Manitoba Hansard — 24 June 1992 (Sitting 93, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-93

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session -T hirty-Fifth Legislatu re of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocsn Speaker VOL. XLI No. 93 • 1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24 , 1992 Printed by the Offlce of the a.- Printer. Province of M""lloba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legis lature Members, Constit uencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILU, Marianne CHEEM A, Guizar CHOM IAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCH ARME, Gerry, Hon. EDW ARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayto n, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITU ENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Ste .

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Ste inbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Ain Aon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

5401 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 24, 1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS Speaker's State ment Mr. Speaker: Prior to Routine Proceedings, I have a state ment for the House. I must inform the House that Edward James Connery, the honourable member for Portage Ia Prairie, has resigned his seat in the House, effective June 23, 19 92 . I am ther efore tabling his resignation and my letter to the Lieutena nt Governor-in-Council advising of the vacancy thus created in the membership of the House. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I beg to present the petition of Violet Thurston, Eleanor Heminger, Elio Mancinelli and others requesting the government consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to fight Dutch elm disease. Mr. Leonard Evans (B randon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition ol Carol Kendrick, Angela Kernel, Ted Zarn and 1, 10 0 others requesting the government consider reviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital to avoid layoffs and cutbacks to vital services. That is the latest bat ch. Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I beg to present the petition of Kim Lalonde, Brenda Osborne, Kathy Clark and others urging the government consider est ablishing an office of the Children's Advocate, independent of cabinet and reporting directly to this Assembly. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Da cqu ay (Ch air person of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply sat yeste rday afternoon and last evening and has considered the concurrence motion, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.

I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Cre ek(Mr. McAlpine), that the report olthe committee be received. Motion agreed to. MINISTERIAL STATEMENT Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Speak er, I have a min isterial state ment. It gives me great pleasure to invite the members of this House to join me in celebrating tomorrow, Thursday, June 25, as Seniors Day in Winnipeg. This celebration is one ofthe many related activities held in communities throughout our province in the past several weeks to mark June as Seniors Month in Manitoba.

Seniors Month gives us a special opportunity to thank our seniors for their role in making Manitoba what it is today, a stro ng, economically vibrant partner in a nation that has earned international acclaim for the highest standard of living in the world t oday. This unsurpassed quality of life has grown out of the efforts of our seniors, the men and women who tilled the soil, raised families, fought for our freedom, built our communities and took bold risks. Seniors' contributions have had an enormous impact on our lives and continue to enrich our communities.

Their knowledge and experience guides our youth in their quest for a better tomorrow. Their energy is an inspiration and motivation to all of us. As we gather tomorrow, we will recognize Seniors Day. It is fitting that we consider and acknowledge how much our seniors have shaped the quality of our existence in the past, present and the many years to come. Mr. Speaker, in recognition that senior citizens' achievements have improved our lives and continue t o give us great hope for the future, I ask the members of this House to join me in extending sincere thanks and best wishes to all Manitoba seniors. *

(1335) 5402 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 Mr.Conradsantos(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, we are happy that at least this government has continued this trad ition of recognizing Seniors Day, which was started by the NDP. While we are happy about this continuation of this tradition on behalf of our citizens who have contributed their lives and their talents for th e improvement of this province, we are very unhappy and disappointed on behalf of seniors on the failure of this government to again correct the deindexing of 55 Plus for our unfortunate senior citizens.

We are unhappy on behalf of seniors, for they are again imposing a new tax on the Blue Cross, which will have its detrimen tal effect on the bulk of our senior citize ns, but Seniors Day should be continued, and all good practices should have their day in this Legislature. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr . Speaker, tomorrow will be Seniors Day at the Legislature, and along with th e New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party, we welcome the seniors here.

However, we wonder about t he amount of money that will be spent on that particular enjoyment of th at day here at the Legislature when money has been denied those very same seniors in programs such as 55 Plus which is no longer indexed, and never was indexed under the NDP, and the Shelt er Allowance- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. *

(1340) Point of Order Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is in order for any member of this Legislature to mislead this Hause- Mr. Speaker: O rder, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. *** Mrs. Carstalrs: The seniors know how much money they got under the NDP. Mr. Speaker, the other issue, of course, is that th e shelter allowance has also been frozen. So there is a lack of funding to make those very seniors, the so-called economically vibrant partners whom the minister makes reference to in his notes today.

So while they are wanderin g around the Legislature tomorrow, I only hope that some of those who are able to come will be those individuals who would be able to come more easily if they had enough money on a day-to-day basis for their food and their shelter and , tra gically enough, do not have enough money on a day-to-day basis because of the unwillingness of this government to meet their needs. ORAL QUESnON PERIOD Economic Growth Summit Formauon Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

In December, six months ago, the Premier made four economic boasts in this House, in Hansard, about the Manitoba economy. He boasted that the Conference Board had predicted Manitoba would have a 4 percent growth in 19 92. He boasted that his policies in government had resulted in an 8.7 percent unemployment rate . He boasted that manufacturing employment was up over the previous year. He also boasted that investment in manufacturing in 19 91 would be some 7.7 percent. Mr. Speaker, six months later, we have the reality of those boasts, the reality that the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr.

Conne ry)-the former member for Portage Ia Prairie-was commenting on yesterday in terms of the lack of economic performance by this Premier and his office. We see that now the Conference Board is predicting 1 .1 percent growth. We now see that Manitoba's unemployment rate is 5,000 people per month higher than December 19 91 , when the Premier ma de those predi cti ons. We see tha t the manufacturing sector has declined from 55,000 to 51 ,000 in May 19 92, and we see that investment in manufacturing declined 38 percent.

Will the Premier now, instead of boasting about the future , take really stro ng action as chair of the Economic Comm ittee of Cabinet, and will he call together the various groups in Manitoba, business, labour and government, to work together and call together an economic summit to get our province moving again? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we see the prince of darkness again quoting statistics that he likes to quote about 19 91 , always looking

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5403 through the rearview mirror and gloating about the difficulties of the Manitoba econ omy. Manitobans are not looking for that kind of leader ship. Manitobans are looking forward positiv ely. They know the statistics that we quoted in December for 19 92, for 19 93 and for 19 94 are still valid. We are going to be, accor ding to all of the recent economic fo recasts, in the top three or four in the country, above the national average in growth for '92, '93 and '94.

In fact, the most recent survey that was just out yesterday from CIBC says: The recovery in 19 92 is expected to be somewhat stron ger than the national average in Manitoba. Manufactu ring, Manitoba's largest goods produci ng sector , is expected to reap some of the fruits of diversification away from Agri-Food and also to benefit from the pickup in North American econom ies. They go on to talk about agriculture having a better year. They go on to say that overal l, in '92, '93, '94, we will continue to outperform the national average. That is the forecast, and it remains valid, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Doer: I would refer the Premier back to his own boasts in December, in Hansard , when this session first sta rted, Mr. Speaker. They are all his words in this Chamber. These were his so-ca lled forwar d-looking views six months ago, and he is wrong, wrong, wrong all the way through his predictions. One of the things that is bec oming abundantly clear, Mr. Speaker, is that this Premier and his office do not listen to Manitob ans. Whether it is legislation on social assistance, they were not listening to Manitobans. Whether it is legislation on child advocates, they were not listening to Manitob ans.

Whether it is legislation dealing with police, they were not list ening to Manitobans until they were forced to do otherwise . On and on and on-with the econ omy, they are not listening to Manitobans. In fact, this Premier is not even listen ing to members of his own cauc us, Mr. Speaker. He is not even listening to members of his own caucus. Mr.

Speaker, I would ask this Premier to change his style and change the style of his gov ernment and call together an economic summit so that all Manitobans would have access to the Premier in terms of the province , so that we can work toge ther in a consensus with all Manitobans rather than a few select members of the economy whom the Premier chooses. Will he call an economic summit and involve all Manitobans in that? *

(1345) Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, you know, again, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong, wrong, wrong. Number one, he is basing all of his information on last year's statisti cs. He is not looking at all of the foreca sts-'92 , '93 and '94-which are saying that we will outper form the national average in '92, '93 and '94. Second ly, he says that this gov ernment has not listened . On the bill, with respect to- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Doer: Again, Mr. Speaker, all the predictions the Premier made in Hansard in Dec ember are wrong. All the predictions of the Premier, the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tou rism (Mr. Stef anson) last year at this time are all wrong. Mr. Speaker, we need an economic approach that involves all Manitob ans, not just a select few. Why will the Premier not call an economic summit, an econom ic summit that was just called with business, labour and government in British Colum bia-a pro vince, by the way, that is predicted by all the forecasters to lead all other pro vinces in Canada? They are worki ng with a consensus approach to their challenges, to their prob lems.

Why will the Premier not call an economic summit with all Manitobans being involved in a consensus way to solve our pro blems rather than just a select few who have the ear of the Premier? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when I was so rudely interrupted, the Leader of the Opposition was wrong when he said that we did not listen to the presentations of the City of Winnipeg Police Associa tion. All ofthe changes that they had advocated were indeed made. Their president, as well as the commissioner of Parks and Protec tion, stood up last evening at comm ittee and said they supported the bill. Secondly, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to the Child Advocate , that bill was just passed this morning, and nobody voted against it in this House . So if it so wrong, why did the opposition not vote against it? Again, he is wrong-agai n. With respect to the issue of a summit or a discussion of all groups in the economy with respect

5404 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 to the economy, I attended last Thursday and Friday a two-day session of the Economic Innovation and Technology Counc il, at which point one of the decisions that was made by that council was to hold just such a seminar, just such a conference in Winnipeg or in Manitoba this coming fa ll. I kno w that plans are well underway for that to take place . Rural Economic Devel opment VIdeo Lottery Revenues Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Rural Development. Mr.

Speaker, th is gov ernment has failed dismally in its economic development plan for rural Manitob a. The only major eff ort they had to stimulate the rural econ omy was th e Repap deal, and that was a failure. They broke their promises on Video Lottery Te rm in als, and they offloaded costs onto municipalities with roa ds. Mr. Speaker, video lottery revenue was promised to be spent to stim ulate rural economic growth and to create permanent jobs rathe r than to cover up government cutbacks in Natural Resources and student funding.

Will the minister give his commitm ent that money from Video Lottery Terminals will be put back into the rural economy to stimula te it, to have econom ic growth and to have real jobs, not cover- ups? •

(1350) Hon. Leonard Derk ach (Minister of Rur al Development): I certai nly do not accept any of the

preamble that has been put forth by the member for Swan River. Mr. Speaker, let me just give you an illustration of what has happened in terms of rural economic development issues in this provi nce since this gov ernment has been in po wer. Mr. Speaker, fir st of all, it was this gov emmentth at introduced the Grow Bonds program in Manitoba, which allows communities to invest in themselves. It was this gov ernmen t that introduced the Com mun ity Choices Program which allo ws comm unities to also come together and identify their strengths.

It was this govern ment that indicated through the REDI progra m-they introduced the REDI program, and under the REDI progr am, $2.4 mi ll ion th is year is going to rural economic development initiatives. Mr. Speaker, it is also this go vernment that has put a substantial amount of money into the rural economy through the GRIP progr am. I will not accept any of the rheto ric put forth by the . member for Swan River. Ms. Wowchuk: Well, the minister is not listening to rural Manitobans. Millions of dollars have been raised on Video Lottery Terminals; 95 percent of this money comes from rural Manitoba.

Since all of the revenue comes out of rural Manitoba, why is the Minister of Rural Development allowing the money to go back into general revenue rat her than to economic growth, as he promised? Mr. Derkach : Mr. Speaker, it is only a mere four or five days ago that the Le ader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) stood in his place, as the member for Thomp son (Mr. Ashton) did, and criticized this gove rnment for not putting forward employment programs for the youth in Manitoba. We have done just th at.

We have put forward a program for rural Manitoba, for rural students to get involved in programs tha t will assist those students in terms of employment, but secondly, will assist in terms of developing our infrastructure in the rural part of our province. That is also a part of rural economic development in this provi nce. Minister's Commitment Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): $3.5 million- Mr. Speaker: Order, please . The honourable member for Swan River, with her question. Ms.

Wowchuk: Since this government has broken its promises on decentralization, and mayors and reeves across the pro vince are upset with this government on this decision to take Video Lottery Terminal funds out of economic development, when is this minister going to show some leadership, stand up for rural people and urge this government to have some commitme nt to economic growth, real economic growth in rural Manitoba? Hon. Leonard Derk ach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr.

Speaker, I am extremely happy that the member raised the question of decen traliza tio n, bec ause 720 jobs will be decentralized to rural Manitoba as a result of the decentralization initiative . Mr. Speaker, $25-million worth of payroll will be going into rural Manitoba as a result of

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5405 decen tralizat ion. Another $750,000 will be going into rural Manitoba as a result of a youth employment program for our parks through the Green Team project . This is a sincere and a serious commitment to the economic development policies for rural Manitoba. Constitutional Proposal Public Hearings Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the ongoin g constitutional nego tiations cause us grave conce rns.

It would appear that the Premier is going to be meeting with other Premiers if he accepts the invitation for lunch with the Prime Ministe r next Monday, and we are concerned as to what his position will be at those discussio ns. We asked a week ago, I specifical ly asked him, if, when the tentative agreement among First Ministers was reached, the public would be given the opportunity through public hearing process to give their opinions as to whether they accepted that tentative deal. Well, Mr.

Speaker, it appears that we have come a long way from the original position of the people of this provi nce, as reported in the Meech Lake task force report, because in that task force report, I can find the following quotati on: The task force rec ommen ds that public hearings be held at the federal and provincial levels of gove rnment after the First Ministers develop a proposal for consti tutional change and prior to the signing of the proposed constitutional chan ge. Mr.

Speaker, my question is: How does the Premier reconci le his answer to my request last week and this recom mendation in the task force report? *

(1355) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Very simply, Mr. Speaker, we are going to have the proposals go before a public committee of this Legislature to be reviewed and comm ented on by the public before any resolution will be voted upon in this Legislat ure. So the public will have full input and full opportunity to do that. I have said before that I would not presume to sign away the rights of the people of Manitoba. Their rights are guaranteed in the rules of this Legislature , rules that were changed by both parties in this Legislature who existed in 19 84 and who were committed to that change in rules.

We will abide by that change in rules, which means that the people will have the opportunity to review any proposal prior to any vote taking place in this Legislat ure. Spending Powers Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the spirit of the task force report on Meech Lake was that they would be given the chance to comment before the negotiation of the final proposal, and they are not being given that opport unity. We have other areas in which this gove rnment is separating itseH from the task force reports that have been done.

The Meech Lake Acc ord proposed that individual provinces receive compensa tion for opting out of national programs without any requirement for nat ional standards-that was the Accord-but merely com pati bility with national ob jectiv es. The first Manitoba task force said this proposal should simply be scrap ped.

The second Manitoba task force said that spending power should only be included in a review of the division of empowermen t that included, and I quote : the possibility of increased federal gov ernment involv ement in policy fields, increased involv ement in policy fields which might benefit from national policy making and/or co-or dination. Now we have come full circl e, and the rolling draft contains a spending power clause that is virtually identical to the one in the Meech Lake Acco rd.

My question for the Premier is simple: How does he justify this vast distance which has been apparently travelled by his gov ernment? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Wrong again, Mr. Speaker. The consistent position of the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affa irs (Mr. McCrae) has been that we prefer the Dobbie-Beaudoin wor ding, and we have stayed by that position at the table all the way throug h. Multiculturalism Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the second Manitoba task force recom mended, quote : that the unique place and role of Quebec be recognized in a Canada clause along with the equality of the provi nces, recognition of abori gi nal peoples, du ality, multiculturalism and an affirmation of the Charter of Rights and Freedo ms.

5406 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 That is not what is in the rol ling draft texts. The rol ling draft texts make no reference whatsoever to multicultural ism, and they extend further derogation of the Charter to abor iginal peoples and to the people of Quebec. Can the Premier tell us today exactly what his position is and what position he will be taki ng to the Premiers' and Prime Minister's table on Monday at lunch? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, as I understand , the purpose of the meeting is to review the considerable areas of disagreement that are contained within the current rolling draft text, areas of disagreement that the Leader of the Liberal Party's questions bring out. We will be att empting to achieve, as much as pos sible, the positions that were put forward by the Manitoba All-Party Task Force . Economic Growth Government Polley Perfo rmance Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.

There are many stati stics that reveal the serious economic stagnation that is occurring in this pro vince. My Lea de r refe rred to some of the�ecllning manufac turing, lagging investment, heavy unemploym ent-but probably one of the key indications of Manitoba's decline is the loss of our people to other provi nces. Some of the best and brightest are leaving. Figures that we now have, Mr. Speaker, show that in the first quarter of this year, we lost more people than in the first quarter of last year.

In fact, since this gov ernment assumed office in the spring of 19 88, we have lost over 36,500 people to other pro vinces. That is almost as large as the city of Brandon. My question, therefore , to the Minister of Finance is: Will he and his gov ernment now admit that its economic policies are tot ally failing? *

(1400) Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I ca tegorically reject the assertion of the member for Brandon East. I watched and waited very carefully for census stati stics to come out, and it showed that the growth of the province conti nues at a rate which although not incredibly fast, still is growing in a positive sense. Again, I have to chastise the member for trying always to dwell on the negative . Mr. Speaker, I would have to say for the record-and this is basis of the middle of June-this is the area in which we are perform ing above the national average.

Of cour se, you will never get this from members opposite . In business bankrupt cies, we are far above the Canadian average as far as a diminution of that indicator. The CPI in this province is far below that in Canada; housing starts, urban areas, 75 percent in Manitoba as compared to 42 percent in Cana da; manu factu ring shipm ents in the province of Manitoba far above the Canadian average; personal bankruptcies, again, far below the national average; private nonr esidential investm ent intentions, again-and the Ministe r of Industry and Trade (Mr.

Stefanson) has talked about this oft en-retail trad e, well above the national ave rage ; and the unemployment rate far below the national average. You never hear these types of stati stics from the member opposite . Population StaUstlcs Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Well, if it is so great, why is everybody leaving Manitoba, Mr. Speaker? -36,000 since this gov ernment took office .

My supplementary question to the minister is: Can the minister explain why Manitoba is stead ily shrinking withi n the Canadian nation, because when this government assumed offi ce, Manitoba equalled 4.2 percent of the national population total and tod ay, I regret to say, we have shrunk to only 4.0 percent? Why are we becoming less significant in the Canadian nation? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Well, that is the mind-set of the member opposite . He measures significance in the terms of numbers, Mr. Speaker. That is his ultima te determinant facto r.

I would say to him, if he believes that Manitoba is not significant in the context of Canada, then I am saying he is doing a tremen dous disservice , not only to all the people, but specifically to his constituents. Mr. Speaker, I do not know for sure why it is that the census and the number of people in the province of Ontario have grown beyond 10 million. I think it has something to do with the instiMional make-up

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5407 of this nation . It is one of the reasons why this gov ernment is pressing so hard for Triple-E Senate refo rm. Where are the members opposite? Where does the member for Brandon East stand on an issue like that? So, Mr. Speaker, obvi ously, within the Canadian context, if Ontario and British Columbia have numbers that are going at a much higher rate than those in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, obviously, our share is not going to grow, but I would say to him, Manitoba is not any less significant because of that fact or. Mr.

Leonard Evans: The honourable minister knows that I am not reflecti ng on the quality of our people . We have the greatest people in the world. I am talking about the magnitude, and you know that very well. My question to the minister is: When will this gov ernment change its eco nomic policies so that we are going to have more job opportu nities for our people in this provi nce and help to slow do wn, if not entirely eliminate , this brain drain that is occ urring? I note , Mr. Speaker, that our rate of population loss on an annualized basis is the second worst in Canada. We are nine out of 10 . Mr. Manness: Mr.

Sp eaker, when are the members opposite going to stop voting against budgets which provide for tax decreases? When are the members opposite going to stop voting against budgets that provide increases in a number of social areas, going to stop chastising the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), who is try ing to take some money and put it into employment opportunities? When are the members opposite going to live up to what they did when they were gov ernment and saddled this provi nce with the highest taxation load in the country? So, Mr.

Speaker, I can point fingers, too, but the reality is we have a course ; we are following it; we are sta ying out of debt. We are managing well, and we are giving those credits within the Canadian conte xt. Post-Se condary EducaUon Acces sibility Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Students at St. Boniface College and Brandon University are facing fee increases in the region of 15 percent. Mr. Speaker, these students live in small communi ties, where there are almo st no jobs available and fewer jobs since this go vernment cut the support for student employmen t by more than 50 percent.

These students already have high debts. They are not eligible for UIC -based training. Our community colleges have long waiting lists; in some cases, more than a year. I want to ask the Minister of Educatio n: Does she have a plan? Does she have any emergenc y response to these Manitoba fam ilies who in 199 2 are seeing further education slipping out of their grasp? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): We certai nly support the students in Manitoba and are interes ted in people stu dying, both those young people who are studying sequentially and also those Manitobans who are retu rning to school and have other responsibilities. We have maintained that comm itment through our support for the Student Aid program in Manitoba, which I will remind the member is a bursary program . Universities Review Timetable Ms.

Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Will the minister te ll us when, in the fullness of geological time, she is going to introduce that university review, and will she tell us how students will be represented on that review? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, she will not have to wait quite that long, and it will be very so on. Post-Secondary Educauon Acces sibility Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, will the minister ensure that the university review, when it does emerge from the myths of history , will examine the crucial issues facing Manitob ans, and that is, accessibility to university educati on? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, we have taken the issue of the university review extr emely seriously. We have developed a mandate which is very wide in scope and which, I believe, will certainly address the issues that the member opposite has raised today .

5408 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 24, 19 92 Dutch Elm Disease Research and Deve lopment Funding Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the pioneer s who established the city of Winnipeg had some vision. They had some vision to make this a beautiful place to live by planting thousands and thousands of trees. Unfortuna tely, many of those are elm trees and subject to Dutch elm disease. Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell this House whether he met, or any of his department met, this week with Dr.

Carl Hubbes, who has been working at the University of Toronto on a vaccine which will prevent Dutch elm disease but has indicated that he might be forced to stop that research because of insufficient funds? Did the minister have officials meet with him, and what did they learn from that meeting? Hon . Harry Enns (Minis ter of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, Dr.

Dubis's (phonetic) research with respect to pote ntially finding a cure for Dutch elm disease first came to the atte ntion of myself and my department three years ago, when I was increasing the level of the Dutch elm disease program to the City of Winnipeg.

It was then the considered opinion of both the pro fessional staff of my department and of the city forestry people that monies the city and the provi nce had could best and should best be applied to the managing of the disease as in fact we are doing, as in fact I have been encouraged to do virtually every day by members opposite, in doing precisely the program that we are. With all the respect that I have for Dr. Dubis's [phonetic) research , it simp ly has not been support ed, nor is it hopeful enough that a cure in fact can be fo und. He himself suggests that it may be found in five years or in 1 0 years.

There is no guarantee to that. I have suggested to him at that time-and I say this very publicly-we , as taxpaye rs, support a major research institute called the National Research Council operating out of Otta wa. Surely, if this Dutch elm disease is not a problem unique to Winnipeg or to Manitoba, if among his peers it can be construed as a worthwhile research project, then quite frankly the National Research Council bears some responsibility in provid ing support to Dr. Dubis (phonetic) . • (141 0) Mrs.Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, the name is Hubbes, and I can only assume that he has not read the research project work since he obviously has not clearly understood the spelling of the man's name. The government has indic ated that they thought it was bette r to spend money on managing the disease, but in fact they have decreased the money they are spending managing the disease. They have also made the decision they are not going to fund R & D in this area even though they have str ongly advocated funding for R & Di n a number of presentations and election campaig ns.

Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell the House why this gov ernment has chosen to put no money into research to find a cure for this particular disease? Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, quite simply because the best pro fessional advice provided to this gov ernment and indeed to fo rmer gove rnments was that the monies currently being spent in control ling Dutch elm disease are being spent in the most prudent manner. Ther e has never been a pro fessional case put forward , obviousl y, for the good doctor to attract the kind of research dollars-even the pote ntial for a cure.

My foresters quite frankly tell me that it is blowing money into the wind, and if we have any monies available, I am being advised to help in the maintaining of control of dead and diseased trees in precisely the manner we are. Mrs. Carstalrs: But that is in fact exactly what the government has done. They have cut the progr am. They have cut the program they already were funding. Can the minister explain to this House why there is now less money available for the prudent program he is now advoca ting? Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, let me state it very clearly.

Never before in the history of this provin ce-n ever before since the onslaught of Dutch elm disease has a provincial government provided the level of funding that this gove rnment, my gove rnment, is provid ing for Dutch elm disease. That is a ca tegorical state ment. We are providing $1 .5 million for the fighting of Dutch elm disease, more by several hundreds of thousands than any previous government in the province's history .

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5409 Pharmacare Calcium Supplements Mr. Co nrad Sant os (Br oadwa y): To the honourable Minister of Health, I recall the Biblical story of an old woman who was sick for 12 years, and being unable to get the atte ntion of the Lord Jesus Christ, she approached the back and touched the hem of the garment, moved by the faith that by doing so she would get well. Mr. Speaker, the Department of Health, ignoring the recomme ndation of the Centre for Health Policy stu dies, delisted a dozen form s of calcium from the eligible list in the Pharmacare program .

My question is on behalf of sick seniors, particularly women: Will the honourable Ministe r of Health explain to this Assembly why his department ignored the recom mendation that they first conduct a utilization study before doing the delisting? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would be totally pleased if someone would find a cure for the common cold as well. Mr.

Speaker, I take my honourable friend's question quite seriously, but I want my honourable friend to understand that in the establishment of the included products that are reimbursed under the Pharmacare program , we engage the profe ssional minds of pharmacists in the provi nce of Manitoba, who recom men d to us those produc ts, pharmaceuticals and even some ove r-the-counter products which, in their profe ssional opinions, are effective and ought to be made available through the prescribing mechanism of pharmacists, hence reimbursable under the Pharmacare progr am, Sir.

Now that profe ssional advice has said to us that there are many over- the-counter cal cium replace men ts, including TUMS , by which individuals can access calcium needs. They have recom mended to gov ernment that we examine that lis t and have made recom me ndations to gov ernment that some of the products be not reim bursed under the Pharma care program because they are av ail able either as over-the-counter or in other equally effective nonprescription sources, Sir. Mr.Santos: Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of the suffering women, senior citizens, may I approach the minister and touch the hem of his garment and ask him to list again at least one form of calcium supplementation so that these women may be safe from oste oporosis, which is a crippling disease and not like a com mon cold? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I will even shake hands with my honourable friend if you get rid of this cold. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is att empting to paint a picture where there are no available calcium products to women and others who may well wish, under a doctor's advice, to supplement their calc ium.

That is not the case . There have been a number of ov er-the-counter products that individuals have bought . The recom mendation from the prof essional pharmacy group, pharmacists, prof essionals-and I realize my honourable friend is advocating on behalf of possibly a consti tuent, but profe ssionals have recom mended that we do not have the need to make recomme ndations and reimbursement under Pharmacare for calcium products available as over-t he-counter products. Northern Manitoba Employment Creation Strate gy Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

The resignation yesterday of one of the Premier's own caucus colleagues demons trated what we have been saying for years, that this government is not listening and is particularly not listening to rural and northern Manitoba. Northern Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, has the highest rate of unemployment of any region in the country, and yet this gov ernment has cut back in terms of job creation programs affecti ng remo te northern communities.

My question is simple, to the Rrst Minister: When will he listen to northern Manitobans and reinst ate the kind of funding cutbacks we have seen to CareerStart and the Northern Youth Corps progr am, which is leaving a devastating situation in terms of unemployment in those communities? When will he start liste ning? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the figures that I saw not too long ago indicated that the highest per capita income in the provi nce today is in the city of Thompson, represented by that member for Thompson, of any city or town or village in this pro vince.

This administra tion has spent four years trying to work at prob lems that were created and unsolved

541 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 24, 19 92 by the form er adminis trati on. We have , for instance , entered into a trilateral agreement to build the northeast hydro line to serve seven native commu nities in northern Manitoba, to invest some $80 million in infrastructure to lower substantially their costs of hydroelectricity. Today, right at this very minute, the Ministe r of Energy and Mines (Mr.

Downey), the Deputy Premier, is signing with Split Lake an agreement that will provide over $45 million of funding to the Split Lake Cree Band, the largest input of financial contribution that communi ty has ever seen in its history, as a result of the efforts of this gov ernment. I can say, despite the fact that the northern flooding that affected that band occurred under the Schreyer gove rnment in the mid-70s, it took this gov ernmen t's commitment, this gove rnme nt's integrity to work with the Split Lake Cree so they could get that kind of agreement. No other administration has been able to do it.

No other administration has put that kind of money into the North that this administrati on has, Mr. Speaker. •

(1420) Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, the Premier does not understand. Thompson, for example, has had 6,800 applications for welfare , thanks to the failure of this government in terms of economic policy. I want to go further and ask as my final supple men tary: When will this Premier stop designing programs on job creation for Tuxedo and recognize, in remo te northern communities that have no jobs, have no tax base and have no funds, that they get no job creation under the kind of progr ams this gove rnment has brought in? When will he lis ten to the people of the remo te comm unities of northern Manitoba? Mr.

Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, that kind of irrational ranting and raving is what produced the kind of irrational policy that the New Democrats applied to northern Manitoba, where, in the words of his Leader, they devised a plan that paid people to plant flowers along the roadways of the North, that paid people to put up signs, those green and white Jobs Fund signs, paid them a fortune , and all they ever saw by way of econ omic development and long-term infrastructure were those signs.

What we see today, of course , is the hundreds of millions of dollars of debt that was created by that kind of irrational spending that occu rred under the NDP. Of course , the member for Thompson was there every step of the way, counselling that kind of irrational throwing away of money and building up of debt for this pro vince. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for The Maples for a nonpolitical state ment, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have with us this afte rnoon Mr. Sid Green, the form er member for Inkst er. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcom e you here this afte rnoon. Nonpolitical State ment Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples have leave to make a nonpolitical state ment? [Agreed] Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr.

Speaker, in April of this year, the Winnipeg Hawks Triple "A" Bantam Red hockey team captured the Western Canadian Bantam Cham pionship in Red Deer, Alberta. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize the members of the team and the coa ching staff.

Congratulations to: Dorian Anneck, Chris Brett, Jeff Chatyrbo k, Mark Dawybida, Tony Ducharme, Billy Ewanchuk, Kyle Jansse n, Chris Kavanag h, Clayton Lyons, Craig Malaschuk, Ryden Marko, Kevin Medwick, Juilien Phillips, Edmond Turcotte , Jason Klos, Vince Kluz, Curtis Menzul, Craig Slasor, Justin Kurtz, head coach Wayne Chernecki, assistant coaches Glen Harrison and Brian Kizuik, parent representative Bill Kit chen, team manager Donna Medwick. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, with the leave of the House , I would like to seek permission to have the Sta nding Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections sit at 2:30 p.m. to consider the re por t on Judicial Compensation. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable gov ernment House leader have leave for the Committee on Privileges and Elections to- Mr. Steve Ashton (OpposHion House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there is no leave from our side for sitting this afte rnoon. Discussions may conti nue, I

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 541 1 believe, betw een the individuals involv ed. Our critic has to be in the House to deal with a number of bills. Mr. Speaker: Leave is denied. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call bills? We will continue from where we left off earlier on this aft ernoon. I would ask you to call Bills 34, 49, 79, 82, 93, 96 and 98 in that or der. Of course , all of those bills will require the leave of the House. THIRD READINGS Bill 34-The Surveys Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to have third reading of Bill 34, The Surveys Amendment Act?

Is there leave? Leave. It is agreed. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): By leave, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded bythe Minister of Natural Resour ces (Mr. Enns), that Bill 34, The Surveys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'arpenta ge), be now read a third time and passed. Motion agreed to. Blll49- The Environment Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 49, The Environment Amendment Act? Leave? Leave. It is agreed. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environ ment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 49, The Environ ment Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'environnemen

t) be now read a third time and passed. Motion agreed to. Bill 79- The Highways Protect ion and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 79, The Hig hways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act? Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns), that by leave Bi11 79, The Highways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur Ia protection des voles publiques et ap por tant des mo dific ations correlatives ad'autres lois), be now read a third time and passed. Motion agreed to. Blll 82-The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 82 , The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act? Leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, I move , seconded by the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), that, by leave, Bill82, The Farm Prac tices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agricoles et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres loi s), be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, very briefly, I just want to say in response to the comm ittee hearings that we had on this bill that I believe they reflected the concerns that we stated in this House during second reading debate dealing with the need to deal with companion issues, dealing with the environment and zoning and guidelines. I believe that point has been made very clear to the gove rnment during those hearings, as well as by the oppositi on in this House, and we will be following that closely with this minister, following the passage of this bill.

We will be supporting the third reading of this bill as we did during second reading with those concerns being registered and will ask the minister to move quickly on those other related issues. We did have an opportunity to improve the bill as well last night with some removal of a clause that was somewhat confusing and ambiguous insofar as its meaning. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 82 , The Farm Prac ti ces Protection and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. •

(1430) 541 2 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 Bill 93- The Mental Health Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 93, The Mental Health Amendment Act? Leave. It is agreed. Third reading, Bill 93, The Mental Health Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia sante mental e. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 93, The Mental Health Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed. Motion agreed to. Bill 96- The Special Opera ting Agencies Financing Authority Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third rea ding of Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act? Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed. Third reading, Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act;

Loi sur !'Office de financement des or ganismes de service special . Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkac h), that Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act, be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, very, very briefly , we are not happy with this bill whatsoever. I think information to that extent was provided to the committee last night. We see that as a proliferation of agencies.

We are not convinced that there will be any value to the gov ernment, to the taxpayers of Manitoba through these agencies. It seems to be a proliferation of bodies that are really unnecessary. We are always in favour of ways and me ans to im prove effi ciency in gov ernment spending, but we do not think that this is a way to do it. We are not convinced. The whole area seems to be very fuzzy, Mr. Speaker, It is not clear to us that anyth ing positive will be accomplished by this. So on this account we on this side cannot support this legislation. Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr. Speaker, I want to be quite brief.

I was at comm itt ee last night when this view went before the standing commi tt ee, and we heard from representatives of the Manitoba Government Employees' Association and, quite fran kly, we are qui te su rprised when they contradicted the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) with respect to the consultation that supposedly went on before this bill was introduced. The fact of the matter is that there was no su bstantive consulta tion. There was, as is traditional with this gov ernment, a declaration that this was going to be done and that is the way it was.

But I want to put on record , I guess, two overriding concerns that were already mentioned by my colleague from Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) and mentioned by others that the government on this occasion is speaking out of both sides of its mouth. It says that these kinds of arrangements are going to create for a more businesslike atmosphere in parts of the department, and they say that it is going to expedite , I guess, the work of administrators and managers in those areas, when it is argued against such effi ciencies in agencies like the Manitoba Energy Authority and Manitoba Data Services and others. Mr.

Speaker, there are two other significant problems with this legislation. Number one, let it be very clear that these new financial authority agencies are going to have the authority to hire consu ltants and hire people who are noncivil servants. They are going to become the new gateway for political patronage appointments. They are going to be the new avenue for agencies within various departm ents, separate entities to hire political operatives in one form or another. The Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) said in his rem arks that was not going to happen, but notwithst anding the good intentions, the fact is that there is no rational reason at this point for the introduction of these small minicorporations within the department. They serve no useful purpose that could not be served by the efficient running of govern ment departments at the present time, that the current system of charge-backs, if the gov ernment wished to refine it, could offe r the same kinds of advantages that these new SOAs, special operating agencies as they are called , Mr.

Speaker, the same kind of efficiencies could be achieved with good management within the department. In fact,

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 541 3 the former Minister of Government Services said they had already been achiev ed in the Fleet Vehicles branch of the Department of Government Services. Mr. Speaker, the govern ment is going to get its way, assuming it comes to a vote , but we want on record that this is no panacea for some of the problems that are plaguing this government in particular. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Some Honourable Members: On division. Mr. Speaker: On division. *** Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act? Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Lea der): Mr. Speake r, my apology.

I am wondering if we can delay the third reading call of Bill 98, and go to Bills 86, 87 and 1 01 . 811186- The Provincial Pollee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 86, The Prov incial Pol ice Amen dment and Consequential Amendments Act? Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): I just wanted to speak on the bill. Mr. Speaker: Okay, just hold, we are asce rtai ning leave. There is leave for third reading of Bill 86? An Honourable Member: Leave. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, with leav e, I mo ve , seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cumm ings), that Bill 86, The Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia SOrete du Manitoba et apportant des modifications correla tives a d'autres lois) , be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, very briefly I want to put some closi ng comments on the record with respect to both Bills 86 and 87. My comments will relate to both.

We heard last night from a very large group, and a very persuasive group, of police officers in this city , as well as represe ntatives from the City of Winnipeg-! am sorry, I might add, as well, there was a repr esent ative from the City of Brandon poli ce-w ho came to our comm ittee last night to put on the record their concerns about the proposed amendm ents of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCra e). Thankfully, Mr.

Speaker, after an arduous process, quite a lengthy hearing of the comm itt ee, a resolution was reached which accommoda ted the legitimate desires of the police constables involved and the police forces of this pro vince, to be heard on these issues and to have a voice in how they are to be judged in executing their duties. I, atthis point, want to put two things on the record. Firstly, I do acknowledge and I do appreciate , and I think all Manitobans recognize that the minister did the right thing last night by sitting down with the police , albeit far after he should have done that.

But he did sit down with them, and they did come to a resol ution, and it was acceptable to both sides. The second comment I want to put on the record is that process, which occurred right around midnight last night, after five hours of hearings, should have occurred, it is our view, months before.

Concerns about the Law Enforce ment Review Agency, the Manitoba Police Commis sion and the regulation and enforce ment of standards and discipline within the police force have been issues that have been before this minister, debated in this House for years, for at least as long as I have been here, in the last four years. It is, I think, a sign of the arrogance of the minister that he would presume to come forward with legislation without having consulted beforehand. Again, I acknowledge that at the end of the day that occ urred, and that is good.

My only state ment here today is that should have happened some time ago. I look forward to a new relationship between this gover nment and the police

541 4 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 24, 19 92 forces whereby they will get together ahead of time and consult about what is going to be in this bill. Nobody expects them to agree all the time. But the least that can be expected by members of this House, by the police forces themselves, is that the minister would come forward at a date when he is coming up with the solution to the prob lems, when he is act ually formulating his ideas as to what should be in the bill, not after he is comm itted to the bill, not after he has tabled it in this House , Mr. Speaker. I leave those commen ts on the record.

I am pleased that we do have a resol ution which appears to be workable and acceptable to the police persons of this province. I want to acknowledge and thank the many police offi cers and their supporters who came forward last night, literally in the hundreds. It was a very clear, very convincing sign that they were concerned and that they had not been listened to up to that point. The minister did, at the end of the day, thankfully, listen to their concerns and make amen dm en ts accor din gly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is third reading of Bill 86, The Provi ncial Pol ice Ame ndment and Consequential Amendments Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: That is agreed and so ordered. * (1440) 811187-Th e Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 87, The Law Enforce ment Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les enquetes relatives a !'application de Ia loi? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: It is agreed. Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move , seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citiz enship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 87, The Law Enforce ment Review Amendment Act, be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, like the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), my commen ts on Bill 87 will also reflect In general my com ments on Bill 86. I am dealing with both issues basical ly at this time . Mr.

Speaker, we, too, in the New Democratic Party, are very pleased that the matter was resolved late last night. The bill that went to comm ittee yesterday at 10 a.m. and emerged last night at approxima tely mi dn igh t was su bstan tially differem-the two were substantially different�nd in fact, one could say there was a new bill that was put in effec tively last night. We are pleased with that.

I want to say at the onset, we are pleased the gov ernment heard the wishes of the public, through the forum of several hundred police officers and their fa milies and others who made representation last night, who made their views known to the gov ernment. The unfortunate aspect of this whole process is that we raised these concerns for weeks in this House. For weeks, at least on four separate occasions, I stood up in this House and I queried the mini ster on this bill. Right from the start, on principle, I laid out our opposition and our concerns with this bill.

Each time the minister was evasive; the ministe r dismissed our clai ms, and it was basically a steadfast position, an unbending position, an unyielding posit ion. The mini ster never gave our concerns the opportunity to even review or discuss , he simply dismissed them in this Chamber. That spoke to the entir e process. Last night at the com mittee hearings, we heard that the Winnipeg Police Association requested last December from the Depar tmen t of Ju stice under Freedom of Informati on, the rec omme ndations of the mini ste rial comm ittee dealing with changes to the Law Enforce ment Review Agency. Mr.

Speaker, the Police Association obtained some documents, but they did not obtain 11 pages which consisted of recommen dations to the minister as to how to change LERA. That was in Decem ber 19 91 . At that tim e, they had approached the minister and said, what are you talking , what are you looking at, what are you thinking about, what direction are you going in, we want to discuss it with you. The minister failed to respond and provide that information. Subsequently, months later, the minister, with no report, with no backgr ound, with no review, introduced in this Chamber a bill to change LERA substantially.

The minister then marched out

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 54 15 of this House and at a press conference said the change was being invoked for two reasons: efficiency, it would be more efficient, and it would be speedier. Those were the two reasons. Now, Mr. Speaker, during this session, we, in the New Democratic Party, have supported most of the government's initiatives in terms of the Justice department. We supported most of those initiatives because they were based on a sound process . Generally, in fact, most of the recommendations from the minister were as a result ofthe Law Reform Commission process.

In most of the cases we supported, we made suggestions and it went back and forth. This LERA Ini tiative came out of nowhere, it had no consultation. The minister marched out of the House and announced that it would be more efficient and more effective. That was shown to be hollow and that was shown to be shallow, and that was shown to be inaccu rate. There was no consultation. It was not an attempt _to be more effective, and it was not an attempt to be more efficient. In fact, to this day, we do not know why the government proposed the ill-fated measures that it did.

We do not know what the reason and rationale was behind it. Now, I will grant that there are problems with LERA. There were improvemen ts required in LERA, there is no question, but there was no consultation with anyone involved in LERA. The City of Winnipeg, in the form of the mayor, wrote the minister and said, Mr. Minister, please give us time to review these proposals, so we can know how to deal with our employees. The minister said, no. The minister did not even talk to the Brandon police force. That came out at the hearings last night.

The minister had some discussions-yes, there had been some discussions with the Police Association president. Mr. Speaker, we opposed the bill on principle. We opposed the bill after having talked with the community. We opposed the bill after having talked with the Police Association and others. Where was the government? Why was the min ister not listening? If the minister would have paid even a little bit of attention to what was going on, he would have known there were concerns, he would have known there were problems. The matter could have been resolved in an amicable fashion.

As it was, we were forced into a situation where members of the public, who generally do not like to take public stands because of their position, were forced to appear en masse in front of the minister and say, Mr. Minister, stop this process; it is wrong, Mr. Minister, stop this process. I will grant you, they succeeded.

We suspect that in the morning when we had heard that there might be representation that perhaps the government could at last be forced, could at last see the error of its ways, could at last begin to do, at least in 24 hours or In eight hours, what the government had failed to do in three weeks, and that is consult with the affected population. Mr. Speaker, over and over again, the issue that came out at yesterday's hearings was that this bill was unfair, something that we had said from the very start, this was an unfair bill. It was felt by the rank and file as unfair.

I suggest that any fair-minded representative or constituent would say, when looking at this bill, that it was unfair. Fortunately, by eloquence, by sheer numbers, by some persuasion, the members who attended last night and most of them were police officers and their families, most from Winnipeg, some from Brandon, they were able to persuade the government of something that we were unable to do in this Chamber for many, many weeks. They were able to force the minister to do what he should have done in the first instance-listen, make some changes. The minister brought forth nine changes last night to the bill.

It effectively is a new bill and we welcome that. I am going indicate that we will be supporting this new bill because that is what it is. We are going to miss the part that is billed, it was first introduced last night at twelve o'clock. That is what we are going to do. The previous bill, we voted against in this Chamber on principle, and we told them this was going to happen. We had told them for three weeks. Fortunately, the government, the minister, saw the error of his ways, introduced a new bill last night, and we will support it. *

(1450) The bill does not go entirely all of the way to meet all of our concerns, but given what we were faced with yesterday at 1 0 a.m. and given what came back last night at 12 midnight, we in the New Democratic Party are going to support these changes to LERA, but we want to remind the minis ter and the government to start listening, because this Is notthe

541 6 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 only case and the only bill that I have had occasion to participate In this Session where the government has not been listening to the public. This one served to illustrate, however, that the public can be heard and that If they get out their message, even in this instance, that steadfast minister who refused to listen to any of our concerns for three weeks, in a mere several hours last night, could be persuaded. So the hope is there. Hope springs eternal. Mr.

Speaker, we urge the minister to continue the dialogue that he launched in those few hours last night to move away from the last three or four weeks of steadfast nonlistening and move towards the path of consulting, the path of listening to the public, the path of going forward and li stening and incorporating people's concerns before moving. If the minister were to do that, I think that he would have saved himself a good deal of difficulty last night and will save himself a good deal of difficulty in the future. There are things that still have yet to be done with respect to LER A.

I hope it continues to be examined. I hope changes are looked at, and I hope they are looked at in consultation with all of the citizens. When we talked about this bill in the House, we indicated It just does not deal with the police. The minister is fond of saying that it is a public bill. That is right. This bill affects every man, woman and child in the province of Manitoba. It is a significant bill, because the justice and its perception in society Is one of the most fundamental characteristics of our society.

The rule of Jaw indeed is considered the fundamental basis of our society, so this bill touches every man, woman and child. The bill that the minister wrought forth the last month, Mr. Speaker, was found to be unfair. The new bill that emerged last night goes a long way to redressing the inequities and the unfai rness. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) indicated that I said it several times. I said It for three weeks, Mr. Speaker, and the minister did not listen. It took 300 police officers to get the minister to listen. I am only sending a message to the minister that I hope he hears.

He mentioned last night in the press conferences and the serums that this was the dawning of a new age of consul tation that was occurring in Manitoba. I hope that is true, Mr. Speaker. So I can indicate that we will support this new bill because it is fair, it is fairer, it addresses most of the concerns we raised, and with those comments, that concludes my comments. Thank you very much. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question for the House , third reading of Bill 87, The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: That Is agreed and so ordered. 8111101- The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1992 Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 1 01 , The Statute Law Amendment Act, 19 92? Leave. It is agreed. Hon . Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): I move (by leave), seconded by the Minister of Urban Aff airs (Mr. Ernst), that Bill 10 1, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 19 92 (Loi de 1992 modlfiant diverses dispositions legislatives ), be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, I am going to take this occasion to comment on a practice, with respect to this bill, that has been adopted by this government, that we in principle think is wrong, with respect to The Statute Law Amen dmen t Act and specifically one of the subsections, specifically subsection 27(1 ) through to 27(7) dealing with The Public Schools Act. As a

preamble, Jet me make it very clear that in my comments, I am not dealing with a substantive issue which can be debated in another form at another time with what the government is trying to do In those subsections. The issue that I am rising on today is a question of principle. It is a principle that I think has been overlooked in this particular statute amendment, and that Is, the amendment introduced under The Public Schools Act, by the government, changes the law. It introduces expenditure items of many millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker. The government has chosen to put that change into a statute law amendment.

My recommended course would be for the government to introduce a bill amending The Public Schools Act or alternately setting up a private schools act or whatever. The

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 541 7 point is, the government is choosing to do through The StaMe Law Amendment Act what they should be doing in a separate bill. The difficulty with that is that it does not allow for meaningful debate of this particular item, Mr. Speaker. Now Mr. Speaker, we queried the minister at committee stage this morning on this bill, and the minister indicated that initially this amendment was being introduced to "clarify" changes that already had been passed but not proclaimed by the Legislature. That is fine.

We then asked the minister what those changes were, and the changes that were to be clarified in this bill were not clarified. In fact, the changes that are made in this bill are substantively new law that allows for new rights on the expenditure of different funds, and that is a great leap from clarification. The minister admitted that at the committee stage. She admitted it would set up new rules, new regimes and qualify new schools and agencies for funding.

That, to our mind, should be the subject of a separate bill, or separate legislation, not included at the end of a session in a bill which is specifi cally designed to deal with administrative and with legal clarifications and changes. We are finding no fault with all of the other changes, Mr. Speaker. What we are having difficulty dealing with is a substantive change in the law that is done to the Statute Law Amendment. We do not think this is correct. We think this should be a subject of a separate piece of legislation.

If one examines Ha nsard, one will clearly see that the minister admitted that a new regime was being established by virtue of this particular amendment. Those, Mr. Speaker, are basically my comments with respect to this particular amendment. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is third reading of Bill 10 1, The StaMe Law Amendment Act, 199 2. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea. Some Honourable Mem bers: Yea. Mr.

Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. An Honourable Member: On division. Mr. Speaker: On division. Done. *** Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to call third readings on private members' Bills 52 and 90, and I guess that ought to be preceded by Report Stage. THIRD READING�RIVATE BILLS Bill 52-The Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: Bill 52, The Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia Loi constituent en corporation "The Pas Health Complex," standing in the name of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. lathlin).

Is there leave? No? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave is denied. *

(1500) Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the OpposHion): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put a few comments on the record on behalf of the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) and thank the government for moving this bill along. The member for The Pas, as the House knows, is attending on government business with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) at Split Lake today, and he would have liked to have had an opportunity to speak at third reading. The volunteers at The Pas Health Complex and the community of the Pas very much support this bill and very much want to see the amendments to the incorporation act passed by this Legislature.

We were sorry that we could not get this bill passed last year, but we thank the co-operation of the members opposite this year. I think this bill being passed by the Legislature is in the best interests of The Pas community and the many volunteers and staff who work diligently on behalf of patients and the community of The Pas and its related areas. So, I would like to thank the House, and on behalf of the member for The Pas, we will be voting for this bill on third reading. Thank you. I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton), that Bill 52, The Pas Health Complex Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modiflant Ia Loi constituent en corporation "The Pas Health Complex," be now read a third time and passed. Motion agreed to.

541 8 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 24, 19 92 REPORT STAGE-PRIV ATE BILLS Bill 90- The Seve n Oaks General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would ask if there is leave of the House to allow me to both report on behalf of the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) and give third reading to the bill. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will do one at a time. We will do the report stage. Mr. Lamoureux : Is there leave? Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for the honourable member for Inkster to do it on behalf of the honourable member for The Maples. Leave?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: That is agreed. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that Bill 90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia Loi constituant en corporation le "Seven Oaks General Hospital") , reported from the Standing Committee on Private Bills, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. THIRD READINGS-PR IVATE BILLS Bill 90- The Seve n Oaks General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Again, Mr.

Speaker, with the leave of the House I would ask if I could read the member for The Maples' (Mr. Cheema) bill for third reading. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for third reading of Bill 90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia Loi constituant en corporation le "Seven Oaks General Hospit al")? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave. That is agreed. Is there leave for the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) to bring forward the bill on behalf of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema). There is leave? That is agreed. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that Bill 90, The Seven Oaks General Hospital In corporation Ame ndmen t Act (Loi modifiant Ia Loi constituant en corporation le "Seven Oaks General Hospital"} be now read a third time and passed. Motion presented. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put a very few words on the record and acknowledge the willingness of the government, in particular the Ministe r of Health (Mr.

Orchard) with the co-operation of all members of this Chamber, that we were able to bring in this bill which is a bill that is very necessary and thank them for allowing us to have it read a third time and passed for Royal Assent, possibly later today. Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? That is agreed? Agreed and so ordered. *** Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, would you call adjourned debate, third readings, in this order, Bills 42, 76, 78, 98, 70 and 85. (Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair) DEBATE ON THIRD READINGS Blll 42- The Amusements Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave for third reading, Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les divertissements, standing in the name of the honourable memb er for Thompson (Mr. Ashton)? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am prepared to speak on this particular bill. Indeed, as the Leader of the Opposition, our Leader (Mr. Doer) points out, the full weight of the gov ernment, this big, brave Conservative government is being brought to bear on a couple of dozen proje ctioni sts-a couple of dozen projectionists. You know, the story of this fight is an interesting one, Madam Deputy Speaker.

This goes back to the late 19 70s when the then Conservative government attempted at that time to de-license all projectionists, and they trotted out the same arguments then. They said everything is changed, there are no longer the safety problems in terms of projectionists. That, in and of itself, was a reason to de-license the projectionists. Well, indeed, times had changed, but the concerns were still there in

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 54 19 terms of safety. The requirement for trained individuals to operate as projectionists was there. What happened? The projectionists fought the then-Conser vative gov er nm ent, and the Conservative government backed down In terms of the major urban centres and continued to require licensing of projectionists. So that is what happened in the late 1970s. This has been a fight that has taken place in other areas. In Alber ta. the projection ists ha ve fought successfully against similar attempts.

But, you know, one of the first things this government did when they were elected in 19 88 was target, guess who?--the projectionists again. In fact, successive Ministers of Labour in a row tried to sneak it in every year in Statute Law Amendment. I refer to the comments made earlier about the abuse of Statute Law Amendment that our Justice critic referred to in terms of this Bill 1 01 this year where they are again trying to ram through particular it ems.

But as the former member for Portage tried-1 guess we can call him Ed Connery now-Ed Connery tried, Gerrie Hammond tried. [interjection] That is right, we can call him Ed. We are allowed to call him Ed, the former member. *( 15 10 ) They try to sneak it through on Statute Law Amendment, and along came the current Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) who I cannot refer to by name. But the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), he picked up the torch from the previous Ministers of Labour, and guess what? The projectionists were targeted again.

We tried last year in terms of Statute Law Amendment, but I am sorry, each and every time the Ministers of Labour tried to sneak it through in Statute Law Amendment, some of us on this side were alert enough to the fact and we put a stop to it. So now the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) has gone one step further. He has introduced a bill of the Legislature. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us look at this. There are 1 01 bills that have been introduced. Some of them are very formal bills. Many of them are opposition bills that have been introduced in this Legislature.

The current number of government bills is not even more than 60. There is a lot of time and effort that goes into preparation of bills, translation of bills, and publication of bills. The time we spend in first reading, second reading, committee and third reading, out of the 50 or 60 bills that this government thought were impo rtant enough to bring before this session of the House, one of them was to de-license projectionists. Well, indeed, the big, brave Conservative government-[interjection] Well, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) talks about dinosaurs.

He need only look into the mirror to see the dinosaurs in this Chamber. They are following the lobbying efforts of the movie theatres who do not want licensed projectionists because they do not want to have fully trained and qualified individuals working there so they can cut the amount they pay the projectionists. This minister is leading the charge. Well, if anything is a greater example of the pathetic degree to which this government will go to implement the kind of agenda we see from the Chamber of Commerce, it is the projectionists bill, Bill 42, Madam Deputy Speaker. The mini ster laughs.

He should talk to the projectionists instead of being the "yes" man for those who are lobbying to de-license projectionists. We, only this morning, talked to the projectionists who are quite concerned and upset that they were unable to-they did not get the notice in terms of the bill. They would love to have made a presentation at committee. But you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, it just goestoshowthe inabilityofthe Premier(Mr. Almon) to listen-he does not even listen to his own caucus members-is something that is being followed by other ministers, in particular, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).

The Minister of Labour did not want to listen to the projectionists, did not even bother to go and listen to their concerns that is brought in this bill. So one out of- Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Our department met with them. I have spoken with them. Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister says his department met with them; and he has spoken to them. Probably, some of his best friends are projectionists, Madam Deputy Speaker. The bottom line is he has ignored them, he has not listened to them. We have a bill before us, Bill 42.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I could list 1 00 other bills, 1 00 other things thatthe Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) could be doing in this House besides Bill 42. I could list all sorts of changes that the minister might want

5420 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 24, 19 92 to im plement in terms of making greater fairness in our labour Relations Act, instead of Bill 85 which makes it more and more patently unfair. I could talk about dozens of suggestions that could be made in terms of employment standards, in terms of em ployment standards deal ing pnte�ection] The minister talks about dealing with a changing world. What about dealing with the changes in terms of family, in terms of implications, in terms of leave, parental leave, bereavement leave? What about the many suggestions?

I made those in committee in terms of debate on the labour Estimates. So I ask the question, to look at it. [interjection] If there had been 300 police in committee on Bill 42, maybe they would have backed down on this bill as well. We have seen the legislative process grind at one of the lowest levels I have ever seen it. This government is a government that is coming apart at the seams. It has resigna tions, as we saw yesterday, from the member for Portage. You know, Madam Deputy Speaker, on bills it cannot even get its act together on something as important as matters affecting the police force.

We saw yesterday a comm ittee that was adjourned more than it actually sat, I think, for some parts of the evening, while the minister was doing shuttle diplomacy, trying to bail out in a face-saving way the fact that he had botched the bill. This is an incompetent government. This is a government that has lost sight of all sense of priorities. We have a governm ent, the big, brave gove rnment, prioritizing as one of the top 50 or 60 matters that should be dealt with by legislation, the elimination of licensing for projectionists, Madam Deputy Speaker. An Honourable Member: Some priority. Mr .

Ashton: Some priority, and indeed some government. [interjection) The member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) suggests they make a movie about it. We already know what the title is going to be.

It already exists on another one ; it has been referenced by members of this House: "Blame It on Rio.• While the First Minister has been in Rio meeting with governors and Prime Ministers, while he has been doing that, while he has been travelling the world, solving the problems of the world, we know how the government has prioritized one of the major problems facing Manitoba in 1992 is the fact that we have a few dozen projectionists that have to be licensed, as they have been for decades in this province. That is one of the major problems.

Madam Deputy Speaker, this may be seen by some as a small bill, but this bill says volumes about the misplaced priorities of this government. That is why we oppose Bill 42. We will fight for the few dozen projectionists and we will say to this government, it is about time they stop prioritizing the kind of antilabour initiative that this is, that is driven strictly by the lobbying power of corporate and business interests, and start dealing with the real problems of Manitoba, not something like Bill 42. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is third reading of Bill 42. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Madam Depu ty Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. An Honourable Member: On division. Madam Deputy Speaker: On division. Bill 76- The Pension Benefits Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: Third reading, Bill 76, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), The Pension Benefits Amendmen t Act; loi modifiant Ia

loi sur les prestations de pension, standing In the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I also have some comments on 76. I want to indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think the concerns of our caucus were put through very eloquently by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), who spoke both on second and third reading in terms of a number of problems with this particular bill. I wanted to indicate, Madam Deputy Speaker, we voted against this bill at committee stage, in the committee, because this bill does a number of things that we feel moved this area, in terms of pensions,

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5421 into areas that we do not agree with. We feel this is not a positive development for pension legislation in Manitoba. I mentioned before, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are concerned about the movement increasingly toward self-directed individual retirement plans rather than the traditional group plans which have provided significant financial benefits for those who have been part of those group plans for many years. We feel that is a wrong move on the part of the government. In fact, even investment analysis has indicated that is a risky move.

We are concerned about the government's failure to understand the issue of pension surpluses. This has been a major concern to employees for many years. Many employer- and em ployee-funded pension plans have developed significant surpluses over the years because of the collective investment of those funds and the return on those investments. Madam Deputy Speaker, this matter was dealt with in committee when the question was asked by a number of people with differing views on this as to who owns the pension surpluses.

I want to indicate very clearly the view of the New Democratic Party is that those pension surpluses are the propriety right of the employees. The employees are the ones who are the beneficiaries of the pensions. Pensions are deferred income. They are very much a part of, if there is a collective agreement, the collective bargaining process, and the discussions and negotiations that go on. They are very much a part of it even as individuals, If they do not have a union, if there is not a collective agreement in place.

The bottom line is this government, instead of allowing the kind of access that employers are going to increasingly have to pension surpluses, should be saying very clearly that is unacceptable. There have been many incidences of that. I point to the situation a number of years ago with Dominion stores in Ontario where they essentially drained the pension fund of its surplus.

In fact, there was a sale that took place that was specifically aimed at accessing the pension plan surplus. • (1 520) We see cases of that today, Madam Deputy Speaker, in a number of jurisdictions, where businesses are treating the pension surpluses out of the employees' pension plans as surpluses which they can tap into for their own business concern. We are seeing people purchase companies for very little more than access to the pension surpluses. Let it be very clear that when companies contribute they contribute at a set rate.

H there are surpluses that involve the em ployee pension plan fund having some additional revenue in it, that should be given to either enhance the benefits of the employee or in the form of some sort of rebate In terms of employee contributions. That is only fair, but this government has not recognized that in this bill. That is a negative direction. I men tioned earl ier about the move this government has made to totally open up the issue of pension splitting.

I want to say that this is an area where I think the government has moved hastily in response to some legitimate concerns that have been expressed, most notably at committee, not only this time but in terms of pension legislation that was brought to committee last session. I want to say that I share the concerns expressed by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Our entire caucus shares those concerns. We are going to see an imbalance because of this legislation between the holder of the pension plan and the individual who does not hold a pension plan.

In most cases, women will be the most vulnerable, but not in all cases. There are indeed situations where women have the superior pension plan, and it is the husband who is in the more vulnerable position. We feel it would have been far more appropriate in this area if the minister had insisted on moving, that there be far greater regulation and protection of the rights of the more vulnerable person in this case.

I agree 10 0 percent with the memb er for Wellington there will be cases of abuse and that people will trade off the house and other assets, or indeed custody of the children, for access to the pension plan. I will go further, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will say there will be a particular problem because most women, in the situation of a marriage breakup, often end up in absolute poverty.

The highest percentage of people who end up in poverty are often women who previously in a marriage had some level of security, some level of income, who following the breakup of a marriage are completely vulnerable and end up in poverty. It has been shown statistically that following the breakup of a marriage often the real disposable income available to the majority of individuals, the

5422 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 men, the husbands, actually increases while the disposable income of women who are divorced drops dramatically. pnterjection) I appreciate the applause from the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) on this. I am glad to hear he is concerned about pension splitting.

What is going to happen is we are going to end up in a situation where women are going to be even more at risk in their retirement years, because they are going to be pressured into not accessing the pension plans; they are not going to have access to future pensions; they are going to suffer even increasingly in their retirement years. So this is a matter of principle, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our caucus is opposing several of the directions in this bill, and we feel the government once again, particularly in the area of pension surpluses and group pensions, is following the Chamber of Commerce agenda.

It Is about time we saw some balance from this government and that it looked at the real concerns of Manitobans in terms of pensions. This bill does not do that. That is why we are therefore going to be opposing it as we did on second reading at committee stage. Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will only take a few moments to put a few comments on the record in response to the remarks of the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

I would just like to point out to members of this House on the ownership of pension Issue in which the member indicates clearly that the NDP position would be, by legislation, to grant ownership of all surpluses to employees. This legislation deals with that particular issue in two manners. Firstly, for new pensions it requires tha t issu e be settled in the est ablis hi ng documentation of the pension. So that becomes an issue in new pension plans for negotiations between the employers and employees.

With respect to existing pension plans, this legislation simply allows the governing documentation in those plans to be effective. If one were to take the New Democratic position, which would be to establish in law ownership of those pension plans contrary to the government documents of those plans, it would amount-in some cases, where the plans were negotiated and ownerships were agreed to, it would be on the part of the employer-to expropriation. So the fact of the matter is this legislation allows the governing documents to be the determining factor on existing plans as to who owns the surplus.

With respect to the pension-splitting provisions, and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) talks about Chamber of Commerce agendas, I would just like to clearly indicate on the record at this time that the proposals under this bill are supported by the Manitoba Teachers' Society. Despite the fact that the Manitoba Federation of Labour did not comment on the matter, the Manitoba Nurses' Union supports this provision. pnterjection) Well, I am talking about the credit pension-splitting provisions. The Manitoba Nurses' Union is on the record as supporting the credit-splitting proposals in this bill.

There are a dozen other unions who have also indicated very clearly that they support the part of the bill with respect to mandatory credit splitting and the ability to mutually opt out if there is agreement with certain provisions. So I think it is very important to put on the record that with respect to the pension-splitting provisions of this act, the changes that allow parties to opt out by mutual agreement, that there is no consensus among the labour movement as to what should happen.

There is clearly division, and there is di vision for good reason, because there are obviously views on this matter, both of which are very legitimate. This government chose to support the principle that women and men should have the right to make their own decisions on matters regarding their assets, rather than what some have argued, some may refer to as a very patronizing view, that government should settle that issue. So I wanted to make those two points on the record, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would thank all members who participated in this debate. Madam Depu ty Speaker: Is the House ready for the quest ion?

The question before the House is third reading of Bill 76. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? All those in favour, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay.

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5423 Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Some Honourable Membe rs: On division. Madam Deputy Speaker: On division. Bill 78-The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act

(3) Madam Deputy Speaker: Third reading of Bill 78, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour {Mr� Praznik), The City of Winnipeg Amendment Act (3); Loi no 3 modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg, standing in the name of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? An Honourable Member: Stand. Madam Depu ty Speaker: Stand? Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? Leave? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader): Madam De puty Speaker, I understand that the reason why there is some commotion Is that the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) wishes to address the bill later this afternoon or during this debate.

I think we would deny leave to stand, but we will certainly try to accommodate all members who would like to speak on the other side. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer)? Leave? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted. .. (1 530) Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I had the opportunity to speak on this at second reading.

I am glad to be able to respond to some of the concerns that I heard at the community committee and to add some additional comments to our concerns about Bill 78, yet a further bill dealing with the City of Winnipeg. It is, as I said at second reading, one of the government's many bills which mixes a series of purposes. The government chooses to do this for obvious reasons. In this case, what they did was to choose to include a large

section dealing with French language services with a variety of other issues of diverse origins and purposes, dealing with, amongst other things, commu nity committee issues and some environmental issues, as well as some issues dealing with political process at City Hall and some issues concerning by-laws and timing on variances. So it was a wide-ranging bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, not one that was perhaps focused in its intentions. There were a number of sections dealing with the French language services. On this subject, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spoke last time.

H I can repeat myself in French this time: Je crois que l' objectif du gouve rnemen t provin cial , c' est a fair e plus precises les responsabilites de Ia Ville de Winnipeg en ce qui concerne les services dans Ia langue franqaise. (Translation] I believe that the objective of the provincial gov ernmen t is to ma ke mo re precise the responsibilities of the City of Winnipeg with respect to French language services. [English] The French language sections have been included in this bill, The City of Winnipeg Act rather, since 19 71 . At that time, the old St. Boniface became part of the city.

The purpose of those sections was, in fact, to retain the existing practices in the old city of St. Boniface, to retain in fact the sense of community in what is now called old St. Boniface, perhaps In a more colloquial sense. Sections of the act have from time to time caused some difficulties and confusions and have not always perceived to have been useful in practice. This bill attempts to clarify those services, the locations, and the particular boundaries within which such services should operate.

We anticipate that this legislation provides the clarity requested by the community on several occasions, including the comm unity hearings and , of course, at the Cherniack committee some years ago. However, Madam Deputy Speaker, there are two parts of this bill which give us great cause for concern and which we spoke about in this House earlier on and which we attem pted to amend unsuccessfully in committee. First of all, the

section 494.71 ( 1 ), which deals with construction over waterways, has a number of objectionable accounts. Rrst of all, it gives full authority for construction over waterways and for the regulation of such buildings, a very wide definition in fact of buildings to the municipal government. It

5424 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 seems to me that there is a very strong case to be made for joint provincial-municipal responsibility for waterways, and particularly, first of all, for provincial policy to preserve and protect our rivers and streams.

We all know and we all come from different constituencies, and we will know, particularly on the edges of Winnipeg, the great difficulties that there are with septic fields, the difficulties that the rivers and streams of Manitoba have with waste effluent , with the dumping of snow, for example, by various municipal governments in and around the city of Winnipeg and pouring chemicals in many cases into places like Omands Creek and the Seine and other smaller rivers and streams in the city.

There are many other areas, I think, of environmental concern which people would want to discuss relating to the rivers and streams of Winnipeg. I think all urban and suburban MLAs are very much aware of this problem. What we see here is a government which has reached no agreement in four years with the city over the protection of waterways. Two or three years ago they touted the idea of a joint provincial-municipal waterways commission. They reached no agreement on that. There seems to have been no further discussions with the city on this issue.

The whole principle of sustainable development, one of the things which th is government hangs its political hat on, seems really to have had very little impact upon the city of Winnipeg. We have a Capital Region Committee, which is moving at perhaps the rate of-very small, slow discussions, not even changes, I would say. For two years, they have really had a series of discussions about a variety of issues that face the whole of the metropolitan area. So the kind of policies, agreements and principles which should be there for the protection of the rivers and streams of this area are not in place.

What the province has done, as it did in Bill 35, is in fact to tum over full jurisdiction to the city. Now, there is in this bill a saving grace. The city must have by-laws on waterways, but it must hold public hearings when it has a version of those by-laws, and that is important. I commend the gov ernment for that, but in a manner which is becoming very consistent with the way in which this government operates, one hand is given and the other hand is taken away.

That very principle of public hearings is undermined by a subsequent clause in the legislation, 494.71 (3), which says that for changes of a minor nature which do •not prejudice the rights of any person", the city may dispense with that very important public hearing. It is that that concerns me particularly about this bill. First of all, the principle, the record of the city on waterways and, thirdly, this opportunity that the province is now off ering them to forgo the principle of a public hearing.

I am concerned, as I said in the committee, by the phraseology, "the rights of any person." That seems to me to be-does not confi rm, it does not give to the city of Winnipeg the importance of confirming the rights of a community. A corporation is a person, an individual is a person, but, as I understand it, although I am not a lawyer, the rights of any person does not cover the rights of a community. Indeed, if we look at the French version of that particular paragraph, it gives us even greater cause for concern, because it adds to the ambiguity of the English section.

It says, in fact: "ne brime aucun droit." We can translate that as "not breaching any law" or "not breaching any righr, the rights of an individual, the rights of a corporation, the rights of a community. Those kinds of

interpretations are not there. There is an ambiguity, I should say, in the translation that is available there. I ask the minister to check into that. I do not know whether he will be bringing amendments at this time or not, and it may be that he has an alternative legal

interpretation or linguistic

interpretation than I do. If that is so, we certainly look forward to hearing about it. I do note that the community that I represent, Wolseley, has had many close calls with the desires of some people in the com munity to buil d commercial buildings over rivers and streams, in our case, particularly, Omands Creek. The member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), whose riding abuts on the other side of Omands Creek, has spoken on this in second reading and supported us. The Liberal Party supported us in the amendments that we made on this. I recognize the common interest that we have around Omands Creek.

I recognize the common concerns tha t we have about mai ntaining community interest. I think we both recognize that

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5425 the action of the community on both sides of Omands Creek has been most significant in saving it on several occasions from com me rcial construction. It was also served, as I mentioned in the second reading, by the alert action of the last New Democr atic governm ent and its creation of Bluestem Park, which has in fact increased public access and public concerns for Omands Creek. That really is, I think-that public concern, that public access is one of the things that we want to maintain.

So we reject the opportunity offered to the city to withdraw the rights of public hearing. We need to guarantee public hearings. We especially need openness, I believe, in a municipal government which is going to be one of 15 councillors, and where each councillor will now be responsible for at least twice as many constituents as he was before, and the distance between the city councillor and the constituents will certainly have grown.

Indeed, as I constantly try to put it in the context of my own constituency, people who live at the comer of Sherbrook and Portage Avenue, people who are very much inner-city people with all of the difficulties that they face, issues of poverty, issues of trying to maintain neighbourhoods in inner-city communities, are being represented now by a councillor who is responsible to a far larger number of suburban residents, people in fact whose residences are on Kenaston Boulevard in some cases.

So it is now a very diverse constituency by a councillor, and whoever is elected is going to face many of those same difficulties in being in touch with their constituents. So in that context and in the context and the desirability of the openness of government, we opposed this particular section. As I said, we were pleased to have the support of the Liberal Party on this amendment which, of course, the government voted down and unfortunately failed. * (1 540) Finally, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk about the community committees, because we also have some very serious concerns about this section.

I outlined our concerns on this in second reading. I want to emphasize that a number of members on our side have received a large number of letters about this issue. Over 15 0 letters have been received in our caucus about this particular issue, so our concerns were confirmed by those letters and by the people who appeared from various parts of the city, not just from the unicity but from some of the suburbs as well, who came to argue for the existing system, that is, of the opportunity for community committees to have the final, political say on variances and, in fact, the local decisions.

They spoke of the need for communities to make local decisions, something that the minister derided as parochial. They spoke of the need for decisions to be political and accountable and to be made by those people who are most accessible to their constituents, but something again which this government derided as too political and too local. The people we heard wanted those decisions to be local, they wanted neighbourhood decisions.

They spoke about not just the outcome of the decision, but the process of a community coming together with its councillors to discuss, to debate and to resolve the issues which are brought before a community. We heard a variety of people: a planner, for example, who spoke of the difficulty of taking people from local constituencies to City Hall to make presentations to a comm ittee, the standing committee of City Council which this minister wants to be the final court of appeal on local decisions, a committee which changes its personnel every year. So much for consistency and for larger scale planning.

The planner spoke of the difficulties that people faced who have never been to City Hall and who go to appear in front of a committee on which their own representatives do not appear. They feel very distant and, in fact, often quite overwhelmed by the situation, and there is another option. There is the option of community committee which is there in the existing act. The planner emphasized that every community has different by-laws, and that community committees were, in fact, as the Cherniack report will say, set up to create the political communities that will help to decide local issues.

That is their purpose, and there is an opportunity in the last Bill 35 for that to happen. Councillor Timmers of the inner city spoke on the importance of accountability, of the importance of a city councillor elected by local people being responsible and being seen to be making those decisions, not back-room decisions, not the tit for tat that has gone on in gang politics at City Hall, but a city councillor el ected locally making local

5426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 24, 19 92 decisions, so that accountability and accessibility is, I think, very important. The residents of Armstrongs Point came to represent the neighbourhood associations of all of the inner city. They spoke about the impact of this on the inner city and up on the sense of neig hbour hood, an d again the issue of accountability was stressed by all of those inner-city neighbourhood groups. Madam Deputy Speaker, every one of those people who presented shared one opinion. They said, we have that existing power under Bill 35; give it a chance.

Some communities have only operated with it on one appeal, some have had several appeals, but every one of them said, the minister has no evidence that this is not working; give it a chance, and then in three years, after the next City Council is over, come back to us if it is not working, if it has created havoc, if it has created the difficulties that the min ister somehow, in his mind, must be assuming are there. Tell us them, and then let us look at it.

But the minister and the government voted down the amendments that we proposed on this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it became clear, as they were speaking, that in fact the government had made a mistake last time on Bill 35. They had made an error, and the community had taken advantage of it. The minister had never intended, he said, that community committees be used as appeal. He was perhaps somewhat disconcerted and was now seeking to rectify the error that he believed had been made and the advantages that had been taken of it by local communities. But who agreed with him?

Not one of the presenters spoke in favour of this. There was one submission, a written submission, which came later, and it did deal in some part with the amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act. The large part of it, in fact, deals with sections on time limits on variants, but there was the first

section which dealt with the appeal process from the board of adjustments. This particular brief said, very briefly: The appeal process from the board of adjus tments to commu nity comm ittee is self-defeating. Once more, politics will result in arbitrary decisions. A far better solution is to refer appeals to a standing committee. Exactly the same viewpoint of the minister, that these decisions are too political to be made by a local committee. Well, who wrote this, Madam Deputy Speaker?

This came from the commercial real estate services of Pratt, McGarry Inc., who represent over 50 landlords and over 2 million square feet of commercial space. I do not know if they represent the entire real estate community. I am sure that cannot be the case, but I am concerned that this is the only representation and that it spoke in almost the same words as the minister. It is, as it is put bluntly in this document-one might say if one were not more charitable-almost a ludicrous argument. It is a very peculiar definition of politics.

Politics is about priorities, it is about choices, and it is about politicians being accountable and accessible to the people who elect them. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I want to emphasize that this is a step backward. We were disappointed that the Liberal Party did not support us in our opposition to this, but it is consistent-! will commend them on this-it is a consistent position for the Liberal Party to take, because they were, of course, in favour of the 15-member council.

They were in favour of the change in boundaries, which, in the case of my community, has resulted in a de facto pie-shaped ward. They were in favour of reducing the accessibility of people to their councillors by creating a much smaller City Council. So it is a step backward in civic government, we believe, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to close with the words of Catherine Collins, President of the McDermot-Sherbrook Residents' Association, who also took the time to write to the committee. As far as we are concerned, she said, Bill 78 is a step backwards in civic government.

Our elected representatives and our local community committee are accountable to us because we elect them. Bill 78 removes their authority and the accountability of the entire municipal government. Bill 78 will do a great deal of damage to the poorer parts of the city which are already under a great deal of stress. She represents a community committee which is certainly under a great deal of stress and has faced some very difficult situations recently at City Council and with decisions made at City Council, and I commend her for taking the time to write and welcome these particular kinds of representations.

With that, I will close. I regret the changes this government has made. I welcome the support of the Liberal Party on the environmental issues. I

June 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5427 note their consistency in opposing community committees and the role that they should play in local democracy. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to simply reiterate briefly the comments that l made at second reading with some additions at this point now that the bill has gone through committee. The bill, of course, has been spoken to at length by the member for St. Boniface (Mr.

Gaudry) with respect to the provision of French language services. * (1 550) I want to state again for the record that I believe this government made an error and showed its arrogance upon being elected in a majority position, by revoking the

section of The City of Winnipeg Act put into place by the former member for Wolseley, Mr. Harold Taylor, when he was on the committee back in 1989, and put into place against the wishes and the votes of the Conservative government at the time, the provision which prevented construction of commercial buildings over waterways in this city. That was an issue that he had been involved in and fought for, for many, many years.

It was an issue that I came to when I came to represent the area, and it of course came to a crescendo when the owner of property immediately east of Omands Creek, the owner of a 500-yard piece of property, a strip going on the north side of Portage Avenue, decided to put up an office building and a car wash over Omands Creek, essentially destroying the linear green belt of Omands Creek Park and Bluestem Park in that part of the city. Now this provision which was put into the act at the behest of Mr. Taylor was extremely progressive and was extremely popular, and that is important to note.

I do not know where this government got its advice on that provision in having it repealed, but I received nothing but accolades, as did the former member for Wolseley, for putting that into place in the first place. Let me just cite some of the supporters for that amendment. In particular, l recall the Real Estate News, the editorial page, a lengthy editorial proclaiming this amendment as progressive and necessary.

Now, the Real Estate News has not, in my experience, been noted for its support generally of issues put forward by members of the Liberal Party, supp orted by memb ers of the New Democratic Party as that was, but they did. They took a stand; it was greatly appreciated, and I believe it correctly read and tapped the desire of Winnipeggers to start protecting our waterways. What occurred in that proposal by that developer was that he was going to get around The Rivers and Streams Act by building a concrete platform which in no way diverted or impeded the flow of the river and did not affect the bank stabilization.

With some very, very specific technica l drawings and engineering plans the development was not going to kick into place, in other words, the rivers and streams provisions, and then the building and carwash could be built on top of the platform. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I recall that committee meeting. I recall the government of the day voting against that amendment but eventually putting it into place, because they wanted the rest of the bill to go forward. That, frankly, was a sign to me that minority government works, and worked then and worked quite well.

I really thought that once the reviews of that amen dmen t were so positive, I thought the governm ent mi gh t see the wi sdom of the amendment and say, listen, we opposed it then but, obviously, the support is there. In fact, there was no one, to my knowledge, who did not support it, at least no one who got into contact with me except, of course, that specific developer. Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, that unfortunately was not the case. Very shortly after the September 1990 election, very shortly after this government was returned with a majority, what did they do

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-93
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 93.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8d697a4c0eac039e02bbf39413eec75b19194c13

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