major clause - in the plan tha t could ultimately and, in fact within the next couple of years, have cost the Government of Manitoba $12 million and we have removed that clause completely. That clause was a revenue guarantee, Mr. Speaker, and what it said is, if they didn't earn as much as was projected, that the Government of Manitoba would pick up the difference.

In other words if they projected a 10 percent revenue and it was only 9 percent, that we would be required to pick that up. We have projected the cost to be in the range of $12 million. The teachers have given up a revenue guarantee, so that $12 million savings will accrue to the Province of Manitoba. There is anoth er savings, Mr. Speaker, that I'm sure they want to hear about, because it's for the taxpayers and it's through the local school boards.

Teachers will be retiring at the top end of the salary scale and school boards will be able to hire new, young graduate teachers - which we need in the profession because we have an aging teaching population - and they will be hired at the low end of the scale, Mr. Speaker, and that means school boards will be able to save money. SOME HONO URABLE MEMBERS: Hear, hear! 1588

MondaJ, 8 MaJ, 1985 Early retirement, funding of - government policy MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary, this time addr essed to the Premier of the province. Mr. Speak er, has it now become government policy to fund early retirement of all categories of public service? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, this is an instance where there has been a program worked out through negotiation and with the support of school divisions in the province, many school divisions have forwarded resolutions of support for this proposal.

Teachers, MAST, the Manitoba Association of School Trustees, has ind icated its support for this, Mr. Speaker. In fact this is legislation that I think we can be pleased with, in the Province of Manitoba, that will provide . A MEMBER: We haven't seen it yet. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H. PAWLEY: . . . for opportunity for early retirement of teachers, the opportunity for younger teachers to replace those that are retired, Mr. Speaker. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker. and more important, as has been clear from resolutions from the school division, easing tax pressures on the ratepayers in school divisions and that is indeed one of the points that has been raised by the Manitoba Association of School Trustees. So, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable members want to dig in their heels against a progressive measure such as this, they can do so.

I'm pleased that our Minister of Education was able to proceed with this type of pension reform that will contribute to improvement insofar as the overall pension program is concerned with teachers and contribute to other purposes at the same time. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to revert to my statement as per the earlier request? MR. SPEAKER: Does the Hono urable First Minister have leave? (Agreed). MINISTE RIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY : Mr . Spea ker, earlier today in Winnip eg and in Mi nnedosa, young Ma nitob ans gathered to kick off Manitoba Youth Week. May 6th and 11 th was established as Youth Week by a resolution of this House In recognition of the United Nations International Youth Year. Young Manitobans will be participating in a number of events focusing around the theme s of peace and co-operation. Across the province, young people will be involved in a range of activities involving peace ceremonies, films, live theatre presentations, workshops and a variety of entertainment.

In conjunction with National Forestry Week, Manitoba youth will be planting trees in a demonstration of their commi tment to the environment. Sir, I would like to take this opportunity on behalf of the government to wish our young people well, to express our sincere hope that Youth Week is an exciting and a rewarding celebration. I would also like to pledge our support to the theme of peace and co-operation. There is toda y, no nobler pursuit than that of world peace.

That our young people have chosen peace as a theme for celebration Is reason for all Manitobans to be proud of our young people and to be confident in our futur e. Our generations have a moral responsibility to work together to put an end to the threat of nuclear war. I congratulate our young people for assuming their responsibility by adding their voices to the hund reds of thousands that are crying out for peace.

Almost every human victory of justice over injustice, of dignity over shame, freedom over oppression has come as a result of ordi nary, sometimes weak and powerless individuals uniting with a single voice. There's no cause more just than world peace, and no voices louder than the voices of the youth. Our young people have skills, they have talents, hopes, dreams and aspirations. They have the inalienable right to develop those skills and those talents to realize those hopes, those dreams. Let there be no mistake, the government and the people of Manitoba support you in the celebration of peace and co-operation.

Our wish for you today is that this week and this year be exciting and rewarding. May your future be one of justice, dignity, co-operation and of peace. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We, on this side, are pleased to join with the Premier and members of the government In the celebration of the commencement of Youth Week in Manitoba. We, of course, are well aware of this being the United Nations In ternational Year of the Youth and the many celebrations and activities that have commenced and are carrying on throughout this year in that theme.

We, of course, are pleased to recognize all of the goals and ambitions and desires of the youth of our province and our country today and we join in with all those who wish for them the desire that they have the opportuni ty to pursue their self-reliance and initiative in creating for themselves and for others to follow the kind of world that all of us want to paticipate in and all of us want to see for future generations. 1589

Monday, & May, 1985 We, most of all, Mr. Speaker, want to ensure that this province affords them the opportunity to the fullest extent to accomplish their goals and desires and ambitions In accordance with their God-given talents and capabilities and in accordance with all that they desire for the future. Amongst those many things, of course, fundamental to that is a desire to live in a world of peace and freedom and to pursue their goals and objectives and have the ability to work In a democracy that allows for all of the many things that aren't permitted in other jurisdictions in this world of ours.

We're pleaed to join with the Premier and others who have expressed, in the realm of the International Year of the Youth, the desire for our young people to join with those who have gone before them, those people, the mature and the others in society, all of whom have different goals and ambitions, but all of whom have enjoyed the opportunity to pursue thei r lives in Manitoba. We join with them in wishing for them the same opportunities to pursue their goals in an atmosphere of peace and freedom and democracy. COMMITTEE CHANGE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Aiel. MS. D. DODICK: Mr.

Speaker, I have a committee change on Public Utilities and Natural Resources: The Member for Wolseley substituting for The Pas, and the Member for Thompson for St. Johns. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have changes on the Economic Development Committee: Gourlay for Blake and McKenzie for Enns . ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTE TT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would you please call the proposed resolution standing in the name of the Honourable First Minister on Page 3 of the Order Paper.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION - NUCLE AR WEAPONS FREE ZONE MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLE Y: Mr. Spe aker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for lnkster,

WHEREAS Manitobans continue to state their desire to end the nuclear arms race; and

WHEREAS Peace is one of the principal themes of the International Year of Youth' which the Manitoba Legislature unanimously accepted in a resolution on April 25, 1985; and

WHEREAS developing new weapons systems only serves to escalate the tension between the Superpowers; and

WHEREAS Manitobans continue to object to the world powers spending more than $2 billion per day on armaments while millions of men and women live in poverty and starvation confronts much of the Third World; and

WHEREAS the concept of Nuclear Weapons Free Zones has been recognized by treaties in Antarctica (1959), Outer Space (1967), most of Latin America (1967), the Sea-bed and the Ocean Floor (1970); and

WHEREAS the United Nations in 1978 stated in its report from the Specal Session on Disarmament that "The process of establishing such zones should be encouraged with the ultimate objective of achieving a world free of nuclear weapons." THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba declare Manitoba a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to signal Manitobans' desire for world peace. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. There can be no demonstrations from the gallery. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLE Y: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this resolution speaks for itself.

I'm calling upon the Legislature today to give unanimous support to this resolution which would declare Manitoba a nuclear weapons free zone. lt has been over 40 years since humanity discovered and first unleashed the terrible weapons of nuclear power. Now, decades later, the nations of the world possess literally tens of thousands of such weapons; weapons that could destroy every city and town and village several times over; weapons that could result in the death and destruction of every human life on Planet Earth. A destructive capacity now exists to destroy all humanity, Mr.

Speaker, but despite that there is no signal that we receive that there is a real conscious, substantive effort in order to abate the number of bombs. They continue to increase, they continue to be developed to a point that, indeed, the speed by which this weaponry is mushrooming is oblivious, I'm convinced, to the vast majority of people on the Planet Earth. The people of Manitoba are not isolated from the situation, Mr. Speaker. We cannot, I acknowledge, single-handedly stop the madness of the nuclear arms race. But Mr.

Speaker, what we can do Is ensure that we put forth a strong and a unified voice; a voice that will clearly demonstrate the anger, the disapproval and the concern and the fears that exist insofar as the continuing arms buildup that is taking place. Through this resolution we are able to state unequivocally that we believe it's time to stop. We can indicate through this resolution that the people of Manitoba cannot and will not participate in any way in the arms race or to the instability to world peace which the arms race has created. Earlier today, Mr.

Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak to a group of students in order to commemorate 1590

Monday, 6 May, 1985 1985 as International Year of Youth and to launch this particular week which has been specified as the week of peace insofar as the young people of the Province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to see that one of the themes of this year, a theme, In fact, that has been agreed to by young people worldwide, is peace. A recognition Mr.

Speaker, that although we can develop a better world and improve our health programs, educational programs, our economic programs, that we can do all of the material things, that If we're unable to use our moral sense of justice, if we're unable to speak to each other as individual-to-Individual and family-to-family and nation-to-nation, that we will, Indeed, set aside all that which the good work and efforts of human kind has put togeth er. In fact, what young people are asking tod ay, Mr.

Speaker, is will we have the opportunity to enjoy the abund ance, the scientific discoveries and development that has occurred worldwide, that we'll be able to utilize those discoveries, that advancement in order to ensure that ourselves, our families, our communities, our I country and the Planet Earth are, Indeed, to benefit; or are we going to proceed down the other road at 1 the fork which will result in the total annihilation and destruction of all that is good and beautiful in this world. Mr.

Speaker, what time better than now to express our solid arity with the young people, not just of Manitoba, but worldwide; to demonst rate our solidarity with their hopes and with their dr eams and with their aspirations. Mr. Speaker, today young people live too frequently in fear of the future. They want an end to the nuclear arms race. They want real progress toward worldwide nuclear disarmament. What better way to support this aspiration, I ask you, than that we ensure that from this Chamb er there be immediate and speedy and unanimous support to the resolution that has been placed on the table tod ay. Mr.

Speaker, we all have witnessed the suffering, the famine that is existing in different parts of the Third World. Many of us in the last few months have watched In horror as we've witnessed the scenes of famine in Ethiopia and Sudan and other countries of Africa. We have responded to the best that we are able to in regard to contending with those horrible demoralizing, destructive situations in the poverty-ridden Third World. Millions, billions are living in pain and hunger, despair and death, and many of them are able to make but little headway in alleviating those conditions.

If only a portion of the resources that we expend within the world community on armaments and nuclear buildup - hundr eds of billions of dollars are being spent, Mr. Speaker, annually on these destructive nuclear weapons worldwide. If we were only able to expend a fraction of those monies in order to improve the quality of life, improve the lot of the needy and the suffering of this world, Mr. Speaker, would we, indeed, be not accomplishing much more to achieve world peace and to remove the root causes that agitate strife resulting in war? I could go on, Mr.

Speaker, and explain all the rational and good reasons why we ought to support this resolution. But the reasonableness and the soundness of the resolution, I believe, needs no defence, requires no advocate; surely, a statement which all peace-loving peoples can and should support. All that Is needed is the will and support of members in this Cham ber, so that collectively we can send a strong and clear and decisive message of peace on behalf of the people of the Province of Manitoba to the rest of Canada and to the entire world.

This is a resolution which I am convinced that Manitobans will wish to lend their support, for they share the same fears, the same hopes, the same dreams, the same aspirations for a safer nuclear free world. Young people today, Mr. Speaker, and this has been my expe rience in every high school that I've spoken to in the last two or three months, are crying out more strongly and clearly on this issue than any other issue that is before young people today.

They're calling out in no uncertain message in schools and any gathering that I have spoken to, for their political leadership to take a strong and a clear and a decisive position; they've urged political leadership of this province; they're urging the political leadership at the federal level; they're urging the political leadership in Moscow and in Washington to take firm and clear positions, unequivocal positions in support of nuclear disarmament. Mr.

Speaker, I ask you, can we do any less but to add our voice, as elected representatives of the people of the Province of Manitoba, including our young people, but to add our voice to their voice in a clear message from this Chamber. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that all members in this Chamber display true leadership and clearly and boldly demonstrate our solidarity for this resolution. Let us do our part, as little as it may be, and I acknowledge this is but a very small step. it's only a signal, a small signal, Mr.

Speaker, to lift the cloud of uncertainty that has enveloped this province and has set this province, this planet, back because of 40 years of a destructive nuclear arms buildup. I trust I speak for all honourable members in this Chamber, opposite as well, and I look forward to support of the Honourable Leader of the Opposition and all members of his caucus. Mr. Speaker, let us all show and tell where we stand on this, undoub tedly the most important issue confronting Manito bans. Mr.

Speaker, there are many expressions that are forthcoming from different organizations in the Province of Manitoba in regard to their support for this resolution, different organizations. In fact, over the weekend, it's my understanding the Inter-Faith Commi ttee that was meeting in the City of Winnipeg lent its support to the concept of this resolution. Many other organizations thr oughout the province, people all thr oughout Manitoba, will speak out very clearly - and I think that will be demonstrated by the annual peace walk that many of us have the opportunity to look forward to and participate in each year.

In fact, I think this province by way of ratio of residents that participate in the peace walk on an annual basis, is higher than in any other province in Canada. Generally there are 25,000 to 30,000 men, women and children participating in the peace walk, compared to three or four or five thousand in the City of Toronto. I'm proud of the fact that Manitobans are prepared to walk for peace and participate and to speak out for peace in a way that I believe exceeds similar sentiment in other parts of Canada. Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to a quick and ready passage of this resolution, the support of this Legislature 1591

Monday, 8 May, 1985 in order to ensure that we speak out unanimously, each an d every mem ber in thi s Cham ber, an d declare Manito ba as a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to signal the desire by Manitob ans everywhere for world peace. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Hon ourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Ho nou rab le Mem ber for Morris, that de bate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT : Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I believe there may be a predisposition to dispense with Private Members' Hour today. I would ask, Sir, before movin g the Supply Motio n, for permission to do so. MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave to dispense with Private Mem bers' Hour today? (Agreed) HON. A. ANSTETT : Thank you, Mr. Spea ker. I mo ve, seconded by the Ho noura ble Attorney General, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr.

Speaker, the Committee in Room 255 will continue with consideration of the Estimates to the Attorney General, and the Estimates of the Department of Health will cont inue to be considered here in the House. MO TION presented and carried an d the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Supply to be gran ted to Her Majesty wi th the Ho nourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Health , and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of the Attorney-General. CONCURRENT COMMITTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - ATTORNE Y-GENERAL MR. CHAIRMAN, C.

Santoa: Committee, please come to order . We are considering Item No. 6.(a)

(1) Protection of Individual and Property Rights, Manitoba Human Rights Commission - Salaries; 6.(a)

(2) Other Expenditures. The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's required that the 1984 Human Rights Commission Report be filed within 15 days of the commencement of this Session. We have not yet received the Human Rights Commission Report. MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister. HON. R. PENNER: lt's at the printer so that it will be forthcoming in a few days. MR. G. MERCIER: Could we have a copy of the draft report then th at we can use to deal with it ? I raise it, Mr.

Chairman, because it's required by statute to be here and it's not here and we're into Estimates now and there's just simply no excuse that I'm aware of. Perhaps the Attorne y-Gen eral could indicate what possible excuse there is for not havin g it at this stage. HON. R. PENNER: I apologize to the member. There have been some problems, staff changes and some staff shortages which we're hoping to rectify.

There was a backlog of Human Rights cases that the staff was trying desperately to cope with because there were some criticisms and they were justified criticisms; and it had been hoped when the matter was sent to the printer that it would be out a little sooner than has been the case, but we will get the member a draft of the report. In fact, what I can give the member now to help him is the statistics section. In fact , as I will in a moment place them in his hand, he will be one step ahead of me. You don't have a duplicate or anything? MR. G.

MERCIER: Would the Attorney-General like to indicate what, if any, amendme nts he will be proposing to The Human Rights Act at this Session? HON. R. PENNER: None. MR. G. MERCIER: What about the reference to wage parity in the Throne Speech? That will not be done by legislation, but done by policy? HON. R. PENNER: lt will be done by legislation, but it will not be done as an amendmen t to The Human Rights Act. I'm not at liberty to say more than that, but that does answer the question. lt will not be done as an amendment to The Human Rights Act . MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, in looking at the - this is all I did have to work with - the 1983 Provincial Human Rights Commission Report, I note on Page 6 of that - I know it says somewhe re in this report, there is reference to at least three appeals by the Human Rights Commission, all of wh ich they lost in court. Has the Human Rights Commission ever won a case in court? HON. R. PENNER: Several. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Attorney -General have the actual statistics because I note there were at least three cases referred to. HON. R.

PENNER: Well, there was a case, in fact, just on that - while the mem ber is looking - there was a case reported just In the last th ree days where an appeal had been taken from the decision of an adjudicator in Brandon relating to alleged discrimination on the ground of race in a Brandon motel. The decision of the adjudicator was upheld, although some fairly substantial procedural points had been raised. MR. G. MERCIER: The cases I was referring to was the Finlayson case and the Ziprick case. There's also a reference to another McDonald versus Knit-Rite Mills. Has that matter been decided? 1592

Monday, 8 May , 1985 HON. A. PENNER: I'm just getting the information and I'll have it in a moment. I believe the Knit-Rite Mills case has been decided and was found In favour of the Human Rights Commission. MR. G. MERCIER: Could the Attorney-General advise as to the status of the complaint of Mr. Herb Schulz which was filed with Mr. Gibson on October 4, 1983, alleging racial discrimination and using as the basis of his complaint, a memorandum from the Hon. J.

Bucklaschuk dated June 27, 1983, to Cabinet Ministers and ND P ML As on the subject of boards and commission in which numerous persons were identified by various ethnic origins, Franco, Native and other descriptions? Could the Attorney-General advise as to the status of that investigation? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, it's under investigation, now, under more active process than had been the case for a few months.

I know that in March - I'm responding on behalf of the government - I believe it was March 18th or thereabouts, or earlier, I received a request for certain Information from the Human Rights Officer who has the carriage of the case, and I've recently responded to that, so I know that it is being actively pursued. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, what would happen to a firm in the private sector if they identified their employees in the same manner as Mr. Bucklaschuk identified persons on boards and commissions? HON. R.

PENNER: The Manitoba Government is as subject to The Human Rights Act as anyone else in or out of the publi c sector and in due course the Commission will receive the results of the Investigation conducted by the Human Rights Officer and will follow the normal course. There will be no exception made wh atsoever . Members, in fact, asking me to prejudge that which must be judged, in the first Instance, by the Commission and also to be a judge, in effect, in my own case, since I speak for the government on that issue and I couldn't do that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, can a company in the private sector identify its employees as Native and Franco and handicapped? HON. A. PENNER: That question could only be answered In context, that is, in what circumstances was the identification? There are circumstances in which they can and circumstances in which they can't, I would presume, but again the member is really seeking to lead me up the path - and I don't say this in a deliberate sense - by asking me to do indir ectly that which I said I would not do directly, namely, prejudge that which the Commission, in the first instance, must judge.

The Commission must be at arm's length on this and on any other issue and it will act, I'm confident, without fear or favour, if I may use that cliche. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, did the government apply for approval to the Human Rights Commission to conduct an Affirmative Action Program within The Human Rights Act? HON. R. PENNER: In general? MR. G. MERCIER: With respect to membership on boards and commissions. HON. A. PENNER: Not to my knowledge. MR. G.

MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General explain the reason for the lengthy delay that has taken place? lt is almost - well, it would be over a year and a half now, I guess approximately - exactly a year and a half - since this complaint was filed. HON. R. PENNER: I'm advised that because there are a numb er of legal questions involved, that is, for example, whether or not an appointment by Order-In Council to a board or commission is employment within the meaning of the act, that the outside legal counsel was retained for some legal opinions and that this is, in the main, what took the time.

You know how it is with people in private practice. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, would the Attorney General be prepared to obtain an outside opinion as to whether there has been, in fact, discrimination against the applicant, Mr. Schulz, because he is a former member of the New Democratic Party? HON. R. PENNER: What kind of discrimination are you talking about? MR. G.

MERCIER: That his application has been deli berately delayed because of the fact that he is no longer a member of the government, a member of the New Democratic Party, and that there has been an obvious reluctance or almost refusal to deal with his complaint because of his politics? HON. R. PENNER: There has been neither reluctance nor refusal, nor anything of that kind. The member asked me a question and I gave him an answer as to the reason for the delay. First of all, let's go back a bit.

The second series of questions that the member directed to me was as to whether or not the matter was being investigated and was being actively pursued. My answer made it clear that it was. The following series of questions was dir ected to the question of why was there a delay, and there was a delay. I answered, and that Is because of more than technical questions, fundamental questions, but questions requiring legal counsel, outside legal counsel was retained by the Commission and that was the reason for most of the delay. MR. G.

MERCIER: When does the Attorney-General anticipate that a decision will be made by the Human Rights Commission with respect to this complaint? HON. R. PENNER: it's near the end of the investigation stage, I'm advised, so I expect it will not be long now. MR. G. MERCIER: You're talking a matter of two months, thr ee months? HON. R. PENNER: Less. 1593

Monday, 8 May, 1985 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question with respect to what seemed to be an interminable consideration of the Safeway policy with respect to beards. lt, I think, began as appeals from a labour arbitration that went all the way to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favour of Safeway, and then a complaint was made to the Human Rights Commission and appeals went from that all the way again to the Supreme Court. Could the Attorney-General explain why the Human Rights Commission got itself involved in this issue after it had been decided in the Supreme Court? HON. R.

PENNER: I can't, of course, account for the proceedings which preceded the submission of the matter to the Human Rights Commission. Once the matter was submitted to the Human Rights Commission, there emerged a question which the Com mi ssion considered to be pretty fundamental on that; it wasn't a question of the beards or the particular policy - that was the occasion - but it was a question of whether or not a gender characteristic, the ability of males to grow a beard, that is, a policy with respect to it could be encomp assed within the question of sex discrimination.

Subsequently, that issue was also tested with respect to pregn ancy.

Beards on the one hand - although there could be slight exceptions with beards, but not with pregancy - and pregnancy on the other, are gender related characteristics; the ability to grow a beard, the ability to become pregnant - it was impor tant for the Commission to know so that it could know from what basis it would work in these cases, whether or not the prohibition against discrimination based on sex included - if I can use the term; I'm not sure it's the term that the Commission or the Commission's lawyer would use - secondary discrimination based on sex, that is, things that flow from gender-related characteristics.

MR. G. MERCIER: What were the costs to the Human Right Comm ission in terms of retaining legal counsel for that series of appeals after the Supreme Court had already made one decision? HON. R. PENNER: I'll take that as notice and get the information as soon as possible. MR. G. MERCIER: What is the present remuneration for the Chairman and mem bers of the Human Rights Commission and when was the last increase? HON. R. PENNER: There hasn't been an increase since I assumed office.

I regret to say, it indicates a meanness of character which will have to be rectified, but the chairperson receives 140 per diem, obviously, less for a half-day and so on, and the members 70. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Manitoba Human Rights Commission last year dealt with certain facts, I think, in which the board alleged that the Wigwam Snack Bar was practicing discriminating by selling a hot dog named the "squaw" for less than one called the "chief." Could the Attorney-General ind icate the facts as the Human Rights Commission saw them, in their opinion, and the outcome of that matter? HON. R.

PENNER: Will you repeat the question? MR. G. MERCIER: The question is related to this instance of where the Human Rights Commission, I think, alleged discrimination against the Wigwam Snack Bar, which I believe is just north of Selkirk Avenue, on the basis that they were selling a hot dog named the "squaw" for less than one called the "chief". HON. R. PENNER: As the member may be aware, and this emerged somewhat more sharply - Indeed, a lot more sharply - in the case involving The Sun and Peter Warren.

Section 2 of the act is rather unclear as to its scope and function when it deals with material like ly to lead to race hatred or bringing a group into disrepute on the basis of race or racial characteristics. lt was held ultimately in the Wigwam case that the courts didn't have jurisdiction, that

Section 2 is not wide enough, or any other

section of the act, to give the Commission, if it would follow the courts jurisdiction. So, the Commission felt that the only way it could deal with matters that were the subject of the complaint as being offensive to one or more members of a particular group would be to deal with it, as it did, within the scope of its educational manda te. MR. G. MERCIER: Was there a court decision involving that matter? HON. R. PENNER: There was a legal opinion upon which the Commission, I think, operated in that case. MR. G.

MERCIER: I take it from the Attorney-General's remarks - I'm just trying to confirm what happ ened - the Commission, on the basis of that legal opinion, concluded that they couldn't act on this matter within

Section 2 because it didn't come within the legislative jurisdiction there and so the chairman, I take it, decided to act under his so-called educational mandate to bring this matter to public atte ntion. HON. R.

PENNER: Yes, it was felt that there was some doubt at that time and that doubt has being substantially removed by the subsequent Sun-Peter Warren case, some doubt about the extent of jurisdiction. lt was felt that, while the matter complained likely raised questions tha t might be offensive to a number of people, it didn't warrant going forward with a formal court case; that it was the kind of thing, with respect to which education and the fulfilling of its educational mandate would be more appropriate than attempting to use the full powers that the Commission would have to take the case to court, through adjudication to court.

MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, is the Human Rights Comm ission going to, or considering investigating or making public statements about the A and W, which I unde rstand have a papa burger and a mama burger which sell for different prices? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, the member may find an analogy between papa burgers and mama burgers which aren't, at least to me, prima facie discriminato ry. Generally, but not always, papas are bigger than mamas and sometimes too much so. I can tell you about one 1594

Monday, 8 May, 1885 papa and one mama where that is certainly true and the papa wishes he were about the same size as the mama and the mama wishes she were smaller than she was. But it may be that the particular complaint didn't raise the greatest issues in the world but, nevertheless, we know, if you know anything - I'm sure the mem ber knows someth ing - about the history of the Ab original people in this country, that words like "chief" and "squaw" were used in a derogatory way. The Indian people do not refer to thei r women as squaws.

In fact, the reference to the Indian women as squaws, whether it was originally so, but in a way in wh ich the Indian people of this country were exploited became, in context, a derogatory phrase and there were jokes in these tasteless kinds of joke books about squaws. One can see a basis for an offence or someone taki ng offence, wh ich I doubt would be quite the same as between a papa burger and a mama burger. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I'd just li ke to clarify, Mr.

Chairperson, that I think the Attorney-General has hit the issue on the head, as it were, that the issue was not whether one was charged more or was more highly priced than the other, but it was the fact that th ey were using what Native people who frequent ed that restaurant saw as derogatory terms and were terms that were not acceptable. lt's not a question of wh ich one was charged more for than the other. lt was the other question, the question of race discrimination that was being tested. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Memb er for St . Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I have to perhaps go back to another subject then. If the Human Rights Comm ission and the Att orney-General find this to be so blatantly discriminatory, then why is it taking a year and a half to deal with Mr. Schulz' complaint, when descriptions like "Franco" and "Native" and "New Ethni c " were used by the government by Mr. Bucklaschuk in his memo to all Cabinet Ministers and NDP MLAs. HON. R. PENNER: First of all, the person who is a Native does not find it discriminatory to be called a Native. A person who is a Francophone does not consider it discriminatory to be called a Francophone .

There can be no question about that. A Native woman finds it discriminatory, for very good reason, to be called a squaw. Secondly, the act - and this is a point I tried to make earlier - talks ab out, in

Section 6, discrimination prohibited in employment. Let us assume for a moment that the acts complained of amounted to discrimination, wh ich is not admitted but denied. The legal question is whether or not an appointment by Order-in-Council to a board or comm ission for an honourarium is employment within the meaning of the act. That's a very important question that the Comm ission is bound to look at before it decides that it has jurisdiction. MR. G.

MERCIER: Does the Attorney-General believe that the government should rely on a techn icality as to whether or not persons appointed to boards and commi ssions come withi n the terms of employment in order to get off the hook? HON. R. PENNER: First of all, the government is not relying on a technicality. There is noth ing technical about the question of jurisdiction; there is no court in this land of which I'm aware, no judgment from courts in this land of which I'm aware, from the Supreme Court to Appellate Courts to Trial Courts, that have ever held that the question of jurisdiction is a technica lity.

There is nothing more fundamental to the exercise of judicial power than the question of jurisdiction. If we recognize the rule of law, we could not permit a body that has the awesome power of judicial function, quasi or full judicial function, to enter into a sphere without hav ing the legal right to do so. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would hope, with this line of questioning, that sight would not be lost of exactly what those terms are being used for.

In fact, I find it somewhat surprising that the member opposite should even question the process of trying to have an affirmative action co mponent to the appointment of boards and comm issions because his federal leader, Brian Mulroney, has indicated support for that very process. That process can only be achieved if records are kept of the success of that Affirmative Action Program. In the case of wo men, for exam ple , it's been documented that this government has had more women on boards and comm issions th an ever before.

I believe the percentage under the previous government was 12 percent. lt's gone up to 30 percent. The only way in wh ich that can be measured is if th ey determine how many wom en were appointed to boards and comm issions. I think it's the same process that was followed in regard to the other groups wh ich are identified and to suggest implicitly that there is somehow some form of discriminat ion involved, I think Is very wrong.

Affirmative action is into making sure that groups which are otherwise discriminated against get their fair share of access to, whether it be jobs or, in this case, boards and comm issions. I woul d hope the very technical line of questioning that the Member for St. Norbert is following would not lead one to lose sight of the fact that what was put in place was an Affirmative Action Program, that the terms which were used, as the Attorney-General points out, are accepted terms by the groups involved.

There's no discrimination, in terms of the terms itself, and what is being aimed at , through the boards and commi ssion process I think is only fair, and someth ing th at I would have thought the Memb er for St. Norbert would have been asking about. I think he should be asking actually about the success of the Affirmative Acti on Program, how well it's do ing, rather than implicitly criticizing it. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, does the government establish quotas for these various areas in terms of its making appointments to boards and comm issions? 1595

Monday, 8 May, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: No. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Wolseley. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I have a question on something else. Is that appropria te? According to one of the charts, I guess I'd just like an explanation of what the difference is between marital status and family status? HON. R. PENNER: I'm sorry, would you repeat the question? MS. M. PHILLIPS: There's a chart here - on the fourth page from the back and I presume it might be the same category on other ones. Yes it is. Most of the charts are broken down between marital status and family status. HON. R. PENNER: There is, of course, an overlap.

An example that might be used is, I'm married and the woman to whom I'm married is my wife, but I have a daughter who has family status but not marital status. MS. M. PHILLIPS: Her marital status is single? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, but her family status is daughter. MS. M. PHILLIPS: I just wondered how it was broken do wn into these two columns. You know, employment, for instance - 17 cases on marital status and 44 on family status. What kind of cases would be in each category? HON. R.

PENNER: One of the most common kinds of cases or complaints on family status is the denial of accommodation because of having a child. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, has the Manitoba Human Rights Com mission become in volved or investigated, in any way, the restaurant known as Hunky Bill's, which was also, I believe, the subject of Human Rights Com mission's proceed ings and court proceedings in the Province of British Columbia? HON. R. PENNER: No, it has not become involved in that question. MR. G.

MERCIER: Does the Attorney-General intend, or have any plans to appoint a full-time Chairman of the Human Rights Commission? HON. R. PENNER: Not currently, no. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Attorney-General intend, in any way, to change the method of appointment to the Human Rights Commission? HON. R. PENNER: Well, in fact, we did. On the recommendation of Mr.

Gib son, when he was chairperson and backed by the Commission as a whole, subsequent appointments were made on a rota basis; that is, three years, two years, one year, so that there are always approxi mately one-third of the members of the Commission whose appointment comes up for review annual ly. I think that that was very salutary. In fact, one of the recommendations in the proposed new Human Rights Code, which has not been dealt with and will not be dealt with during this Session, is to make that a statutory requirement. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, I don't have any further questions at this time on the Human Rights Commission, the real difficulty being that we don't have the 1984 Human Rights Commission Report which we were ... HON. R. PENNER: Didn't you get the ... MR. G. MERCIER: Well, I've got the statistics, but that's HON. R. PENNER: That tells the main story. MR. G. MERCIER: Does the Human Rights Commission act on complaint only? HON. R. PENNER : In almost all cases involving individuals, the Human Rights Comm ission is reactive rather than pro-active.

I think that to some extent it would want to be more pro-active than it is. lt simply doesn't have the resources. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has said that the statistics that he's given us in the Appendix tell the whole story. We'll have to await the total report. I don't think we can dismiss the balance of the report as not providing any further information with respect to the Human Rights Commission and we'll have to review that when it comes forward.

I suppose we'll have to ask any further questions we have of the Min ister in the House, but I would ask him to Instruct the Human Rights Commission that the law is not there to be disobeyed. There are specific time limits set for the production of the Human Rights Commission Report, and I can tell him when we were in government and the reports weren't prepared within the time limits, there was. a great fuss by his party as mem bers of the opposition.

We have not done that and I think have tried to be realistic because in some cases, for whatever reason, it's simply not possible and it's not done intentionally to avert any questions about the operations of whatever board and commission is involved. But it is difficult not to have the report available when the department's Estimates are up for consideration. HON. R. PENNER: The point is well taken and I'll be discussing it with the Commission. I assure the member that I will get him a copy of the report or, if necessary, if there's going to be any delay at all, a copy of the galley as soon as possible.

I'll also want to find out when the report went to print and I'll provide mem bers with that information. MR. CHAIRMAN: 6.(a)( 1)- pass; 6.(a)(2)- pass. 6.(b)

(1) Canada-Manitoba Legal Aid, Salaries; 6.(b)

(2) Other Expenditur es - the Member for St. Norbert. 1598

Monday, 8 May, 1985 MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the estimate of revenues show an increase in revenue from $790,000 to $1 million. Is that a result of a new federal-provincial agreemen t? HON. R. PENNER: No. That part which is listed under the Department of the Attorney-General is based on anticipated increases in the amount of interest from the solicitors' trust account. MR. G. MERCIER: Okay, right. Mr. Chairman, I note now that in the Estimates it shows Recoverable from Canada, $3, 135,000.00. What was the figure last year? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, I'll just get that in a moment - $2,949, 700.00. MR. G.

MERCIER: That increase is based on a new federal-provincial agreement or based on a larger volume? HON. R. PENNER: The latter. lt includes - the major addition is the addit ion of young offenders, I believe , because the formula under Adult Criminal Legal Aid, unfortunately remains the same and we 're projecting on that basis. Negotia t ions are presently taking place with respect to the agreement and ba sed in part on recommendation s by the Canadian Bar Association which in effect is asking the Federal Government to get back to wha t some of us believe to be the original inte ntion, that is, 50-50.

Manitoba, in this respect - the federal share has fallen from wha t was once 50-50 and indeed at one time marg in ally exceeded 50-50 to something in the neighbourhood of a present 37 to 63 proportio n. We're looking for a better deal. I'll just check for a moment, but I be lieve that when we look at the comparison of $2,949,700 to $3,669,200, part of that of course is growth - although we're not anticipating that madly much of a surge - but part of it is the inclusion of the young offenders, in about the order of 450,000. MR. G.

MERCIER: Can the Attorney-General indicate how ma ny certificates were granted in cases involving juveniles under The Young Offenders Act during the last wh ile? HON. R. PENNER: We note that while the grand total of certificates issued in civil matters as compared to the year previous, it was just a difference of two. So there was virtually no growth in civil. But there were just over 1,700 additional certificates issued in criminal matters - this is to March 31, 1984 - and nearly all of those increases were attributed to juvenile matters, young offenders' matters.

Of the 1,700 additional certificates, 200 were issued to private bar while 1 ,500 were issued to staff solicitors. We set up a special unit of staff solicitors to deal wit h young offenders, utilizing the funding obtained from the Federal Government for young offenders. lt's located in fact in the Tuxedo Centre and has been doing remarkably well. We think that indeed the additional 1,500 certificates ha ndled by staff in this area represents a cost saving to society and of course to the taxpayers of over $500,000.00. MR. G. MERCIER: Has there been any discussion of that concept with the private bar? HON. R.

PENNER: We haven't of course initia ted one, nor ha ve we ha d - at least, I ha ven't ha d - departmentally, any complaints about our functioning in this specialized way in the young offenders' area. 1 think it's realized that this is an area which ought to be approached with some specialization and skill which you do get in this way. As I say, departmentally, I haven't received any complaints. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it, juveniles, under The Young Offenders Act can request a lawyer and that Legal Aid will comply with any request.

Lawyers can be appointed even though the parents can well afford to hire the services of a lawyer for the juvenile, but there's no sort of means tests the way there is for ordinary Legal Aid. HON. R. PENNER: That is right. Under the act, there is a requirement that when a young person requests legal representation, then the presiding judge is bound to see that the young person gets it and the way in which different provinces operate under this new requirement varies.

For example, and I was just looking it up - I'll find it in a moment - they've set up what appears to me to be a peculiar system in Alberta. lt was just reported in the last issue of the National, the newspaper of the Canadian Bar Association, pursuant to which a special way of ha ndling these references and a special tariff was set up, which co nstitutes payments made to solicitors representing young offenders , about 50 percent more than is the case to those defending adults. The National. Ap ril 1985, "Defending young offenders lucrative in Alberta. Alberta court-appointed lawyers are being paid about ...

"- well, I misrepresented - ". . . about 25 percent more to represent young offenders tha n regular Legal Aid work." That's proving to be a great drain on the Treasury. We, in fact, by the way in which we're doing it here within the Legal Aid system, and using staff lawyers, are paying something in the order of 25 percent to 75 percent less, rather than 25 percent or 50 percent more, but getting quality represent ation, because we've got a very good bunch. We put some of our experienced people there representing young offenders and the reading I have to date is that it's a successful system. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Chairman, does the Attorney General feel th at Legal Aid is bound by The Young Offenders Act not to require any inquiry as to the means of the parents and as to whether or not they could afford their own lawyer? HON. R. PENNER: We, government Lega l Aid, do enquire as to whether or not the young person or his parents are able to obta in legal representation out in the marketplace and we try to encourage that kind of representation being sought where the means are 1597 ,

Monday. 8 May, 1985 available, but the way in which the act is structured is such that if, in fact, the young person says, I can't or won't or what is unfortunately somewhat more common, the young person's parents in effect disown the young person, the court can appoint counsel, under its power to appoint, because the court will not, as a court, allow that to stand in the way of representation. So then we come full circle back to the court and instead of referring to Legal Aid, appointing.

Then that appointment would normally be directed to the Attorney-General, and the Attorney-General would normally have to then appoint someone out in the private sector at private sector tariff to represent. We don't do that. In fact I have delegated my power of appointment to Legal Aid, and we operate it then under the Legal Aid system, but not without first making an attempt to have the young person or the young person's parents pay the shot. MA. G. MEACIEA: Mr.

Chairman, are there any statistics available that would ind icate how many juveniles were rejected, the appointment of counsel on the basis that they or their parents should pay for it? HON. A. PENNEA: There are about 25 cases a month in which, under the character of the case,

summary conviction, no chance of Incarceration, or because of the means that Legal Aid finds are available to the young person - Legal Aid in effect refuses, and then it goes that circle through the judge and back to Legal Aid and now Legal Aid steps in to represent, as the surrogate for the Attorney-General appointing counsel. But we do, through our own system, first refuse in an attempt to have the young person or the young person's parents meet the duty to represent - or at least assist themselves in being represented. MA. G. MEACIEA: Mr.

Chairman, are the usual Legal Aid requirements, income qualifications used in dealing with juvenile offenders and their parents as to deciding who has sufficient wherewithal to hire their own lawyer? HON. A. PENNEA: Yes. MA. G. MEACIEA: Mr. Chairman, when was this procedure of actually making inquiries into the financial circumstances of the juvenile and his family, because it was ind icated, I think about a year ago, by Mr. Kee, Senior Crown Attorney for the Juvenile Court, that the new procedure might be exploited by parents who have enough money to pay for their child 's lawyer. HON. A.

PENNEA: Legal Aid has always operated the system with respect to young persons in the same way that it has operated the system for adults, that is, establishing financial eligibility criteria, obtaining the information necessary to make a decision, granting or refusing to grant representation. We've simply continued with that system. MA. G. MEACIEA: Mr. Chairman, could the Attor ney General indi cate the specific or actual amount spent on Legal Aid last year? HON. A. PENNEA: The amount spent on Legal Aid? MA. G. MEACIEA: Yes. HON. A.

PENNEA: Dealing, just at the moment, with the vote, the amount spent - this is of course, taking you right to March 31, 1985, so it's as current as we can get, but still subject to some fine-tuning when the accounting is done, but this is as close as you can get -o n the grant, the grant voted was $7,855,443.00. it's anticipated tha t budg etary expense would be $7,893,400 so that there'd just be a difference of less than 40,000.

In addition, of course, the system generates contributi ons from clients, ju dgme nt costs and settlements, cost recoveries from child caring agencies, certain revenues of that kind, which would bring the total amount available to the society for the year to an additional - about $300,000, to $8,166,125 and the budgetary expenses will be somewhat less than that by about 20,000; that's the current view from the Captain's bridge. MA. G. MEACIER: Mr.

Chairman, does the Attorney General or, through him, Legal Aid, intend to adjust the tariff paid to lawyers in private bar for Legal Aid work in the forthcoming fiscal year? HON. A. PENNER: We would like to. There are two areas of adjustment that we want to look at and with respect to which we would like to be able to move.

One that we're particularly concerned about and work is being done on it presently flows from this, that with the creation of the Family Division of the Court of Queen's Bench, there are a whole number of functions tha t la wyers mu st now carry out that were not encompassed within the tariff, not sort of thought of when the domestic tariff was structured. So, there is a persuasive argument that can be made - indeed, has been made - that the domestic tariff, all other things being equal, is not as fair as it should be. I think there's merit in that.

We are determined that we want to see what we can do to make adjustments there. The argument has also been made that overall the tariff having been only increased once since it was established in 1972, and that I believe was 1980, when it was changed from an hourly rate of 25 to 35, that, clearly, if one looks at the effect of inflation on the costs of operating a law· office, there is an argument which can be made for some increase in the tariff overall. We are certainly going to look at that.

Whether or not we will be successful in finding the resources from within to deal with that in this fiscal year has not yet been determined. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, has the Attorney General met with the, I think, it's the Legal Aid Liaison Committee of the Bar Association? HON. R. PENNER: The Liaison Commit tee was, until recently, with the Law Society. That is until about five, six months ago and then the Law Society, because of a perceived conflict of interest, and the Manitoba Bar Association agreed that the Liaison Commit tee should be with the Manitoba Bar.

Since that change, I have met, I think, with members of the bar, but I haven't met with the Comm ittee. I met with the executive of the bar, Mr. Pappas and others 1598

Monday, 8 May, 1985 on a range of issues and that issue has been raised, that is the issue of the tariff. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, does the Attorney General have a list of previous years - I think the last two we've done - of applications to the public interest

section that have been approved and those that have been disapproved? HON. R. PENNER: I have a list of the major matters handled by the Public Interest Department in the past year. This list encompasses some 38 cases of a total of 75 files which had been opened. That's the list I have. I don't have a list - this is just dated May 1st - of the refusals, but I can get that. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could have a copy of that to deal with now and ask the Attorney-General if he would agree to provide me with a list of all matters dealt with by the public interest

section as well as a list of the applications that were turned down? HON. R. PENNER: Certainly - but subject to any possible, and I can't see one, but I just have make the slight reservation any possible solicitor-client question that might arise. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I take it that list is coming. Perhaps while that list is coming, I could ask the Attorney-General where it is the practice of Legal Aid to, before granting a certificate, seek an opinion from counsel as to the merits? HON. R. PENNER: Whose counsel? MR. G. MERCIER: From a counsel, a lawyer. HON. R.

PENNER: You mean someone outside of the department Itself? MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I'm thinking mainly In the areas of appeals where a certificate has already been granted and the proceeding may be under way or an appeal Is being considered. I think opinions are, in some cases, asked on the merits or, in some cases, in civil matters, prior to issuing a certificate, an opinion will be asked for. HON. R.

PENNER: In the normal case, in the usual case, one of the preconditions to the granting of an appellate certificate is that the lawyer who has been acting in the case must furnish an opinion to the Society through the area dir ector and ulti mately could be for the purposes of the board as to the legal case to be argued and its merits. In case of doubt, the Society through its officials, will operate In the following ways. Dealing with an application coming from the priv ate sector, they may have staff counsel review the legal opinion and advise the board, but these steps are taken.

Even in some cases where there is the wish of a staff lawyer handling a case to take it up the ladder, and there's some question that may be referred to other staff lawyers and, of course, where the application is to go to the Supreme court, then the Society may use staff lawyers or it may use outside counsel. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I raise this issue because I had asked the Attorney-General questions about what appear to be a policy of funding in an unlimited way, applications to court based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The only thing that may stop a lawyer who has unlimited funding in making applications based on the Charter will be his Imagination. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a danger that Legal Aid may become involved in funding some rather exotic applications and the Attorney-General, in his response, I think ind icated that there would be no restrictions on counsel appointed under a Legal Aid certificate to make applications under the Charter. I was asking him whether or not it would be prudent to require - sometimes time doesn't require it and I appreciate that - some opinion on the merits of such applications.

Otherwise, as I say, the only thing tha t would restrict the counsel with a Legal Aid certificate will be his imagination. HON. R. PENNER: Well, in fact, there is yet another restriction and that is that the argument has been made very forcibly to us that you virtually lose money on a Legal Aid certificate, so I think that in itself acts as a barrier and certainly it appears to. I'm looking at the figures for the 12 months ended March 31, 1985, and we can look back to see how it compares with 1984. Out of a total private bar, total criminal certificates that were Issued to the private bar, is in excess of 8,900.

The appeals, Crown and client appeals in total, were less than 150. it didn't even make it to the 2 percent mark, so there's no profligate use of the Legal Aid system to take unnecessary appeals. The year ending March 31, 1985, was the end of the third year since the proclamation of the Charter and if after all of that there Is In total - and many of these will not be Charter related appeals - and let me repeat the figures, 8,926, out of all of that there were - I said 150 - 152 appeals, 42 of which were Crown appeals, so defence appeals were only 11 0 and many of those would be not related to the Charter.

So, as I read those figures, if I can use a colloquial expression, "We ain't got a problem." MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General will acknowledge that many of these arguments may very well be made at the trial level and won't even show up In the appeal. HON. R. PENNER: I would hope so.

I would hope that any counsel worth his/her salt will, in defending a client faced with a criminal charge, carefully examine the Charter to see whether any of Its provisions dealing with legal rights have been arguably offended and that where counsel thinks that to be the case, then counsel will in fact place that argument before the trial judge. Now, what of course cannot be ascertained is whether or not, absent the Charter, counsel would have copped a plea. That, there is just no way of ascertaining. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Virden. 1599

Monday, 6 May, 1985 MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Witho ut trying to be repetitious but at the same time trying to seek more informat ion, does the Minister have a further breakdown on the stats th at we have received in the field of appeals? For instance , would th ere be any cases which the Crown has appealed wh ere Lega l Ai d refused a certificate, where th ey had granted a certificate in the first case or do you have th ose kinds of statistics? HON. R.

PENNER: If it's a Crown appeal, then the only basis upon which a refusal to grant a certificate will be made is because the person is financially ineligible for Legal Aid, has sufficient resources of his/her own to hire outside counsel, non-Lega l Aid counsel. MR. H. GRAHAM: Would th ere be any statist ics where Lega l Aid refused to grant a certificate for an appeal wh ich was a non-Crown appeal? HON. R. PENNER: Yes, we could get th at figure, the number of non-Crown applications for appeal turned down. I don't have th em readily available, but we'll get that figure. MR. H.

GRAHAM: You do keep statistics on th at. HON. R. PENNER: We have a statistic with respect to applications refused, which is an aggregate figure, but just hold it for a moment and I'll check to what extent they may be broken down. With our present record keeping system, refusals are not broken down; th ey're just aggregated. MR. H. GRAHAM: I th ink it might be interesting to be able to get that type of information because I'm certainly interested in, say, in the statist ics of cases where originally a Lega l Ai d certificate was issued, but when it comes to th e appeal process it may not be issued.

I'd like to know wha t percentage of cases th at would be, whether it would be 1 percent or 10 percent. The figures that we get in our annual report are fairly general figures and I think we need a further breakdown so we can more or less analyze the Lega l Aid system . HON. R. PENNER: I doubt whether the figures, if available, would be as instructive as the member would want them to be, in thi s sense, th at an appeal . . . Let me put it thi s way - you know, I don't th ink I'm out; I'll defer to some of my learned colleagues with their backs to the wall, but I don't th ink - and Mr.

Mercler, alth ough he perhaps was not as extensively involved in the criminal bar as I was, will know this - somewhere between 90 and 95 percent of all cases are decided on facts. I mean that's what they're decided on, they're findings on fact. That's wha t judges in the provincial bar really do. The number of times th ey have to open a law bo ok are relatively very few. Appeals, th at is, defence appeals and they normally aren't even applied for where really the only issue is a disputed finding of fact.

The trial judge would have had to - sort of palpably - made an error of law th at goes to jurisdicti on, or an error of law with respect to the admissibility of evidence, or an error of law tha t goes with respect to the ingredients of the offence. So the number of applications tha t you get for appeal are really not th at many. it's Mr.

Freedman's estimates - and it's impressionistic but he does handle th ese - that's it's likely th at the number of applications for appeal th at we get outnumber th e instances in which a certificate is granted by about 2 to 1; th at is, we get double the number of applications; we grant about 50 percent. MR. H. GRAHAM: Abo ut 50 percent? HON. R. PENNER: So let's put th at in perspective, okay?

There would be - out of all of this number of 8,800 or 8,900, only th e basis of th at, but it has to be checked out - approximately 300 applications for an appeal altogethe r, because lawyers who are experienced at th e bar and who know the Legal Aid system, don't come up and knock at the door generally with a frivolous appeal. MR. H. GRAHAM: We're just using ballpark figures - approximately 50 percent of th e applications for a certificate for appeal are turned down, is tha t what the Attorney-General is telling us? HON. R. PENNER: That's our estimate.

That's the estimate th at I have to go on at the moment , yes. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr: Chairman, the Public Interest Department cases - in th ese cases, can he confirm th ere's no financial contribution by the groups involved? HON. R. PENNER: There may be some. MR. G. MERCIER: How much was the revenue then in thi s area? HON. R. PENNER: $17,750 was received by way of th at kind of revenue by the Public Interest Department in fiscal year ending March 31, 1985. MR. G. MERCIER: Wh at was the cost, Mr.

Chairman, of providing legal assistance with respect to No. 10, telep hones, The Hea .dingley Inmates Council intervention before Public Utility Boards and new inmate telepho ne system; and th en items 31, 32, 33, 34 and 35 involving the Winnipeg Remand Centre; representing the Headingley Inmates Council at an inquest; Stony Mountain inmate's appeal against double-bunking; representing Headingley inmates on a committee nego ti ating new discipline and grievance policy for Corrections Department; and the right to counsel in prison and discipline in court? HON. R. PENNER: Now that's an interesting question.

Wh y would the member, out of 38 cases, zero in on th ose cases? Wha t is the assumption? MR. G. MERCIER: I have other questions about other areas. HON. R. PENNER: Well, I'll answer you one question at a time. If the assumption is th at th ese people don't 1600

Monday, 8 May, 1985 have rights, then I don't buy that. That is not an assumption which any self-respecting Legal Aid system can operate on, nor is there anything which - it appears to me in the list, at least at first glance - is somehow frivolous or vexatious or nonsensical or whatever. I can't give you at first glance a case-by-case breakdown with respect of the cost With respect to any one of these, other than I would suspect, the case that was referred to with respect to - which numb er was that on telephone? - No. 10.

As the Member may know - I don't know if this is so in this particular case - as of now, in any event, the PUB, upon application made to it by counsel, may award costs to counsel Including the Public Interest Department. Indeed the Publi c Interest Department was awarded fairly substantial costs by the PUB on its application on behalf of senior citizens with respect, I think, to the Brandon Transit issue. - (Int erjection) - Oh yes, it was the gas rate issue, rather. MA. G. MEACIEA: Does the Attor ney-General care to answer the question? What do those cost? HON. A.

PENNEA: I told you, I don't have them on a case-by-case basis. I did say I would unde rtake to get them. MA. G. MEACIEA: Mr. Chairman, on No. 1, pollution. Is there any preliminary Investigation as to whether the city, for example, on that particular matter which seems to deal with a zoning problem, whether the city or the city councillor are dealing with that particular issue? HON. A. PENNEA: I don't know.

I would say this, that it's important, tremendously Important to me, and I would hope to anyone else who holds this office, that Legal Aid Manitoba be an arm's length body. it's even more important, far more important that its Public Interest Department be at arm's length. How else would it have been possible for the Public Interest Department to take on government before the National Energy Board, if that wasn't the case?

That being so, and a matter of tremen dous importance to me -I just can't emphasize how important that Is to me - I make it a point not to - either here or with respect to any other case - ask that somebody send me up the file, so that I can have a look at it and I'll make some kind of a judgment as to whether or not . . . should have been represented or whether or not the case has merit. I want to say very frankly to the Member for St. Norbert, I'll never put myself in that position. MA. G. MEACIER: Mr . Chairman, are there no guide lines for this

section to become involved in any of these issues? HON. A. PENNER: Yes, there are guidelines developed by the board and operated by the board. There are no departmental guidelin es. MR. G. MEACIER: Does the Mini ster approve those guidelines? HON. A. PENNEA: No, the Minister neither approved or disapproved. MR. G. MEACIEA: Is this area intending to commence any legal proceedings on behalf of the University of Winnipeg professor, relative to property taxes and assessment in the City of Winnipeg? HON. A. PENNEA: Not to my knowledge. MA. G. MEACIEA: But you don't know anything about what's happening. HON. R.

PENNER : That's why I said not to my kn owledge. MA. CHAIRMAN: The Member for Elmwood. MR. A. DOEAN: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a couple of questions of the Attorney-General on Legal Aid. I want to ask him whether there are any limi tations, in terms of dollars or time, once a case has begun. For example, I'm in terested in the Sophonow case and I gather that he has had a number of trials and a numb er of lawyers and there have been considerable expenditures on his account.

I would ask the Attorne y General if he could indicate how much money has been spent to date on this case and whether there are any time or dollar limitations on this case or any other case, once they have commenced? HON. A. PENNEA: I'll try to get the figure of the amount of money that has being dispersed to date on the Sophonow case. it's substantial. With respect to limits, no. We really couldn't run the Legal Aid system on that basis.

Once it's been decided that the case is within the parameters of the society, that the criteria for financial eligibility have been met, then the representation of that person, in this instance, an accused person who is charged with second degree murder; faces conviction; sentence could range anywhere between 10-25 years, depending on the recommendation of the jury. We can't, sort of in midstream, say to the accused, sorry, but your little quota has been exhausted. I think the member will, if he think s about it, will readily agree that you couldn't do that.

There can be no rational basis for doing that If it is thought that someone is misusing the system by proposing to take frivolous or vexatious appeals, then we do have the right to refuse appeals, but that of course cannot be said in the Sophonow case. If we remember the history of the Sophonow case, it was, I believe, a mistrial. The first trial was a mistrial? They had a hung jury, and the Crown, I suppose, could have abandoned the matter at that time.

I can read the headlines now if the Crown had abandoned the matter. it's very difficult for the Crown to abandon in the case of a hung jury, although the Crown can, and sometimes there are circumstances which warrant Then there was a conviction and at that point the accused appealed, and successfully, by a judgment of the highest court in the land, so it would not be possible to argue that there was anything frivolous or vexatious about that appeal. Now the matter comes back in Increasingly difficult circumstances for all involved.

There is another trial and now there's a conviction and what has to be the most unusual circumstances, where it looked like it was on the edge of another hung jury 1601 \,

Monday, 8 May, 1985 and a juror was dismissed, raising questions which are almost novel in their scope. So I think the member will appreciate it if we go over the history of this particular case that at no point can we say, well, that seems frivolous or vexatious or somebody's misusing the system. MR. A. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, my numbers, wh ich may or may not be accurate, as I recall from the paper, I have a figure jotted down of $300,000.00. I don't know if that's right ; I'm sure it must be at least $100,000, but do we have any approximati ons here? HON. A.

PENNER: To date, I believe we may have paid out someth ing in the neighbourh ood of $20,000.00. There's an exposure, to this point , of a potential of another $55,000, but it seems likely that the amount finally agreed to that Legal Aid will agree to pay would be somewhat less than that, so those are the numbers we're presently talking about. MR. A. DOERN: So we're talking about a possible _,1 maximum of $75,000.00. HON. A. PENNER: At the moment, yes. MR. A. DOERN: Let me just make a general comment here, perhaps.

I think there are a lot of people who are shocked and horrified at the fact that it is the public purse that is picking up the tab on thi s and possibly other cases wherein, I suppose, the public makes its own judgment as to the innocence or guilt of the party concerned.

If you discuss this particular case with the man on the street, I suppose you would be told that it is indeed a crime that the government is picking up the tab, that that In itself is a crime and that people are very concerned about the fact that somebody has, in fact, committed a crime and then is able to appeal and appeal and appeal and appeal at the taxpayers' expense. So I'm simply trying to ascertain whether anybody has the right to Legal Aid and whether anybody has the right to access that Legal Aid all the way to the Supreme Court or for mo nths and years, if necessary. Is that , in fact, where we're at ?

HON. A. PENNER: Perhaps I don't speak to the man on the street - I speak to the men and women on the street when I do, as often as the Member for - (Interjection) - Elmwood. MR. A. DOERN: Why don't you speak to the person in the street then? HON. R. PENNER: I speak to men and women on the street, all of whom, collectively, are persons, and I do that a lot.

I can tell you, in terms of that and the responses I get in the office, that there is no such thing as the collective judgment of informed personkind in the province on one side of the issue as to whether or not this accused is guilty, and I'm not going to make that judgment. Ult imately, a court is going to make that judgment. That's what the rule of law is. That's what the legal system is all about. One of the fundamentals of that legal system - and I'm go ing to stand by it, if the hono urable member will not - is that an accused person is entitled to be represented.

That's one of the legal rights in the Charter; it's one of the strongest legal rights. If that person cannot afford legal representation, then that person is no t go ing to be den ied legal representation though that person stands helpless, no matter who it is, before those who have charge of that prisoner in the box and maybe, ultimately, because the member proposes capital punishment, of that person's life. How dare anybody who wants to restore the death penalty raise questions about the right of people to be represented?

That is savagery upon savagery. lt exposes the member for a person who has no regard for the legal system or the humanity which has gone into the development of that legal system over the centuries. Yes, the legal system, of which we are the inheritors, started out as a savage system of that kind , but thank God it isn't today. MR. A. DOERN: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't understand the point the Minister is making. He obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. There Is no connection between my position on capital punishment and what I'm talking about right now.

You can make any straw connections that you like. Maybe yo u can make some connection wi th the French language question and your position. MR. CHAIRMAN: The member will address this Chair. MR. A. DOERN: Mr. Chairman, maybe the Minister can make some connection between his pathetic, out-of touch-w ith-reality position on the French language question and his patheti c out- of-touch reality with the question of Legal Ai d. I'm sure that one could make some sort of rational connection, but I don't care to do so.

So, I would ask him not to set up straw men and not to get Indignant just so that he can exercise his rhetorical skills. I'm telling him that I assume that he has a fixed budget. Is that the case? Do you have a fixed budget for Legal Aid? HON. A. PENNER: Legal Ai d, like any other appropriation with the Department of the Atto rney General and, Indeed, I ex·pect throughout government has at the beginning of the year a fixed appropriation.

I don't think the member was here when we went over the performance withi n that appropriation for the fiscal year that has just ended, but Legal Aid has, In fact, lived within Its budget. MR. R. DOERN: Is that budget in the order of 5.2 million or 7.8 million depending on how you look at it? HON. A. PENNER: I don't think there's any question of depending on how you look it. lt's not a matter of speculation or a guess. MR. R. DOERN: Well, what is the amount ? HON. R. PENNER: Well, why don't you ask the question and I will give you the answer? MR. R. DOERN: Well, I'm asking it. 1602

Monday, 6 May, 1985 HON. R. PENNER: Do you want to ask me the question? MR. R. DOERN: I have. HON. R. PENNER: Alright, then the answer to your question is that the budget that was voted for fiscal'84- 85 was 8.2 million. MR. R. DOERN: Well, the other question I would ask the Minister, which is related to this, is how many hundr eds or thousands of people access Legal Aid, or will access or may access tha t amount - or did access that amount last year? HON. R.

PENNER: Well, the total number of persons served by Legal Aid for the 12 months ending March 31, 1985 throughout its various offices and, in one way or another - approximately 60,000 people in the last fiscal year. lt's one of the broadest social programs that the government has in terms of its reach. MR. R. DOERN: I thought I heard the Minister say 16,000. HON. R. PENNER: 60,000. MR. R. DOERN: 60,000. Is there, in fact, another line or a list of people who cannot access it because of limitations or is everyone who comes to Legal Aid in Manitoba promptly serviced, or is there a waiting list or a backlog of cases?

HON. R. PENNER: No, there's no waiting list or backlog. Either you're eligible within the statutory scheme or you're not. There are two kinds of eligibility. One is financial eligibil ity. If your income exceeds a certain amount, depending on family size, then you may not be granted Legal Aid; you may, in marginal cases, with some contribution on behalf of or by the client. Again, if your case is of a certain kind, let's say, an action for breach of prom ise of marriage, then the regulations exclude the granting of a certificate in those cases.

So it is not a universal system. lt Is not "Legicare" or anything like that. lt is a Legal Aid system with some perimeters. MR. R. DOERN: So, one might assume then in the next fiscal year tha t some 60,000-odd people will be serviced by Legal Aid? HON. R. PENNER : I think that's a reasonable assumption. I don't know how odd they'll be, but some 60,000. MR. R. DOERN: Nobody will be turned away? HON. R. PENNER: Well, I didn't say that. MR. R. DOERN: If they're within the general parameters and guidelines, there's no fiscal limitation on them getting access to Legal Aid? HON. R.

PENNER: There has never, in the history of Legal Aid Manitoba since I've been associated with it one way or another - and that's now 13 years - a case where somebody has been tu rned down who is otherwise eligible because Legal Aid says we're out of money. MR. R. DOERN: I think I now recall that when you are out of money, you simply get a Special Warrant and you get the additional money. HON. R. PENNER: That's generally the case with the social safety net programs.

Social Allowance would be another case in point where the department which runs the Social Allowance Program or a program similar to it, try to make an estimate at the beginning of the fiscal year as to what it will require and that's the amount that comes forward in the Estimates and ultimately is voted. What happens is, the member probably recalls, that with all of the programs there's a certain amount of money that lapses in various allocations that isn't spent and there's a certain amount that is voted by way of Special Warrant. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Chairman, I guess the point that concerns me and concerns other people is the fact that there appear to be people who are, first of all, abusing the system, breaking the law, murdering, raping, and everything else and then they are, in spite of that, entitled to Legal Aid to make their defence. Maybe this doesn't always happen. Maybe some of these people have a lot of money and they're able to fund their own cases, and so on, but I'm just saying to the Minister.

He's telling me that he is unaware or unfamiliar with complaints of citizens that people who are charged with murder have unli mited access to Legal Aid and that their cases will be fully funded by the government to the Supreme Court - he is unaware of that complaint or has never heard of such a thing In his life. HON. R. PENNER: I think that it would be helpful if the member didn't put words in my mouth. I never made that statement. Certainly, there are people who complain. In any notorious case, particularly murder cases, people out there take sides.

You know, the case of Col in Thatcher, we might reflect on that a bit. Here was a jury that was instructed very carefully that they could not find Colin Thatcher guilty unless they were satisfied to a moral certainty, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was guilty. So they found Colin Thatcher guilty. People in this . . . believe it and have organized to pay for his appeal. Maybe they're right, I don't

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-4-42a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 4th hansardpdf 42a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8a0edd819cef9ed6d07fc54d5d489d4fec30e00a

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