Manitoba Hansard — 8 November 1989 (Sitting 67, 34th Legislature, 2nd Session)

34-2-67

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, November 8, 1989. The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS IN TRODUCTION OF GUESTS Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct Honourable Members' attention to the gallery where we have from the Assiniboine Community College 12 students. They are under the direction of Jim Mitchell and Art Dowkan. This school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). On behalf of all Honou rable Members, I welcome you � here this afternoon. • ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Goods and Services Tax Government Approval Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (l eader of the Opposition): For the last two days we have tried to get clarification from this Government on its position with regard to a goods and. services tax. At first they tell us they do not like the goods and services tax, and then they say, well, they just do not like this goods and services tax, and they are not quite prepared to protect low-income earners in the Province of Manitoba. Will the Minister, who is acting as the Premier of this province, tell this House today what exactly Michael Wilson meant last night when he said he had all Governments' approval with respect to his GST.

Hon. James Downey (Mi nister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all indicate to the � Leader of the Opposition that this Party and this ' Government's position has been made absolutely clear as it relates to the goods and services tax. I would also say that any additional information that the Member may want could be provided by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) at a meeting, which I understand she will be attending as an observer very shortly. Government Position Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (l eader of the Opposition): The position of this Government is about as clear as thick mud, because we have on the one hand the Finance Minister saying he likes consumption taxes. We have him say he likes the GST, just some modest changes would have to be made in order to get its approval. We have the Premier saying, I do not like the GST, but maybe if there were changes I would like the GST. Can the Acting Premier of this province tell the people of this province whether this Government is going to support a GST or whether they are not going to support a GST? Hon.

James Downey (Mi nister of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me make it very, very clear to the Leader of the Opposition Party, the answers that the Premier and the Minister of Finance have been giving her for the last two days still stand as given. * (1 335) Mrs. Carstairs: Well, Mr. Speaker, the only difficulty with that response is that no Manitobans know what this Government is saying about the GST, because they change their mind every time they give an answer. Government Approval Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (l eader of the Opposition): Why has this Government not repudiated the statements made by th e Fina nce Minister for the federal Government? Why have they not repudiated these statements today, in light of the fact that they say they have not given them approval, but he says they have? Hon. James Downey (Minis ter of Northern and Native Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, let me assure you that the information that is given by the Premier of this province and the Minister of Finance for this province is far more accurate than any questions or information brought forward by the Li beral Party, as it comes from New Brunswick or Newfoundland in their decisions as it relates to taxation in this country. Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speak er, the tragedy for Manitobans is we have a Premier who is going into negotiations on the economy of this nation and he does not have a clear position. Conawapa Project Public Utilities Board Review Mrs.

Sharon Carstairs (l eader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Minister of Hydro. The chairperson of Hydro has announced a new sal e- like previous sales in Hydro regrettably announced in this House, no facts, no costs, no definitive program. Can the Minister of Hydro tell this House today if it is his Government's position that no project will be begun to provide and to supply power to Ontario without a full review by the Public Utilities Board? Hon. Harold Neufeld (Minis ter responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act): Well, Mr.

Speaker, the chairman of Hydro has not announced the sale to Hydro. The chairman of Manitoba Hydro has announced that the respective board should give their respective chairman the authority to further negotiate a sale. No negotiations 2644

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 have been finalized and no sale will be made until it is as the chairman indicated, unless it is approved by the Cabinets of both provinces. Mr s. Ca rstairs: The Mini ster knows that a memorandum of understanding was signed on the 29th of October. Now can this Minister tell this House why he will not commit today to a full public review by the Public Utilities Board in this province, to take place prior to any construction of this project? Mr. Neufeld : Yes indeed, Mr.

Speaker, there was a memor andum of unde rsta nding signed, but as I indicated earlier the understanding is to negotiate. The terms of the negotiations are understood, but the negotiations have not been completed. Mr. Speaker, the Public Utilities Board is there to protect the consumers of Manitoba. They will agree to any rate increases to the consumers of Manitoba Hydro, and that is their job. Mr. Speaker, the consumers of Manitoba Hydro are well protected. Mrs. Carst airs: Again we have one hand of Government in disagreement with the other hand of Government.

The chairperson of Manitoba Hydro says he is quite prepared to put the entire plan before the PUB before construction commences. Why is this Government unwilling to agree to allow their own chair, their own appointee, to do what he knows to be the right thing in this province? Mr. Neufeld : Mr. Speaker, the chairman of Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba agree on all points. We agreed that the Public Utilities Board can look at the plans for the construction of a new hydro dam. We agree that they can look at them.

We agree also that they can review them, but the final decision in the construction shall be that of the Government. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Se cond Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it will be about a $5 billion flip-flop when the Government announces and confirms what the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) announced two weeks ago on the Hydro development project. Gloria School - Hong Kong Government Involvement Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach).

Last evening there was an investigative report dealing with immigration and the impact on immigrant families in Winnipeg from Hong Kong. Very questionable issues were raised in terms of the way in which people were attracted to Manitoba and the losses that they have suffered in their businesses from a conduit named Mr. Louis Lee. My question to the Minister is, can he confirm that it is the same Mr. Lee that the Manitoba Government, on the 22nd of this year, by Cabinet Minute has established a curriculum-based private secondary school in Hong Kong, and is it the same Mr.

Louis Lee that the Minister announced would be given a special Hong Kong school in a press release May 8, 1989? Hon . Leonard Derkac h (Minis ter of Ed ucation and Training) : Mr. Speaker, in responding to that question I would like to inform the Leader of the third Party that in fact the agreement that was struck with Mr. Hui, from Hong Kong, was not struck with Mr. Lee at a!L The school in Hong Kong is indeed a private school and we as a province do not have any funding in that institution.

It was merely an agreement whereby we would allow that institution to conduct the education process in that school using the Manitoba curriculum, and that was the only involvement of this province. * (13 40) I could add that the intentions there were to ensure that students from Hong Kong whose parents wanted them to come to Manitoba Universities when they graduated from Grade 12 would indeed be familiar with the Manitoba curriculum and would be able to assimilate into our university settings much more easily. Departmental Study Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Secon d Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the Minister issued a press release on May 8, 1989, and I quote: "Education and Training Minister Len Derkach has signed an agreement with Louis Lee, president and chairman of Western Canadian Education Consultants Inc. of Winnipeg." My question therefore to the Minister is, what study did the Minister undertake to give this school the Manitoba seal of approval?

What concerns does the Minister have in terms of dealing with people that will potentially be immigrants to our community, given the revelations that took place yesterday, in terms of a number of new citizens that have been prejudiced in an extreme way with business dealings with the same individual mentioned? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Min ister of Ed ucation and Training): Well, Mr. Speak er, to begin with the agreement that was struck certainly involved Mr. Lee to the extent that he acted as a liaison between the people, the Gloria School from Hong Kong, and with my de partment.

He was simply a facilitator who arranged for a meeting to take place so that the Gloria School from Hong Kong could indeed communicate with my department to ensure that the Manitoba curriculum could be taught in Hong Kong. With regard to the other issue, Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge on that and I do not make any comments with regard to that. My interests simply are to be able to provide programming for students from Hong Kong, who could indeed come back to Manitoba as university students and could be assimilated into our universities in an appropriate and reasonable fashion. Mr. Doer : Mr.

Speaker, it is unfortunate the Minister would not confirm his own press release, in answer to the first question. 2645

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 Deputy Minister's Visit Mr. Gary Doer (l eader of the Second Opposition): My question to the Minister is, his own Deputy Minister has visited the school in Hong Kong this summer. Was that at taxpayers' expense? What study has the Minister undertaken to give Cabinet approval to this school, given the fact that he is now studying for example the Winnipeg Education Centre? What type of similar study is he doing, to have Cabinet approve this school as the Manitoba curriculum entry point for Hong Kong immigrants with the same individual I mentioned previously? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Mi nister of· Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Member for Concordia that in fact a great deal of work had been done prior to us approving that the Manitoba curriculum could be taught in the Gloria School in Hong Kong. let me assure the Member for Concordia as well � that indeed we were concerned about the fact that ' Manitoba would then be contributing, in some financial way, to the establishment of the school. We are not contributing in any financial way to the programs that are being delivered in this school. The teachers who have been hired are Manitoba teachers.

They were hired by the Gloria School of Hong Kong and are the responsibility of that educational institution. The only involvement our department and our Government had with this entire project was to ensure that the Manitoba curriculum would indeed be followed in that school. Mr. Doe r: Mr. Speaker, I asked two questions. Number one, was the Deputy Minister sent over to Hong Kong on taxpayers' money? Number two, if the Minister says there is a study conducted into the decision the Cabinet rendered on February 22, will he table that study in this House? Monitoring Mr.

Gary Doer (l eader of the Second Opposition): My third question is, given that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. Ernst) yesterday, on seeing the revelations dealing with the same businessperson, said he would review practices of Industry , Trade and Techno logy and change some of the monitoring techniques, is the Minister prepared to review the decision of granting this contract to the individual I have mentioned? In this review, will they look seriously at the potential abuse for new immigrants coming to Manitoba and Winnipeg? * (13 45) Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minis ter of Education and li'aining): Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat strange that the Member of the thir d Party would indeed be questioning the motives of our Government establishing good relations with the people of Hong Kong, and allowing their chil dren to engage in programs in Manitoba curriculum that would allow those students to come back to Manitoba, to come to Canada, to Manitoba, to be able to take curricu lum at our 2646 universities that would indeed help them in their lifestyles.

The other issue, the Member of the third Party also asks me whether my Deputy Minister did go over to Hong Kong. Yes, my Deputy Minister was invited to Hong Kong to take

part in a graduation and also to look at the school that our curriculum would be taught at to ensure that in fact the standards would be met according to the standards that are set within our province for curriculum. That did happen, and I am telling the Leader of the third Party that I have nothing to apologize for in sending my Deputy Minister over to Hong Kong. Conawapa Project Environmental Impact Study Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, it appears that Conawapa will be built within a wildlife protection area, and since the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns) is obviously charged with the protection of our natural resources, can he indicate what anticipated effects the construction of this mega project will have on the area? Will he guarantee this House that no construction will begin on the lines or on the dam before a full environmental study has been accomplished? Hon. Harry Enns (Mini ster of Natural Resources): We are very fortunate in Manitoba that the subsequent dams that have been built in the northern waters of Nelson have very mino r impact thr ough th e environment.

It has to do with the geography to this extent that for instance the previous administration, when they commissioned the Limestone Station, recognizing this factor provided the kind of studies that were required but pretty well indicated that because of the geography of the Nelson River in that part of the province, little or no additional flooding is in fact taking place. The same would be the situation with Conawapa. We are of course, and my department particularly, extremely concerned that whatever damage may take place will be catalogued and will be studied.

There will be specific recommendations made to the construction project as to how, and in what particular way actions can be taken during the construction phase to lessen or indeed to eliminate any environmental damage. Wildlife Protection Mrs. Gwen Charles (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, $500 million has been promised to support all the damage done by the previous dam const ruction. There is environmental damage done because of dams. With the rotting of material of the areas being flooded and with the permafrost, there will be added mercury pollution.

How will this added pollution affect and further affect the wildlife of the area, and will he show some concern for the wildlife, which he is supposed to be responsible for? Hon. Harry Enns (Mi nister of Natural Resources): I am concerned, but let me indicate to the Honourable

Wednesday, November 8, 19 89 Member that the damage that she spoke of first of all is not within the realm of figures that she mentioned. The $500 million is in fact a guesstimate by federal authorities as to the possible outside parameters of total damage. The kind of hard assessment that is now currently taking place under the Northern Flood Agreement, I want to assure the Honourable Members, while I do not have the figures, they are not in that ballpark. Again let me simply repeat what I already said.

Because of the nature of the river and the steep embankment of the river bed, virtually no additional flooding is caused by the construction of Conawapa. So there are no additional trees that are going to be flooded as a result of this project, unlike the original damage that was done at the time of the Churchill River Diversion at South Indian Lake. • (13 50) Mrs. Charles: Mr. Speaker, first the Minister says there will be no damage, and then he admits there will be. Environmental Impact Study Mrs.

Gwen Charles (Selk i rk): Will the Minister, because in The Environment Act, which calls for a full complete environmental study to be done on all the province within the next year and a half, now commit himself to making this particular area first on the list for a full environment study before the construction begins? Hon. Harry Enns (Mi nister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, that study is underway. Manitoba Hydro is as a matter of course undertaking that kind of study. When I speak of limited damage, there is concern for every little stream that may be blocked temporarily during construction stage.

Recommendations are being made to the project engineers that are working on the construction as to how that can be overcome. Waters that may be temporarily diverted, again the small stream coming into the river at that point, special costs are incurred and special methods are undertaken to ensure that the construction leaves a minimal impact on them. These are the kinds of things that Manitoba Hydro is right now com piling and studying, and they will form part of the overall construction proposals for Conawapa. Mr. Spe aker: The Honourable Member for Selkirk, with a new question. Mrs. Charles: Mr.

Speaker, when any dam is built the water flows impede the temperature difference between the top of the dam and the bottom of the dam. There always is a difference. This will affect fish, the fish will affect the ducks, and so on and so forth. Will this Minister commit himself to being concerned about the environment, concerned about natural resources, and call for a complete review, because I do not hear of anything further than independent studies being undertaken by this Minister? Mr. Enns: Mr.

Speaker, I want to assure the Honourable Member that I will be very much concerned, because it is my department that has to deal, and is dealing, with situations, whether they occur 20 or 25 years ago on Cedar Lake, because of the dam constructed in 1964. Mr. Speaker, I am equally concerned and delighted about the thousands of jobs this will create, about the opportunities this will provide for our northern residents where we have the highest unemployment rates in this province. I am delighted with the economic benefits of a major $5 billion project if it comes to pass.

I have to remind Honourable Members of the House of the responses just given by the Minister responsible for Hydro. We believe it will come to pass, but an approp riate announcement will come when that is finalized. We ought to rejoice, we ought to be proud of our Crown facility in providing this kind of economic benefit for all Manitobans. Fish Ladders Mrs. Gwen Charles (Se lkirk): Mr. Speaker, I am at least concerned about the environment and the wildlife.

Will the Minister, because Manitoba Hydro does not include fish ladders in the construction of its dams, guarantee that in this dam site at least we will have fish ladders, so that fish can migrate and move up the Nelson River? Hon. Harry Enns (Mini ster of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice. I am simply not knowledgeable as to whether or not a fish ladder on these projects is possible. Mrs. Charles: Well, Mr. Speaker, Manitoba Hydro says that fish do not migrate. I would hope this Minister will understand that fish do migrate. Lake Winnipeg Levels Mrs.

Gwen Charles (Selki rk): Further, will the Minister guarantee that residents and cottagers along Lake Winnipeg will not be affected by increases in the levels of Lake Winnipeg because of this further construction of the dam? Hon. Harry Enns (Mi nister of Natural Resources ): Mr. Speaker, the site of the proposed Conawapa Dam is at roughly about 350 feet above sea level . Lake Winnipeg is at 714 feet above sea level, as of today. Before it has any impact on Lake Winnipeg you would have to put an awful lot of water, some 400 feet of water, from Conawapa to Jenpeg to bring about any level change on Lake Winnipeg.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! * (1 355) Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. 2647

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 ***** Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Selkirk, on a point of order. Mrs. Charles: Mr. Speaker, I really do take offence to the Minister's making light of concerns about the environment and water levels- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member does not have a point of order. The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources, on a new point of order. Mr. Enns: I take offence that she is misinterpreting my responses as being lighthearted or as not taking seriously what involves- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Enns: -the largest major construction project in the province, and that I take my responsibility as the Minister of Natural Resources very seriously. Mr. Speaker: Order. Order, please. The Honourable Minister does not have a point of order. Unemploym ent Insurance Comm ission Benefit Reforms Mr. John Plohman (Dau phin): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment Services.

At a time when the federal Government is cutting back on regional economic development through devastating and huge cuts at CN, Via Rail, and post offices, major cuts are also taking place at the Unempl oyment Insurance Corporation with Manitoba being hit harder than any other province, $60 milli on reduction in benefits and 4,000 Manitobans who will be affected by these cuts. In view of the fact that we have now learned, Mr.

Speaker, that Saskatchewan, Alberta, and Ontario will benefit from improved sensitivity to regional disparities under the UIC changes, while Manitoba is singled out for harsh treatment, I ask the Minister of Employment Services what action she has taken to lobby against the discriminatory changes in Unemployment Insurance that are hitting Manitoba harder than any other province? Hon.

Charlotte Oleson (Mi nister of Fami ly Services): The Member should recall that earlier this year, at about the time that there was an announcement of UI changes, there was a conference of Ministers of Employment across Canada with the federal Minister, at which time I raised this issue, and that Manitoba should be looked at carefully with regard to Unemployment Insurance, also that we should be favourably considered with training dollars to help to ease the impact of that. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, this Minister has been totally ineffective on her representation as the announcements today indicate that Manitoba will be harder hit, and no changes have been made for amelioration. 2648 Penn-Co Group Sprague Sawmill Closure Mr. John Plohman (Dau phin): Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that 60 employees are now being thrown out of work at Sprague as a result of the giveaway of most of Manitoba's merchantable timber in the Repap deal, I ask the Minister what study she undertook on employment levels in other parts of the province, and what representation she made to the Minister of Finance and to this Government before these timber resources were given away to the Repap company last spring? Hon. Charlotte Oleson (Mi nister of Family Se rvices): I would suggest to the Member that he perhaps look at his map of Manitoba and find out where Sprague is. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, obviously, this Minister knows nothing about the issue. Penn-Co was involved at Sprague. They have shut down, partially as a result of the timber giveaway that was done at Repap at Swan River. Repap Manitoba Inc. Cutting Areas Mr. John Plohman (Dau phin): This is to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Penner). Why did this province give away this huge resource, hundreds of thousands of dollars of cubic metres of hardwood, without first determining the impact on the Parklands and other regions of this province in terms of employment and economic development? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! Mr.

Speaker: Order. The Honourable Minister of Rural Development. Hon. Jack Penner (Mini ster of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) should know, No. 1, that the resources were not given away when the agreement with Repap was struck. There was an orderly system of assessment in place and put in place when the Repap deal was struck.

It is also important to note that if the previous Government had taken proper precautions in the southeastern part of this province and implemented a proper replanting program, as we have said we would, and replace every cut tree that is being taken in that part of the province, there might be a resource now of harvestable timb er to sustain tha t ind ustry. However- * (14 00) Some Honourable Memb ers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The Honourable Minister. Mr. Penner: Mr. Speaker, Penn-Co has indicated that the timber resource in the southeastern part of the

Wednesday , November 8, 1989 province is not adequate to sustain the facility, in that part of the province. It is important that we take upon ourselves the responsibility as' a society·to make sure that we replant those areas that we harvest and cut. Conawapa Project Employment Training Program Mr.

Herold Driedger (Niakwa): Judging by the answer by the Minister of Hydro, we may never find out whether there actually will be a sale or not, but I assume because of our Limestone experience that training programs are already being considered and strategies are in place to have our northern population well educated and well trained so that they can take active and meaningful participation in any new mega project, which will be made necessary by the hydro sale. Will the Minister of Northern Affairs and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) announce what specific programs are in place? Hon.

Jame s Downey (Mi nister of Northe rn and Native Affairs): Mr. Speaker, let me first of all assure the Member that there are programs in place that are concluding from the previous Limestone projects. My colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) may want to elaborate more. Let me say as well that as indicated by the New Democratic Party that they the mselves were not satisfied with some of the agreements that were in place under the Limestone program.

I think it is equally as important to note that many of the people that have been affected in northern Manitoba by Hydr o development still are without the kind of Hydro services that the people of southern Manitoba are enjoying. That has been a commitment of our province and our Government, and we will live up to that commitment. Cutbacks Mr. Herold Driedger (Niakwa): A caring Government, Mr. Speaker, wou ld involve major departments in assessing the specific impacts of a mega project. Why has this Government downgraded the Northern Training and Employment Agency? That question is for the Minister of Education.

Hon. Le onard Der kach (Min ister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, nothing can be further from the truth than the statement that has just been made by the Member opposite. Indeed, we have changed the Northern Training and Employment Agency to better reflect the needs of northern Manitobans and to ensure that in fact northern Manitobans get educational opportunities in northern Manitoba and that those op portun ities are del ivered and admin istered by northern Manitobans. Conawapa Project Employment Training Program Mr.

Herold Drie dger (Niakwa): Two Governments, and Conservative Governments alike, have been unable to co-o rdin ate and promote the hiring of northern technology graduates out of community colleges. How is the Keewatin Community .College going to be able to fill the need of providing skilled labour for a major Hydro mega project? Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minis ter of Education and Training): Let me say that our Government has a commitment to ensure that northern Manitobans have every opportunity made available to them for education and training, regardless of what the projects in northern Manitoba may be with regard to Repap. Presently we have Keewatin Community College. The Thompson campus is work ing very actively in ensuring that northern Mani tobans and Natives from northern Manitoba have opp ortu nities for employment opportunities in the future with regard to Repap. Mr.

Speaker, it was the Liberal Party and the Leader of the Liberal Party that indicated that they would cut $800,000 out of the ACCESS Program. How is that addressing the needs of northern Manitobans? Conawapa Project Employment Opportunities Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I think the House has seen a miraculous metamorphosis in this Government. The announcement from the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) that the development of our hydro resources was an important economic cornerstone in the development of our economy is a major policy change for the Conservative Government. Mr.

Speak er, my quest ion is to the Min ister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. The Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) just said that every opportunity would be given to northern people for employment opportunities. Will the Minister now acknowledge that the Allied Hydro Council has already re-signed the collective agreement, that they have given themselves no opportunit y for impr oving the em ployment oppor tuniti es, the preference opportunities in the collective agreement? Will the Minister now tell this House what he plans to do to make sure that what they say is possible will actually be possible. Hon.

Harold Neufeld (Minis ter responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, we have said before, and I will say again, the employment opportunities for the Northerners and for the Natives in the North will be the same as they have been. The new agreement that has been signed ensures them at least the same opportunities that they had under the previous agreement. That is a minimum. If we can do more, we will do more. The Manitoba Conservative Government has indicated time and again that we are committed to the North and we will ensure that the opportunities are there for them. Mr. Storie: Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) just said that it needed to be improved. He did not even know that the Minister of Hydro had signed away the agreement. Mr. Speak er, my quest ion was to the Min ister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. What is the Minister 2649

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 now going to do to correct the mistake he has already made? What is he going to do to make sure that Manitobans, northern Manitobans, Natives are actually employed at the Conawapa site? What is he going to do? Mr. Ne ufeld: The moment I acknowledge having made a mistake I will announce what I will do to rectify it. Free Trade Agreement Environment Funding Impact Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, my final question is also to the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. The sig ning of the Free Trade Agreement changed the way we in Canada must do business.

The previous construction of Bi-pole Two was done with the support of the federal Government. Manitoba Hydro believed that the construction of Bi-pole Three would also require some federal input. My question to the Minister of Hydro is, has the I Minister done, or has Manitoba Hydro done, any analysis of the potential impact of the Free Trade Agreement on federal contributions to Bi-pole Three, to environmental planning, or in fact to subsid ies or supports for training initiatives the Government might finally undertake. Has he done any of that background research? • (14 10) Hon.

Harold Ne ufeld (Min ister responsi ble for The Mani toba Hydro Act): As we indicated a year ago, Mr. Speaker, we do not think that the Free Trade Agreement is going to interfere at all with the export of power by Manitoba Hydro. Gloria School-Hong Kong Opening Date Mrs. Iva Yeo (Sturgeon Creek): The pact signed by the Manitoba Government for the Hong Kong school was an interesting one indeed, which we heard about last May. I found it even more amusing that on July 1, or the end of June, the Deputy Minister and another member from the department went down to celebrate the graduation.

In light of the fact that the agreement was not effective until June 1, 1989, it is a very rapid progress to graduations. My question to the Minister of Educ ation is, did this school actually open in September, 1989? Hon. Le onard Der kach (Mi nister of Educat io n and Training): Mr.

Speaker, I must indicate to the Member for Sturgeon Creek that when my Deputy Minister went to Hong Kong and was invited to a graduation, it was not a graduation of the Gloria School of Hong Kong, it was a graduation of the elementary school in Hong Kong that was associated with the Gloria School, but was not offering the Manitoba curriculum. The school that we are talking about today is the Gloria School which is going to offer the Manitoba curriculum. Mr. Speaker, because the signing of the agreement was rather late, the Gloria School informed us that they were having difficulty in recruiting students.

That has nothing to do with our Government. We simply gave approval that the Manitoba curriculum could be offered in the Hong Kong school. That is the end of our commitment. Government Expense Mrs. Iva Ye o (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, how could this Minister sanction spending moniesin the form of personnel who spent time organizing the Manitoba curriculum for such a speculative program? Hon. Le onard Derkach (Mi nister of Educat io n and Training): Mr. Speaker, I just do not know where the Liberals are coming from these days- An Honoura ble Membe r: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

The Honourable Minister of Education. Mr. Derkach: -and nobody knows where they are going. Mr. Speaker, yes, there was time invested by my department to investigate the matter before we gave approval for the Gloria School in Hong Kong to offer the Manitoba curriculum. I acknowledge that. Any time there is a proposal before our department, our staff will investigate and will spend their ti me invest igating such proposals. Mr. Speaker, we authorized the curriculum to be taught in the Hong Kong school. That is the end of our commitment.

Whether or not the Hong Kong school offers the Manitoba curriculum now is really up to them. Manitoba Teachers Mrs. Iva Ye o (Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, if the Gl oria School did not open in Septem ber, what happened to those teachers, those Manitoba teachers, who were hired and were to be sent to Hong Kong? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Educat io n and Training): Mr. Speaker, once again, those teachers were not hired by my department, those teachers were hired by the Gloria School in Hong Kong. They have a contract with that school and therefore their salaries would have to be paid.

Whether or not they actually have students in that school today, I cannot respond to that because I do not have any knowledge of that. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. James Downey (Mi nister of Norther n and Native Affai rs): I would ask that you call for introduction of Bills for second reading in this order: Bill Nos. 59, 79, 63 and 80. Following that, Mr. Speaker, I would request that you call Debate on Second Readings of Bill Nos. 27, 31, 42, 34 and 6. 2650

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 SECOND READINGS BILL NO. 59-THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AMENDMENT ACT Hon. Leonard Derkach (Min ister of Education and Training) presented Bill No. 59, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles publiques, for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Derkach: I am pleased to introduce Bill 59 for second reading. The Public Schools Act outlines the legal framework for the operation of schools in Manitoba, and through it every child in Manitoba is assured of a right to attend school. This Act was completely revised in 1980, and several amendments have been made to it sinc e that tim e. Changing circumstances, emerging issues and evolving new practices in the education system require that further amendments be made.

Les changements que l'on constate au sein de notre societe exige des modifications au systeme scolaire. L'adoption du projet de loi 59, permet que la

loi sur les ecoles publiques reflate ses changements. (Translation) The noted changes in the midst of our society require that modifications to the school system be made. The adoption of Bill 59, permits these changes to be reflected in the public school system. (English) This Government, Mr. Speaker, is committed to making the education system meet the needs of a changing society. Feedback from, and consultation with parents and the various organizations are extremely important if the system is to serve the students well. Parents have the greatest stake in education.

They want to ensure that their children receive the best possible education in order to develop their skills, to take their rightful place in society, and make a strong contribution for the betterment of society. If the parents are to have a say in what their children are learning then they must have access to information on their children so that they can make intelligent decisions about the value of the programs in which their children participate, and what progress the children are making in the programs. This Bill, Mr.

Speaker, if adopted, will enable parents to gain access to such information which is kept in the school or by school board officials. Parents are also concerned that their children are protected from abuse. This Government is committed to the protection of children. Early in this Session amendments were made to The Child and Family Services Act clarifying the requirements that third party abuse be reported by those who have children under their care. Amendments in this Bill complement the changes made to The Child and Family Services Act. The parents, Mr.

Speaker, have a right to expect that those who have charge of their children do not abuse the trust placed in them. Since the Minister of Education and Training is charged with the responsibility for certifying teachers, it is important that the Minister be advised of those who pose a threat to the well-being of children under their care, so that appropriate action can be taken. Again, Mr. Speaker, this Bill will require school boards to report to their Minister when they have knowledge of teachers being charged for abuse of their children. Mr.

Speaker, this Government recognizes the rights of parents to educate their children in an independent school. It believes that such parents are entitled to have a greater portion of their tax dollar go to such schools. Therefore, this Government is committed to increasing the funding to these schools. However, this Government also believes that greater accountability to the Government is required of independent schools. Accordingly, the amendments in the Bill will enable the Minister to expand the criteria independent schools must meet to receive additional funding.

The staff from my department have been meeting with representatives from the Manitoba Federation of Independent Schools and good progress is being made on the development of this criteria. Mr. Speaker, with the establishm ent of school divisions. school boards established a new education management structure to manage the affairs of their division. They can afford to employ a variety of experts to advise them on various aspects of education and su pports necessary to carry out their educatio n programs.

For example, they have schools administered by principals while superintendents administer the school divisions as a whole. In some school divisions consultants are employed in special areas. The school boards in remote school districts, Mr. Speaker, do not have the same resources to establish such a system. They still require the same assistance as they have in the past. A management structure unique to remote school districts, I believe, is essential. Amendments proposed in this Bill will give school boards discretionary authority to es tablish a management structure unique to their needs.

The Frontier School Division was established to administer education in areas not in any school district or school division north of the northern boundary of Township 22. Those areas, which are not north of this boundary and not part of the school district, are dir ectly administered by the Minis ter or by an official trustee. The number of such areas has greatly decreased. These areas, like those in Frontier School Division, are unique and therefore could be part of this division which is set up to deal with extreme unique situations. The Bill provides for inclusion of such areas in the Frontier School Division.

All school divisions and school districts, except one in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, elect school boards to govern their division or districts. The one school division that has the legislative authority to elect a school board is the Frontier School Division. I believe, and so do the people in Frontier School Division, that this division has for many years been ready to accept responsibility for the administration of its affairs. In fact, the people from this division have for many 2651

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 years been requesting a change in governance. This division is a very unique one. Further, its residents would prefer to retain for election of a school board the system they now have for the election of their Central Advisory Committee which runs their affairs in the division. The Bill provides for enabling authority for the Minister to provide for an elected school board for the division. Mr. Speaker, one other principal address by this Bill is the right to participate in a democratic process.

Teachers, as do others, need to be encouraged to run for political office, be it at the municipal level or by the provincial level or at the federal level. Very often they will not do so because they are not assured of leave, and/or of retaining jobs should they be defeated. This Bill I believe provides greater encouragement to teachers to become involved to a greater extent in the democratic process of our province and our country. Another emerging issue, Mr. Speaker, is the question of schooling at home.

I am certainly not a proponent of this, however, I recognize some parents want to take � on the responsibility of teaching their children. At the ' same time, I recognize the need to protect the interests of children. There is therefore a need to develop some regulation for better control of this type of alternative teaching, without establishing another education system. The Bill provides that the Minister will enable authority to establish this better control. Finally, Mr. Speaker, this Bill has a few provisions which are merely of a houseke eping nature.

I recommend Bill 59 to the Honourable Members of the Leg islatur e for th eir consideration and for their adoption. Thank you. .. (14 20) Mr. Mark Minenko (Seven Oaks): Mr. Speaker , I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mr. Laurie Evans), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carrie d. BILL NO. 79-THE MUNIC IPAL ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ACT Hon. Ja ck Penne r (Mini ster of Rural Development) presented Bill No. 79, The Municipal Assessment and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur !'evaluation municipale et modifications correlatives, for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Penner: It gives me great pleasure to bring before this Assembly today The New Municipal Assessment Act, legislation that I might say Manitobans have been waiting for a long, long time, legislation which will bring Manitoba's assessment system into the 21s t Century.

Successive Governments have spent, I guess, some 12 years or maybe even longer now, talking about the need to return fairness and equity to the way property is assessed across Manitoba, and about the need to modernize the formulas which have become both outdated and antiquated. Assessment reform, Mr. Speaker, began in 1979 with the establishment of the Manitoba Assessment Review Committee, otherwise known as the Weir Committee. In 1982 the Weir Committee tabled its report with some 160 recommendations in the Manitoba Legislature.

The Bill I presented to the Legislature is structured around four key recommendations of the Weir Report, that is moving to market value assessment and moving to frequent assessments, minimizing exemptions and standardizing the assessment process across the province. The goal of this Legislature is simple, to bring fairness and equity to the valuing of property for the purpose of taxation. I sincerely believe that the new Municipal Assessment Act, specifically, and the assessment reform, generally, is a non-political exercise which all Parties recognize to be in the interest of property owners in Manitoba.

The Manitoba Assessment Review Committee or Weir Committee, as it was known, identified to primary sources of the inequiti es which existed in the assessment process, therefore in distributing real property taxes on the assessment base. One of these problems was, of course, outdated legislation. Most provisions in today's Act date back to the early 1920s. As an aside, I might also say that The City of Winnipeg Act also contains assessment provisions which, with odd exception, have been transferred verbatim from The Municipal Assessment Act.

Needless to say, the past 60 or 70 years have seen changes in real property based in Manitoba. On the rural side, changes have been dramatic. Obviously the amount of cleared land has increased tremendously, but so has the nature of the farm holding. While large acreage grain farms still domi nate, specialty crops areas have come into existence and there has been tremendous growth in livestock and poultry intensive farm operations. (Mr. William Chornopyski, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) As well, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there are also property holdings that are dominated not by the agricultural community but by recreation-based industry, and in some areas by urban commuters. In cities as well times have changed. Highrises, condominiums, strip malls, shopping centres, all have sprung up sinc e the assessment legislation was written. In short, the existing statutes whic h guid e the assessment process in Manitoba are out of date and fall short of provi ding fairness and equity in the assessment system.

Fairness in value, current market value, requires that properties be valued at the price at which they would most likely sell in an open market. It is this definition which has been established by the courts, and it is one which continues to be the mainstay of our assess ment program. Although The Municipal Assessment Act has always prescribed that property be assessed at value, the inability of the assessment agencies to keep their records up to date has resulted in the failure of today's assessed relationships to reflect current market value conditions. The province-wide reassessments, which 2652

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 will occur in 1990, will be the first time that all properties in Manitoba will be measured by a truly current level of value. Those assessments will be kept up to date thr ough more frequent assessments arou nd the province. Historically, Mr. Deputy Speaker, neither the province nor the City of Winnipeg assessment authorities have had the staff resources required to keep assessed values up to date. The solution to that is the ongoing development of the Manitoba computer system.

There are over one-half million properties on record in Manitoba, and the MACS computer system has been developed over the past two years to obtain and store substantial information on each of these properties. As of this moment, the system is in operation in all 10 of our assessment branch field offices. With its capacity we will, from 1990 onwards, be able to simultaneously reassess all properties in each of the 201 municipalities within the jurisdiction of the provincial assessment branch. Similar computer development within the City of Winnipeg is expected to provide the city assessor with the same capacity.

Finally, reassessments are the basis of equity in pro perty tax assess ments, and the continuing development of the computer system gives us that capacity. I am not sure, Mr. Deputy Speaker, whether you can hear me or whether I can hear myself at this moment, but there is a substantial amount of discussion going on in the background. You might want to deal with it. This updating will bring fairness back to the assessment system. It may also generate significant shifts in the share of the total assessment base carried by different property types in the province.

Over the years different properties have increased in value, as you know, at different rates. As a result, assessment reform means that some property categories will see their values rise at a faster rate than others. Those differences will be reflected in such a reform. The Weir Committee recognized and recommended that property classes be established to bumper any tax impact which would result with these shifts. The Act also recognizes this and gives the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council the authority to establish property classes.

We anticipate some nine property classes will shortly be defined for this purpose by regulation under The Act. Within the property classes in place, the Lieutenant-Govern or-in-Cou ncil will be given the authority to prescribe percentages of value which we refer to as portions for each of these property classes. It will be these portioned values against which municipal and school mill rates will apply. As well, we have included in this legislation the ability for municipalities to phase in any increases to minimize the negative impact on taxpayers.

A second major area of concern to the Manitoba Assessment Review Committee was the standardizing of assessment process across the province. Although there is a separate legislation directing assessment in Winnipeg, and then again within the balance of Manitoba, there is in fact very few differences in the word ing of these two statutes. Still sign ificant differences in interpreting the statutes and in the methodology employed by the assessor of the two jurisdictions has evolved over the years. Re-assessment intervals have differed significantly between Winnipeg and Manitoba municipalities.

My Government feels it is important that there be consistency across the Province of Manitoba. Although the new Act does not tamper directly with the existence of the two assessment jurisdictions, it does establish the authority of the provincial municipal assessor to di ctate the standa rds under which assessments will be carried out province-wide. From 1990 onward all Manitoba property owners can be assured that a house on Portage Avenue in Winnipeg is valued at the same time, using the same standards, and through identical methods, as a similar house in any other community in Manitoba.

In brief, it will be the provincial municipal assessor's statutory responsibility to ensure that all property in Manitoba is assessed in accordance with this Act and any regulations established under it. * (14 30) Although assessment itself is a reasonably neutral exercise of valuing property, its sole purpose is to provide the basis upon which real property tax is allocated. The Municipal Assessment Act, therefore, also contains direction to the assessor on which properties should be considered as liable to taxes, and which ones should be coded as exempt from taxes.

The Weir Committee noted that the question of liability of taxes created a built in inequity in the taxation process. Any exemption granted automatically results in a shift of tax burden to those properties subject to tax. Having said that, we realize that the exemptions have existed since the first assessment statutes in Manitoba. A blanket removal of all exemptions was considered to be inappropriate by the Weir Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and this Government shares that view. A re examination of existing provisions has been conducted and I would like to comment on several changes we are bringing forward.

The earliest assessment statutes in Manitoba directed that all land be liable to taxes, but that farm outbuildings and farm residences which met certain criteria be exempt. In addition, all other buildings in Manitoba were to be assessed at two-thirds of their value, creating a one-third exemption in the Province of Manitoba. Although those provisions may have had merit in their day, their existence has led to a number of major inequities in today's taxation and real property base. In an ad valorem system, taxes should be allocated on a relative value of one property to another.

There is no rationale to that system which can explain why one-third of a highrise office building in the City of Winnipeg should be exempt from taxes. Similarly, it is equally hard to understand why a land-intensive farm in rural Manitoba with a market value of half a million dollars should contribute on the basis of that full value,

whereas a building-intensive farm with the equivalent 2653

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 market value should have all its buildings exempt from taxation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are other inequities in the current assessment system. Take, for example, the exemption of a farm residence whose owner derives more than 50 percent of his or net income from farming. Perhaps in 1920 all farmers derived 100 percent of their income from farming, and such exemptions at that time seemed logical, but this is not the case today, where many farmers and their spouses have some source of off-farm income to supplement what may be an extremely low or even negative net farm income.

In the interest of restoring that equity to the system based on the real property system as it exists in the 1990s there will no longer be exemptions for those properties I have just described. Equity within the farm property class will be achieved by updating these exemption provisions. From a tax policy perspective, however, it has long � been the position of this Government that the nature ' of the real property holdings in the farm community have resulted in farmers carrying a disproportionate share of the cost of education.

That is why, as a complementary initiative, we are announcing that from 1990 onwards , the farm property class will no longer be subjected to the provincial education support levies. This change will be discussed at greater detail outside of my present remarks, but we do see it as a vital part of our assessment reform program. Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have recognized other exemptions. Land holdings associated with schools and hospitals are quite different today than they were when the original Act was created.

We have th erefore increased the land exemption associated with these buildings to more realistically reflect the size of today's schools and hospitals, and the new provision directs that a flat 10-acre exemption be provided for all such institutions. There is another property type that our current assessment Act does not address. Day care centres are a reasonably new phenomena and therefore no reference to them is found in today's statutes.

It is my Government's view that day care centres provide a vital service to Manitobans and that the service shares similarities with other properties which have traditionally been exempt from real property taxes. Accordingly, my proposed legislation would exempt from taxation all non-pr ofit day care centres licensed under The Community Child Day Care Standards Act. Finally , Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Bill before us recognizes the importance that Manitobans have placed on our heritage.

The City of Winnipeg Act, as it exists today, provides that designated heritage buildi ngs undergoing substantial renovations shall receive an exemption from taxation during the period of renovations for a maximum of two years. The new Municipal Assessment Act extends that provision so that it applies to all Manitoba municipalities. This provision allows municipalities to work within the provisions of The Heritage Resource Act and through a by-law to designate heritage buildings, and if such by-laws are passed, the Municipal Assessment Act provides tax relief through a renovation period.

In addition, it is recognized that the cultural landscape of Manitoba is dotted with now aging farm buildings of our pioneer settlers. Although these buildings no longer serve a functional purpose, they do have a very real value to the preservation of all our heritage. We have therefore provided in the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that permanently abandoned farm outbuildings of age 60 years and over shall be exempt from all real property taxation. This part of the Act will be subject to ongoing review.

It is our intent to continue examining this provision with the goal to reducing the number of properties which are exempt from taxation in the interest of the broader population who must make up the deficit. It is not our intent, however, to create economic hardship for many of these worthwhile organizations by arbitrarily removing their exemption. Therefore we propose to work with those organizations and with Opposition Parties to proceed along this path. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, there are numerous other provisions of this Bill that I am sure will be of interest to all Members, more frequent assessment cycles, a move to province-wide standards , assessments that will reflect relative current market val ue , and the creation of province-wide property classes. Each of these measures as part of the new Mun icipal Assessment Act will ensure that municipalities will, at long last , be able to levy taxes in a fair and equitable manner. I have provided all Members with a written and slightly more detailed

summary of the new Bill, and I look forward to hearing their comments and suggestions on it. I, therefore, ask for support from this Legislature for this Bill and recommend it to the House. * (1 440) Mr. Gilles Roch (Sprin gfie ld): I move, seconded by the Member for Selkirk (Mrs. Charles), that debate on this Bill be now adjourned. MOTION presented and carrie d. BILL NO. 63-THE CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT

(3) Hon. Edward Connery (Mi nister of Co-operat iv e, Consumer and Corporate Affairs) presented Bill No. 63, The Consumer Protection Amendment Act (3); Loi no 3 modifiant la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur, for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mr. Connery: I am pleased to introduce, for second reading , Bill No. 63 amendments to The Consumer Protection Act. The proposed amendments will provide for increased protection for consumers who enter contracts with health, fitness , modelling, diet, talent, 2654

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 martial arts, and dance clubs, as well as, door-to-door sellers. Mr. Deputy Speaker, in recent years numerous health clubs have closed their doors. We cannot prevent these kinds of businesses from going under, but we can soften the financial blow on the people who have contracts with these companies by imposing limitations on the terms and lengths of their contracts. This department has observed a continuing problem that involves the sale of prepaid personal services. Examples of these types of services would include those businesses I previously mentioned.

In some instances these types of businesses have used high pressure sales tactics to sell their product or services. The seller may have played on a consumer's emotions by placing emphasis on the need to join a club so that the buyer's self worth, through better appearance, fitness or increased popular ity, will increase. Over the years, the department's Consumers' Bureau has dealt with many consumers who have signed multiple prepaid service contracts. Some of these people were pressured into re-signing a contract before the expiration of their agreement.

In other cases, consume rs were pressured into signing lifetim e agreements. In the end, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the result for some of these people was disappointing. In order to meet thei r contract obl igations some consumers found themselves in financial difficulty. Others, with prepaid service contracts, lost the use of a service because the company went out of business. There were occasions where consumers wanted to cancel their contracts because of health reasons, or because of a need to relocate, but found they could not get out of the obligation for fear of taking a financial loss.

These are just some of the examples of the problems we have had to deal with over the years. Under my proposed amendments prepaid service contracts will be limited to a length of 12 months. This will help prevent busi nesses from signin g customers to long-term agreements. Only one contract will be allowed to be in force for the same service at the same time. All contracts will have to include disclosure of information pertinent to the deal. Payment of any contract will be made in no fewer than two installments and equal installments.

They will not be able to ask for the majority of it up front and have one other payment six months down the road at a very low rate. We have also included a provision for an increased cooling-off period. Under the amendment the cooling off period will increase to 10 days from four days. Consumers will be able to cancel their agreement by providing the seller with a written notice stating their intention to cancel. No reason for cancellation need be given. We feel this cancellation provision will be extremely beneficial to all Manitobans.

This provision will give all consumers the time to reflect upon their decisions to sign a contract. It would also give them time to cancel, especially if they had been subjected to high pressure sales tactics, and in the case of seniors it puts at least one weekend in between the signing and the actual time the contract would be in place, so at least they would have an opportunity to discuss it with family. As you know, direct sales are normally transacted in the home where consumers may be more susceptible to high pressure sales tactics or other suspicious selling practices.

Senior citizens, widows, rural Manitobans are often targets of the few unscrupulous direct sellers who may be operating in the province. Extending the cooling-off period will cause problems only for those sellers who engage in questionable practice. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this Bill is not designed to affect any normal honest business. It will only affect those who are trying to extract money from the consumer in a devious way or in a way of high pressure. The 10- day cooling-off period will help to eliminate pressure selling and impulse buying.

A mandatory one year contract term should reduce the amount of financial loss should a health, fitness or dance club close. I believe these amendments will go a long way towards protecting the consumers of this province. I was somewhat dismayed to read in the paper that the Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), who is the critic for the New Democratic Party, said that the provisions are identical to those the NOP proposed last year. Well, there are three pages to that Member's Bill and there are 10 excluding MSRP.

What the Member for Elmwood has done with all of his Bills is picked up the Bills after the previous Government was defeated-Bills that were in draft form, immature Bills that were not ready to be presented to the House-and just had them printed and tabled as Bills, misrepresenting them as Bills that he had drafted. Well, they were not drafted by the Member for Elmwood they were drafted in the department, and they were rough drafts that were not ready.

So it is rather uncomfortable to see a person who was counselling; counselling people in the community and giving them misinformation as he has done on so many occasions. For instance, him quoting and saying that intra provincial companies cannot be sued by Manitobans and suggesting that the Brick Warehouse could not be sued by Manitobans. What the Member did not do was look up the definition of intra-provincial companies, which says companies that are incorporated in Manitoba or under the laws of Canada.

The Brick Warehouse is incorporated under the laws of Canada, so the Member is quite erroneous in many of the statements and I think really irresponsibly so. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Member has introduced several Bills. They could have been introduced as part of The Consumer Protection Act or The Business Practices Act, but I guess to take a look and have a lot of Bills in place and to say, hey, I am Mr. Consumer, as he likes to pretend to be, that the more Bills you have introduced the more conscious you are. Well, I can tell you that some of his Bills are unconscionable. * (14 50) 2655

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 He talks about a Bill with deposits-and I had some sympathy with the deposit Bill, but not in the way that it has been brought forward where he would have, any money over $500 would have to be put in a deposit. He also suggests that deposits- these would now become trust deposits-could be put into banks, trust companies or credit unions. Well, he is right in one out of three, because only trust companies can take trust money. The other two are deposit takers, and therefore, would not be truly trust deposits under that. He also suggested that no deposit over 20 percent be allowed.

It would be ludicrous if somebody wanted a special carpet, such as in this room, and only 20 percent down was required and that individual then thought better of it and did not want it, could cancel that at a cost of only 20 percent. The deposit situation is one that needs an awful lot mor e research before we come forward . We are concerned about people losing their deposits as our department-and we are looking at it, we do not think the Member's Bill is the way to go. The Member said his Bill was identical. Well, there are several other ways that his Bill does not compare.

For example, the present Act limits purchases that come under the Legislation to $25,000.00. His Bill makes no mention of this cap, where we have removed the cap to allow all of these to take place so that all consumers, whatever their costs were- to take place. The Member, in his Bill, increased the cool-off period to seven days. I do not have a lot of argument over it. It is just a matter of arguing which is the best, four, seven, 10. We thought 10 days would make sure we got through one weekend, and for that reason we went to the 10 days.

With respect to prepaid services, his Bill, Bill No. 22, potentially lacks some precision and could lead to some problems. Bill No. 63, our Bill, excludes golf, curling and racquet clubs,

whereas Bill No. 22 does not. The issue here is that these sorts of clubs have operated on other than a fee-for-service basis for many years and have not caused the type of problems contemplated by these Bills. So once again, the Member's Bill is a very immature, very flawed Bill, which should have had a lot more consultation before he brought it forth as a mature Bill. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, the one thing we do not have in our Bill is where services are to be provided, such as the European Health Spa in north Winnipeg that closed that particular facility down, but still has several other facilities in Winnipeg so people can still partake of the services, but they will maybe have to drive a long distance. I agree, and the Member for Seven Oaks (Mr . Minenko) raised that question in the Ho use, that people might have to drive halfway across Winnipeg to get the services they paid for. I agree with the Member that it is not a fair situation.

Yet we have some difficulty in how to phrase something when there are many, how we would prevent it, and I am prepared to entertain amendments if they can come up with something. We are quite prepared to look at amendments to prevent that sort of thing happening- An Honourable Member: Oh, you are being very generous. Mr. Connery: Well, we are trying to protect the consumer, and I will entertain any suggestions that will prove any Bill that I bring forward- An Honourable Member: We never had an NOP Government again. Mr. Connery: That is right. Well, there is no need for that kind of silliness.

We have had enough of that stuff. Our Bill No. 63 allows for cancellation privileges within 10 days of signing a contract,

whereas the Member for Elmwood's (Mr. Maloway) Bill, Bill No. 22, is silent in this regard. This is a very important provision because of the nature of the business. There are cases reported to the Consumers' Bureau where high pressure tactics have been used to sell contracts. Once those contracts have been signed they do become difficult to cancel, in part because they are indeed a contract and also because in certain cases the contracts are sold as commercial paper to finance companies.

This Bill will, therefore, not prevent the signing of contracts where both parties are willing and able to complete the contract, but like some direct sales, I believe added recourse is necessary for the public. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that conclude s my comments. I recommend Bill No. 63 to the House for speedy passage. I would ask both Parties to review it. If they have some concerns I am prepared to entertain some discussion on them and would look forward to having this Bill passed fairly quickly so we can have it in place to protect the consumers of Manitoba. Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): After that speech I just felt obliged to respond. The Minister is somewhat hypocritical here. This Government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, has had a year and a half to bring in comprehensive consumer legislation, and what has it done for the last 16 months? It has done nothing. All we have seen so far, and what we have in front of us today is a Bill that does not even do as much as our comparable Bill does. Our Bill, like the Minister's Bill, provides for a cooling off period on direct sales.

Our Bill, like the Minister's Bill, provides for a limit on personal service contracts to annual renewable terms, and it does provide for payments of at least two equal payments. But that is where the major similarities end. Another major part of our Bill is the requirement that motor dealers in Manitoba keep the retail price stickers on their windshields until those cars are sold to the final purchaser. That is not in the Minister's Bill. His Bill only goes two-thirds of the way that our Bill does, and perhaps in terms of priority the sticker price question may even be more important, in some senses. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wanted to deal with some of the other comments that the Minister made, but I did want to make further comments on some of the provisions of the Bill itself. The cooling-off period in 2656

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 Saskatchewan is, in fact, 10 days. We considered that last year when we introduced the Bill, and it was felt at that time that to get this Government to move anywhere was difficult at the best of times, but that the best we would expect from this Government would be a seven-day amendment, and to their credit , we have a 10-day amendment and we will accept that. But that, once again, is only a minor, minor change, and I think the Minister should recognize that. In the area of personal service contracts, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this problem has been around a long time.

People have been signing lifetime memberships for various clubs and spas , and people on So cial Assistance, and poor people in our society have been signing these agreements and have been unable to get out of them. This is a need that has been identified long ago, and we have attempted to resolve that in our Bill last year, and this Government chose to ignore that Bill last year, and now belatedly after a problem with European Health Spas in north Winnipeg, here we see this provision appearing in their Bill, and I am certainly glad that provision is in there. * (15 00) Mr.

Deputy Speaker, they have managed to leave out probably the most important part of that Bill. So how dare they even suggest that their Bill is equal to ours. Ours is at least one-third better then that of the Minister, and we hope to cure that and receive support from the Government or the Liberal Party in this Legislature at the amendment stage in committee, because at that point I intend to introduce the amendment that the Minister forgot to include in his own bill, and I assume it was probably just an oversight.

But I intend to introduce the amendment whereby motor dealers in Manitoba will be required to leave the sticker prices on their new cars until the final purchaser drives the car off the lot. Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I might just give a bit of background on that particular provision, this particular rule has been in force in the United States for many years now, and in Ontario for a number of years as well, and we have gotten letters over the last while encouraging us to act on this area.

Just last November 30 , 1988, we received a letter from Art Elias, who is I bel ieve the Presi dent of Ha yhur st Elia s Dudek Incorporated, who are insurance brokers in Winnipeg. In the letter that he sent he said that he recently purchased a fairly expensive car after three weeks of haggling and playing two dealerships against each other, which he had found from previous experience was absolutely essential to get anything approaching a reasonable deal, he ended up paying almost $4 ,000 less than the initially quoted trade-in price.

Then , when the sales contract was written up the price shown for the new car is $4,500 less than what the dealership initially told him the price was on the new car. He said it is annoying and unfair, as I felt this to be. What counted more to me was the net difference I was paying. A few years ago there was some publicity about an elderly gentleman paying an outrageously high $28,000 or so price for a new Pontiac he bought from McNaught Pontiac.

He goes on to say he has no problem with any auto dealership or any other type of business making a profit, and thus being able to provide the employment they do, but nowadays owning a car is almost a necessity. Regardless of the unfair games these dealerships play in jacking up the manufacturers list price, some people can handle themselves. However, I am sure that many, in particular seniors, young people and others who do not understand how to play those games pay far more than they should and far more than necessary for the dealership to enjoy a fair markup and a fair profit.

I understand that Ontario and some other provinces have legislation requiring the manufacturers suggested list price to be clearly displayed- Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. I would remind the Honourable Member that reading speeches is prohibited by Rule 29. Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was just concluding from a letter that was sent to us, one of several that we have received concerning manufacturers suggested � retail price fixing.

The fact of the matter is that when the new cars are brought into Manitoba and they are taken off the trailers-in fact, the motor dealers in Manitoba pay staff to remove the stickers and affix their own stickers on the windshield of those cars and in fact those stickers commonly have the price increase $2,000 over what the manufacturer's suggested retail price is.

We have examples of people who have gone to Kenora, Ontario and found that, even after $2,000 was taken off the Manitoba dealer's price, they were still on a par with what the manufacturer's suggested retail price was on the sticker on the windshield of the Ontario car in Kenora. I think that the Minister should take a trip to Kenora and perhaps check these out if he does not believe me.

He knows that these situations occur here in Manitoba and he is prepared to sit idly by and allow this situation to continue on into the future, and that is not, in my opinion, what I would consider a lack of commitment on the part of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I Now, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he made reference in his comments to deposit legislation and we feel also that this legislation is lacking in that area, and this is also an amendment that should be made to this legislation at the committee stage.

Over the past year I have certainly detailed many, many examples of people who bought sunrooms and other products from businesses in Manitoba and who paid more than 20 percent of the selling price of the item up front as a deposit and then, when the company went bankrupt, these people were left without the sunrooms that they had ordered. In fact, we have one situation , I believe in the north end of Winnipeg, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who for an enticement of a 10 percent reduction, signed a contract with this sunroom builder and paid the entire amount up front.

That person today lost a substantial amount of his retirement savings, I believe, $1 0,000 or $11, 000 in this deal and has nothing to show for it. That is why we brought in the Bill dealing with deposit legislation, and we made it very reasonable. 2657

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 We checked with businesses in this province and we determined that a 5 percent or a 10 percent deposit was in fact too little for the business. We determined that 20 percent of the purchase price of a product was sufficient and most retailers, if you would just take the time to check with some of them, will tell you that 20 percent is enough of a down payment to be taking on any product. In fact, any business that requires more than 20 percent of a product up front for cash flow then is suspect, because a business should not have to rely on customers' deposits for the cash flow.

A business should be able to obtain credit from its suppliers-mo st businesses do for at least 30 days a business should be able to obtain bank loans from the bank, lines of credit from the bank, and should not be relying on deposits from people to carry on its business. If it is down to that level where it is relying on deposits in excess of 20 percent to fund its contracts, then it has a solvency problem to begin with. So the level of 20 percent is certainly a reasonable amount, and it was on that basis -(interjection)- Well, then let the Minister- The Minister feels that 20 percent is not enough.

I would suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when we get to the committee, if he feels that 20 percent is not enough then he can amend my amendment and he can bring it in at 30 percent or 40 percent. The next time a senior citizen loses 50 percent and 60 percent of his money because of uncompleted contract, then let it be at that Minister's doorstep, and let it be at the Member for Seven Oaks' (Mr. Minenko) doorstep as well, if he sup ports that kind of action. ***** Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks, on a point of order. Mr. Mark Minenko (Se ven Oaks): Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I would ask the Honourable Member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) to withdraw his last comments in the sense that they are certainly casting the impression upon this Member of not supporting legislation to ensure that people are indeed supported. I would suggest that yourself ask the Honourable Member to withdraw that comment because he knows it is indeed incorrect, and casts negative aspersions and it is not a dispute over the facts. He is casting negative aspersions on this particular Member. Mr. Deputy Speaker: A dispute over the facts is not a point of order.

The Honourable Member for Elmwood has the floor. ***** * (1510 ) Mr. Maloway: I am very happy that the Minister walked into that one, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the Liberal Party were in complicity with the Government last year.

They sat on their hands and they stalled, and they allowed these Bills to sit here while all of these things 2658 have been happening, while the European Health Spa has ran into pro blems; whil e pyram id marketing schemes have been operating in Manitoba; while people in the north end have been losing money on these - (int erjection)- Well, they sat ther e, at least this Government in a very small way is making an initial step. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh! ***** Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. Mr. Minenko: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, again I would like the Honourable Member to withdraw those comments because he knows indeed that they are incorrect. He should again look at his own record and the record of his own Party before commenting on others. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Again I repeat, a dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. ***** Mr. Maloway: Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Liberals are obviously a little sensitive. They sat here for 16 months and did nothing. As a matter of fact, they changed their position on a whole number of the Bills.

I can show you copies of Hansard, where one day they took one position, one of their critics. The next week they changed critics and they had another position-abs olutely ridiculous. The Member for Seven Oaks should not be standing up on points of order. He should be cowering in the corner; he should be apologizing for his lack of inaction. All last year he did nothing, so he is the last person who should be standing up on points of order. This Government has done very little, but since they changed Ministers and dumped the Attorney General (Mr .

Mccrae) as the Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and got this new Minister, they have at least started out with a little smidgen of hope. Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. An Honourable Member: Smidgen. They have taken over your legislation. Mr. Maloway: They have copied a piece of our legislation, just one small part, but we hope to give them the opportunity when we get into committee to bring all that good legislation back in as amendments on their Bill, and we expect that they will support it. In fact, I do not want to write the Liberal Caucus off yet. It is too early in this Session.

I think that they may see the light. The Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr) has a more moderating influence on that caucus as time goes by and I think he may talk some sense into him or bring him along, if for no other reason than it

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 is good politi cs, and they see that. It took the Government a long to see it, it took the Liberal Caucus even longer. The Government has seen it and I think that the Liberals will see that. The Liberals will see that the Government has seen the light and the Liberals will come onside as well. Mr. Deputy Speaker, deposit legislation limited to 20 percent of the selling price is not unreasonable at all. The question of whether these deposits can be put in trust, and can only be put in a trust company, I think the Minister is not sure what he is talking about here.

Real estate companies across Manitoba have to keep trust accounts and lawyers have to keep trust accounts, and I do not think that he would suggest to me that those are all in trust companies only, that they are not held in banks, real estate brokers. He was saying that trust companies are the only people that could handle these deposits. Incredible, incredible, as if real estate brokers could only deal with trust companies, as if lawyers can only deal with trust companies. Goodness gracious, Mr. Deputy Speaker. ***** Mr. Connery: On a point of order, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, is it possible we could adjourn the House to get rabies shots while the Member continues? Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Minister does not have a point of order. The Honourable Member for Elmwood has the floor. The Honourable Member for Thompson, on the same point of order. Mr. Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): I would hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you would advise Members that it is not appropriate to rise on supposed points of order, and make those type of statements. I take great offence, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, at the comments of the Member previous ly because interruptions in debate are not appropriately raised as points of order, and that is all that Minister's comments were. Today we have heard three supposed points of order that were nothing more than interruptions in debate, and I would hope you would advise Members of the sections of Beauchesne indicate quite clearly that there should not be this type of abuse on a point of order, and that points of order should only be in reference to legitima te breaches of our orders and rules, something that the last three points of order have not done.

It is a very serious matter and I would hope that you would advise Mem bers, particu larly the last Member, that that kind of comment is totally inappropriate in this House. Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Honourable Member for that advice. Order. Order, please. I would remind all Honourable Members that points of order should relate to some breach of the rules or it is not a point of order. The Honour able Member for Elmwood has the floor. ***** Mr. Maloway: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Before I continue, I make the assumption that these points of order are not being taken from my time.

I would also ask you if you could tell me how much more time I have? Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Honourable Member has approximately 20 minutes remaining. Mr. Maloway: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was merely disagreeing with the Minister's comments a few minutes ago whereupon he suggested that all the businesses in Manitoba would have to deal with trust companies under this Legislation because they are the only people that could hold these $500 and up trust monies in trust, and I was suggesting that was totally wrong. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, as I had indicated, our legislation limited the deposits to 20 percent, which we felt was fairly reasonable. It required that the deposit be required to be held in trust, assuming they were over $500.00. We did not feel that that would be onerous on the business in terms of bookkeeping. We certainly agree, if the Minister would listen, if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs would pay attention, I would let him know that we set it at $500 so that the business would not be tied up in bookkeeping and so on as would be the case if deposits of $50 and $10 0 and $200 had to be held in trust.

That is why we put it at $500.00. So for him to run around and suggest that this is going to provide a big bookkeeping hassle to businesses is nonsense, absolute nonsense. * (15 20) Now, the final point on deposit legislation that he alluded to had to do with the exclusions. Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be helpful, last year we excluded a number of custom operations, as I have indicated before many times, the tombstone business-w e excluded them because what do you do with a tombstone after it is made, and the person decides they do not want it? So we excluded that from the Bill. It is not part of the Bill.

We invited the Minister and other members of committee to exclude other businesses that they felt would have a problem. We took out all of the people who made representat ions the last go around in committee. The Minister chooses to ignore that. We did not want to put in an amendment. We did not want to put in the Bill an exclusion for custom-made items, because if we did that, then all businesses would do that. They would say, well, we are not under this Act because we are a custom business. So you cannot do that; you do not want to start out doing that.

Certainly that provision of the Bill, the exclusions, can be dealt with at the committee. For the Minister to make a big fuss about a minor thing like that in the introduction of his piddly little Bill that does not even deal with deposit legislation is absolutely silly. He strayed further afield when he got into the issue of Brick's. Now he should not want to be bringing this subject up too often because his record is very, very sorry in this 2659

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 area . The Brick Warehouse has been operating here contrary to The Business Names Registration Act, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for 16 months . In fact , the fines unde r the provisions of the current Business Names Registration Act would be in the neighborhood of over $25,000 per director of The Brick Warehouse. If the Minister is concerned about deficit reduction , all he has to do is enforce his own Act, his own Business Names Registration Act against this company and collect some of these fines, $25,000 per director .

The Minister should pay attention when I draw his attention to some misinformation that he talked about that he suggested that I put it on record, and I have been waiting for him . I have been waiting for him since the day after the last Question Period where this item came up. He was sittin g here all prepared with his answer , and he finally, a month and a half later, has found an opportunity to talk about it. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I had a response for him then and I have that same response for him now.

The fact of the matter is that the information I was operating on at that time was-and I believed the Brick Warehouse Corporation was an extra-provincial company, because this corporation described itself as an Alberta company when they filed their statement of claim against Brick's Fine Furniture Ltd . in January 1988. In other words, seven months previous in May 26, 1987, they became a federal company . The fact of the matter is, Mr. Deputy Speaker , and to the Minister , Brick Warehouse of Calgary misrepresented on their own statement of claim . So I think that the Minister should check further into that.

So the Minister, while he is technically correct , the fact of the matter was that he could see how a mistake could be made when the company he has been supporting, backhandedly supporting for the last 16 months, gave the wrong information seven months later. I would like to know why there is one law for Brick Warehouse of Calgary and why is there another law for everybody else, every other business in this province.

What is the point of a business registering their name , going through the trouble, employing lawyers, registering their name when in fact a business like Brick Warehouse of Calgary can walk in, flaunt the law for 16 months and have this Government in its hip pocket? This Minister and the former Minister are in the hip pockets of Brick Warehouse of Calgary . There is no question about that. The average business in Manitoba look ing at this must shake their heads.

I mean, if people in our business community realize what this Government has done in the last 16 months in ignoring a blatant infraction of their own Business Names Registration Act, it is just incredible, Mr. Deputy Speaker , it is just incredible. The fact that the fines , while they did not amount to much a month into this thing, would now come up to over $25,000 per director of the company . How long is the Minister going to allow this condition to continue? How long is this Minister going to sit idly by while this company runs rampant? In fact, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , they were so brazen that when, after they set up here last summer, last August, they set up a store in Brandon West right under the nose of the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), who was also the Minister in charge of this Act, and the Minister at the time ignor ed the action after numerous pleas on the part of the little Brick 's in Winnipeg here . Fred Brick and his wife have been fighting this company for all this time and getting nothing but some sympathy from this Government , but no direct help . That is r ight , crocodile tears and nothing more.

Meanwhile , this company has been in here, saturation advertising, attempting to drive this little company out of business, drive them out of business, and the Minister hopes that if he waits long enough they will just disappear, because if they go bankrupt he will not have to worry about it any more. The problem will be solved . Is that his strategy? Is that the secret Tory agenda , wait long enough and allow the little Brick 's to go out of business? Then he can say, well , we solved the problem . It is not around any more . If he waits long enough, that is what will happen .

I know there are differences of opinion in the Conservative Caucus. I know there are differences of opinion in the Conservative Caucus on this matter, and I know there are a few Members of that caucus who are supportive of local trade. They do recognize that local trade is a provincial responsibility, and they would be prepared to stand up to the federal Government. They would be prepared to stand up and defend provincial rights, but not this Attorney General (Mr. Mccrae) , not at all. He is in league. He is in league with this company from Alberta, as is his federal Party.

This company has its head office in the constituency of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Harvie Andre , and there has been stiff resistance all along on the part of the federal Government to doing anything about this. So these two Governments are in league with one another, the federal Conservatives and the local. While now the Minister is referring relevancy , the Minister is talking about relevancy, he is the one who brought up Brick Warehouse. He is the one who made comments about Brick Warehouse in the introduction of his Bill.

I am simply responding to his comments, so I am merely responding to the Minister 's comments as the critic for our Party. I am responding to his comments . I did not get into the area of Brick Warehouse, he brought it up. He brought it up because he has been dying to get this bombshell that he has been holding for the last month and a half in his briefing notes . He has been dying to get this thing on the record, and I have been dying for him to do it because I had my response ready and he has done it. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I wanted to spend the last seven or so minutes I have dealing with some of the other areas of this Bill that I think need some addressing . We have introduced, on this side of the House , a Bill dealing with "lemon law," a Bill designed to provide for new cars only. If a new car proves to be a lemon out of the factory, or out of the dealership, then a buyer of that car will have an opportunity-the dealer has three opportunities to either repair the car or refund the purchase price of the car.

If in fact, after three opportunities, the car is still not working then the dealer must return the money or give a new car. 2660

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 Now this legislation is in effect in 45 states of the United States, and our Bill was patterned on the Florida law, which was passed this past January, the toughest law in the United States. The Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) in this Government, when he was the critic for Consumer Affairs for those two years that he was in Opposition, talked about lemon law in each of his speeches before the House. Where is this Government now, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Where are they now?

He talked in each one of this speeches about lemon law, the need for it, how Ontario had such a law and how, upon gaining Government, he was going to rectify the situation. He identified it as the most serious consumer problem in Manitoba, lemon law. I sat in our backbench wondering what he was talking about, because he constantly came up with this idea. Now they are in Government. He is the Minister of Housing, and where is the lemon law? He leaves it to an Opposition Member to bring it in on a Private Members' Bill. So much for this Government, so much for their commitment.

So much to the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr)-and he agrees with me-so much for their commitment when they were in Opposition, to enacting the legislation they talked about when they were in Government. * (1 530) We have seen their about face on the French services issue last week, and we saw their about face on Meech Lake a few months before that. You know, it is the old shuffle. It is the old shuffle this Government is engaged in, trying to change their image.

It is a miracle they do not have the Health Minister on the backbench, but they certainly have him off to the side, and they have been trying to tone him down, calm him down. I think they have worked his image rather well, I must say. He has turned into a pussycat. He used to be quite a -(interjection)- yes, well some would say a loose cannon, but certainly a very incisive questioner and active Member of the Opposition when he was over there. Now he is a neutered pussycat, he is neutered. He does not even dare step out of line, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they have him under control.

They have put him in his cage and they have neutered him. These are what the professional advisers have told them is necessary. This is the formula. This is what is necessary to moderate the image, to make them look more electable, to try to get that second term. They had to take the animals and put them in their cages and neuter some of them in the process.-(interjection)- Well, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) is an experienced individual in this Ho use and has a pretty thick skin, and I know I can say things about him that I could not say about other people in this House.

I know he has a thick skin, and I am certain he will tell me if he feels that I am getting out of line in my comments about him. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I co.uld continue for some time on a whole range of other areas tha t this Government has neglected in terms of legislation, and I feel tha t when this Bill gets to commi ttee the Government should be prepared, and the Minister should be prepared to accept the constructive amendments that we are going to propose. They certainly cannot say they have not known about them as they did with our changes to The City of Winnipeg Act last week.

They certainly cannot suggest they did not know about them, Mr. Deputy Speaker. because we have had this legislation before the House for 16 months and they ignored it last year. They ignored it. They did not even allow it to pass to committee, they rarely debated it. The Liberals, in particular, when they did debate it were all over the map on this stuff. They have had 16 months now to come up with a position, and I want to give them that opportunity. I want to see this Bill go to committee so we can discuss it in committee, we can bring forward our amendments.

Hopefully the Liberal Party will see the light with proper new direction from the Member for Fort Rouge (Mr. Carr), and perhaps we can pass these Bills and get on with good and proper consumer legislation in this province. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Mr. Minenko: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded- Some Honourable Memb ers: Oh, oh! Mr. Speaker: Order. The Honourable Member for Seven Oaks. Mr. Minenko: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mr. Laurie Evans), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 80-THE CIVIL SERVICE SUPERA NNUATION AMENDMENT ACT Hon.

Gerrie Hammond (Minis ter responsible for The Civil Service Superannuation Act) presented Bill No. 80, The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pension de la fonction publique, for second reading, to be referred to a committee of this House. MOTION presented. Mrs. Hammond: I am pleased to introduce Bill No. 80, The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment Act. The Civil Service Superannuation Act covers over 30, 000 public servants and approxima tely 7, 000 pensioners. Approximately one-half of the employees are civil servants while the remainder are employees of various Crown corporations, boards and agencies.

Employers include large Crown corporations such as the Manitoba Telephone System and Manitoba Hydro and smaller agencies such as the Manitoba Energy Authority, and the Manitoba Research Council. The Civil Service Superannuation Fund currently has assets in excess of $800 million, which places it among 2661

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 the top 30 pension funds in Canada. An actuarial evaluation of this fund, as of December 31, 1986, determined that the assets in the fund exceeded the accrued obligations of the fund by almost $32 million. It is in this context that I introduce these amendments to The Civil Service Superannuation Act.

The key changes to the Act incorporated in this Bill are: transfer of the approximately $32 million surplus in the Superannuation Fund, as at December 31, 1986, to the inflation adjustment account; recognition in the legislation of the Employee Liaison Committee and the Employer Pension and Insurance Advisory Committee and; provision for employers to pay one-half of the administration costs of the fund.

These changes come after lengthy discussions with the Employee Liaison Committee, the elected body that represents employees and pensioners participating in the Superannuation Plan, and the employer task force on the pensions, which represents emp loyers participating in the plan. The changes have unanimous support of both groups. The transfer of the surplus to the adjustment account will provide add itional funding for cost of living adjustments. This will help to ensure that the incomes of pensioners are protected throughout their retirement years.

The actuary for the Superannuation Fund has determined that the approximately $32 million surplus is not needed to meet the accrued pension obligations under the Act, now or in the future. As with any actuarial determination a significant amount of caution has been used by the actuary to ensure that the fund remains adequately funded.

Formal recognition of the employee and employer commit tees, charged with the responsibil ity for discussing pension changes, will more clearly establish the important role that they undertake in the provision of effective and responsible pension coverage for public servants in Manitoba.

Provision for employer payment of one-half of the administrative expenses of the Civil Service Superannuation Fund will bring the plan into line with other Canadian public and private sector plans. * (15 40) Employers fund at least one-half of the administrative expenses of other provincial pension plans in Canada, as do employers under the other major public sector plans in Manitoba. The Bill also contains a number of amendments of an administrative, or housekeeping nature that were recommended by the Superannuation Board.

These amendments serve to clarify the meaning of various sections and provide for more stream lined and responsive administration of the plan. Ail of the amendments have been reviewed by the plan's actuary to ensure they are sound and comply with relevant legislation. These amendments will not require any adjustment in the contribution rates for any of the participating employee and employer groups. Mr. Speaker, I recommend Bill No. 80 to the House for consideration and speedy adoption. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards), that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. DEBATE ON SECOND READING S Bill NO. 27-THE FISCAL STABILIZATION FUND ACT Mr. Speaker: On th e proposed mo tion of the Honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill No. 27, The Fiscal Stabilization Fund Act;

Loi sur le Fonds de stabilisation des recettes, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). (Stand) Is there leave that this matter remain standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Flin Flon? The Honourable Member for lnkster. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnkster): I do not think we need to have leave. The Member for Flin Flon has spoken on this Bill previously. I am willing to speak on the Bill currently, right now. ***** An Honourable Member: On a point of order, Mr. Soeaker. Mr. Speaker: The Honourable Member for Thompson, on a point of order. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Second Opposition House Leader): I believe there is an error in our Order Paper, it should be standing in my name. The Member is quite correct from lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux). The Member for Flin Flon seconded my motion to have this matter stand in my name, and it is quite correct that the Member for Flin Flon has spoken previously on this Bill. ***** Mr. Speaker: On Bill No. 27, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (Agreed) Mr. Lamoureux: I did not plan on speaking on this particular Bill for second reading.

I was actually going to wait until we got to committee, but I found it somewhat interesting in many of the comments I had made regarding the Budget Debate, in making reference to this particular Bill, was in regard to how nice this Fiscal Stabilization Fund, or Tory slush fund as I prefer to refer to it as, is going to make this Government look, or how to use it to deceive the public in terms of what the real outlook of this province is.

I was somewhat surprised to find in different areas of the city-mo re so in the south end and the east end of the city, when I found out there is a brochure that is going out sponsored by the Conservative Party, and in it, it has that the Conservative Party is laying the foundation for Manitoba, we are cutting taxes. 2662

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 Well, Mr. Speaker, in terms of cutting taxes I believe the Conservative Government had the opportunity to cut taxes effective this year, that had they done their job correctly and responsibly and were very sincere in cutting the taxes of Manitobans that they would have been able to do it. The excuse that they did not have enough time to do it just does not hold any water. Another line is, we are reducing the deficit.

I find that was one I actually made reference to in the budget speech and I pointed out, during the Budget Debate regarding the Fiscal Stabilization Fund, that this fund will be used to show a graph in a downward progression, showing that this Government is, in terms, indeed handling the debt situation when, in fact, I would argue that this slush fund would be used to facilitate that downward momentum in that what they were really trying to do is deceive, once again deceive, Manitobans. Again, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at, they say, laying the foundations. We are spending wisely.

Well, if we took a look at the expenditures of this Government, and I like to think in terms of also the cutbacks of this Government, that in fact they are not spending wisely. Maybe they should be spending money where they are not spending money, and we could probably go on thr oughout every department and come up with numerous examples. Then he comments that we are creating more jobs. What type of jobs are they creating, low-income-service sector-oriented jobs.

We are losing jobs here in Mani toba, and I think it is important that this Gov ernment be more truthful when th ey put out literature, that they are not fooling Manitobans. That is the reason why I decided I would comment very briefly here today on that Bill.- (interjection)- housing starts, bankruptcies, say everything. I want to maybe make a suggestion or tell this Go ver nment why it is that we have this Fiscal Stabilization Fund. It was not because they were good managers, no, not by a long shot, but rather, if you take a look, it is more so good luck than anything else.

We had the mining tax increase that the previous administration did not take into account, which provided this Government over $10 0 million in tax revenue. The mining tax-I would like to see some of that money put back into the North where it is needed. We receive a lot from the North. It helps our provincial GNP, and we should ensure that some of that money goes back up north. They had a 2 percent flat tax, this 2 percent flat tax was a hot issue during the provincial election.

Every second or third door I knocked on it seemed that people were talking about this 2 percent flat tax, and one of the things that I had said at the door is we have to recognize where we see unfair taxes and look at changing them. The previous administration brought in this unfair tax, even though they claim to be the Party that represents the working people, but they are the ones tha t brought it in. We are glad to see that the Government ultimately is bringing it out, albeit, maybe not as quick as we would have liked to have seen them bring it out, but at least they are bringing it out.

The equalization payments-and this is what I find somewhat humorous, Mr. Speaker. Time, after time, after time we hear this Government and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) refer to us as saying this province is a have-not province. I think it is time that the Government wake up. It is time that they look at Manitoba, that we do receive equalization payments, and the reasoning and rationale to why we are receiving those payments, if they do not know maybe I should tell them. * (15 50) Equalization payments is a method in which we ensure that all provinces are given a fair share in terms of economic growth and so forth.

No one likes to think of Manitoba as a have-not province, I do not. The equalization payment, in definition, implies that in order for us to receive it we have to be classified as a have not province. Another reason-and, Mr. Speaker, I would say those three reasons in particular are the reasons why we have this Fiscal Stabilization Fund. As I have pointed out earlier, it has nothing to do with good management, rather, it has everything to do with good luck and timing. Another reason that they have this Fiscal Stabilization Fund is because they have been under spending their budget allotments.

All you need to do, and I can comment on my own Department of Housing where we have seen the shelter allowances cutback, the allotments cutback, no matter how hard this Government tries to say that is not the case, it is in black and white-the black and white that they put in on the papers. It shows it in the sup plemen tary information to the main budg et document to the Order-In-Council that was given out. There is no doubt in my mind that there was a cutback in the allotment. If we take a look at the infill house program, Mr. Speaker , the Government ha d a commitment to construct and build infill houses.

Money was put aside to build these houses, and not one infill house has been built for the fiscal year of 1988-89. This Government, during Question Period, had made reference to the fact that well, we will be building infill houses. I asked the Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme) at the beginning of September how many infill houses have been built thus far? In 18 months, this Government has been in Government for 18 months, how many infill houses have been built? They have not built one house.

Of course, they are going to have extra funds and so forth, and the budget is not going to be spent if they are not going to be going out and fulfilling good excellent programs that are going to be helping the community. That is the reason why I am finding it very tough to vote for this particular Bill. As a matter of fact, I will not be voting for this Bill, even though the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), or the Minister of "Il lusions," would like to refer to it as the Fiscal Stabilization Fund. The truth of the matter is that is a slush fund, and it would be very unfortunate to see this Bill pass.

Unfortunately it will pass. Why it will pass, all we need 2663

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 to do is look to the left of us in this Chamber to those that sit in the Opposition benches, and we will see that the New Democratic third Party has decided that they support this particular Bill, even though-and if I look at some the comments that the NOP have put on the record regarding this Fiscal Stabilization Fund, and this is Mr. Doer that commented: I believe that part of what is in the fund is morally incorrect and morally wrong. This is what the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, yet he is going to vote for it. Well, Mr.

Speaker, there are many words that come across my mind when I hear the Leader of the third Party making a statement like this and telling us that ther, he is going to still support this fund. It does not I take a quote from Mr. Uruski who quoted that Member from Interlake-and he quoted in reference to the Fiscal Stabilization Fund- that this is creative accounting in the nth degree, and he is voting for it too. He is going to be supporting this Bill. I find it amazing that they would do something of this nature. � An Honourable Member: To whom are you referring? Mr. Lamoureux: The Member for Interlake (Mr.

Uruski) is the one that I am referring to, one of the Members from the Dirty Dozen, as the Minister of >lealth (Orchard) so often comments. I find it unbelievable that the NOP supports such a slush fund, and I guess if I really try and dig hard to find out why they would or how they could try and justify supporting a fund of this nature, I guess all we really need to do is go back to some of the funds that they had. We look at the Jobs Fund, Mr. Speaker. This is a fund and, instead of myself maybe giving a comment, I should use what the Government or the Minister or the Deputy Premier said, Mr.

Cummings, in regard to the NOP then slush fund. He suggested that the move or dismantling will end the political manipulation of taxpayers' money the NOP has carried on since the program was implemented five years ago. Like the Jobs Fund, this Fiscal Stabilization Fund is the same thing under a different guise. If anything, Mr. � Speaker, it is worse. At least the Jobs Fund, in its own ' twisted way, had some merits in terms of trying to create jobs. In a twisted way one could probably justify it, but you would have to make a lot of changes in order to do that. Mr.

Speaker, there are aspects of the Jobs Fund that deserve some merit, but the way and the manner in which the previous admin istration had brought it through, by no stretch of the imagination is it any different from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund that this Government has brought through. That is why, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to voting on this particular Bill, I am going to vote against it. I do not think I am going to have any problem whatsoever going to the -(interjection)- Mr. Spe aker: Order, order. The Honourable Member for lnkster. Mr. Lamoureux: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is why I say I am not going to have any problem voting against this Bill, because when push comes to push and going door to door talking to the people, you are going to find a lot of people, a lot of Manitobans who are going to be very upset with this Bill. I think it is important that the NOP not abandon all of their principles, that they look at it and call it as it is. It is a slush fund. They, along with us, can defeat this Bill so if they grab a bit of their principles, their former principles back 30-40 years ago and stick up for Manitobans, which they like to claim they do- Mr. Speaker: Order.

The Honourable Minister of Health. Hon. Donald Orchard (Mi niste r of He alth): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if my honourable friend, the Member for lnkster, might permit a question at this time. It is very important. Mr. Lamoureux: I would be more than happy to hear a question from the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker: At the end of your remarks? - (interjection)- The Honourable Minister of Health. * (16 00) Mr.

Orchard: I am wondering if my honourable friend, when he mentions the NOP in Mani toba have abandoned their principles when they vote with the Progressive Conservative Government, are those the same principles the NOP abandoned in Ontario when they voted with the Liberal Party? Mr. Lamoureux: No, Mr. Speaker, the fund that we are talking about here is a slush fund that this Conservative Government has created and the same slush fund that this third Party in this Legislature is going to be supporting. I find it somewhat interesting that the Minister of Health is the one who stood up to ask a question.

After all, one of the reasons why we have a slush fund of the amount we do is because of the monies that his own department has not spent, health care costs that are in need. This Minister is not ensuring that we have adequate health care in the Province of Manitoba. Anyway, in closing I just want to comment that I am not going to have any problem voting against this Bill and I just wish the NOP would grab some principles and vote with us on this. Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed, this Bill will remain standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

The Chair would like to thank the Ho nourabl e Mem ber for Thomps on and the Honourable Member for lnkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for bringing this error to the attention of the Chair. Bill NO. 31- THE LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour (Mrs. Hammond), Bill No. 31, The Labour Relations Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, standing 2664

Wednesday, November 8, 1989 in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), and also in the name of the Honourable Member for Concordia (Mr. Doer), who has 9 minutes remaining. Is there leave that this matter remain standing the way it is? Leave? (Agreed) BILL NO. 42-THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT Mr. Speaker: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Housing (Mr. Ducharme), Bill No. 42, The Residential Tenancies Act;

Loi sur la location a usage d' habitation, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for The Pas (Mr. Harapiak). Is there leave that this matter remain standing in the name of the Honourable Member for The Pas? Leave? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Rupertsland. Mr. Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on this Bill No. 42, The Residential Tenancies Act, and I would like to speak from a northern perspective, Native perspective, how this Bill might apply or not apply.

I know that the conditions in the North are quite different than the conditions in an urban setting like Winnipeg. Primarily the housing is provided through CMH C or MHR C to the remote communities, Northern Affairs communities, and to a certain extent some of the Bills that are related to that. I know that The Tenancy Act refers to some of the regulations, and how this Bill might apply to the housing in the North, and also in the City of Winnipeg.

Many of the people that do go into the urban areas such as Thompson have problems in dealing with the landlords, and also with even obtaining suites or accommodations for their families. Certainly one of the basic needs, human needs of course, is shelter, and we find that the aboriginal people in Native communities find it very difficult to find accommodations or to provide a good home for themselves or their families. Certainly with this Act coming into being I am sure some of the problems could be alleviated, and also some of the

definitions, some of the regulations, that are talked about in this Bill. Whether some of these aboriginal people, some of the elderly aboriginal people, that come into the city have a problem in understanding what the tenancy agreement is or r

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	34-2-67
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	34th 2nd hansardpdf 67.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	8e5b2e80d6430a8b66e4440c197e12aca673812f

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