Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 89A (35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-89a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session -Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL XLI No. 89A ·1:30 p.m., THURSDAY, JUNE 18,1992 Printed by the Office of the O.-.s Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS,C iif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

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

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

Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

4982 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Thursday, June 18,1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Dac quay (Chai rperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resoluti ons, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the atte ntion of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afte rnoon from the Tyndall Park School twenty-four Grade 4 stu dents . They are under the direction of Mr. Colin Sta rk. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD North American Free Trade Agreement Impact on Supply Management Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): On Tuesday night, Gordon Richie, the former negotiator for free tra de, acknowledged that there were risks involved for Canada in dealing with texti les and the supply managemen t system of Canada, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the proposals for a free trade agreement with Canada, U.S.A. and Mexico. Yeste rday, thankfully, the minister admitted that the proposals tha t were before the three government s were detri mental to workers and bus i nes ses in Mani toba because of the transformation programs and proposals on the table.

He said yesterday in the House that he opposed, and the government opposed, the proposals that were before the governments of Canada, United States and Mexico. We have since had concurrence on that issue from business, labour and others that this is indeed a risk. Mr. Richie's comments included another risk and that is supply management. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Are they in favour or opposed to the supply management sections contained within the Canada-U.S.A.-Mexico trade proposals? Do they concur with Mr. Richie that we are indeed at risk in these areas as well? • (1 335) Hon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Our position is consiste nt, as it is with the GATT nego ti at ions wher e we are supporting the inclusion of provisions for supply management. We are supporting at the federal level the strengt hening and clarification of

Article 11, which is the Canadian posit ion, as part of the GATT discussions. We have the same position with the federal government in terms of agricult ure. I did allude yesterday that agriculture is another area of concern within the negotiati ons, but the Canada posit ion, I believe, is consistent with our position in GATT and that is part of the negotiati ons tha t are currently taking place. There is no agreement in that area, I understand , of agricult ure. Our position is supportive of supply management. We have conveyed that again at Trade ministers' meetings and in writing to the federal government.

I believe that is their positi on, remains their position, but it is an issue that is still part of ongoing discussion and debate in the formulation of a final agreement between the three countries, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, this is another very, very major industry in Manitoba. Sixteen hundred people work in the supply management area of our province. It is close to a half-a-billion-dollar industry in this province. It is the second industry that is

4983 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 pote ntially negatively affected by the proposals, and I am glad to hear the minister admit that . I would like to ask the ministe r: Will he share with us, with the people of Manitoba and with the people of this province, the specific impacts of the supply management proposals that he now is opposing in the Canada-U.S.A. Free Trade Agreement with Mexico?

Will he share with us the response he has made to the federal government, the pote ntial risk that this proposal has and the impact on Manitoba industry and Manitoba people impacted by the supply management side of these negotiati ons? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, it is a difficult issue to quantify in terms of the impact because every time you make a different assumption, it produces a different result. The major source of our position on this issue is the industry itself and the negotiations that we have had with the industry and with the supply management sector .

We do support the inclusion of prote ction for supply management. One suggestion that has been made is not to change the Canada-U.S. agreement as it relates to supply management and to have a separate bilateral agreement between Canada and Mexico that can still provide protection and different market access provisions and so on, but it is a position that we do support. We support the supply management sector of our economy. The Canadian government is publicly supporting that. They are supporti ng it at GAIT, and they are supporting it at these negotia tions. We will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doer: Mr.

Speaker, I would ask the minister to share with the House and with the people of Manitoba the specifics of the question we raised with him. Let us all join in together on the negative impacts and the risks for Manitoba families, Manitoba workers, and Manitoba farmers of these various proposals, so that we can have a public response, not just a technical response to these issues that affect us very dramatically. Today, Mr.

Speaker, a natural resources defence council in the United State s, made up of 16 environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and oth er prominent organizations in the United State s, has stated that the deal and their review of the deal does not provide enough safeguards for the environment.

Given that this was a condition of this government in their discussions and involvement in the free trade negotiations with the Canadian government, will the minister responsible for these negotiations share with Manitobans, the people of this province, our concerns about the environment and the impact on our environment with the Canada-U.S.A.-Mexico negotiations and proposals? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, just in terms of the honourable member's

preamble on agriculture, another major source of information, as I believe I mentioned yeste rday, I think there are 15 sectoral advisory groups. One of them is agriculture . It is chaired, I believe, by a Manitoban, Mr. Vaags, and their position is consistent with the position that Canada and Manitoba are taking in GA TI in terms of protection for supply management. In terms of the area <>f env ironment, the honourable Leader of the Opposition knows that this is one of our six conditions , in large part because of the fact that provinces like Manitoba have continued to press on the issue of the environment.

Discussions are ongoing right now in terms of provisions for protection of the environment. That will ultima tely form either part of a final agreement or part of a parallel agreement. It remains to be seen what is in all aspects of that. Negotiations are ongoing. We are continuing to press the federal government on the importance of the protecti on of the environment, the importance of not decreasing sta ndards in any way, that this is unaccept able, that provisions have to provide for bringing everything up to the hi ghest common denom inator, the standards that are currently in place in Canada.

We will continue to be a part of the discussions at the federal level in terms of ensuring that this condition, which is one of our six conditions, is in fact met before we would support any final agreement. *

(1340) Mental Health Care FaciiHies Bed Closures Ms.JudyWasylycla-Lels {St. Johns): I would like today to ask the Premier to intervene in the Minister of Health's (Mr. Orchard) health care reform plans or Jack thereof. Increasingly, we are concerned about lack of planning and indeed disjoin ted bed-cutting proposals, particularly in the field of psychiatry . Last week, we raised the issues of a St. Boniface proposal for 24 beds, then at least 17 beds at Health

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4984 Sciences Centre . Now we have learned that there is a proposal for a bed cut of five beds at Victori a, and nurses at Seven Oaks General Hospital have told us that the board may be meeting this evening to discuss a proposal to eliminate 20 beds or the entire psychiatri c unit at this hospit al. I would li ke the Premier to give us some assurances that he will inv olve himself in this growing mess and assure us that no beds will be cut without the necessary planning, co-ordination and community alternatives in place. Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr.

Speaker, I believe that those assurances were given at the time that the minister unveiled his health reform plan. I will take any other specifics of that question as notice on behalf of the ministe r. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: That is the problem, Mr. Speaker. There is a big contradiction between the minister's stated objectives and what is actu ally happening.

I want to ask the Premier, since we are talking now about 30 percent of all psychiatric beds on the table to be cut, will he give us assurances that the objectives of the stated health care plan, the replacement of acute care psychiatric beds, will not occur until any array of community oriented services are in place? Can he give us those assurances and give some assurances to boards that are meeting as early as this evening to discuss cost-cutti ng measures? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member for St.

Johns that the information that is contained within that report represents the policy of the minister and this government. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I want to ask the Premier again to get involved because he knows that his Minister of Health brought forward a report from the Urban Hospital Council recommending only beds at Misericordia be cut. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Kindly put your question now, please. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: I want to ask him if he can explain to us, why is almost 30 percent of psychiatric beds on the table for cutti ng, and will he give us some assurances that there will be a planned approach to mental health care reform? Mr. Fllmon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Port of Churchill Shipment Statistics Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is to the Ministe r of Highways and Transportatio n. Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Highways and Transportation give us an update on the activity of the Port of Churchill for the sum mer of 1992? Hon.

Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I have no good news at the present time regarding grain movement through the Port of Churchill. We are continuing our efforts in terms of trying to see whether we can get grain to be designated to move through the Port of Churchill. Not only myself and my colleagues, but the Premier (Mr. Filmon) himself has taken a very active

part in terms of trying to promote activity and for the Wheat Board to ship grain through the Port of Churchill. At the present time, we have no commitment to that extent. Future Status Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): But, in fact, there appears to be some very bad news. The Port of Churchill manager from Ottawa visited the port yesterday and according to our sources, informed staff at the Port of Churchill that the Wheat Board had informed them that there would be no grain for the Port of Churchill this summer and that they were slating to close the port down by the end of July of 1992.

He went on to state that the provincial government had been informed of this. Will the Minister of Highways and Transportation now tell us exactly what they have been informed of by the manager of the Port of Churchill? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that this kind of state ment has been made or that it has come forward to my office. I want to indicate that the last time that I had direct dialogue with the federal Minister of Transport, Mr.

Corbeil, as well as the junior Minister of Transport, Shirley Martin, they gave the undertaking that the port would be open this year, it would be ready for grain, that they were amassing information and figures and that before any decision was made regarding the future of Churchill, we would be able

4985 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 to commun icate and we would be able to consult with them. I am waiting for that information and invitation fr om the federal government to see whether we can get into that debate. • (1 345) Mrs. Carstalrs: But the infor mation we received was that the Port of Churchill is "broke," will not be able to meet its payroll, and that the port will therefore have to be closed by July of 1992.

Will the Minister of Highways and Transportation immediately make contact with his counterpart in the federal government in order to inform us as soon as possible as to exactly what the events are to be faced by those people who find employment with the Port of Churchill? Mr. Driedger: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do that.

I also want to indicate that the latest infor mation that I had was that the port lost $2.9 million last year because of a lack of grain movement through there which need not have been the case, and had we gotten the requested amount, anywhere from 600,000 tonnes per year up, there would have been no losses for the port. It is my understanding that this year, in order to open the port, there was going to be money allocated from other ports. I think that is justifiably so because they did not move enough grain through there, that there would be money to operate the port for this year.

However, based on the information that the member has broughtforward, I am prepared to follow that up, to try and get all the infor mation I can and report back to the House. Law Enforcement Review Agency Civilian Participation Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, LERA is basically a civilian-oriented body that hears comp laints about police difficulties.

Most jurisdictions are moving toward civilian bodies, over 30 American jurisdictions and many Canadian jurisdictions, yet the Province of Manitoba in legislation now is moving in exactly the opposite direction to have the com plaints heard by judges, not by a civilian body. Will the minister reconsidel' the decision to move from a civilian body to judges on the amendments regarding LERA? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I believe judges are civilians. I believe judges are trained in dispute resolution. I believe they are also trained in interpreting the law.

They are also trained in weighing evidence, applying the appropriate tests to decide, on the evidence, the facts of a particular case. In that sense, as the honourable member says, others are moving in some other direction. You could turn that around I suppose and say that Manitoba is the leader in the sense that we are asking judges to adjudicate these extremely important matters. It is important to the public, I believe, that there be a strong perception that there is fairness involved in these proceedings.

I do not speak poorly in any sense of the word about civilian participation, but there is nothing wrong at all and everything right, I suggest, with the people who are trained in the law, like judges, to adjudicate these matters. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, my supplem entary to the minister is: Is the minister not concerned that the public may feel left out of the process, in light of the many, many difficulties we have had in the city of Winnipeg and in the province recently? Is the minister not concerned that the public may be left out of the process at a time when the public should be more involved? Mr.

McCrae: Every time something questionable comes up, we are asked by honourable members opposite to bring the public into this, to make sure the public knows that what is going on is right. Call a public inquiry. Get a judge or somebody legally trained to weigh matters on one side and the other so that the public perception can be that things are being handled fairly. I think the bill that is before the House responds to that, that not only should justice be done but justice ought to be seen to be done as well. I believe that everything we are doing comes right under that general principle. Mr. Chomlak: Mr .

Spea ker , my final supplem entary to the same minister is: Can the minister confirm that he has received a letter fr om the City of Winnipeg, and specifically fr om the

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4986 mayor, requesting that the province put this decision on hold until they have had consultation with the City of Winnipeg which is most affected, in the person of the City of Winnipeg Police Department, by this decision? * (1 350) Mr. McCrae: Yes, I have received that letter from His Worship, the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, and consultations have been held with police authorities in this provirice-{inte�ection) Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. McCrae: Consultations have indeed been had with law enfo rcement authorities in this province.

I am not sure what it is that is the concern with respect to this legislation, but as the honourable member knows, there are changes in the evidentiary rules as well. In the past, the perception has been that the evidentiary rules have been weighed against the public in their approaches to LERA and in the hearing of matters before LERA. We believe that the test of the balance of probabilities is a better test when you consider that the sanctions that are in that legislation do not include the depriving of a person's liberty, so that the civil law standard of proof ought to be the one that is applied here.

So that might be what is on the minds of some people, but perhaps police authorities themselves have concerns about that. On the other hand, the public's protection is foremost in our minds, and the perception that this protection is there is also extremely imp ortant. Ashern, Manitoba Environmental Concerns Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, the town of Ashern has been struggling to deal with a severe water pollution problem that has affected, up to this point, at least 20 wells.

The residents in a local comm ittee, trying to find solutions to this potable water shortage, are frustrated and upset with the lack of a speedy solution to their very serious problem. I would like to ask the Minister of Environment: Can the Minister of Environment tell the House today why none of his department's offi cials attended a very important meeting last Monday in Ashern, as the commun ity had requested? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, the meeting in question was a meeting in whic h the residents of the comm unity were to have an opportunity, as I understand it, to take a look at what options were available to them. They were being allowed to consider that and make their decision in a manner that was consistent with their own priorities and their own desires, and I believe that it was appropriate that there would not be interference from my department in that respect. Soli/Water Sampling Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr.

Speaker, seeing the fact that the department official in question had indicated that they did not want to attend this meeting but wanted to attend on a one-to-one basis at a later date, why did they not consider this serious on Monday? Will the minister and his department address this issue by identifying all of the levels of contamination affecting the town's water through further soil and water sampling? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, there are two issues at play her�ne is the obvious problem with water contamination, but the other issue, as well, is what alternatives are there for providing potable water in the community. As far as the identification of the sources of pollution and dealing with that problem, we certainly see that as an ongoing and cont inuing problem and will work with the communi ty to deal with it, but we know, and I am sure that the member knows, that once an aquifer becomes polluted, it cannot very readily and quickly be remedied, so the options to the communi ty immediately become limited.

Alternate Water Source Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Given the fact that the community has continuously requested assistance on this issue, will this minister identify Ashern as a priority site, so his department's expertise can fully assist the communi ty in obtaining a new drinking water system which is desperately needed in the comm unity? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the meeting last night is the first step in that process, and I am sure that the member knows that. The fact is, the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), myself and all other

4987 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 concerned ministries will work to deal with this problem. I think it should be pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that while there are a number of various sources of pollution, probably five different sources that may have and probably did contribute to this pollution, the opportunity for recovery fr om most of those sources is nil or negligible.

The identification of alternative sources is one of the conditions that the commu nity needs to work with, and we will work with them , as I am sure the Min ister of Rural Development will as well. * (1 355) Health Care System Reform Monitoring Process Mr. Guizar ChHma (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I would like to table a letter fr om the chairperson of the board of directors from St. Boniface Hospital. In this letter, it is clearly indicating how the beds are going to be cut. The chairman of the St.

Boniface Hospital says, and I quote: The closure of 24 psych beds will require the expansion of commu nity out patient and out re ach suppo rt and the establishment of a psych day hospital. Mr. Speaker, since there is no independent monitor, can the Premier tell this House why they have not set up an independent monitoring system to make sure that the stated policy of health care refor m is being met? Hon. Gary Fllrnon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). Implementation Mr. Guizar ChHma (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, the letter from the St.

Boniface Hospital says that the plans for the bed cuts are ready, but we have no plans for commun ity-based services. Can the Premier tell this House why such implemen tation plans are not being made available, and why they do not tell the people the time frame for the implementation of those plans? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question, as well, as notice on behalf of the Minister of Health. Mr. Chaama: Mr. Speaker, the board of the St. Bonif ace Hospital has passed statements about the quarterly report to the board on the implem entation of these bed closures in one hospital.

Can the Premier make a commitment to make sure that the people of Manitoba will know how health care reform is being implemen ted, a commitment to let us know how the plan is being implemented? Mr. Fllmon: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Pesticide Usage Environmental Licensing Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): My question is for the Minister of Environment. The City of Winnipeg Task Force Report on Chem ical Pesticide Use recommends moving toward an integrated management program to have mo re resea r ch in to prc)g ram safety and effective ness and to move to better reporting.

Unfortunately, the city is not following this report, and they are actually moving in the opposi te direction and ignoring citizen requests to not have their neighbourhoods sprayed. My qu estion for the mi nister is: Has his department reviewed this report, and will it consider including some of the rec omme ndations as conditions for the issuing of the city's licence to use chem ical spraying in the next year? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that report.

I cannot give a detailed analysis of it, but I c:an point out that there were also some concerns that were raised regarding the cost and efficacy of some of the alternative methods. Certainly, I fully support any alternatives that can be fully developed, but the present regime that is being followed in the licencEHand I presume the member is referring to mosquito fo gging as one of the issues that she is concerned about-the present regime is a result of discussions prior to my coming into office but based on the recomm endations of the city entomologist in conjunction with our licensing personnel.

Biological Alternatives Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, will the minister offer his department's support to investigate and develop the system of biological larvicide which is a safer and more cost-effective way of dealing with these pests?

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4988 Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that either one of us is qualified to enter into a debate about the efficacy or the cost of biological control. There are certainly varying reports on the cost. I can attest to that. I stand by my comment that we are prepared to look at any alternatives in terms of cold, hard research and licensing of alternatives as has been done primarily at the national level, and we follow the licensing recommendations that they attach to various materials. Malathion Ms.

Marianne Cer llll (Radisson) : My final supplementary is for the same minister. Can the minister confirm that Winnipeg is the last major urban centre in the country to continue to use chemic al spraying of ma lath ion on adult mosquitoes? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can confirm or deny that, but I know that there are a number of jurisdictions where it does not occur. *

(1400) Child Day Care Special Needs Children Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Family Services. Mr. Speaker the daycare office has informed us of a serious development affecting special needs children. For the first time, it appears that there is a waiting list of some 66 children, special needs children who require before-school and after-school child care. They have placements in schools but no care prior to the school hours commencing and no care after school hours are over.

Can the minister tell us what steps he is taking to make it possible for those 66 children, who have never before had to go on a waiting list, to get the service they require before and after school? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): There has been increasing pressure on the day care program, particularly with the subsidies for children in daycares, and I would remind you that our subsidies are volume sensitive and are available for all parents of children who qualify for that.

The one area where we are not able to meet all of the needs is in some of the specialized care that is required for some of these children so that we are able to accommodate as many people as our budget will allow. In some areas, we do have a waiting list, and we are looking at the special needs and trying to accomm odate as many children as we can. Mrs. Carstalrs: These are not children who can be easily placed in alternative placements. These are children who must be placed in child care spaces that have provisions for children with special needs. They cannot, for example, go to the neighbourhood mother.

They cannot go to an after-school child care centre in many communities because they do not have the needs equipment available for these young people. Will the minister today respond to the urgency of these 66 children, who in the past have not had to go on a waiting list and as of today need to go on a waiting list because there are not adequate dollars from his department to ensure that they get the spaces they require? Mr.

Gllleshammer: When the member says that there are not adequate dollars, I would point out to her that we have made tremendous strides in im proving the amount of resources that are available, particularly in the daycare system to the point that we probably spend more on daycare than any other province. Our expenditures for these subsidies have gone up dramatically. At the same time, we have not been able to resolve all of the issues with special needs children.

We will work with the various community groups in the daycare comm unity to try and give the very best service we can with the resources that are available. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, we have examples of young people. One in particular who has been accepted into a program on August 1 will have to give up that space at Lord Roberts School lunch and after-school program if the province cannot fund the staff requirement at the centre needed to look after this particular child.

Will the minister undertake to investigate, himself, the situations which are denying access to schools, for integrated programs, because these youngsters cannot participate in the after-school programs? Mr. Gllleshamemr: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will make that commitment to the member that we will review the case and see if there is any way we can assist

4989 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 not only that child but other children on that waiting list. Social Assistance Rent Appeal Intervention Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, frequently rent increases far above the 4 percent guideline are approved. Many of these units are renters on provincial social assistance, the cost of which to government, in Winnip eg alone, is estimated at $60 million a year, much of it going to slum landlords. What is the policy of the Minister of Family Services regarding rent appeals for apartments for which Income Security is paying rent?

Does the minister's staff intervene in rent appeals in order to hold down their cost? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I was having some difficulty hearing the question, but I would say that our staff in Social Allowances will make every effort to have the scarce dollars that we have to deal with increasing numbers in the social allowance area, to make those dollars stretch as far as possible, and to be sure that appropriate accomm odation is available for the recipients. Mr.

Martindale: Will the minister agree to have his staff intervene in every case, since it is my information that this is not always done and that if his staff did intervene, there might be a higher success rate for appeals by tenants and save the government money? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the staff will make every effort to provide the best service that we can to the clients that we serve. Heritage Community Funding Reduction Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.

Will the minister explain why, in the current budget year, her Estimates proposed to distribute only $400,000 to the heritage commu nity when, in each of the last three years, approximately $650,000 has reached the com mun ity over and ab ove administrative costs? Ove r the last three years, it has been $600,000 a year. This year it is $400,000. Could the minister explain why the discrepancy? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Indeed there is a $400,000 amount printed in the budget.

We were under the impression when we printed the budget that the Heritage Federation had some three hundred and some thousand dollars sitting in reserve, and the $400,000 indeed would make $712,000 for the Heritage Federation to distribute grants to the communi ty. Mr. Speaker, we are finding out that the Heritage Federation in fact has the money to pay all of the grants that they allocated this year which is $670,000, plus they have another approximately half-a-million dollars sitting in reserve. We have a legal opinion, indeed, that this money should be delivered to the comm unity in the way of grants. Ms.

Friesen: The minister actu ally answered a question I had not asked which is an interesting one. It is interesting that she has only just found out now that they had that reserve- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Wolseley, kindly put your question, please. Ms. Friesen: The question I was asking was about this year's Estimates which proposes to deliver to the heritage com munity $400,000.

Will the minister explain te� the House what the impact will be on the heritage commun ity of the reduction in their grants that are reaching the commu nity, particularly when it is coupled with a loss of $2 million in the Comm unity Places fund which is also used very frequently by the heritage commu nity? Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, there will be no reduction in grants to the heritage com munity. We are going to be in Estimates this evening, and we can discuss this in greater detail. I will say to you that the Heritage Federation made allocations of $670,000 in grants for the upcoming year.

They have enough money within their reserves sitting in the bank that in fact all of those commitments will be lived up to.

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4990 Manitoba Heritage Federation Correspondence Request Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, finally, I would like to ask the minister again: Will she table the letters of support that she claimed in this House to have receiv ed supporting her destruction of the Heritage Federation? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): As a result of our commitment to put a new structure in place, I have sent 480 questionnaires out to the community. We are starting to receive those questionnaires back.

The ones that we have received have all been positive to date on the new structure. * (14 1 0) Agricultural Industry Diversification Ms. Ro sa nn Wowc huk (Swan River) : Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is for the Mi nister of Agriculture. I recently attended a rural conference in Brandon where a staff person from the Department of Agriculture said that farmers were missing out on an opportunity of diversification and that was the raising of elk and deer. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it is the position of this government to now allow the raising of elk and deer. Hon.

Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, my staff at various meetings they go to raise all kinds of opportunities that farmers can get involved in, in terms of diversifying their income, whether it is buffalo or whether it is wild rice or whether it is raising llama, ostriches. There is no end of opportunities. Some of it is for meat markets. Some of it is for food markets. Some of it is for various markets, and my staff are completely at liberty to make farmers aware of all the opportunities that might exist.

Clearly, those oppor tunities do exist in Saskatchewan and Alberta, and staff are analyzing those opportunities and explaining to farmers that there are opportunities there. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, if it is illegal to raise elk and deer in Manitoba on farms, I want to ask the minister: Is it his staff who make policy, or is this staff person promoting something that this government is now actively promoting, and that is the raising of elk and deer on farms? Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, numerous people have shown interest in this area.

I say my staff are free to talk to them about it, and the discussions will continue on for some time. Everybody is watching what is happening in Saskatchewan and Alberta to determine if there is any feasi bility whatsoeve r in the future for Manitobans to have an opportunity for those opportunities. 811182 Game Farming Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): I want to ask the minister if that is why he has included game farming under the farm lands practices act as a definition of a farm practice? One of the items is game farming.

Is he now saying that he is going to be including game farming and the raising of elk and deer as a policy of this government? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Raising of pheasants is game. Some people may say buffalo is game, so there are many examples of game farming. It is going on right now. If we did not include that in the farm practices, that bill, they would criticize us for not including it, so I would ask them to get their act together to decide which way they are going. Their government raised the issue some years ago and actually were in favour of it. Mining Operations Dust Control Mr.

Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): My question is to the Minister of Environment. On Monday of this week, I raised a serious environmen tal ques tion with the Min ister responsible for Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) relating to the dust control of the tailings ponds in the com munity of Lynn Lake, dust control which is an urgent issue because of the fact that it may contain elements including arsenic from the LynnGold operations in Lynn Lake.

My question to the Minister of Environment is: Has he discussed this issue with the Minister of Energy and Mines, and has he done anything to begin the process of determining the danger to

4991 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 residents of the comm unity of that dust blowing around the com munity? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I have not been in contact with the regional officers of the Department of Environment to discuss the issue, but during my Estimates, I will bring a fuller response to the member. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Commmee Changes Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. BonHace): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr.

Alcock) , that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: The member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) for the memb er for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) . (Agreed] ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, if I may first of all on governm ent business, I would indica te that throughout the day there may be a number of announcements being made as House leaders work together to plan the business of the House. I serve notice there may be announcements and some changes throughout the day. I would ask, Mr.

Speak er, if you canvass the House, you may find a will to waive private members' hour today. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour today? Is there leave? (Agreed) Mr. Praznlk: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, then to call bills in this order, please: Bill79-for continuation of debate on second reading-Bills 86, 87, 82, 94, 95, 96. I would then ask if Mr. Speaker could call for introduction for second reading, Bill 10 0, and that then will be followed for continuation of debate on second reading by Bills 76, 85 and 70. I would indicate, Mr.

Speaker, I will try to keep announcements towards the latter part of the day, but we will likely be rising shortly before six o'clock with an announcement with respect to Supply tonight. I understand for the benefit of all members that it is likely that the Committee of Supply will be sitting tonight, I believe, beginning at 7 p.m . I will have the formal motions available, as I said, prior to six o'clock. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 79-The Hig hways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act Mr.

Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honour able Minis ter of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), Bill79, The Highways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia protection des voies publiques et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand. Is there leave that this bill remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows? (Agreed) Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise to speak today on Bill 79. I do not intend to speak at any great length, and I will be the only representative from our party speaking on this bill.

As has been made clear by the minister and others, this bill replaces the existing Highways Protection Act and deals specifically with limited access highways. The main purpose of the bill appears to be to consolidate areas where there is parallel authority between the present Highways Pr otection Act and The Hi ghw ays and Transportation Act generally. It also serves hopefully to streamline the process of obtaining permits on limited access highways.

As a result of this consolidation, it is estimated by the minister, I note, that the application response time for permits is going to be cut from the present 60 days to 25 days, and anytime we see government being able to respond more quickly to applications of this nature, generally, of course, we should be supportive. The more efficient the government, the better for the taxpayers. Mr.

Speaker, it is our assessment that this bill does help to better delineate the responsibilities of both The Hig hways Protection Act and The Highways and Transportation Act, and that it also cuts out unnecessary and no doubt expensive requirements, such as that which required the

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4992 Highways Traffic Board to hold a hearing for each permit. Mr. Speaker, the bill also expands, we note, the power of the minister in that it gives him powers previously held by the Highway Traffic Board, such as access and development control and the power to order an owner to rem ove or remedy a development in a controlled area that is unsightly or dangerous. However, the Highway Traffic Board can be appealed to on these occasions. Generally, of course, our party is not supportive of putting higher levels of discretion into the hands of the mini ster.

But, in this case, there is a protection in the sense that the appeal can go to the Highway Traffic Board, and so there is some assurance that the discretionary power of the minister is not unlimited. In fact, it is substantially limited by those appeal rights. The only decisions which would not be subject to appeal are the on-premise signs, which is an area of ministerial jurisdiction, and off-premise signs, which are reserved for the Traffic Board. Mr. Speaker, clearly, the Highway Traffic Board's mandate is being changed to include the issuing of off-premis e advertising signs.

The issue of compensation has also been dealt with in this bill in a manner which is clear. We will, no doubt, have some technical questions at the commi ttee hearing. However, to the extent that this bill clarifies the law, makes it more efficient, and provides for a more expeditious permit procedure, we are supportive of this legislation. I do say, however, that, with respect to the technical aspects-and, Mr. Speaker, you will appreciate, this is a fairly lengthy bill-that there may well be some questions at the comm ittee hearing.

Of course, we will look forward to hearing any public presentation at that time of interested parties. To date, Mr. Speaker, I can say that we have not received indication from the public at large as to having any problem with this bill. That does not mean it will not come forward at the comm ittee stage. Generally, we are, at this point, prepared to see this matter go to comm ittee expeditiously so that we can examine, on a clause-by-clause basis and in more detail, this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The House has already granted leave that this matter could remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). Is there leave at this time-1 guess we have already allowed it, so now we have to dispose of it. An Honourable Member: Yes, agreed. Mr. Speaker: That is agreed. It appears the honourable member for Burrows wants to speak on this bill. Okay, done. Mr. Doug Martindale {Burrows): ... so we are going to put up one more speaker, and then pass this to comm ittee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. • (14 20) Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): I am pleased to rise on Bill 79 , The High ways Pr otection and Consequential Amendments Act that the minister has introduced. I would first like to start off by thank ing the Mini ster of Hi ghways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) for once again providing a detailed explanation of what is a very lengthy piece of legislation. The explanation that the minister has provided for us so that we in this Chamber can better understand the legislation that he has brought forward is some 75 pages in length. So there is a great amount of detail in trying to explain this legislation.

There are many areas under this particular piece of legislation that are bringing about these changes. In the initial stages of this bill, the

definitions, there are certain wordings that are required for the legisla tion itse lf that the min ister supp lied

interpretations of the wording of the act itself. It explains the requirements, in particular for the controlled areas along limited-access highways in the province. Now, when we get to comm ittee I will be asking the minister, because I do not have the background and I am sure the minister will have some staff available to explain or interpret for us the different areas of the province that have limited-access highways and the

definitions for the controlled areas, even though that is explained in brief in the notes that the minister has provided. We will have some questions on that so that I can get a better understanding of what is meant by those. But the bill goes on to talk about the controlled areas that are expanded from the minimum of 38 metres or 12 5 feet to 76 metres or 250 feet. It talks about controlling the controlled areas, in particular

4993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 the intersections that are involved in these limited-access highways. A good portion of the explanatory notes deal with the

definitions that pertain to this new act itseH. But there are some areas of the bill itself that I would like some clarification on. I will raise these for the minister as I go through my debate here this afternoon. The limited-access highways, of course, are part of the minister's departmental functions. Of course, along these highways there are certain traffic control devices.

Then there are certain pieces of property, and on some of these properties we will see as we travel about the province-from time to time we will see encroachments that appear to be too close to the highway itself that may have been existing structu res. I notice that there is a portion in this bill, in the latter sections of this bill, that explain about the grandfathering provisions, how the changes of this leg islation will mean to that particula r grandfathering.

We note, too, that the limited-access highways will have, as we have in the rural areas, a need for the landowners or the land users in those areas to have some access to roadways.

There will be times, I am sure, where there are changes that are going to be required in the minister's department that will cause a particular piece of roadway to be determined as a limited access, that that will place some of the landowners adjacent to that roadway in an unfortunate position, and that they could be landlocked by other properties around them which do not give them access to roadways except onto that new highway that would be designated as limited access.

I note in the legislation, too-and before I get onto that, to my next point, I hope that by this legislation the min is te r's dep artm ent is taki ng into conside ration the pote ntial fo r landlocked-{inte�ection) The minister indicates it will not allow any property holders to be landlocked, and I thank the minister for that explanation because it was a concern of mine that there was a potential for that to happen. I am glad the minister has cleared that up.

I also note in the explanations that the Highway Traffic Board, and the minister can correct me on this if I am wrong, has been responsible for making the regulations that pertain to the particular legislation that is under their jurisdiction. Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Only on PTHs. Mr. Reid: The minister indicates that only occurs on provincial trunk highways.

By the proposed changes to the legislation itself, it is indicated now that the Highway Traffic Board will no longer be required to make the regulations, if I understand it correctly, and that the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council will then be responsible or may designate another body to make the regulations on that person's behalf. The minister has indicated that he will provide a clarif ication for that when this bill moves to comm ittee. I should indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that I will be the last speaker in our party to speak on this particular piece of legislation, and that is why we are putting our concerns on the record here today. There are many structures or devices, whether they be trees or pieces of property or buildings, that from time to time throughout the province may encroach upon the roadways and the highways within the province. I believe that the intent of this is to bring some standardization into the process.

I think that is probably a good move or a move in the right direction in that it will provide for the safety of the motoring public in the province of Manitoba. There are, as I indicated,. many changes, and some of them that I note in this legislation are that there is a designation between the powers of the Highway Traffic Board to deal with the off-premise structures, whether they be signs or trees or buildings, and the minister who retains the powers or control over any of those items for on-premises.

Now, I take it by that where a provincial trunk highway or provincial road goes through a small com mu nity where the province maintains some jurisdiction over that roadway, that where, as we see in some of the small com munities through the province, the buildings of the town may encroach within the restricted distances of that particular roadway, the minister will retain the disc retionary use or erection of any signs or any buildings within that lim itation where it enc roaches upon the right-of-way.

I am not sure whether or not the mi nister anticipates making any changes to that If that is the reason why he is retaining that discretionary power for him, I am sure that he will explain that further when we get to comm ittee because it could have some impact upon the communi ties of our province.

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4994 We have many, and as the highways pass through these small commu nities the buildings within these commu nities encroach within the 38 metres of the provincial highways. It also indicates that the Lieutenant-Governor in-Coun cil, I imagin e it would be under the Department of Highways and Transportation, retains the right to set the fees or permits, and it will not be the responsibility of the Highway Traffic Board to set any fees for the permits.

I am sure the minister can explain that because I do not have any background knowledge or experience in the fees that would be charged to anyone who is applying for permits, or the appeals, or the hearings, or notice of objections that may arise as a result of this new legislation. The bill itself, as I have already indicated, is quite extensive, and many times throughou t the explanatory notes indicates that it is to streamline the process and to meld the two acts into one to make it simpler to administer.

It is a consolidation under the protection act, with the Traffic Board acting as an appeal body for all departmental decisions except for on-premise advertising signs. That, as I have already indicated, will remain within the minister's discretionary powers. * (1 430) One of the areas which I am not familiar with, that I am sure that when this bill goes to comm ittee the minister will also explain, or his staff will explain through the minister, is the current policy.

It is made mention of in the explanatory notes about the time-consuming and expensive process under the existing legislation where the board has to enact specific policies for advertising signs. I am unaware of the complete process that takes place and how this would be time-consum ing, but it is my understanding that if there are any permits that come forward, the board has to have hearings to render decisions on the applications. If there are any appeals, then of course they have to have those hearings as well.

Now, I am not sure how this is going to streamline the process, but possibly the minister can explain that during the commi ttee hearings on this. The bill also talks aboutthe issuing of permits, and it talks about "may have an expiry date." Now I am not sure why the legislation indicates that all permits issued will have that discretionary power of, may having an expiry date. I am sure that the minister can explain that in commi ttee. There may be some exceptions to the legislation that I am unaware of, that the minister can draw to my attention.

It also indicates that the permits that are issued by the Highway Traffic Board are nontransferable once they have been issued. Well, I know the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) only wanted to spend a few moments on this. He had so much concern about this bill and had so many comments that he took less than five minutes to place his comments on the record of this one. He may not have the expertise, but I am sure that he would not want to deny other members of the Chamber the opportunity to put their comm ents on the record.

I am sure if he wants to have more time to place his comments that he will have that time to do so at comm ittee, and that he should not impede the progress of others that want to ask those questions and put comments on the records in this Chamber. [inte rjec tion] Yes, I think he is an instant Transportation critic. An Honourable Member: He is concise. Mr. Reid: Very concise in five minutes. Yes. An Honourable Member: Trying to save some trees. Mr. Reid: Saving trees, I guess, would be in order. They would all like to be conservationists.

I am sure the member is referring to the printing of the Hansard, but we will have the opportunity, I am sure, for the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) to place his commen ts on the record when we get to committee. One of the areas that would require some further explanation for myself to get an understanding of this-and I make no secret of it, and I do not think there is any member in this House that would have had over his or her years the opportunity to have a complete and full understanding of The Highway Traffic Act, because it is a very extensive act.

I have qu estions relating to the expropriation and compensation factors that would go along with that. I know the Minister of Highways department, as we see by the Orders-in-Council that come before us from time to time, does expropriate properties from landowners throughout various areas of the provi nce. I would lik e to have a bette r understanding of the process that is in place for the expropriation and the compensation that may go

4995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 along with that, how it is determined, as well as any appeals of any decisions for com pensation that may not be agreed to by the landowners whose land has been expropriated. One

section of the bill-and it comes under a particular

Part 3, I believe it was-indicates: "The minister may appoint any person as an inspector for the purposes of this Act. • Now, I am not sure what the intent of this particular

section is and whom the mini ste r intends on appointing to be these inspectors. Does it mean that the minister will be able to appoint departmental staff on a need basis throughout areas of the province to enforce this act, or does that mean the minister will then be able to appoint other mem bers of the surrounding comm unities? I would like to have an understanding of what the minister's intent of this

section is, because I recall comments and questions that were in this House some weeks back, where the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) had raised some concerns over the 2,000 kilometres of provincial roadways that were offloaded on to mu nicipalities and there was a certain individual that is familiar to the government who had been appointed to oversee that transferring process. I am wondering if this is a similar type of situation that this

section will allow for, where the minister may appoint inspectors. That is why I think it is importantfor us to understand who these inspectors are going to be. Under the Enforcement section, it talks as well about the right for these inspectors to enter into dwellings, and this is under proposal. There is no existing legislation for this from my understanding of the notes that were provided, except the individuals that are empowered to be these inspectors require that they can enter into, with a warrant, even onto private properties with the consent of the occupier, hopefully in most cases.

It also talks about these inspectors because they will, from time to time, require the assistance of any persons that may be found in the establishments where these inspectors will have to conduct their inspections. (Mr. Harold Neufeld, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) There is also a

section in here talking about the obstruction of inspectors. Now I am not sure where it talks about the obstruction of the inspectors, but I do not see any

section in there that talks about penalty for obstruction. It is all right to have some legislation here that would deal with the obstruction of these inspectors, but if there are no penalties that are involved then I do not understand, unless the minister can further clarify that for us in committee, what will be the deterrent factor from individuals that would attempt to obstruct the inspectors that the minister has appointed?

The minister is empowered under the legislation, and I believe it was under the existing legislation as well, to make an order requiring a landowner to take one or more of the following actions. It indicates the different actions that would be required, and it also talks about the time frames that the minister will instruct that these orders have to followed within.

It goes on to indicate that where the orders are not followed by the particular landowners, they are then to be undertaken by the minister's department, and any costs that are incurred as a result of these actions will be dealt with in one of two ways. If there are particular pieces of equipment or property, such as buildings, trees, hedges, shrubs, et cetera, that have to be removed and these can be sold, then the revenue that would be generated by this process would go towards defraying the costs that were incurred.

Where the costs exceed the revenues that would be received as a result of any sale of this equipment or this property were not sufficient to cover the costs, then the costs would then be transferred to the owner of the land. It would then become a debt, as indicated, due to the Crown. I am sure that when it gets to that point there will be several appeals for these landowners having to incur the extra costs for something that they may not want to have removed from the property.

It also indicates that, where an affected owner of a property is in disagreement with the Highway Traffic Board or the minister for removal of his or her property, the individual can then proceed through the courts and can have the courts review the decision, but this has to be undertaken within 60 days from the date of the making of the order. * (1 440) The minister also has the powers to delegate, as he has in the past, I believe, powers to the Highway Traffic Board.

I have had some dealings in the past with the Highway Traffic Board dealing with other matters relating to highways up in the Minister of Labour's (Mr. Praznik) commun ity where residents had contacted me some months back.

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4996 In the new legislation it refers to additional duties of the Highway Traffic Board, and I am not sure what specific additional duties the minister's legislation is referring to. I hope that when we go to commi ttee he can provide some explanation for the additional duties that the Highway Traffic Board may be undertaking or be required to undertake. Another

section that causes me concern for this legislation deals with evidence, and it indicates in the explanatory notes that this new

section for providing evidence is to give the Highway Traffic Board some maximum flexibility in dealing with matters that come before it, but the evidence may be given before the Highway Traffic Board in a manner that the Highway Traffic Board considers appropriate. The Highway Traffic Board is not bound by the rules of law respecting evidence. I am not sure, Mr. Acting Speaker, what the intent of this

section is. I had some experience a few weeks back in a show-cause hearing with the Motor Transport Board, and at that particular hearing the members of the comm ittee went behind closed doors to conclude a portion of their hearings, and the members of the public that were in attendance at that meeting were not privy to those hearings. When the board came back a decision was rendered. So it was obvious that all of the parties that were involved went to the back room and struck some kind of a deal on this. The Highway Traffic Board being a quasi-judicial body, I am not sure how this evidence

section would impact upon them, but I am not sure that it is totally appropriate for these back-room deals to be struck in this respect where members of the public would not be privy to this information. The Highway Traffic Board also has the power to authorize one member to conduct an inquiry into a matter that has been drawn to its attention and then to make recommendations back to the board, and then the board is not necessarily bound by any of the decisions or recommendations that come back to it and can modify, accept or reject the reports that come back.

The legislation itself indicates that the Highway Traffic Board can bring before it people having special knowledge to assist them in the fulfillment of their duties. When we move to the

section of penalties, Mr. Acting Speaker, there is an indication that the individuals that are found to be in contravention of this legislation, an individual would be liable for a fine of not more than $200 and/or to imprisonment of not more than 30 days. When we see the example that is placed before us here, in the case of a corporation, a corporation would be subject to a fine of not more than $1 ,000, but there is no designation there of any penalty to any of the directors in the sense of imprisonment.

I am not sure why we would have imprisonment of individuals-or the potential to imprison individuals in these cases-and we would not have the potential to imprison the directors of a corporation who would be in control of a corporation that would be ·in contravention of this legislation. While I am not thoroughly experienced in the areas of legalities of the province, as some of my more learned colleagues are here, it indicates that there is a limitation on the actions for prosecution for anyone who is found to be in contravention of this legislation.

There is a limitation of one year, and I have always been of the understanding that the statute of limitations in many legal regards is two years. Quite possibly, I will have to do some more work on that to find out if that is why the discrepancy is between the two and if, in fact, that is accura te. In the latter sections of the legislation, it talks about grandfathering, where there are existing structures or buildings or trees that are in place.

As I indicated in some of my earlier comm ents, there are many situations in our province and the comm unities of the province where these structures exist already, and that, by this legislation, the minister will then have to issue permits to deal with these particular structures. Under the grandfathering sections, as well, in dealing with the permits, it indicates that where a controlled area is designated, that permits shall have been deemed to have been issued under the act, but it does not indicate what restrictions or time limitations or variance orders are in place.

I am sure the minister will be able to explain that as we move further through the legislation. There are many sections, Mr. Acting Speaker, that are important in this legislation. Looking at the extent of this particular bill, where it is intended to protect the travelling public, in one of the �t er portions or sections of the bill, it talks about the ministerial powers to remove any hazards to the traffic that cause or obstruct the view of the roadway. In a case thatthere will be no compensation payable for any loss or damage that a particular person-in

4997 LEGISLA TIVE ASS EM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 that sense, a landowner-would suffer as a result of the actions of the minister's department. I believe that the safety of the travelling public has to be the No. 1 priority. There is also a

section here-and I know I have had some correspondence from members of my own comm unity in dealing with off-road vehicles. I have had the opportunity to ask questions of the minister in the Estimates process relating to off-roads vehicles in the last session. By the explanatory notes that are provided, it indicates that municipalities have the powers to bring forward by-laws restricting or regulating the use of off-road vehicles within the munic ipalities' jurisdictions.

But it also Indicates, by the explanatory notes, that the Highway Traffic Board has the power to rule on the appropriateness of any municipal by-laws. I think that will provide some consistency of regulatory powers throughout the province so that all mun ici palities are bound by the same legislation, and we do not have a patchwork quilt of regulations through the province.

When we move to comm ittee we will be raising these questions with the minister as we have put on the record here today, and hopefully the minister will have his staff available for us to ask questions of and give some explanation so that we can have a better understanding of the full intent of the legislation. I am sure, looking at the general principle of the bill, it is a bill, from what we can see to this point, that is worth supporting and that we will have those questions for the minister and look forward to the opportunity to further debate this when we move to committee. • (1 450) Mr. Driedger: Mr.

Acting Speaker, I just wantto put a few comments on the record here. I have taken note of some of the concerns that have been expressed, and we will try and address them in commi ttee when we get to comm ittee. I want to repeat again the reason why we rewrote this act. We wer e going to mak e some amendments to it, found the act was so convoluted and difficult to make changes in that it was advised that we rewrite that whole act, and basically that is what we have done.

I tried to give both the critics extensive information regarding exactly what changes were taking place so there was no mi sun dersta nding of it. If there are further questions, I will try and deal with them. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Neufeld) : Are you ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 79. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Neufeld) : Agreed and so ordered. Bill 86-The Provincial Pollee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act The Acting Speaker (Mr ..

Neufeld) : On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCr ae), The Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Surete du Manitoba et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the member for Inkster. The honourable member for Inkster. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Ink ster) : Mr. Acting Speaker, I am glad to see you have finally called me honourable, given the com ments that we have had back and forth, but I had adjourned debate on behalf of the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards). Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James) : Mr. Acting Speaker, what a pleasure it is to see you in the Chair. This is a bill which is joined with Bill87, The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act.

These pieces of legislation essentially rethink the way that we are going to review police activities in this province. The Manitoba Police Commission and the Law Enforcement Review Agency previously have adjudicated upon conce rns raised about police • Mr. Acting Speaker, we have many examples in recent years, since this Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) took over, of how the system has not worked. We started, or course, with Ticketgate back in 1 988, and this minister took over from the then-Minister of Justice, Mr. Schroeder. We then went through the Harvey Pollock affair, the Hughes inquest.

We have been through the Aboriginal Justice Inqu iry's review of police activities with respect to J.J. Harper, the Helen Betty Osborne cases. There was the Billyjoe DeLaronde shooting. There have been numerous occasions where police activity, police investigation procedures have come into question, and there has been a void.

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4998 Literally speaking, there has been no system or process by which a credible, neutral body has looked at the police activity and given society an answer. Was the police activity appropriate or not? The Law Enforcement Review Agency is victim driven. That is, the victim of police abuse has to lodge a complaint with the Law Enforcement Review Agency. That may or may not happen at all, and if it does happen, it may happen long after the event has actu ally occurred.

The Manitoba Police Commission out of The Provincial Police Act has been hardly used at all by this province. It, in fact, has been hard up for work for some years because the fact is, it relies upon a mi nister that sees the value of the Polic e Commission's work to send it work. That just has not happened. So when we had these occasions where police conduct was called into question, we had no way to step into the breach and in a neutral, credible fashion review the police activity, hear the story, hear the evidence and come up with an answer.

What happened, in most of these cases, was that the police themselves did an internal investigation, and that is just not good enough. Of course, they have to do an internal investigation, but what happens when they come with the result? If they clear the police officer, no one believes him, because the investigation has been done by the police of the police. Secondly, if they do not clear the officer and they find fault with the policing activities, in the case of the Harvey Pollock investigation, they then would not release the results. So society at large does not get to see the final report. Why?

Because as the City of Winnipeg Police told us at that time, they were worried about liability. They were worried about solicitor/client privilege. They did not want to prejudice their position in the event of a lawsuit down the road, so they did not release the report. So it is not good enough to have just the internal investigation of the police. You need a body that is going to look at this, that is going to represent society's interests to find out what happened, whether or not there was police brutality, whether or not police acted properly or improperly. Now, Mr.

Acting Speaker, key to all of this is the timing. When an incident occurs, an improper shooting such as the case of J.J. Harper, an improper charging as in the case of Harvey Pollock, at the outset inevitably there is the initial shock. There is the initial reporting and everybody hears the story in a sensational fashion on the front pages of the papers. Then, as time goes on, in both of those cases, questions arise, and this is true with Ticketgate, true with Billyjoe Delaronde, and it is a pattern that repeats itself every time.

Questions arise; allegations come to the fore that the police have acted improperly. What has this Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) done in his pattern in the last four years? Inevitably, it goes on and on; the questions get louder and louder; there are more and more articles; there are more and more press reports; and eventually it comes to the point where he has to act. He goes and retains an outside investigator, in the case of the Harvey Pollock affair, Mr. Hughes from British Columbia, who is a very fine man, but, Mr.

Acting Speaker, he had to come in here seven months after the incident to hold some public hearings which were like a circus for the media. That is what happened. You could go down there any day of the week and see 1 0 or 12 lawyers sitting there all acting for someone else, and they were doing their job. They were trying to get to the facts, but by that time there were so many rumours, there was so much misinformation, reputations had been injured and hurt, much of the damage was done, and society, most importantly, the community had had its faith in the police shaken, even after the Hughes inquest was done.

It is my suggestion that the communi ty's faith in the police never recovers from six or seven months of complaints about their activities without anybody standing up to defend them, without anybody coming to a credible conclusion after a credible, neutral investigation. We need a body that can step into the breach on behalf of society. Mr. Acting Speaker, we had that body. We had in the City of Winnipeg the Winnipeg Police Commission which functioned until the mid-'70s and it did that job.

When things came up, within weeks the Winnipeg Police Commission would put it on the agenda, do the investigation, call witnesses, get to the bottom of the situation. Its conclusions were respected by the com mu nity at large. Why? Because it represented an independent, credible view of what was alleged to have occurred . The police, interestingly, are the first to want that independent review to be done quickly, because it

4999 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 is the police who suffer from six or seven months of allegations coming forward on the front pages of the paper and in the news. You do not need to think that police do not go home at night and watch the news and rea d the pape r. They become demoralized and quite reasonably so. When they see allegations made again and again, they get dem oralized. They want an in dependent investigation right off the hop more than anyone else in society, and I have spoken to many in the police force.

I have yet to find someone who disagreed with that need for a body to, as the Winnipeg Police Commission did until the mid-'70s, step into the breach. .. (1 500) Now, this brings me to the bills we have before us, and the minister's attempts to deal with this problem. Mr. Acting Speaker, these bills do not specifically address the timing, but I encourage the minister to have the new body that he is creating, which is essentially a provincial court judge, the new body step in quickly, expeditiously to deal with these matters. If he is going to do that, he will have done a great service to this comm unity.

I know that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and others would support me in that. So I do not think I want for internal support in the Conservative caucus on this issue, because the police need and deserve to be cleared or damned quickly and not have these things lingering for months and months and months. If there is a problem and if there is fault found, then you deal with it, but what you do not do is let six or seven months go on with lingering rumours and doubts in the co mmu nity which shakes their confidence in the police and also demoralizes the force itself. Now, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I do have concerns, and I share the concerns ofthe member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) when he spoke on this bill, about getting rid of the citizen panel which was LERA and the Police Comm ission. Those were citizens, not judges, not police people or politicians, and of course all those people are citizens as well, but what I am talking about is people from the comm unity at large not directly involved in the justice system, and this minister is changing that. He is getting rid of that comm unity control and handing it to a member of the bench, a judge. Now, I am of two minds about that.

I think- Hon. Har ry Enns (Minis ter of Natural Resources): You are a typical liberal. Mr. Edwards: Well, the Mini ster of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) accuses me of wavering on this one and of having too muc �nte�ection] Well, I like to look at both sides, and I know that is unique in this House, but I do like to look at both sides before I come to a decision. Yes, that is true, if being a Liberal is looking at both sides, then I am guilty, Mr. Acting Speaker, and proud to be so. It has been a long time since there were people in this House who looked at both sides.

I must say, you are one who has always done that and stand out in that regard. You have not just looked at both sides, you have spoken out about both sides and we have appreciated that. Now, Mr. Acting Speaker, these tandem bills, Bills 86 and 87, do put into place, I hope, a more efficient, more expeditious review process of police activities in this province, and that is positive. What I have grave concerns about is the fact that we are moving from a comm unity adjudication body to a judge, and that does give me some concern.

I wonder if the mi ni ster could not in clu de com mun ity representation on a panel with a judge. I see the advantage of having a judge who knows some of the necessary legalities of hearings, because there are rights at stake, there is a duty of fairness, and there are certain legal principles which do come to bear in anybody coming to these panels. But I wonder if we could not expand this--as the Law Enforcement Review Agency was, it was a panel-if we could not expand this to include two comm unity members, even one community member, to sit with the judge. Now, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I raise that for the minister at this point and I would like to further canvass that at comm ittee stage to find out whether or not he would be willing to amend this to include that. pnterjection] I appreciate the support of the Minister for Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) on that. I might say this morning there was a significant amendment which came forward, by consent, from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mc.oCrae) at a hearing on Bill47. So I am hopeful that the Minister of Justice is listening to commen ts made by opposition members and responding. He did this morning and I give him credit for that.

I look forward to a similar productive debate on this bill and BillS?, Mr. Acting Speaker.

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 5000 Mr. Acting Speaker, with respect to the Police Comm ission, specifically the Manitoba Police Comm ission and the Law Enforcement Review Agency, I want to at this point say that we as legislators owe a great debt of gratitude to those who served on those two bodies. They served with dignity; they did their job; they did it well.

They were citizens who came forward and sat for many hours, days on end in certain cases, and did the work of the people of Manitoba and did us all a great service, and published many, many productive, important reports on the justice system. I personally believe that the Police Commission was gr eatly un derutilized, both by this administration and the past administration. But, Mr. Acting Speaker, I am hopeful that we will be able to move into a new era, and I would like to see the new adjudication body be a panel, not just a member of the Provincial Court.

There are other questions I will have with respect to these bills. I am going to save those for committee. I look forward to public presentations at comm ittee, and I hope we have some because, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think these bills do represent important public issues worthy of public debate. We have tried many things in the last decades with respect to reviewing police activities. It is an evolutionary process. We are taking another step here. I would like to hear from the public at those commi ttees, and I look forward to getting to those comm ittees to hear public presentations.

We have concerns about these bills. We see that something had to be done. Whether or not this is the appropriate way to go is yet to be debated in its enti rety, and we look for ward to the clause-by-clause analysis at the committee stage. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Neufeld) : Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill86. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Neufeld) : Agreed and so ordered. *** (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minis ter of Rur al Development): Mr. Speaker, when I tabled Bill20 for first reading I did not table the message from His Honour. I would like to table that message at this time. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to table said message? Leave? That is agreed. *** Bill 87-The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill87, The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les enquetes relatives a !'application de Ia loi, standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I move to adjourn debate on behalf of the honourable member for St. James. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I spoke in my comme nts on Bill 86 to a large extent about both bills, 86 and 87. They are tandem bills dealing with different acts, but I simply say at this point that my comments on Bill 86 are to be taken as applying also to Bill87.

I do look forward to public presentations at the com mittee stage and a thorough clause-by-clause analysis of this bill, which we are agreeing to send to committee at this stage, on the basis that we do have concerns about this bill and about the structure that is being proposed by the minister and will want to examine more thoroughly at the co mm ittee stage the research which he has done which have led to these bills. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bi11 87, The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les enquetes relatives a !'application de Ia loi. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.

5001 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 Bill 82-The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 82, The Farm Practices Pr otection and Consequential Amendm ents Act ;

Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agricoles et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I will be the only one from our caucus speaking on this bill, and we will look forward to sending it to comm ittee to-{interjection] It is too late. * (1 51 0) Mr. Gaudry: Mr.

Speaker, The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act, this bill is designed to give farmers some security in their operations by limiting the ability of people to bring nuisance suits against them for normal farm practices. Mr. Speaker, with the recent population shift of the city dwellers moving to bedroom comm unities, there is a potential of newcomers protesting about farm practices. For example, people who build a new home next to a livestock farm may complain about odours and demand changes.

This bill will protect long-established farm ope rations if they are conducting normal farm practices, and I think these are some of the conce rns that will be addressed in comm ittee by gro up s tha t will be ma king presentations. We hav e seen the imp act of how new developments construc ted near airports have forced changes to airport operating plans and this concern was part of the opposition to The Pines project on Portage Avenue. Oh, the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst) is not there, so it is okay. This is the same concern that farmers have. Mr. Speaker, the complaint process is twofold.

Firstly, a person applies in writing to the Farm Practice Protection Board for determination of whether an operation is being considered as a normal farm practice. Secondly, a person can commence an action in nuisance if they have followed the first step. The board tries to mediate between the two parties, but if mediation fails it can dismiss the claim or order the opera tor to adjust the operation. Decisions can be appealed in court. The Keystone Agricultural Producers are not entirely pleased with the bill, but they say it is better than nothing. They wanted a more rea listic approach taken.

They wanted changes to the Planning and Environment Acts' regula tions included in this package. KAP believes that this bill is only a piece of the puzzle. Planning Act changes are needed to improve an appeal process. Local planning districts hear the appeals and there are sometimes problems with these planning districts.

A model similar to Quebec's land-use planning authority was suggested, and we look forward to the people when they come out to comm ittee and make their presentations, and I think the minister, I am sure, will be listening to them because he is known to listen to the farmers out in the commun ity. I have spoken to many farmers and they know that he is doing a good job for them,, so I would like to complim ent the minister-and when we approach his department-he does look after even cleaning the floodway with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).

I saw CBC on Monday evening filming the cleanup on the floodway. An Honourable Member: Are you picking on me? Mr. Gaudry: I would not do that. A code of practice must be defined so we will know what is and what is not a normal farm practice. KAP also was concerned about farm representation on the board, and I think this is something that should be looked at. It was in this case that this bill would help eliminate stubble burning. I know I h ave been asked what was my stand on stubble burning, but I will wait to put my comments on stubble burning in comm ittee, Mr. Speaker. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Gaudry: I will explain that in comm ittee for the member. That is the Voyageur look. Mr. Speaker, this bill should be supported while calling for planning and environment co-ordination with the creation of a code practice to measure against the other acts. I will end my comments and will look forward to seeing this bill into comm ittee and having farmers making presentations towards this bill. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5002 Bill 82, The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendm ents Act;

Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agricoles et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: That is agreed. Agreed and so ordered. Bill �The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 19 92 Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 94, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 199 2; Loi de 199 2 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite, standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). Stand?

Is there leave? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied. Mr .Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I rise today for a few minutes to speak to Bill 94. Bill 94, as most of you know, is The Statute Law Amendment bill which is traditional in this House to implement the measures of the government's budget. In the interests of keeping things brief, I will make just a very few comments on this bill. I believe we will be sending the bill to committee, at which time further comments will be made by members on this side of the House and presenters.

If there is any interest in the bill, presenters will be able to make com ments at that time. One of the interesting aspects of this bill is that it includes general anti-avoidance provisions under Corporation Capital Tax and The Health and Post-Secondary Education Tax Levy and The Retail Sales Tax Act. The bill also sets out procedures for filing appeals to the independent Tax Appeals Commission which we will be dealing with next in the next bill that we will be dealing with today.

So I conclude comments on this particular bill at this point with the knowledge that the bill will now go to comm ittee and members of the public will have time to make comme nts. Having said that now, I am informed that the member for Flin Ron would like to make a few comments on this bill as well. Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): I do not have a great deal to say on this bill as I have read the remarks of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) when he introduced this bill. I understand that this is, by.and large, putting into law what was announced in the budget.

I did, however, want to comment on a couple of sections in the bill as it relates to, I guess, more directly the government's rhetoric about what the budget was intended to accomplish. Mr. Speaker, I, on a number of occasions, have had a chance to debate the issue of the status of the mining industry in the province of Manitoba with the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey). I raise questions in this House about the current status of mining, and I am continually reminded by the government that they have introduced a couple of measures to improve the prospects for mining companies.

One which is referenced quite often was a measure first announced in the 199 1 budget which dealt with the Mineral Exploration Inc entive Program, which, as it turned out, did not have any beneficial effect whatsoever for the two largest mining companies in the province, namely, Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting and lnco. I pointed that out on a number of occasions to the government.

More recently, the government, in its latest budgets, announced thatthere would be a new mine tax holiday, and have tried to pretend-and I use that word advisedly-that somehow this was going to create new opportunity in the mining industry in the immediate term. The Minister of Energy and Mines, the minister responsible for Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has suggested this was somehow a measure that could be looked to from the comm unity of Snow Lake's perspective to im prove their prospects for survival.

When I got Bill94 and started reading through the implementation of these tax measures, lo and behold, I find that "new mine" means (

a) a mine (

i) that commenc es production after January 1, 199 3. So the government is obviously not prepared to put up any money prior to the beginning of next year to help a co mmun ity that is struggling. My questions is: Does this create any incentive for a company that may have had a prospect of a mine on the horizon, encourage it to go into production to save the town? Obviously, there is a very strong financial incentive at this point for the company to say, well, we are not going to do anything until at least January 1, 199 3. I do not think that is good news for people who are sitting in the commun ity of

5003 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 Snow Lake, who are about to lose their investment in their homes and their small businesses and so forth. * (1 520) Mr. Speaker, I raise this simply to, I guess, put the question: Does this government really have any concern for mining communi ties and the prospect for mining comm unities that are on the brink of disaster? I think the answer is no. We will let this go to committee. I think there are a number of other questions that we might want to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) when we getto commi ttee, and I have some questions as well about the manufacturing tax credit which has a window, a very short window, from the date of the budget roughly till the middle of 19 93 to take effect. I have questions as well about the effectiveness of the exemptions that are introduced in the budget, as they relate to tax credits, because, of course, it assumes that there will be a benefit, where in fact many, many companies, if not most companies in Manitoba are struggling to show any black in their accounting at all.

So it is not clear that there in fact will be any incentive in much of what the government has proposed as being an incentive to spur the introduction of new manufacturing technology to spur on the research and development in the province of Manitoba. I think there are some serious questions about whether these tax measures, as modest as they are, are going to have any significant impact on our economic circums tances of the moment. With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I know that our Finance critic, the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans), is going to want to ask a series of questions in comm ittee on the specifics of the legislation, but I think we can do that in committee. Certainly, we are prepared to let this bill go to comm ittee immediately. Mr. Reg Alcock {Osborne): I should serve notice to you, I suspect, that I will be the only speaker on this bill for our party, and, at the conclusion of my remarks, we will be prepared to pass it into commi ttee. 1 note a couple of things. I listened with interest to the remarks from the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) when he introduced this bill, and he, quite rightly, prefaced his introduction of it by noting that this one was particularly long and complex. Unlike the Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Acts that we have seen in the past few years, where we have seen a few changes to tax policy or tax law in this province as a result of comm itments made in the budget, this one has taken a much mo re thorough-we ll, actually it made a much more thoro ugh atte mpt to ch ange som e of the deficiencies in current tax law that we have noted in this House in the past couple of years. I think the minister is to be commended.

I also want to thank the minister for providing to us-1 imagine both critics have provided the same information which detailed the intent as well as the specific reasoning behind the changes that have been introduced. I think there are some good things in this. I think I have comm ented at length on them when I made my response to the budget speech, because most of them are following up on the changes that were introduced in the budget speech.

I think that the minister introduced in his first heading changes to enhance economic development in the province, the mining tax changes, some of the small business tax changes and the tax forgiveness, particularly in the establishment of the tax credit for 800 numbers and the like. I think these are creative measures, and I think that, while they may not produce the kind of boom that the members opposite would like to believe they will produce, they will at least go some small way to relieving the burden on business in this province.

The minister has also done an interesting thing in regar d to environment al taxa tion .

The environmental protection tax that they introduced a couple of years ago has been pretty much window dressing, and for the first time in this bill we do see an attempt on the part of the government to move toward making it a more significant program, changing some of the retail tax, retail sales tax applications, particularly on tires, and adding a tax to disposable diapers, all of which will go into the Environmental Protection Fund and be used to fund projects to promote environmental awareness and the protection of our environment.

I would presume this will receive the support of all the members in the House. The big changes are coming. One is a significant tightening of tax avoidance. I think we see that in the small business tax holiday changes; we see that also in the corporate capital tax and the retail sales

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 5004 tax , and the health and post-se condary educational levy. I think it is a good thing. I think we have had several debates in the House about the ability of certain corporations to avoid paying taxes that they might be rightly assessed. The government has provided a variety of ways in which corporations can legitimately redirect expenditures from taxation into staff training and the like, and I think that the tighte ning up, on the other hand, to prevent abuses is a necessary and positive st ep.

I am also encouraged by their enhancement of the tax credit for research and development. I think there are a couple of things in here that need to be looked at,

part icularly in light of the ot her changes that the Finance minister is bringing forward. He has The Tax Appeals Commission Act coming up, and we are going to be debati ng that bill in just a few minutes. I do want to talk in some detail about that because I have-while I think it is a good measure, I think there are some concerns that need to be addressed with it. Also, he is moving to a new form of operati ng agency; I think that needs to be examined with some care.

But, on the whole, while this is a larger and more complex act than we have had to deal with in the last few years, it is consistent with the commitments made in the budget, and I believe it brings about some very necessary tightening of tax law in this province. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 94, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 19 92; Loi de 199 2 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives en matiere de fiscalite . Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

An Honourable Member: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 95-The Tax Appeals Commission Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act;

Loi sur Ia Commission d'appel des impots et des taxes, st anding in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evan s) . Stand? Is there leave? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: Leave is denied. Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, I will be spending a few minutes putting some comments on the part of our caucus on the record regarding Bill 95.

I would like to say at the outset here that the late introduction of this bill and Bill 96, which we will be speaking to next, is of great concern to us because when we get bills introduced, such as 96 was just yesterday and Bill 95 a few days before, at such a late stage in the House and we are expected to examine the bills and come up with proper analysis of the bills, it is very, very difficult to do it with only one or two days notice, especially when many of the concerned parties affected by the bills have yetto be contacted and have their views heard.

Now, I recognize that is the role of the committee process, and that is the route that the bill will be following afte r the comments made in the House toda y. At the outs et, I would say that The Tax Appeals Commission Act, the act of setting up a tax appeals commission sounds on the surface to be a fairly simple and a fairly good idea.

What it will do is provide an independent review of cont ested corporation capital tax , retail sales tax , with payroll tax assessments and, of course, that in itself once again sounds like a good idea, but one would have to det ermine why at this parti cular time this measure was deemed to be necessary. There are several questions that arise out of this measure and, of course, some of those questions can and will be asked at the committee sta ge, but I would be very interested in knowing what the experience of the government was regarding the previous situation regarding the collection of these taxes.

Were they having a lot of problems with appeals in the past? What is the event or the series of eve nts that triggered and prom pted the government to bring in this particular bill particularly at this stag e so late in the session? Was the government challenged in court on this matter? We have other questions such as: What will this add to the bureaucracy of the government and the cost to the gove rnment? Will it, in fact, encou rage appeals? * (1 530) I am sure that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) has appropria te answers to these questions, but these are questions, nevertheless,

5005 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA June 18 , 19 92 that up to this point we have not had an opportunity to ask once again, because the bill itself was only brought in just a few days ago on June 10 . Once again, on the surface this looks like it is a bill that should not cause a lot of problems. Howev er, until we get answers to these questions, we are passing the bill to committee with some reluctance, and in the hopes that at committee we are able to get the answers to these quest ions.

The next bill, Bill 96, which I will be addressing in a few minutes, also raises, in fact, more serious questions about the special operati ng agencies that the government is proposing. I will be dealing with that in a few minutes on Bill 96. So with that I would like to conclude my remarks and allow the bill to pass to committee. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I once again want to thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) for providing notes on this bill, altho ugh this is rather less of a bill than the one we have just talked about.

The Minister of Finance puts this forward as one step in cutt ing red tape. In fact, that is one of the comments he makes in his rather brief remarks on this bill. I will be interes ted in the discussions in committee on that particular point, because it strikes me that it is difficult to reduce red tape by creati ng more complexity in the systems that one has available to one in order to challenge, question, or ask for intervention in the proceedings that a government may take against a person.

On the surface, this is intended to provide an opportunity for people to have, quote: a less formal review of concerns they may have under a few taxa tion statu tes. I think the intent of this is good. I think the intent of this bill is to allow citizens to access appeal processes without having to go to the expense of hiring a lawyer or the formality of approaching, particu larly, Court of Queen's Bench, but it does not deny them the opportunity to do that should they not receive satisfaction from the commissioner. I think, though, there are two concerns that I have with the way it is being struc tured.

One is that we are having a proliferation of ways to appeal and deal with specific tax statutes instead of trying to bring them all under one easily understood process. If you want to reduce red tape , you do it by collapsing processes and sim plifying processes, not by increasing the number of them. The second thing is the independence of this particular position. I note here that this does not even have the protection of being vetted by Lieutenant-Gov ernor-in-Council, that these people would be appointed solely by the minister.

I note in the notes that there is the suggestion that they will be appointed by people who have a great deal of exper ience in tax. But we have questioned frequently in this House the independence of persons appointed directly by the government and feel that this takes it a step further in the wrong direction by removing any scrutiny other than that of the minister when it comes to appointing the individuals who will undertake these reviews. With those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to let this pass into committee, and we will deal with those questions when the min ister is able to answer them.

Thank you. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question for the House is second reading of Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act;

Loi sur Ia Commission d'appel des imp6ts et des tax es. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill �The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act;

Loi sur I'Office de financement des organismes de service special, st anding in the name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer). Is there leave? An Honourable Member: Which bill did you say it is? Mr. Speaker: Bill 96, st anding in the name of the honourable Leader of the Opposition. Leave? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied. Mr. Jerry Storfe (FIIn Flon): Mr. Speaker, the member for Concordia, the Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Doer), adjourned the bill for myself.

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5006 Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation, I think, reads quite differently when you look at the legislation than the Minister of Finance's speech on this

part icular piece of legislat ion. The fact of the matter is that there are elements of this legislation that, I think, should cause people a great deal of concern. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), in his opening remarks tal ked, I think quite glibly, about the creati on of special operating agencies, or SOAs as he called them later on in his speech, as being a means of introducing innovation and allowing more financial flexibility within the dep artment. However, when you read th e legislation you find that what is being created really, at the whim of the Mi nister of Finance (Mr.

Mann ess) , and his col leagues, are re ally mini-Crown corporati ons, small agencies within departm ents that can act relatively independently of government. Now all of this, of course, is sti ll within the purview of the Minister of Finance. The financing authority shall be under the direction and control of the Minister of Finance. So while we have not lost direct responsibility , we are now creating arm's-length agencies to do the work of government. Now, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the need for that to happen on occasion. In fact, I have argued that on occasion arm's-length agencies are more effective.

They can respond more quickly than government depart ments, and I will give you one prime example. It is quite ironic that the Minister of Finance has decided to bring forward a bill that would allow him to create these special operati ng agencies when this same government, not more than a few months ago repealed legislation which created the Manitoba Energy Authority. The Manitoba Energy Authority was a Crown corporation which operated independently on economic development initiatives related to energy in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, one of the arguments given by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), and his colleague, the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), at the time that this agency was disbanded, at the time this legislation was repealed, was the suggestion that this could be done just as easily within the department. That is what they said. They said we can do this just as efficiently in the department. All of the planning functions, all of the operati ng functions can be done in the department, and I argued that was not the case.

I said no, it is the independence of these Crown corporations, agencies like the Manitoba Energy Authority, that allowed it the flexibility to move quickly, responsively to the needs of the private sector partners that it was often working with. • (1 540) The Manitoba Energy Authority, when it was dealing with Dow Coming or Brown Boveri or G.E., when we negotiated an agreement for them to supply the turbines for the Limestone project, operated very efficiently.

It created tremendous advantage for the province of Manitoba, in a way that would not have been possible just simply by using either Manitoba Hydro or the Department of Energy and Mines. So Mr. Speaker, I see a tremendous contradiction in what the government is doing now because, what the government argued only a few months ago, it is now attempting to do by legislation in another venue. It is now saying, oh, the creation of these special operati ng agencies is a good idea. It gives us more flexibility, it gives us more independence.

There is one fundamental difference, however, in what this Minister of Finance is proposing and what we had in place in the case of the Manitoba Energy Authority, and I will tell the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) what that is. In this case, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is basically giving the authority without coming to the Legislature , other than in terms of the principle of establ ishing the bill. The Manitoba Energy Authority was required as a Crown corporation, as other Crown corporations are, to be publicly accountable.

In fact, we have a piece of leg islation requiring that our Crown corporations be publicly accountable and hold public consultation meetings explaining what they are doing. This bill gives the Minister of Finance the authority to appoint whosoever he chooses through an Order-in-Council to operate these special agencies.

The special operating agency is "hereby est ablished as a body corporate consisti ng of one or more persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council." So we are now having a situation where Crown corporations will be appointed by the Minister of Finance-in effect, many Crown corporations-and yet there will not be the same kind of accountability

5007 LEGISL ATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 18 , 19 92 that is deemed to be necessary for our other Crown corporations.

So we have the contradiction of the government arguing on the one hand that MEA and a number of other Crown corporations could be disbanded because the government departments could do these things, and now we have the government saying, well, the government departments actually cannot do these thing s, and we are going to create these new entit ies, and these new entities do not appear to have the same kind of accountability that our Crown corporati ons have under our Crown accountability legislation.

It is not clear, as well, whether the government's agenda in doing this is really the first step to privatizing operati ons of government. We know that the government would like to privatize certain sections of the Department of Gove rnment Services, perhaps the custodial functions, the security functions, and you have to ask the legitimate quest ion of whether this is, in fact, not creati ng little operati ng units within the department on an experimental basis to see whether in fact they can be profit centres .

Of course, then you have to become a little bit suspicious about whether those centres might not be privatized in some future incarnation of Bill 96. Mr. Speaker, I know that in his speech the Minister of Finance said, no, we have consulted with the Manitoba Government Employees' Association. He has indicated that they have approved or at least co-operated in the formation of working groups, parti cularly in the Department of Government Services in creating the Fleet Vehicle Agency Advisory Board. I can tell the minister responsible for Government Services (Mr.

Ducharme) and the minister responsible for this bill that there is some skepticism with respect to the long-t erm purpose of this and whether this is not the thin edge of the wedge in terms of privati zing parts of government agencies. Mr. Speaker, certainly I am not suggesti ng that this bill will allow the government to do that. I think it will take some other measures to do that, but the point is that the government cannot have it both ways.

It cannot argue that it is not necessary to do that with respect to the Manitoba Energy Authority and other agencies and yet say now it is necessary within government departmen ts. We still do not know what agencies within gov er nment may be cre ated. What are this legislation's targets ? The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) menti oned one, th e Aeet Vehicles in the Department of Government Services. What other sections of government departmen ts are the targets for this legislation?

I do not believe for a minute that the government has not developed a plan, that they have not identified a number of pote ntial SOAs, as the minister calls th em, and certainly we would like to know which agencies the government has in mind before we proceed to support this legislatio n. Mr. Speaker, I have one ot her comment with respect to the timing of this legislation . This, in my opinion, could be an extremely contentious piece of legi slat ion. If we can det ermine wh at the government's real intent is, I think It could be quite contenti ous.

I think it may work to undermine much of what many governments over the past number of decades have attem pted to create in the province of Manitoba, government departments with different branches, different services to meet the needs of Manitoba. If we are now through this simple little document beginning the process of privatizati on, then I have some concern. We better have the debate . We had better be very careful about proceeding with ste p one if that is the government's int ention.

H it is the real intention only to stre amline the efficiency of the depart ments, perhaps we can have a look, we can do a pilot project or two and examine the results, but I am not sure, and I am sure there are many people working in government departments across the Civil Service who are not sure about whether that is the intention. So, Mr. Speaker, I wantto say that it is unfortunate that this bill, which was introduced by the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) on June 16 for second reading, is not good enough, that we deserve, I think, a greater period of tim e to review something which, I think, is a significant departure for this Legislature and for government departments and for the people who are employed in those government departments, and it deserves a period of reflection. We have not had that time, Mr. Speaker, because of the agreement to close the session, and I would rather see the government hold this legislati on.

I would rather see the govern ment agree to suspend this until the fall sitting, until we have had a chance to examine a little more closely the government's plans, examine a little more closely the reactions of

June 18 , 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5008 those who might be affected and consider the costs and the benefits of moving in this direction. So, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to let this bill go to committee at this stage, but I put the government on notice that we may, in fact, have some furth er questions and want to further delay consideration of this bill at some point in the very near futu re. Mr. Reg Alcock {Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I will be the only speaker for our party, and we can let this go to committee as soon as I am done. However, I am concerned.

I share the concerns of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie ), although for different reasons. I am somewhat distressed that the Finance minister (Mr. Manness) has not done two things. He has not followed the practice that he followed with his other bills where he provided fairly extensive notes and details as to his intentions with this bill. He introduced it and read it just two days ago. I listened with some care to the remarks put on the record at that time as I was intrigued with the intention of this bill.

I am, in a sense, not concerned for the same reasons as the member for Flin Ron is, because I am not convinced that this is going to produce the kind of str eamlining and efficiencies that the ministe r would wish to produce in any event. I had a lengthy discussion with the Min ister for Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) some time ago about the intentions with the provincial garage.

While on the surface it sounds well and good, I think what the Finance minister is allowing us to do is to give him a fairly sizable blank cheque, so that he can run around and create a series of organizations that are only accountable to him, to take on a variety of tasks within government without much in the way of review by the Legislature or advance discussion with the public. Mr. Speaker, I share some

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-89a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 89a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	939cf6a4c090e78331f084da74315e4d7e0916d1

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