Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 61 (36th Legislature, 4th Session)

36-4-61

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Fourth Session- Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVIII No. 61- 1:30 p.m., Tuesday, June 9, 1998 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Member Con£tituency Political Afflliation ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Rob lin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Arthur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert Steinbach P.C. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. EVANS, Leonard S.

Brandon East N.D.P. FAURSCHOU, David Portage Ia Prairie P.C. FILM ON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. - JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWAY, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

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

SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Rossmere P.C. - TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

4175 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, June 9, 1998 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Rail Line Abandonment Ms. Rosano Wowch uk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of K. Behrmann, S. Behrmann, G. Silverthorn and others praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the provincial government go on record requesting that CN and CPR do not proceed with any discontinuance of lines until that report has been tabled, that being the Estey Grain Transporta tion report.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Rail Line Abandonment Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

WHEREAS affordable transportation is a critical component of grain production; and

WHEREAS under the Crow rate benefit, Manitoba was the cheapest place on the Prairies from which to ship grain but became the most expensive following the abolishment of the Crow rate; and

WHEREAS the Canada Transportation Act proclaimed on July 1, 1996, gave railways the ability to discontinue and scrap branch lines without public input; and

WHEREAS several lines were targeted immediately by CN for abandonment; and

WHEREAS CN gave notice on May 6, 1998, that the Erwood Subdivision will be discontinued in 1998; and

WHEREAS the loss of this line would severely impact upon the communities of Bowsman and Birch River as well as surrounding communities; and

WHEREAS in 1997, western grain farmers lost millions of dollars due to backlogs and delays by the major railways; and

WHEREAS as a result the federal government set up the Estey Grain Transportation Review which is scheduled to release a report later this year. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the provincial government go on record requesting CN and CPR to not proceed with any discontinuance of lines until that report has been tabled. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Comm ittee of Supply Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson): Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am pleased to table the Fatality Inquiries Report for the year 1997. Introducti�..n of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honoura ble members to

4176 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1998 the public gallery where we have this afternoon thirty one Grade 5 students from J.R. Walkof Elementary School under the direction of Miss Linda Bergen. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Crown Attorneys Vacancy Rate Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, on May 27 of this year, we raised questions to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews), in fact to the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), about the stress, the workload and the vacancies of the Crown attorneys office. These concerns were confirmed by comments made publicly by Mr. Hannon, the head of the Crown attorneys association. Yet on May 28, in this very same Chamber, the minister stated that he had talked to Mr. Hannon, and the

article did not indicate what, in fact, the position was. Madam Speaker, today Mr. Hannon is again quoted as saying that he stood by his

article and quotes in the original article. I would like to ask the minister: who is telling the truth, Mr. Hannon in his first and second statements or the minister on May 28 when he denied those comments? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The question that was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition on that date was whether there was-in the context of an outside operational review to be done, he indicated one position. I indicated that I had had a conversation with Mr. Hannon, and that was not my understanding of Mr. Hannon's position. In fact, Mr.

Hannon has, along with the Crown attorneys association, put out a press release today indicating that they have developed a strong working relationship with the management team in Manitoba Justice, including the Minister of Justice, and he indicates that we believe that MACA, that is, the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys, and Manitoba Justice share the same common objective of ensuring an efficient and responsive criminal justice system that meets the needs of the community. In respect to any specific review, Mr. Hannon's comments are that there may be many ways to do this. *

(1335) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, this is a repeated pattern of this minister. There are public concerns that are raised; the minister denies it. He misleads the House and then he tries to patch it up later with his word in absolute tatters in terms of his integrity in this House. On May 28, the minister stated in Hansard: "The only direct vacancies that I am aware of today are the two vacancies that were created as a result of the appointments last week." Mr.

Hannon had said that there were an unprecedented number of vacancies, and on June 6, the government itself bulletined seven Crown attorney positions in terms of the vacancies that exist in his department. Why did the minister deny that there were so many vacancies, and why did he not tell us the truth when he said there were only two vacancies when we raised the question on May 28? Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable Leader of the official Opposition that "to tell the truth" has been ruled out of order on several occasions. Mr.

Toews: Madam Speaker, on the same day that the member indicated that there were 15 vacancies [interjection] And his member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) indicated-well, I am sorry. The Leader of the Opposition indicated eight and the member for St. Johns indicated 15, one or the other. There was a discrepancy of seven positions there. In fact, there are today three vacancies in the Department of Justice, two of them arising out of that appointment process. I have indicated before that there are a number of shifts going on in the department as a result of the Lavoie [interjection] - -

June 9, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4177 Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Toews: There have been in fact, Madam Speaker, an addition of seven Crown attorneys. Some Crown attorneys are moving into those positions, creating vacancies, and so those vacancies have not yet been created and we are obligated to fill those vacancies. So when the member says there are eight or there are 15, he is wrong. Today there are three vacancies, and my department is taking very active steps to ensure that those vacancies are filled.

I think that the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys has indicated in their press release today that they are very pleased to work in partnership with Manitoba Justice in addressing these issues. Operational Review Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Again, Madam Speaker, Mr. Hannon said there is an unprecedented number of vacancies in the Crown attorneys office when we asked the question. He has seven vacancies that are bulletined today. Again, his word is not worth very much in this Chamber when it comes to dealing with our side of the House.

Over the last year we have talked about the regrettable increase in violent crime here in Manitoba. We have talked about the underresources of Crown attorneys in the Crown attorneys office. The minister has denied that there are any resource problems. In fact, he said on May 28, we have appropriate resources in the Crown attorneys office. Today the Crown attorneys have stated that they have between 50 and 100 cases on the docket court. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): will he get control of his minister who denies there is any difficulty in the Crown attorneys office?

In terms of the public interest, will we have the operational review, as they have had in other provinces, so that we can be sure that public safety is paramount in the Crown attorneys office here in Manitoba? Hon . Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, this is again a member who consistently misrepresents figures in order to make a point that is not correct. What the Crown attorneys had said: it is common in docket courts for there to be 50 to a hundred cases.

The impression that the member leaves consistently is that there are 70 or 80 contested cases in these matters; when he talks about bail hearings, that there are contested cases. You know, Madam Speaker, I went through those bail courts, and on no day on a bail court in the month of December were there more than five hours in court. On the day that the member specifically said there were 70 cases, court- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete his response. Mr.

Toews: Well, Madam Speaker, this is a member who leaves a misleading impression on the record. You know, I went through the docket where he indicated that there were 70 cases, in fact, 70 bail hearings, which he has repeated over and over again. I would ask him to go back to that docket, because that is a member who never checks his facts. In fact, when I went to the actual court records, court sat on that day from ten o'clock to twelve o'clock, from 1 :30 to 3 :30-four hours. *

(1340) Minister of Justice Apology Request Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.

Johns): Madam Speaker, just over the last several weeks alone the minister has said, and I quote from May 5: "whenever there has been an issue of resources or an issue in terms of addressing process, we have addressed that." He said on the same day: "the government has consistently provided the Crowns with the resources that they require." But yet today we have the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys saying that the resource requirements have not been addressed, and say in fact that they are very concerned about the resources and supports available to assist them to do their jobs.

So my question now to the minister is: would he apologize and retract his drivel when he has consistently said to overworked and under-resourced

4178 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1998 Crowns and to Manitobans, who are increasingly concerned about their safety, don't worry, be happy? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, Madam Speaker, we know exactly the kind of drivel that the member for St. Johns brings here on a consistent daily basis. The other day he stands up and says that a Crown attorney-and he accused the Crown attorney of letting a case sit for 18 months when in fact the true facts, which he knew, were that- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr.

Mackintosh: I understand why the minister is rightly exercised today about the situation in his department, but I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. He just made an accusation that I knew facts that of course I did not know. What I knew was what the victim knew. He has put on the record wrong information. It was his department that not only left the victim in the dark but led her on. I ask the minister to correct the record, withdraw those statements and deal with the issues facing Manitobans rather than some personal and wrongful accusations.

Madam Speaker: The honourable government House leader, on the same point of order. Hon. James McCrae (Govern ment House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the same point of order. In raising his point of order, the honourable member for St. Johns has made his confession that he did not know what he was talking about. We will accept that, that he does not know what he is talking about. But on the point of order, we appear to have a difference of opinion between the honourable member and the minister-a very rare occurrence. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe the difficulty that we are placed in this time is that this minister repeatedly in his answers makes these kinds of comments and statements, refuses on many occasions to answer questions, and this is the situation we ran into here. In fact, the whole dispute is over the fact that our critic was basing his questions based on feedback from the victims, and I wish the Minister of Justice would understand that we speak on behalf of Manitobans, including victims, and we make no apologies for that in Question Period. Hon.

Gary Filmon (Premier): On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, it is a rule in this House that it is up to the individual who brings the information to the House to ascertain the veracity of it. Basing it on the plea of victims without checking the facts, which he has now acknowledged, is now a plea of ignorance on the part of the member opposite for which he is responsible. It is up to him to check the facts before he brings them to the House on the record. Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for St. Johns, the honourable member for St. Johns does not have a point of order.

It is clearly a dispute over the facts. But I would request that the honourable minister keep his response specific to the question asked and not provoke debate. * * * Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Justice, to complete his response. *

(1345) Mr. Toews: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In fact, I accept that the member was speaking in ignorance rather than out of knowledge, but in fact what the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys has said is they have developed a strong working relationship with the management team in Manitoba Justice, including the Minister of Justice. We believe that the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys and Manitoba Justice share the same common objective of ensuring an efficient and responsive criminal justice system that meets the needs of the community.

Indeed, that is what I have indicated the commitment of this government is, working with that particular union in order to ensure that these needs are met.

June 9, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4179 Crown Attorneys Operational Review Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My supplementary to the minister is: since he said that he has been conducting and his department has been conducting an ongoing review of the Prosecutions branch, and yet the issues of public safety still have not been fully addressed, my question is why should Manitobans trust the management of the Prosecutions branch, including the minister, to review the Prosecutions branch?

Why should we trust people, including the minister, who have been instrumental in a policy of underresourcing the Prosecutions branch. They are just looking at themselves. Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorne y General): Madam Speaker, when the Lavoie report came out from Mr. Justice Schulman, this government acted in a responsible manner. Both the Family Services department and the Department of Justice asked for and received an extra, on an annual basis, $1.9 million, which meant seven more Crown attorneys for the entire system. Mr.

Mackintosh: I would like the minister to answer one of my questions- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question. The honourable member for St. Johns, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Mackinto sh: Since the minister appears to have negotiated of management an internal review of Prosecutions, would he not recognize that this is not just a labour-management issue? It is a matter of public · confidence and public safety that cannot be negotiated behind closed doors. Would he order an outside, objective review to restore confidence? He did it for Headingley.

He did it for the Law Enforcement Review Agency, and our safety demands no less for this Prosecutions branch. Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I made the position of the department and the government well known. If this matter can be resolved between the Crown attorneys and management in terms of ensuring that the appropriate resources are there, are not the Crown attorneys, is not the association, are not the managers who work in the courts on a day-to-day basis the people who are best in the position of determining what their needs are?

Who has a greater interest, other than the people of Manitoba, other than the Crown attorneys, to ensure that there are appropriate resources so that the people of Manitoba are safe? This is a member who continually misrepresents the position of the Crown attorney and criticizes the Crown attorney, as he did yesterday in respect of the case where he said a Crown attorney left a case sitting for 18 months when that, in fact, was not the case. The RCMP brought the file to the Crown attorney, completed in March of 1998, and yet he continues to make those kinds of accusations. Chief Judge Public Statement Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, we are seeing increasingly that this Minister of Justice is losing confidence of people in our legal system. We are seeing it when he purported to speak for Mr. Hannon, and we see now today that Mr. Hannon has indicated clearly on the record that his comments, as reported in the Winnipeg Free Press, were accurate. We saw the same kind of process with the Chief Judge.

I would like to table a copy of the Order-in-Council, Madam Speaker, which indicates clearly that the Chief Judge is appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, an Order-in-Council appointment, and I would like to- An Honourab!� Member: Three copies. *

(1350) Mr. Ashton: This is on file; this is not a new document. This is for courtesy of the members opposite. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he will now recognize that, fir�t of all, he has very little, if any, credibility in speaking for others, and that, because of his comments in the ministerial statement reporting on the comments of the Chief Judge, many people are

4180 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1998 saying in the legal community that either the Chief Judge speaks directly on what happens or the Chief Judge should resign-this because of his action. Point of Order Hon. James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. We were reminded recently by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that documents filed in this House are supposed to be filed in triplicate. I remember the comments I made at the time.

Notwithstanding, it is a practice that you have encouraged us to follow, that when we are tabling documents, we should do it in triplicate. [interjection] Now I hear the honourable member for Thompson say, well, this is something that is on record. Well, most documents are on record somewhere. I suggest that this tabling ought not to be accepted unless it is done in triplicate, as insisted upon by the Leader of the Opposition. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, on the same point of order. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): On the same point of order.

Madam Speaker, I think some common sense has to prevail on this issue. I think quite often when a document is tabled, if it is in a spontaneous nature, you cannot expect the MLA to run to the appropriate caucus room and run and get three copies of it, come back in and then table the document. Common sense has to prevail. I think, under certain circumstances where it can be accommodated by tabling three documents, that that is preferred. But when you have something that is being tabled where it is more of a spontaneous nature, you should not have to have duplicates in order to do that.

I think it would be bad in terms of precedent setting if we started to insist on that. Madam Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable government House leader, I would agree, indeed, that the honourable House leader did have a point of order. All members are required to table three copies of all documents when tabling. * * * Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Well, again, Madam Speaker, the member relies on anonymous sources saying that the Chief Judge should resign and indicates that there is some connection between the Lieutenant Governor in Council appointing a judge.

Well, I can tell you that every province appoints provincial judges through the Lieutenant Governor in Council. One thing that needs to be made clear is that the independence of the judiciary is guaranteed, not through any statute, but the Canadian Charter of Rights. That guarantees the independence, and every judge in this province understands that independence, which independence was confirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a very recent decision. Mr.

Ashton: Well, Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether this minister will recognize that the only province we have seen a minister so desperate to save his political hide that he actually came up with an agreement with the Chief Judge and then spoke for the Chief Judge is Manitoba.

When will he recognize that he has seriously jeopardized the position of the Chief Judge in this province, a position that he appoints through Order-in-Council, and when will he do the appropriate thing and allow the Chief Judge either to speak or, as increasingly people are saying in the legal community, have that Chief Judge replaced because she is clearly in jeopardy because of his actions as the minister? Mr. Toews: You know, Madam Speaker, first of all, they say that I have an inordinate amount of influence over the Chief Judge.

Now they are saying I have an inordinate amount of influence over the Crown attorneys' union. They seem to think that I have the authority or somehow the power to make people say what I want them to say. Perhaps what is being done is being done with the consent of the parties involved, and I would indicate that is exactly what has occurred. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, on a final supplementary: will the minister acknowledge that indeed our point is exactly that, that he is purporting to speak, whether it be for the Crown attorneys when he was wrong, as is proven by the statements by Mr.

Hannon, and increasingly people are asking if he was

June 9, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4181 wrong in the Chief Judge? Will the minister do the right thing and either allow the Chief Judge to speak or replace the Chief Judge, which is what is clearly being talked about by more and more people in the legal community in this province? *

(1355) Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, the member knows, and again misrepresents what the facts are or my abilities are, that I have absolutely no ability to replace the Chief Judge. The Chief Judge's independence and her actions are guaranteed by the Constitution of this country. This is a member who now wants us to ignore the Constitution. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Toews: Finally, this is a member who said that the issue being dealt with as the Chief Judge on the nominating committee had nothing to do with the judiciary.

Now he says, today, that it does have something to do with the judiciary. Crown Attorneys Operational Review Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Speaker, we have a real problem in Manitoba with respect to the administration of justice and the way the Justice portfolio is being handled by the present Justice minister. The Crown attorneys are forced to speak out. The minister contradicts the Crown attorneys. In an

article today, the Crown attorney again repeats his statement, and the minister contradicts the Crown attorney. Several weeks ago the minister contradicted the Chief Justice; the Chief Justice contradicted the minister. We have a pattern here. Will this Minister of Justice, this embattled Minister of Justice, this Minister of Justice who chooses to fight word games across the House not realize that the office of the Department of Justice is in jeopardy because of his statements and his handling of these affairs?

Will he not recognize that what is needed in the case of the Crown attorneys is an independent review of the office of the Crown attorneys in order to raise the issue above this political wordsmithing by the Minister of Justice? Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, if one wants to go through the questions and answers given in Hansard or indeed in Estimates, I would say that we are not in disagree ment with either the Crown attorneys or indeed the Chief Judge. I will leave that issue.

All I will say in respect of the particular issue with the Crown attorneys, that the Crown attorneys have recognized that management in the department is undertaking the review of the branch to determine what additional supports are required. What the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys says is that they are pleased to be participating in that process. This is something that the Crown attorneys believe will assist in dealing with the problem.

I want to ensure that any problems that are there are addressed, and I am committed to working with those Crown attorneys and with management to ensure that these problems are addressed. Mr.

Chomiak: Madam Speaker, would the Justice minister not agree that if he wants to disregard everything we say in this House, does he not have a problem when his head of his Crown attorneys has to go to the media to talk about docket lists of 50 to 70 cases a day; attorneys indicate 50 to 100 cases on the docket, five or more trials per day, and that they have to have a press conference to try to get the minister and management to try to agree to address this problem when the minister stood up in this House day after day for a year denying there is a problem?

Will the minister not objectively see that an outside review is required, at least to confirm the word of the minister? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, I know that the Justice critic was in committee with me when we discussed the issue of the concerns of the Crown attorneys. One of the things I specifically said on Hansard is that I would welcome a public statement by the Crown attorneys association to set out exactly what their concerns are. Indeed, I view this document as a very positive document in terms of identifying the issues that the Crown attorneys see.

So this document is very positive, as opposed to the press releases that the Crown attorneys association have had to issue in the past when the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) continually misrepresents their

4182 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1998 position so that they have to get out a press release indicating that the membl!r for St. Johns is mis representing their position. *

(1400) Mr. Chomiak: Madam Speaker, would the minister not agree that there is a problem when there is a contradiction between the Chief Justice and the minister, and the Chief Justice then meets with the minister and a statement issues? Now we have a contradiction between the Crown attorneys and the minister. The minister talks to the Crown attorneys obviously on the record. He spoke to the Crown attorneys, and now we have a statemeot that is issued by the Crown attorneys that the minister is relying on as his defence.

Does he not see objectively that the public would be concerned about this minister, and will he again not recognize that an independent, objective review is required in order to clear not just the Crown attorneys in Justice but the minister's name? Mr. Toews: Madam Speaker, there are approximately 70 criminal Crown attorneys in this province, and for this member to suggest that I am now crafting a statement on behalf of those Crown attorneys is simply not correct. School Divisions Amalgamations Mr. Kevin Lamour eux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is either for the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) or the Minister of Education. The need for change has been totally ignored in the whole area of school division boundary redistribution. For over 10 years, during elections, the government has implied that they want to be able to address this issue, but through the years they have totally ignored the issue. In fact, we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for a school division boundary review which that review currently sits on the shelf as nothing is being done.

My question for the government is: does the government have any intentions on bringing forward redistribution of school divisions in any sort of a tangible way? And I am not talking about the volunteered one or two school divisions, Madam Speaker, that we have seen over the years. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the member is wrong if he says that the Norrie commission report is sitting on the shelf gathering dust. Mr. Norrie made many recommendations; we have accepted 26 of them, and they are currently either in place or being put in place.

His recommendations on amalgamation had a lot of very good points, and we have been working in a very tangible way on voluntary amalgamation. The member should not put down voluntary amalgamation. For amalgamation to work, it does require absolutely a positive buy-in from co-operating divisions. We know we have two amalgamations currently underway. We have many other divisions currently talking about amalgamation to the point that we have hired a full-time staffperson knowledgeable in this area. In fact, Mr.

Roy Schellenberg has just come on staff to be a full-time facilitator to work with school divisions interested in amalgamation to take them through the things that can occur and the things that could occur and how they themselves can merge. School divisions are beginning to merge functions, share services, et cetera, leading to possible amalgamation discussions. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Education recognize the need to be fair?

If you allow a school division in excess of over 30,000 students compared to another school division at less than 7,000, should not then school divisions of largeness be allowed to have the same sort of a smaller community based school divisions? You should not be able to argue it for both ways. Mrs. Mcintosh: I am not quite sure that I follow the intricacies of the member's question, but if he is asking what I think he is asking, the Province of Manitoba has things such as small-school grants.

It does not matter how large the school division is, the small-school grant is based on the size of the school regardless of whether it is a big division or a small one. We also have grants for isolated areas. We have transportation grants for people who are in remote areas, et cetera. There are many factors in the formula that take into account small, remote and isolated areas. Having said that, if there are economies of scale that can produce a cost savings and introduce more cost-

June 9, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4183 effectiveness, then school divisions seeing the merit of that have the opportunity with encouragement from the province to become officially amalgamated, but that decision we feel absolutely has to come from the boards themselves and not be imposed by government. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am asking the minister to recognize-if you are allowing on a volunteer basis for school divisions to amalgamate, is it then safe to assume that the government is also allowing on a volunteer basis for those areas of communities that want to have their own school division?

So this way, if you want to reduce a school division from 30,000 to 10,000, it in fact could be done. Mrs. Mcintosh: Madam Speaker, school boards are charged with the mandate to deal with things that would appear before the board of reference in terms of changing school division boundaries. Even with the amalgamations that have occurred so far, the one that is furthest down the road being St. Boniface and Norwood, the final determination of that has to go to the board of reference for determination. Of course, the case they present being valid is something that the board of reference will determine.

If a school division wishes to downsize, if that is what I hear the member talking about, then something would have to be done with the portion of the division that is no longer going to be included, and that would be something the board of reference would have to take a very close look at, because you cannot leave a body of schools without having a governance jurisdiction. Farm Machinery Warranti es Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, when farmers buy a new tractor or combine, they pay a tremendous price.

Many feel that this price is too high, and you would think that with this kind of price companies would be prepared to offer a reasonable warranty. Here in Manitoba we have a two year warranty on this equipment, but not for long because the government is bringing forward changes that will reduce the warranty to one year. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why he is bringing this change forward since it is not requested by the farmers. On whose behalf is he acting, because it does not appear he is acting on the farmers' behalf? Hon.

Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, we have a responsible group of people that advise the minister and the department on the functions of the farm machinery act. I point out to her quite correctly the high expense of farm machinery. Only in Manitoba added to that expense is a 2 percent surcharge for our insistence on a warranty that does not prevail in other parts of the country, Saskatchewan notably and Alberta.

It is the advice of the Farm Machinery Board, which has farmer representative on it, has farm machinery representative on it, that this is a move that brings our practice of warranty in line and in harmony with neighbouring provinces that is certainly being requested, has been requested for some time by implement dealers in the western part of our province. Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, we continue to level the playing field to the lowest common denominator. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River, with a supplementary question. Ms.

Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister if he can tell us what evidence he has that prices are higher on this side of the border, because all research that has been done for us shows that there is no difference in price on the Manitoba side to the Saskatchewan side. Will he admit he is just acting in the best interest of the farm machinery dealers, not the farmers? Mr. Enos: Madam Speaker, the extra 2 percent is imprinted right on the invoice. I can show her that at any time. The other issue is that times are changing.

Not only for farm machinery but for other things, you can purchase a level of warranty that suits your operation, your business. Most of the farm machinery, particularly some of this big, expensive machinery, is not on a yearly basis anymore because it is not relevant; it is on hour use. They have hour meters on these big tractors and on these machi.les. The warranty extends for X number of hours. In purchasing machinery, if you feel that you want to buy some additional warranty, you do that. That seems to me the appropriate way of

4184 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1998 doing it rather than impose on everybody a level of warranty that is out of step generally in the industry and particularly out of step with other farmers in western Canada. Emergency Repairs Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): I hope the minister would recognize that it is final purchase price that matters to farmers. *

(1410) Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the honourable member for Swan River that she should pose her question without any

preamble. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture why his government is reducing the length of time during the day when producers can order emergency repairs. It used to be from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. and now it is just normal working hours. The minister is a farmer; he understands the importance of emergency repairs. Why is he reducing this length of time? Ron. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I want to indicate to the honourable member for Swan River that it is precisely some of these questions that I asked a year ago.

I was being asked a year ago by the same Farm Machinery Board to bring in the act that I did. I said, no, no, I need to ask a lot of people first whether or not all these amendments make sense. I allowed a year to take place. I discussed with KAP, among other people-by the way, the Keystone Agricultural Producers organization-with a number of other organizations, and have taken a whole year to satisfy myself that the amendments represent current industry norms and are in the best interests of agriculture here in Manitoba. Education System School Nursing Services Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Speaker, in the city of Winnipeg school nursing services are at about half strength, and nursing duties are being offloaded onto teachers. I would like to ask the Minister of Education whether it is the government's policy to train teachers to search for head lice and to use teaching time for such examinations. Ron.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Education and Training): I indicated to the member, last week I believe it was, and perhaps she maybe does not recall my indicating that last year the Department of Health made available to school divisions some $450,000 for the purpose of being able to hire registered nurses for schools. From that pool of money, some quarter of a million dollars was utilized for the hiring of registered nurses in schools. So there should be no need for teachers to be assuming registered nurses' duties, given that funding for the hiring of nurses through Health was made available. Ms.

Friesen : My supplementary is to the Minister of Health. Could I ask the minister to tell us how it is that school nursing services in the city of Winnipeg have deteriorated to such a serious extent when this government, this minister, the previous minister, possibly even the minister before that has made commitment after commitment to the Post! report and to community-based nursing services, beginning in the schools? Ron. Darren Praznik (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, I would reject the member's accusation that school nursing services provided through the Ministry of Health in any way or form have declined.

There have obviously been increases in need in some areas, shifts in need, and those we are hoping to accommodate through our regional health authorities, but I do reject her comment that there has been some massive decline in service. Ms. Friesen: Madam Speaker, the supplemental, also to the Minister of Health.

Would the minister make a commitment in the agreement that is being reached now between the City of Winnipeg Health Services and the Long Term Health Care Authority that public health nurses will be returned to the schools and that they will form the basis for medical services which will focus on the child? Mr. Praznik: Madam Speaker, we would expect that, in an appropriate fashion, the Winnipeg Long Term Care Authority, as well as rural regional health

June 9, 1998 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4185 authorities, will use the schools, where appropriate, to provide for services. If the member is asking that there be in each school a public health nurse there full time, that may not be necessarily the most efficient way to deliver those services. So I cannot make that commitment to her today, but certainly, where it is appropriate, that is part of the expectation of delivery of service by regional health authorities. Sayisi Dene TLE Framework Agreement Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Northern Affairs.

Last month the minister refused to support the substantive parts of Resolution 30, the Sayisi Dene Relocation, stating that rather than asking the federal government to reopen negotiations, he is hopeful that the federal government will, on its own, agree to accept TLE within the territory of Nunavut. My question is simply this: given that the federal government immediately, following the signing of the TLE agreement in principle on May 31, 1996, reversed its position and said that it would accept TLE lands outside Manitoba, why does this minister continue to argue the contrary? Hon.

David Newman (Minister responsible for Northern and Native Affairs): Madam Speaker, I, of course, cannot and will not defend the federal government's position on this. The federal govern ment's position is, frankly, unacceptable. The position that was taken in relation to the negotiating of the treaty resulting in Nunavut having terms in the agreement for their future which did not include the Dene people and their traditional hunting grounds has caused a dilemma, a dilemma which they can solve.

My understanding is that a process is underway between the Sayisi Dene and the Dene people in the existing Northwest Territories to try and come up with a solution co-operatively with the emerging leadership of Nunavut and the federal government, and hopefully this will bring about a success. We are certainly on their side. Mr. Jennissen: Madam Speaker, given that the Sayisi Dene will be voting on the TLE framework agreement next month, what efforts has this minister made to pressure the federal government to live up to its obligation, and could he table any such correspon dence? Mr.

Newman: Madam Speaker, I had a meeting face to face with the federal Minister responsible for Native and Northern Affairs, Jane Stewart, in my office and not only raised the issue but presented a document outlining our concern about this issue. That has been a matter which has been a responsibility of the federal government to address through her since that time and no doubt before I ever had that face-to-face meeting. Children First Report Government Response Mr.

Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Madam Speaker, last week Manitobans were angry over the revelations concerning how many children this government was warehousing in hotels due to cuts in foster care, cuts to welfare, amongst other cuts to supports for low-income parents and students. Apparently, in Saskatchewan they have kept their supports in place and just half the number of kids are in care, so it has no children living in hotels in that province.

I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what the response of this government has been with respect to the 1993 report of the First Nations Child and Family Task Force entitled Children First: Our Responsibility. Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Fam ily Services): I thank my honourable friend for that question.

That report was commissioned by our government, and the recommendations that were in the report, I believe, and other reports that have come forward have recommended that we should be looking at the issue of an aboriginal agency or some way to better serve aboriginal children within the city of Winnipeg. Madam Speaker, I hav�., had discussions with the federal minister because, in the absence of federal legislation around child welfare, I, as the minister in Manitoba responsible for The Child and Family

4186 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1998 Services Act, have responsibility for all children throughout the province, although we do mandate agencies. The agency that is mandated in the city of Winnipeg is the Winnipeg Child and Family Services agency. But obviously we are seeing high numbers of aboriginal children within the city of Winnipeg's jurisdiction, and we are not doing a very good job of trying to deal with the issues of those children.

So, Madam Speaker, I have put in place a process where we have invited the AMC, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Social Planning Council, the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg and the Winnipeg agency together to try to find ways of resolving the issues and provide better services to children. Madam Speaker: Time for Orai Questions has expired. *

(1420) Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) on May 12 rose on a matter of privilege asserting that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Toews) had deliberately misled the House because of the inconsistencies in the minister's versions of events regarding the appointment of judges to the Provincial Court of Manitoba and moved that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I wish to thank the honourable member for St.

Johns, the government House leader, the opposition House leader, the Minister of Justice and the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for their advice to the Chair on the matter of privilege. The two tests for a matter of privilege are: one, was the matter raised at the earliest opportunity, and two, is there sufficient evidence that the privileges of the House have been breached to warrant putting the matter to the House. With respect to the first test, the honourable member did raise his matter at the earliest opportunity.

With respect to whether the member has made a prima facie case, I would refer members to precedents established by rulings of Speakers Walding, Phillips and Rocan, as I did on March 13 of this year when ruling on another matter of privilege. These rulings clearly indicated that a deliberate misleading of the House involves an intent to mislead and/or knowledge that the statement would mislead. Perhaps more importantly, Speakers Walding, Phillips and Rocan have ruled that when one member charges that another member has deliberately misled the House, the member making the charge must furnish proof of intent.

Parliamentary Privilege in Canada by Joseph Maingot sustains this opinion. On page 234 he states that an admission that a member of the House was intentionally misled and a direct relationship between the misleading information and a proceeding in parliament would be necessary to establish a prima facie case of a matter of privilege. I wish to say at this point that, short of a member acknowledging to the House that she or he deliberately and with intent set out to mislead, it is virtually impossible to prove that a member deliberately misled the House. In reading the Hansard, I would agree, as the member for St.

Johns phrased it, there was "a series of inconsistencies" in the statements of the Minister of Justice between May 7 and May 11. However, that is not sufficient to establish a prima facie case of privilege. Speaker Rocan on June 19, 1991, was very clear on this matter when ruling on two different matters of privilege. In the first instance a minister had asserted one set of facts in Committee of Supply but made a contradictory statement later during Question Period, and in the second instance a statement in Supply was later repudiated in a press release.

To paraphrase from one of those rulings: while the minister may well have contradicted himself, the member for St. Johns has not furnished proof that the minister deliberately set out to mislead the House. Although the member for St. Johns may have a grievance or a complaint against the minister, I must rule that he has not established a prima facie case of privilege and rule his motion out of order.

June 9, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 418 7 Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Speaker, with regret, since we certainly agree with much of the text of the ruling, we do challenge your ruling that it is not a prima facie case. Voi«,Vote Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair has been challenged. All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Speaker: All those. opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Spea.ker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. *

(1430) Formal Vote Mr� Ashton: Yeas and nays� Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in ihe members. Order, please. The motion before the House is shaH the ruling of the Chair be sustained. Division A RECORDED YOTE wcu taken; the resuilt meing as follows: Cur;;;:?ings, Derkach, Driedger (CFzarf'esweJXil£l)J, Dll'ie.dger (Stef.'?bach), Dyck, Enns, Faurschou, Filmon, Findlay, Gillesharri,'!Jer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, Nklntosh, Mitchefs[}n. Newman, Penner, Pitura, P'r��. Radcliffe, Reimer, Render. Stefanson, SVe.inson; Toews;.

Tweed. 1\.T....,v� l�"J- Ashton, .!lifliif!tt, Cerilll,' ChrMiiak. Dewar, Doer, E vans (Brandon Edli}.; Friesi?n, �- Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, McGif./iitd, Mflty'C"'tuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Safttos, Struther'§..'·Wowchuk. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 20. Madam Speaker: The ruling of the Chair is accordingly sustained. Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the member for Gla dstone (Mr. Rocan). If I had voted, I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Back 40 Folk Festival Mr.

Peter Dyck (Pembina): This past weekend I had the pleasure of attending the 9th Annual Back 40 Folk Festival in the town of Morden. The festival is a nonprofit organization whose primary purpose is to educate the Morden and Winkler area about folk music by exposing residen ts to folk music. Folk music is an enjoyable pursuit that conveys a healthy message for the community and family life, and to• that end the festival aims to keep homemade mlilSiii::alhte throughout � Pem1uma a11ea.

During the ali-day event, people were treated with the blues, a tottch of Latino, a taste of Celtic, an immersion in Menoonite Circle Games and songwriters' work shops, just to name a few. An event such as the Back 40 Folk Festival does noLO(:�ur without a committed core of volunteers and generous sponsors. I would therefore like to voice my congra tulatiQm w the board of directors and in particular its chair, :Mir:. Dave Stobbe, for their ef forts ir. presenting another suc�fal n<ent. r a.m; especially pl'emiedl that our government, through the Department of Culture;.

Heritage and Citizenship, is a'}!n:oud sponsor of this o�ihg festival. As well, many rocal businesses or organ izatttl.hs,.imrlafiifgfl\(f Tow� of Morden, Morden Lions Clilb;.R.0i�« Tra�eF Vans and Triple E Canada, support the festiWO\ attdi make: it possible. With the I Oth anniversary alrecr� ii\1 the works, I encourage all my honourable colleagues to conlc G!l! to the Pembina constituency next June and see a sampling of trt!e rural hospitality and music. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Education System Ms. MaryAnn Mihychu k (�t. James): Madam Speaker, while edicts from the Minis ter oi EGu�.:!tion (Mrs.

Mcintosh) are becoming more and more

4188 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 1998 commonplace, who apparently knows better than teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards, yesterday alone I raised the issue of the latest edict from the Department of Eduction, stating that school divisions and teachers are going to be required to expend $40 of their $50 for textbook materials from the Manitoba Textbook Bureau.

This is only the last of a series of edicts, even though in this circumstance ordering from the Textbook Bureau at this time is more expensive, provides less flexibility and eventually means fewer classroom materials for students. This heavy-handed approach has been seen in several different issues. God Save the Queen recently was the first of a series of edicts, completely out of touch of what is the reality in Manitoba schools. Number two, the Minister of Education feels that she knows more about discipline than principals when she issued an edict saying that Chris Millar needed to be made an example of.

Number three, there is the exam scam in which we had a whole series of exams pronounced by the minister, and meanwhile teachers, principals, superintendents and school boards urged the minister to reconsider. It was not until much later that she actually did that. Finally, we have the textbcck scenario, which is a final example of another edict from the minister. The question is: is the minister finally going to learn to listen to those educators, those teachers and school boards, who perhaps know better than the Minister of Education?

Save them some grief, Madam Speaker, consult first before you issue your edicts. That is our message to the Minister of Education. Finally, one further question that Manitobans have is why the Minister of Education appears to have no respect for those educators, those trustees, super intendents, principals and teachers who she appears to have little respect and no time for. Thank you, Madam Speaker. St. Norbert Foundation Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau (S!. i�orbert): Ma.dam Speaker, it is a ��C;asure to rise in this House today and pay recognition to yet another step our government has taken in support- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Laurendeau: Let me start again, Madam Speaker. It is a pleasure to rise in this House today and pay recognition to yet another step our government has taken in support of young Manitobans challenged with addiction. This morning I had the pleasure of participating, along with my colleagues the Minister of Health (Mr. Praznik) and the Minister of Family Service (Mrs.

Mitchelson), in an announcement at the St. Norbert Foundation that establishes a residential treatment facility to help young solvent abusers aged 16 to 26 with priority placement for pregnant women. This commitment our government has made of $1.2 million to this program is another example of our dedication to ensuring all Manitobans are able to fully participate and benefit from the success of our province's experience on so many levels. The St. Norbert Foundation has been an important part of my community for the past 25 years and has demonstrated the values that St. Norbert has become known for.

The foundation, through its board of directors and its executive director, has proven its ability tc assist Manitobans with a variety of challenges and has benefited our community. Today's announce ment will mean that 20 beds will be available for solvent abusers and an additional I 0 will be available for dependent children. Individuals will be given the vocational, intellectual, and communicative skills that are needed to succeed in society and will receive important parenting skills without having the family unit interrupted.

This morning, after the announcement, I hctci the opportunity to talk to one of the pa.rticipants in the foundation program, and he �pvke of how the facility was giving him rene'.ve:ci self-confidence and the skills to lead a fil!fiiiing life. He told me that he was learning i:iiportant parenting skills, skills such as emotional support that would ensure his children had a head start in life. This is just one �!�ij, and there are many more similar stori�� from those who are currently involved in the f�·.lndation and those who have been in the past.

It is for that reason that I continue to be proud of the work of the St. Norbert Foundation, and I am particularly proud that our government has been able to work in partnership with the foundation for the betterment of Manitoba and all Manitobans.

June 9, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 418 9 Employment Creation Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, it is rather amusing to listen to members opposite from time to time take credit for the economic situation in the province of Manitoba. Indeed, they delude themselves about the causes of any economic expansion that we do appreciate in this province, assuming that their fiscal policy is some sort of critical factor in it. But this is not the case. In fact, there are some very major reasons why economic trends are what they are.

But I want to ask members opposite, if the situation in Manitoba is so good, why are we nine out of 10 in job creation this year in Canada? The first five months, January to May of this year, we are second from the bottom, low man on the totem pole, and our rate of job creation was 1.1 percent so far this year,

whereas Canada's was 3. 0. Canada has three times the rate of job creation than Manitoba, and even in our sister province of Saskatchewan, the job creation was double what we have had in Manitoba, 2.4 percent compared to 1.1. So the government should be concerned about this relatively weak employment growth that we have. They should be concerned about outward migration.

They should be concerned about lagging real wages, and they should get real and realize that whatever economic growth we do have is a result of low interest rates on the one hand and a buoyant American economy on the other, which has a very positive impact on our exports, and thirdly, a relatively cheap Canadian dollar. Those are the real economic factors, not the fiscal policies of this government, Madam Speaker. * (1 440) School Divisions- Amalgamations Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I just want to continue on from my question from earlier today. I think the Minister of Education (Mrs.

Mcintosh) intentionally ignores, I believe, what is a very important issue. The government is actually very firm in its position that all amalgamations of school divisions will be done on a volunteer basis. So, in essence, what we have is the government of the day saying that we will allow school divisions to grow, but we will not allow school divisions to get smaller. I think that does provide two levels of service, completely different, and I do not believe that it is fair. I have always been an advocate of reviewing the school divisions.

I believe that the overall reduction is in fact necessary, but I also believe, as I made presentation to the Norrie commission, that you cannot have it both ways. I believe that the government is, in fact, doing a disservice to a great number of Manitobans by not taking any sort of a stand or demonstrating any leadership on the whole way in which we administer education, public education in the province of Manitoba. As a result of that lack of leadership, what we see is many different inequities throughout the school divisions.

It is unfortunate, because this is a government that has been now in power for the last decade, and still, unfortunately, chooses to show no leadership in addressing this very important issue which, unfortunately, will likely not get resolved in the near future because of the unwillingness of this government to recognize the need for change in that area. Thank you. Committee Changes Mr. Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Charleswood (Mrs.

Driedger), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Tuesday, June 9, 19 98, at 10 a.m. be amended as follows: the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). This change had been moved in the standing committee this morning, by leave, and is now being moved so that the records in the House will be accurately reflected. Motion agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon.

James McCrae (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on the expectation that a number of bills might be passed today at second reading, I would

419 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 98 like to announce that on Thursday, June 11 , 19 98, at ten o'clock in the forenoon, the Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit to consider bills referred to it. This particular announcement would require the leave of the House because, as you knO\'', the House will be sitting Thursday morning. Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to permit the Standing Committee on Law Amendments to sit concurrently with the Chamber on Thursday, June 11 , at 10 a.m., to consider bills referred? [agreed] Mr.

McCrae: That is on the expectation, as I say, that some bills will receive second reading today. It is also expected that on Thursday morning we will have two private members' hours to deal with matters on the Order Paper for that day. It is expected that Wednesday, tomorrow, we would spend the entire day, once we move to government orders, that we would deal with Estimates and waive private members' hour tomorrow. For today, well, we just do not know, Madam Speaker, what we are going to do with respect to private members' hour, but we will see what kind of progress we make.

It may be that at five o'clock we will ask members not to see the clock-or not, depending on what kind of progress we have made with respect to bills. An Honourable Member: That is kind of wishy washy, is it not? Mr. McCrae: Well, I thought it was a bit that way, too. When we are wish y-washy like this, we are reminded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) that we-[inter jection] Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Bills 22, 24, 3 7, 41, 19 , 44, 36 and then the bills in the order we see them on the Order Paper? Would there be agreement to waive private members' hour tomorrow, Wednesday?

Madam Speaker: Is there agreement to waive private members' hour tomorrow, Wednesday? [agreed] DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 22-The Veterinary Services Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second readings, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 22 (The Veterinary Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les soins veterinaires), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? No? Leave has been denied. Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the vet services amendment bill, as the minis ter indicated in his comments, is not a very lengthy bill or one of very much substance. It is one that is just going to make a few changes to the act that has been in place for some time.

The one change that it does make, Madam Speaker, is it allows for the dissolu tion of vet services districts that have come to a point where they are no longer in existence, and in the present situation there is not the ability to dissolve these vet services districts. I guess when the legislation was first brought in, it was anticipated that there would be a continuance of vet services districts for a long period of time, and there was no need to think about this continuance of them. But we have seen a change in the climate, in the environment in rural Manitoba.

When I checked with people in the department as to what was happening, they said that there was an increase in private vets in some areas, and in other areas there just was not, and there have not been that many services districts that have been dissolved. * (14 50) But we have seen a difference in the kinds of services that are provided in rural Manitoba under this govern ment. Over the past few years, we saw services that were once provided by the Department of Agriculture that are now privatized and a move over to private services.

June 9, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4191 But I want to say, Madam Speaker, that the livestock industry is a very important industry in rural Manitoba, whether it be cattle or horses or hogs or poultry. They play a very important

part in the economy of rural Manitoba, and there is definitely a need to have veterinarian services provided to the farming community. As I said, Madam Speaker, the area that we have seen a difference in is we have heard people saying there are less services or it is more difficult to get services, particularly in the calving season. There used to be much more willin gness on the part of veterinarians to go out to farms to provide services. Now it is required more on the part of the farmer to bring his animals to the vet clinic or to the veterinarian to have services provided.

So there are some differences in the services that are provided, but when I first saw the bill and I saw the move to disc ontinue vet service districts, I was a little bit concerned that this was a move to see more of them dismantled. I would hope that they would not be dismantled. The bill also provides for immunity so that no proceedings can be brought against members of the board for actions done in good faith, Madam Speaker, and that is a good clause. People volunteer their time to serve on these boards.

They should have the protection that other boards do have to ensure that they do not end up with lawsuits on their hands when they are actually doing volunteer work. The bill also allows for municipalities to get back any expenditures that they put in place for out of pocket when the district was being set up, such as capital, such as property and other services, or it could be a building that the municipality has set up. Virtually the bill gives way to distribute and dispose of the assets in an orderly fashion.

It also puts in place an appeal board to hear appeals that may be made against decisions with regard to vet services boards, Madam Speaker. It is a bill that I am disappointed that vet districts are being discontinued, but that is the way things evolve sometimes in the rural community. As we move over to more of a private system and government vets have to set up their own practices in the rural communities, there is not any further need for the districts. So this bill will allow for this to happen in an orderly fashion, and we are prepared to support the bill and allow it to go to committee. Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, just very briefly, Bill 22, from what we understand, this act has not been changed for some time now, but the recent closure of a veterinary district exposed areas where the act was lacking in terms of facilitating that closure. The bill aims to improve regulation of a veterinary practice, which is something that perhaps could have been done somewhat sooner, given the rapid expansion of the livestock industry in the province of Manitoba, something in which I know the current Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns) takes a great deal of pride, particularly with the hog industry, where we have seen just tremendous, tremendous growth. Hopefully, this will do some assisting in the latter parts of the comment that I just made. Thank you. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading, Bill 22. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed. Agreed and so ordered.

Bill 24- The Crop Insurance Amendment Act Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on second reading on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), Bill 24, The Crop Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'assurance-recolte), standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied. Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this bill today to speak about Manitoba Crop In surance. Manitoba Crop Insurance L a very, very important tool used by farmers across the province. We just saw in the last week or so how important it was when we had the untimely frost that hit many, many farmers and put

419 2 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 98 tremendous amount of pressure on them. Whether it be frost or flooding or drought or hail, those acts of God, Mother Nature showing its strength, create a burden for farmers, but the burden is much lessened by a very good program that we have and that we have had for many years in Manitoba, and that is the Manitoba Crop Insurance program. This program pays out large amounts of money to farmers during times of disaster.

Of course, farmers have the option of whether they choose to go into the program or not, and over the past few years, we have seen an increase in the number of farmers who are participating. One of the reasons that has happened is because we now have Enhanced Crop Insurance, which is a program which was brought in as a result of additional money coming in from the federal government. The provincial government had the ability to enhance crop insurance and offer a 50 percent coverage to farmers without any charge other than the administration fee of the program. So we have seen an increase.

That is certainly an improvement to crop insurance, but it is the kind of program that we always have to be looking at, and looking at ways to improve the program. As I listen to farmers speak about this program, an issue that has come up many times is, not only in crop insurance, but how we can get better coverage. The input costs are much higher than they ever used to be. Costs of producing this food for the rest of the world put a tremendous burden on farmers, on their pay cheque or their return for their product.

We have to look at ways that we can continually review the program to ensure that there is the best possible coverage that we can have for farmers. As crops evolve, as we change things, we have to always be looking to add in additional crops. Crop Insurance also administers other programs, the safety net programs, and it is timely that we should be talking about safety nets at this time, given that the program is negotiated between the federal and provincial government and they are up for negotiations. We had this discussion the other day, a short discussion when we were in Estimates.

I conveyed to the minister how important it is that we have the best possible safety nets that we can and, as these negotiations go on, that we ensure that the safety nets that we have are based on risk rather than on the value of the product that is being produced as is being proposed by other governments. We know that here in western Canada and here in Manitoba we face much, much greater risks than do people in the West, in Ontario or in British Columbia. The Prairies are an important part to the economy.

We grow a lot of crops here, but also the farmers who work in this area have a great amount of risk. * (1 500) The bill, Madam Speaker, allows for the sale of data collected by Manitoba Crop Insurance. Manitoba Crop Ins urance coll ects data on various crops and a Jot of agriculture material, and, as I understand it, they have been able to sell this information from time to time and use it as a revenue source. This legislation will legitimize the sale of the information through Crop Insu rance that has been taking place up till now. Certainly we have no problem with that

section of the bill. Madam Speaker, the

section of the bill that we do have concern with-and we have not had very much time to discuss this in Agriculture Estimates. That is one of the mistakes you make when you allow the department to go later rather than earlier. I think it is a lesson that I will learn if I have any choice in it.

Next year, I will be sure that Agriculture Estimates are early up on the list so that we can have the time that Agricult ure really deserves, because, as it looks right now, the Agriculture Estimates are going to be squeezed very greatly and will result in us not having the opportunity to discuss in much detail many of the concerns and issues that are facing the agriculture community. However, I know that we have conc urrence, and perhaps at that time we can raise more of those issues. But the issue that I have concerns with, Madam Speaker, and that we have discussed in our caucus, is the

section to deal with reinsurance. The bill gives the ability to charge interest on loans and set private reinsurance for the corporation. This could have implications. What we are concerned about is two things. I am concerned as to why the minister is looking at reinsurance, this issue right now. As I understand it, Manitoba has just signed a five-year deal with the federal government, and the federal

June 9, 19 98 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 419 3 government will provide reinsurance. There is no big rush to proceed with this. I believe that, if you are moving on this, it is going to give the federal government a signal that you are prepared to move to private insurance. I really feel very strongly that the federal government has a responsibil ity to agriculture. They have certainly been reneging on that responsibility. We have seen over the last couple of budgets that there has been very little mention of agriculture within the federal budget or throne speech. There is less and less of a commitment.

When we make this kind of move, saying we are getting ready just in case the federal government wants to get out of reinsurance, then the provincial government is sending the signal to the federal government saying they are quite prepared to let them get out of this responsibility. I am not quite sure why the government would bring forward an amendment that will now allow for reinsurance with the government of Canada, the government of Manitoba, the government of any other jurisdiction, any person, whether or not that government or person in Manitoba is insured under the act.

The current act allows for the advancement of funds to the corporation without legis lative authority for the building of capital on an interest free loan. This amendment will allow for the charging on interest of loans. So, Madam Speaker, there is a concern as to why the government would want to then open the door up. Is the government now saying that they want to allow for insurance to go out into the private sector? If this is the case, if we start to reinsure in another area, what is going to be the impact on producers? Producers now say the price they have to pay for insurance is high.

When you look at their bottom line, where the return for the product that they are getting, after you take into consideration all the input costs, farmers are operating on a very, very narrow margin. They cannot afford to have additional costs, and they cannot afford to be without insurance. So I would have to tell the minister that we have serious concerns.

We will talk about this in greater detail, I hope, when we get back into Agriculture Estimates as to why the government is seeking the ability to reinsure from agencies other than the provincial or federal government, and why the government is proposing to charge loans to the corporation from the reinsurance agency, from bearing interest to becoming interest bearing or noninterest bearing. So, Madam Speaker, there are areas that we do have concerns with. We do not support the government on the concept of reinsuring. We have talked to the various farm organizations. We have talked to the National Farmers Union.

They have expressed the concern of the possibili ty of this change resulting in higher premiums for recovery of interest charges on loans from the government. Keystone Agricultural Producers has also expressed a concern. It feels that the federal government is pulling out, and the provinces have not got the capacity to cover reinsurance by themselves, so they will then have to go to the private sector to have this reinsurance.

I have to say, Madam Speaker, that when we talked to the Saskatchewan government, they said that they could not see any reason for moving into the private sector for reinsurance, because of the five-year agreements that they now have. There are five-year agreements. Manitoba has a five-year agreement with the federal government. Saskatchewan has a five-year agreement with the federal government, and, they again said that they do not see any reason to expand the reinsurance into the private market. Again, getting into the private reinsurance is only going to raise the premiums.

The other concern is that Crop Insurance has been cons idered a green program under the international trade markets, so then why do you want to change it? If it is not considered that it is a subsidy in any way, why would you want to change it over? As I say, Madam SpeakPr, we have concerns. We have no problem with the

section of the bill that is allowing for the sale of information the Manitoba Crop Insurance collects, the data that they collect. We have no problem with that. We have a serious concern with the decision of the province-that part of the bill that will allow Manitoba Crop Insurance again to move into the private sector when there are agreements in place. In my opinion, what this bill does is open the door for the federal government to back out of their responsibilities for reinsurance in Manitoba prematurely. There is, and I think, with all the pressures that we have on the farming community right now, we do not need

419 4 LEGISLATIV E ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 98 additional costs or we do not need to bring forward the risk by bringing reinsurance to the private sector which will result in higher premiums for the producers and will allow for the federal government to get out of their responsibili ty with regard to the farming f'Ommunity. I mentioned earlier that crop insurance, as it is right now, is considered to be acceptable on the national trade agreements.

I think, with those comments, I will leave that one and perhaps when we get into the Agriculture Estimates or when we get to committee on this bill, those concerns that we·have, if the minister has an explanation for them, he can bring them forward to us at that time, but just as with other bills, we checked with the farming community and the farming community has concerns with what the impacts of this bill will be on farmers, that indeed, if we go to the private sector that there are going to be increased costs and really the province should be lobbying the federal government as hard as they can to live . up to their responsibil ity to the farming community rather than allowing them an opportunity to renege further on them.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, you know, in listening to the member for Swan River, I think there is a lot of merit to what it is that she is saying which the government should be making note of.

I bel ieve that the public is or many Manitoba farmers recognize the need for involvement of insurance programs that are sponsored through government and one always has to be somewhat concerned when we see changes that could ultimately have a negative impact on the way in which we cover insurances. * (15 10 ) Having said that, suffice to say that this bill concerning crop insurance deals with the Manitoba Crop Insurance Corporation and how it operates. There are a handful of housekeeping clauses from what I understand. In par ticular, there is one part that deals with the concerns to the sale of MCIC data.

Over the years, MCIC has become more sophisticated in gathering information of particular plants in agricultural production. Some of this information is quite desirable and has been in many cases sold off in some instances. From what I understand, the amendments will acknowledge what has actually been taking place and will allow for the corporation to do so then for its own benefit. Thank you. Madam Speaker: The honourable Minister of Agriculture, to close debate. Hon. Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Just a few comments in closing debate on the bill at second reading at this point in time.

I appreciate the comments from both sides of the House on this issue and will look forward to having the honourable members, particularly from Swan River, have an opportunity to debate some of these issues with Crop Insurance officials when second reading of this bill is before us. I intend to have somebody there for second reading because some of these issues should be abundantly clear. We certainly do not want to do anything that would allow, will even give the perception of allowing Ottawa to back away from its current level of contribution to crop insurance.

It is the one program that has, over the course of years, maintained a steady 60-40, roughly, contribution, 60 percent Ottawa, 40 percent the province, and despite the fact that the overall safety net support program provided by Ottawa has been decreased from a maximum of$860 million to some $600 mill ion-a very significant decrease.

I appreciate, Madam Speaker, that because of the priorities of everybody and their attention span, everybody focuses on the cutbacks that have occurred in social services, in health, education, but agriculture has taken an unprecedented-! say this to my friend from Inkster-reduction from Ottawa; the elimination of the Crow alone, over $700 million. [interjection] That has now run out. It was a three-year cushioning package just to make the drop a little easier to take, but the fact of the matter is it was just about enshrined as part of the Canadian Constitution, if you like, a part of Confederation.

Ever since this part of the Prairies started growing grain, we had a set price, a freight price, to move the grain. [interjection] I agree with you. That is another issue, but I am just talking about Ottawa's reduction. Also, as honourable members are aware and I want to alert them to it, Ottawa is backing away from some other very significant and worrisome areas, meat inspection, health and food inspection and things like that, this coming at a time when Canadians, Manitobans, legitimately should be and are concerned about what we eat.

June 9, 19 98 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 419 5 We are concerned about how our processors handle them. We are concerned about how they are handled in the retail trade. We are concerned about how they leave the farm gate. Do they leave them as healthy animals, or are they injected with antibiotics and other medicines just to keep them well enough to get them on a truck and ship them and the likes of this? I note my good friend the honourable member for LaVerendrye (Mr.

Sveinson) understands all this because he, of course, has been in the meat inspection business prior to him coming into this Chamber, so he makes a valuable contribution on this subject, and I encourage him to indicate this on some indications that we have on this bill. However, having said all that, allow me, Madam Spe aker-it is within the rules. It is because of my modest nature that I seldom blow the horn of my government or of myself, but despite the fact that we have lost the Crow, despite the fact that we have lost the Canadian Wheat Board freight-pooling arrangement at the St.

Lawrence Seaway which has equally a big impact on our grain moving east, Manitoba, during the period of our stewardship, 19 88 to '97, increased its overall cash receipts by some 45 percent. That is when the Canadian average across Canada was 32 percent. More importantly, again, because of the loss of the Crow-and this is why the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) intuitively says it is partly good too, and it is because what it has done, it has enabled us to ship more value-added goods.

During the same period of time, we increased our share of Canadian agriculture's overall production from 9 percent to 10 .2 percent. That is significant when you consider the big provinces like Quebec or Ontario or all the Maritimes, of course. They had no impact of the Crow. It was only on the three western provinces, really, where the impact of the loss of the Crow applies and to Manitoba specifically. So I input that interesting little bit of information on the record because it is agriculture innovation we are talking about, an agriculture matter.

I appreciate the comments of honourable members and look forward to a good discussion on this when we arrive at committee. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 24, The Crop Insurance Amendment Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bi11 37- The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on Bill 37, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns), The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les machines et le materiel agricoles et modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied. Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): It gives me pleasure to speak on another bill. You know, we were just talking earlier about not having enough time to speak on agriculture, and now we concentrate it all in one day.

We should be spreading this out over a few days to give people more opportunity to hear the challenges that farmers face but also the great values of the agriculture industry. Before I speak specifically on the bill, I want to say to the minister that we were talking about the impacts of changes, and there has been a tremendous impact that has resulted particularly on the prairie provinces because of char1ges made to federal programs, whether it be the Crow or the pooling. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr.

Lamoureux) has indicated from his seat, and I will quote: but it is going to be better for Manitobans eventually in the long term. * (1 520) Maybe it will but in the short term. First of all, we have to recognize that it was a huge reneging of responsibi lity on the part of the federal government when they chose only to put in transition money for three years. They were backing off on a big commitment and a big responsibili ty to agriculture. In

419 6 LEGI SLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 98 time things are going to change, but, in the next year or two, things are going to be very difficult for farmers because there is not going to be any more transition money. It is just going to be the return from the production. The minister indicates that cash receipts are up. Cash receipts are up in some areas, but the bottom line for farmers with additional input costs, additional transportation costs, all of that has put some farmers in a very, very difficult position.

I do not believe that farmers are better off now than they were as the transition comes through. Farmers change to different crops and production, which they will have to do, because they can no longer afford to ship grain to foreign markets with the low grain prices that we have and with the price of freight where it is. We also have to recognize that we are never going to use all of our grain in this process at all. We are going to have to ship some to foreign markets, and there is going to be those challenges there as well.

We are a grain producing area and we will shift over, but there are still going to be people who will grow grain, and that is going to be a real challenge. They can convert to different crops such as canola and beans and other products. Anybody that knows farming knows that you also have to have a rotation, and every few years you are going to be growing crops that are not bringing a very great return to the producer, but he still has to have some of those as part of the rotation. Madam Speaker, the bill we have before us now is The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act.

We are talking about how difficult it is for farmers at the present time and them not having very many safety nets. One of the things that farmers like to have-it is just like any other person that is in business that uses equipment-they like to have some warranty on their equipment. Manitoba farmers are presently lucky in this area because they have a two-year warranty. A two-year warranty is not that long when you consider that on machinery such as a combine, which is only used for a very short period of time during the harvest season, the warranty is not very long.

Even on a tractor, when you are paying over $1 00,000 on a tractor, a two-year warranty is not that long. However, for some unknown reason, this Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) has decided that he would listen to, I guess, the farm machinery dealers and the manufacturers who are, I must say, probably in much better financial shape than many farmers are right now, and he has decided to change the level of warranty from two years to one year. Now, why are we doing this? To level the playing field with other provinces.

Well, my goodness, Madam Speaker, can we not be the leader and stand up for farmers and say this is good for farmers and encourage the other provinces to stand up for their producers and have a better warranty and ensure that there is a two-year warranty instead of a one-year warranty? The minister said that part of this has to do with cost, that the warranty is written right into the price of the machinery. Well, Madam Speaker, we all know that whether we are buying a car or a tractor or a combine, we all negotiate.

It is the bottom line of what you pay for that piece of equipment that really is the true price, not the 1 percent or the 2 percent that is added on to the warranty and the sticker price. It is the actual price that you pay. We have done some checking, Madam Speaker. There is this discussion that they are changing this so that, I guess, farm machinery dealers would not have to worry about people running across the border into Saskatchewan to buy a machine there because it is cheaper. Well, what we have found out is that there is no difference in price.

The dealers know they want the business, and they are going to meet the price of the farmer. I am sure when you are buying a combine that is worth well over $1 00,000, there is enough cushion in that price if the dealers can well afford to, and the manufacturers can well afford to, absorb that extra price. I have to wonder why a machinery dealer would worry about a two-year warranty.

My goodness, you would think that they would have enough faith in their equipment that they have developed and are putting up for sale that they would think that their equipment is of high enough quality that they could ensure that there was a two-year warranty there. So it is a real concern that we have with this piece of legislation that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) should be listening to the farm dealers and rather than saying and bending to the pressures that I am sure have been put on him, rather than bending to those pressures, he would be

June 9, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 419 7 standing up for the fanners and ensuring that they have some guarantee and some warranty on the equipment that they are buying. We all know that, of course, when you have a warranty, warranty does not cover all parts, but the basic parts of the equipment should be covered. There have been changes to the warranty so that now things like belts and hydraulic components, electrical parts, diesel pumps are not excluded from warranty, but other parts are excluded. That happens with every warranty. There are certain parts of the equipment that are not under warranty.

The other area that I raised earlier today in Question Period with the minister is the emergency repair parts. Now, the minister often tells us that he is a modest farmer, and I know he is a very modest man. I also know that the minister works with farm machinery, and he understands the pressure that comes on fanners whether it be at harvest time for a grain farmer, or seeding during the spring, or the milking season which is every day for a dairy producer. When a piece of equipment breaks down, it is vital that you have that piece of equipment as quickly as possible.

In the old legis lation, there was a requirement that when there was an emergency-and a farmer just could not be calling the dealer up for some bolts or some minor parts to get them ordered to be considered an emergency. In our own situation where we are grain farmers, I share with you an example of two years ago when I am not sure what was happening, but we were combining canola. We were just having such a difficult time with parts breaking down for us, and we were able to call dealers after regular working hours. The dealers are very good.

They are very prepared to provide you with those repairs, and they will go the extra mile. In our situation, we could not get the repairs for our combine in Swan River, but the dealer gave us the phone numbers. We ended up going as far as Ste. Rose for the repairs, but we needed them. It was harvest, and the dealers were very accommodating with us.

So I am not quite sure why the minister is prepared to change the legislation that previously said tha! emergency repair parts could be ordered from Monday to Saturday from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m., which gave you four extra hours at least during the day, but, under this legislation, it means that you will only be able to order your repairs during normal hours. Now, I know that there are farm machinery dealers who are still going to go that extra mile and provide fanners with the emergency service, but I do not know and I do not understand why the minister would change the legislation.

The legislation has been working, and it did give farmers a bit of leverage. When someone did not want to go the extra mile, you could say, well, you had the act to fall back on. That was your insurance that you would be able to get those repairs as quickly as possible.

So I do not understand, again, why, when fanners are facing the tremendous challenges that they are right now with changing crops and diversifying into different livestock and other things that are going to require them to have different kinds of equipment and will require that they will continue to need emergency services, as I say, Madam Speaker, whether it is in the dairy industry or the livestock industry, cattle industry, any of them, and emergency repairs will be needed, I do not understand, again, why the minister has moved in this direction.

There must be someone who is pressuring him to do this or encouraging him to do this, but it is certainly not from the farming community. * (1 530) We have talked to various farm groups and, again, we have checked with Keystone Agricultural Producers, and they have expressed the same concerns that we have, that the changes that are being brought forward are not in the best interests of farmers.

They do not believe that this is going to save them money, and nobody believes that by reducing the warranty from two years to one year that you are going to see a decrease in the price of the combine or the tractor you are buying. Anybody that believes that is-[ interjection) Yes, that is right. You have got something to do. We could sell them quite a few things. It is not going to happen.

So, Madam Speaker, as we had talked about earlier, farmers are going through a transition time, a time when they will be requiring different types of equipment, times when they will be facing different challenges and working with new kinds of equipment,

419 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 98 and we would hope the machinery dealers would have enough faith in their equipment that they would be quite prepared to provide a two-year warranty. This is certainly not a bill that we can support. would ask the minister to reconsider what he is doing here and, perhaps, leave this bill for a later time. The bill can pass; the minister does not have to enact it. Maybe we can reconsider this and think about what is in the best interests of farmers, because I believe he has made a mistake on this one.

Machinery dealers should be able to stand behind the product that they produce, and the minister, recognizing the importance of agriculture and the pressures that farmers are under, knows that getting repairs as quickly as possible is important. There are other sections in the bill, but it is those two sections that are causing us enough concern that we cannot support this bill. I understand th�t there are presenters who will be speaking on this bill, making presentations in committee.

We look forward to that and look forward to possibly hearing explanations from the minister as to at whose suggestion these amend ments came forward. Thank you, Madam Speaker. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I did want to say a few words on this particular bill, a few words of very serious concern. [interjection] The member for St. Norbert says: support it 10 0 percent. Not, not. I would look to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Eons), who has been here for a number of years, and even that goes back to Ed Schreyer's time when he was the Premier.

The minister might recall that back then there was legislation that was brought in that changed warranties. Some of the comments, from what I understand back then, were that, look, you could get better warranty on a watch than you could for a tractor. That sort of stuff was coming out. In second reading, Madam Speaker, again, I have not had the opportunity to go over Hansard in detail, but if I were to speculate, I would think that we probably had individuals like the Minister of Agriculture raising those concerns. If in fact he had, he would have been right. If he did not, I think maybe he overlooked it.

But I would suggest to you that this is a piece of legislation on the su rface that does not appear to be very, let us say, farmer- and consumer-help ful. The minister has not convinced members of the Chamber, and I also believe others, that this legislation is, in fact, warranted. Now, whether it was the opposition from this government when it was opposition to Mr. Schreyer, or it was the different interest groups. Then Mr. Schreyer made the changes, from what I understand, for third reading to take into consideration some of his misgivings from second reading.

Madam Speaker, I know that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enos) is very open minded on issues of this nature. I might not necessarily be able to be there for the committee hearing itself, but I would like to see some sort of amendments brought forward to the legislation. When you talk about the reduction, for example, of the warranty to the hours of service that was posed to the Minister of Agriculture earlier today for emergency services, the impact on the surface is quite overwhelming.

I think that there is a need for the Minis ter of Agriculture to indicate to the Chamber in terms of where it is that he is getting the amendments from. You know, the minister often makes reference to the fact he listens very closely prior to bringing in legislation. Well, Madam Speaker, I am interested in knowing whom he might have been listening to with respect to some of these amendments. That could cause some concern, as they point to the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Maybe the member for Turtle Mountain will stand up. Mind you, there might be somewhat of a conflict. I do not know.

I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture broadened his consultation outside of the member for Turtle Mountain to at least include some of those consumer groups, such as the farmer. I think the farmer is very important. In the past, our Minister of Agriculture has talked about the importance of our farmer. But, Madam Speaker, I did want to conclude, both the minister, in responding to the previous bill, and the member for Swan River made reference to the Crow rate. I really do believe that it is in our best interest that the Crow rate did disappear.

I believe that the Minister of Agriculture is in concurrence with that. The

June 9, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 99 question then becomes one of compensation. Was the compensation adequate? That is something which, from a Manitoban's perspective, I would think that we would always be asking for additional compensation or more compensation.

But that to the side, I would argue-and that is the reason why I said "in the long term"-that far too often, if you leave it up to those that pull the economic levers in eastern Canada and, to a certain degree, on the West Coast, Manitoba and Saskatchewan would be nothing more than a hinterland where we would not be allowed to have diversification. An Honourable Member: Drawers of water and hewers of wood. Mr. Lamoureux: The haulers of-drawers of water and doers of wood- Some Honourable Members: Hewers. Mr. Lamoureux: Hewers-make sure I am not mispronouncing that word, Madam Speaker-o f wood.

Hansard will ensure that proper pronunciation was there. But the point is made, Madam Speaker, that being that the Crow rate, getting rid of the Crow rate, the national government should in fact be applauded for it, because, in the long term, the province of Manitoba and our agricultural sector in particular will benefit tremendously by that. Having said that, I have expressed my concerns on this bill. I trust that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.

Enns) will give reconsideration to some of the concerns that have been brought forward, or, at the very least, articulate as to why-and I hope, I cannot commit to being at the Agriculture committee hearings on it, but I hope that the minister will deal with it. Thank you. Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Madam Speaker, just a couple of comments in regard to the bill that is being presented before us today. I reference the member for Inkster's (Mr.

Lamoureux) comments about a watch and the warranty that comes with it being longer than perhaps the $1 5,000 car or $200,000 tractor, but I guess my first question would be: when that person needs a warranty for his watch, he takes it to the dealer. The dealer repairs it. Who pays the dealer? The manufacturer? That is how warranty works in most parts of Canada. If you buy a $300,000 Porsche, the dealer is not responsible for the warranty that is put on that particular piece of machinery. It is the manufacturer that covers the warranty. The warranty that we are talking about is an imposed warranty upon the dealer.

It is not a warranty upon the manufacturers. The dealer who is selling and representing the manufacturer of that product is being held responsible for two years to maintain all the warranty and repairs necessary on that. I would suggest to you-the member for Inkster-that there are very few, and in fact after the debate is over I will ask him to maybe list some of them, because I know of none of them. Having had experience in the car business, having had experience in the implement business, having bought appliances, having bought furniture, the dealer is never responsible for the warranty.

It is the manufacturer of the product that represents. * (1 540) I can remember back in the late '70s, the car companies changed their warranties from a one-year, 12 ,000-mile, 20,000-kil ometre warranty, to a seven year, 1 15 ,000-kilometre warranty. They did not ask the dealers if that was what they wanted, because they were not imposing any extra costs upon the dealer. That was something that the manufacturers saw the consumer asking for and requiring, and they met those needs. Several years later they changed it. They changed it back to a three-year, 60,000-kilome tre warranty. And why?

Because the consumer told the manufacturers that the costs of the additional warranty and the implications of the warranty were raising the costs of the vehicle to the consumer. Therefore, they said: give us a more comprehensive warranty for less of a period of time, and that is exactly what I see happening, in the sense that the dealers do not make the product that they are selling. They represent the product, and I think we are putting an unfair burden on them particularly again. The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) brings it up.

If the farmers in her area are going to Saskatchewan and buying implements, which they do, they are coming back with a one-year warranty. They

4200 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 98 do not come back to Manitoba and get a two-year warranty. So obviously they are seeing a price advantage in Saskatchewan to buy. I can tell you frow experience that is exactly what happens, and dealers are worked back and forth on that system. I have lived it, so I know. I think the member for Swan River should talk to the dealers and find out how much it is impacting them, because it is impacting them greatly, particularly on the Saskatchewan border.

We do not experience the same problems on the east side simply because we are not competing with an agriculture. The member for Swan River mentioned in her statements, the dealers are doing well, the farmers are suff ering. Well, I can tell you that that is not true. The correlation is, as the farmer does well, so does everybody in rural Manitoba, so does the grocery, so does the pharmacist, so does the petroleum dealer. Nobody benefits unless the farmer is doing well.

I believe that, and I think the member believes that, even though she distorts her statement to think that the farm machinery dealers are coming to government and asking us to dictate down to a policy that would impose or put something onto the farmer that is not fair and equal across the entire western provinces. When the member brings up the idea of labour or the idea of the hours, I questioned that too, because, again, as a provider of a service to a person, their hours are unlimited and unrestricted.

I would suggest that, if you can find a dealer in rural Manitoba today that is still in existence, it is because they have been open and available every time the need has been there. Whether you put it in writing or put it in any kind of legislation, the hours that people work are going to be to accommodate the need.

Again, I question why they would have to even put a time frame on it, but if they are, in the instance of a small dealership who is employing people, he may say to that person: you work till six o'clock; I will be available, because I cannot afford to pay you to work till ten o'clock on call if it has been a rainy day and there are no calls. So I am suggesting to you that there may be something behind that.

I am not sure, but all I know is any dealer I know in rural Manitoba today that exists in the farm equipment business does not exist because they have taken advantage of farmers, does not exist because they have ignored the needs of farmers, and does not exist because they have neglected their duties. They are there because they have served exactly those reasons. They have been there when they have been needed. They have provided exemplary service. I think that, if you questioned your farm community, you would find that they would say that. They would defend the dealer as much as the dealer defends the farmer.

I think that is something that we cannot ever forget. I support the bill. I have been involved with The Farm Machinery Act at a personal level for years, and as a dealer I can tell you there have been certain impediments that I have seen in the legislation for years. I also know from talking to my constituents, my friends, farmers, agricultural people that they would agree too that there have been impediments in the legislation for them. I think what has happened is that we have listened to both sides and tried to come up with a reasonable resolve to some of the dilemmas that they saw. I would support the bill.

I think there are going to be some suggestions of some changes. I think as always that the minister has been open and available. I congratulate him for his consultations, because I know he has met with a lot of different groups, so, with that, those are my comments. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading [interjection] I am sorry. The honourable Minister of Agriculture, to close debate. Hon.

Harry Enos (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I want to assure the honourable members of the House that I understand we have at least upwards to half a dozen presentations to be made for this bill at comm ittee stage, so there will obviously be a lively discussion on the bill. I will listen to the bill. Let me make it patently clear that this bill is designed to create a situation with respect to the servicing and the warranty of farm machinery that is the best possible for the farmers in Manitoba. This bill is not designed for the dealers of Manitoba.

These changes are not designed for the manufacturers of the farm machinery, wherever they may be, worldwide. This bill is made to

June 9, 19 98 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4201 make a sensible business relationship that farmers have when they are purchasing their farm machinery, which, in this day and age, can be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars and care needs to be taken. The honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) reminds me of the time that this bill was put into place. I questioned the need for this bill, period. Of the mill ions of automobiles, and we all buy automobiles, there is not a scintilla of government regulation that tells any automobile dealer that they ought to have warranty. GM says it is good for GM.

Ford says it is good for Ford. Chrysler says it is good for Ford. Do you think John Deere or Massey Harris or New Holland are any less intelligent? It is a classic example of government intruding where they need not intrude, quite frankly. Classic, but we have it. Our farmers are used to it. I prefer to modify it to some extent. I will listen, and if upon presentations reasonable suggestions for amendments are made, I will have no difficulty in accepting those amendments. But they will have to be demonstrable to me and to my colle agues that they are in fact in the interests of the farmers.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 37 , The Farm Machinery and Equipment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: No. Voice Vote Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Ms. Wow chuk: On division, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: On division. *( 15 50) Bill 41 -The Life L eases and Consequential Amendments Act Madam Speaker: To resume adjourned debate on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe), Biii 41, The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur les baux viagers et modifications correlatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Speaker: No? Leave has been denied. Ms.

Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Speaker, I am pleased that I can speak on Bill 41, The Life Leases and Consequential Amendments Act. It is a legisla tion that is very much needed in the provinc e right now. There has been a year delay in this legis lation since the government withdrew it from the last session. In that time period, there has been quite a bit of risk that members of the public, those involved in life-lease condos, have been operating under and living under.

It is fortunate that during this time period there have not been any problems, because the new life-lease housing has been very much unregulated. I was pleased that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Radcliffe) and his staf f agreed to have a meetiug with me to discuss the bill. At that time, the minister said that Manitoba is at the cutting edge on legislation regulations around life-lease condominiums, and that this is the first legislation perhaps on the continent.

This is because this type of housing has become very popular in Manitoba, and actually Manitoba has been at the forefront in bringing on a number of these. A number of the condohliniums were built actually through the Seniors' RentalStart program. There were 15 to 20 buildings that were started under this program. Unfortunately, this government has discontinued the

4202 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 98 Seniors' RentalStart programs, so properties now that are being developed for lite-lease condominiums are having to do so otherwise without that kind of support. I think that is also making it a much more risky venture. It is risky for all the partners involved. It is risky for the tenants. It is risky for the service clubs or the corporation that is created to own and operate the life lease condominium, and I guess in some ways it is risky for the lender or the bank and the trustee.

Because of the very nature of these life-lease condominiums, prospective tenants invest their own money. These are tenants that are usually 55 or over, seniors, and the money that they invest is used for the construction ofthe condominium. If the condominium is not completed, then that is one way that the prospective tenants can lose their money, and that is one thing that has been a problem. The seniors and people going into this kind of ventures have been at some risk of losing their initial investment.

In some cases, it can be up to $80,000 a shot that is being invested, so it is an incredibly large amount of money for your average Manitoban. This usually occurs because seniors sell their home that they have lived in all their life. They probably owned that outright, and then they have a large amount of money that they can put in to act as the initial down payment in equity going into the construction of these condominiums.

In some ways then, the seniors I think would enter into this as a way of expecting that this would protect their money, that their initial investment would be protected and would accrue interest, and they will be able to get it back when they decided to do that, to end their lease. That is the type of thing that this legislation is designed to do that there is a need to provide the tenants with sufficient information so that they can make informed decisions when they are entertaining the decision to go into a life-lease condominium. We need to ensure that the tenants' funds are going to be protected.

There has to be some application of The Resi dential Tenancies Act to these tenants because indeed they are tenants. That has been one of the confusing things in the past, that tenants are not clear that they do not own the unit, that, indeed, they are tenants. Even though they may put in a substantial entrance fee, they still also pay quite substantial rent. These tend to be very nice places to live with lots of amenities, as well as fairly large square footages, especially the ones that are being constructed now.

So they are paying quite large-in some cases more than $700, $800, rent, as well as putting in their initial deposit. I had mentioned that it is also risky for service clubs because, even under this legislation, the directors of the Kiwanis Club or the Rotary Club or whatever service club is involved is going to still be personally liable for any funds that are involved. If there are problems with foreclosure, there are some provisions in the bill to deal with that. But that is one of the other provisions in the legislation, or one of the other concerns in the legislation.

So I guess, to start off with, that I wanted to say that we are in support of the legislation because we think that it is so essential, that we have some coverage, and we fill this regulatory gap that exists right now. But I do have some concerns about the bill. I think that there are some problems that this bill does address to some extent, but I think that there still are some questions outstanding. One of the problems in the past has been that some life leases only give the tenants back their money when they want to break their lease, if they let their apartment to a new tenant.

The only way that this bill deals with that is by the disclosure provisions. So now the tenants have to be told up front that this is the way that that life-lease condominium deals with the refunds, from the refund on their entrance fee. I am concerned about that because, in the discussion document, I should say that there was a yearlong or so discussion and consultation process on this bill, and the discussion document has a number of other recommendations of what should be included in the disclos ure.

The minister has chosen to only put two of those into the bill, and all the other discl osure requirements are going to be in regulations, regulations which we of course have not seen yet. I just question that. I think there were recommendations through the discussion docume nt that more should be included in the provisions for disc losure that are actually in the legis lation. The only things that the minister has included are the estimated entrance fees that will be payable in respect to each of the units as well as the projected completion date, and then, they have said,

June 9, 19 98 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4203 any additional prescribed inf ormation which I think could be a lot more specific. I think also one of the things that seni ors must be protected from and must understand is a lot of the other requiremen ts under the legisla tio

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-4-61
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 4th hansardpdf 61.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8d2ddf6fe68ee3cbf5849a614bcfa4998726cfd3

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