Manitoba Hansard — 6 May 1992 (Sitting 60, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-60

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. 60 • 1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, MAY 6, 1992 Printed by the Offlce of the QUMI'Is Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislatur e Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEE MA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMM INGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, 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, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LA THLIN, 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 ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWC HUK, Rosann CONSTITU ENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

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

3035 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 6, 1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Gerald Swanson, Ronald Gottfried, David Cassidy and others requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider a one-year moratorium on the closure of the Human Resou rces Opportu nity Centre in Selkirk. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable Leader of the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs).

It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? The petition of the undersigned residents of the Pro vince of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Province of Manitoba announced that it would establish an Office of the Children's Advocate in its most recent throne speech and allocated funds for this Office in its March '92 budget; and

WHEREAS the Kimelman Report (1 983), the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry (1 991 ) and the Suche Report (1 992) recommended that the province establish such an office reporting directly to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, in a manner similar to that of the Office of the Om budsman; and

WHEREAS pursuant to the Child and Family Services Act Standards, the agency worker is to be the advocate for a child in care; and

WHEREAS there is a major concern that child welfare workers, due to their vested interest as employees within the service system, cannot perform an independent advocacy role; and

WHEREAS pure advocacy will only be obtained through an independent and external agency; and

WHEREAS the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshamm er) has unsatisfactorily dealt with complaints lodged against child welfare agencies; and

now THEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strongly urge the provincial government to consider establishing an Office of the Children's Advocate which will be independent of cabinet and report directly to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Human Resources Opportunity Office has operated in Selkirk for over 21 years providing training for the unemployed and people re-entering the labour force; and

WHEREAS during the past 10 years alone over 1 ,000 trainees have gone through the program gaining valuable skills and training; and

WHEREAS upwards of 80 percent of the training centre's recent graduates have found employment; and

WHEREAS without consultation the program was cut in the 19 92 provincial budget forcing the centre to close; and WHERE AS there is a growing need for this program in Selkirk and the program has the support of the town of Selkirk, the Selkirk local of the Manitoba Metis Federation as well as many other local organizations and individuals. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gi lle sham mer) to consider a one-year moratorium on the program. • (1 335)

3036 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA May 6, 1992 PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMI 'rr EES Mr. Bob Rose (Chairperson of the Standing Commit tee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Com mittee on Pub lic Utilities and Nat u ral Resources presents the following as its Third Report.

Your committee met on Thursday, Oecember 6, 19 90, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the year ended March 31 , 19 90. Your committee also met on Tuesday, May 5, 199 2, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Reports of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the years ended March 31 , 1990, and March 31 , 19 91 . At the December 6, 19 90, meeting, Mr. Brian Ransom , Chai rperson , Mr. Robert Brennan, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mr.

Ralph Lambert, Executive Vice President, provided such information as was requested with respect to the 19 90 Annual Report and business of the Manitoba Energy Authority. At the May 5, 19 92, meeting, Mr. Charlie Curtis, Chief Executive Officer, provided such information as was requested with respect to the 1990 and 19 91 Annual Reports and business of the Manitoba Energy Authority. Your comm ittee has considered the Annual Reports of the Manitoba Energy Authority for the years ended March 31 , 1990, and March 31 , 19 91 , and has adopted the same as presented. All of which is submitted. Mr. Rose: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the honour abl e memb er for St. Norber t (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 82- The Farm Practices Protecti on and Consequent ial Amendments Act Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 82, The Farm Practices Pr otection and Consequential Amendm ents Act;

Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agricoles et apportant des modifications correla tives a d'autres lois, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, having been advised of the content s of this bil l, recommends itto the House, and I would like to table the message from His Honour. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have with us this afternoon from the State of Iowa, 43 visitors from the West Branch High School Band.

They are under the direction of Corrine Grubar. On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Free Trade Agree ment Employment Creation Statistics Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the OpposHion): Mr. Speaker, in 19 88, the Premier of Manitoba met with the Premier of Quebec, Premier Bourassa, and discussed, amongst other things, the proposed Free Trade Agreement with Canada and the USA.

Both the Premier of Manitoba and the Premier of Quebec supported the Free Trade Agreement with the United States as it was worded and as it was conceived, and both Premier s went on to praise the virtues of the Free Trade Agreement. Since that time, Mr. Speaker, Winnipeg has gone from an unemployment rate in October of 198 8 of 8.1 to 12. 4 percent and Montreal has gone from 9.3 to 1 3.7 percent. Ob viously, Canada has been in the recession longer than the United States, was in earlier, and the recession has been deeper.

The Premier promised this province, based on his empirical studies, between 10,000 and 15 ,000 new jobs because of this proposed agreement. I would ask the Premier whether tomorrow he will be sharing with the Premier of Quebec the successes and failures of the Free Trade Agreement. Can the Pr emier share with us today how many jobs have

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 3037 been created, based on his promise in this Legislature in 198 8? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): The Leader of the Opposition does not choose his times for questions very delicately, given the presence of our American friends in the gallery, Mr. Speaker. I say that I can neither give him figures as to job losses nor job gains that are specifically as a result of the Free Trade Agreement with the United States.

I can give him figures with respect to job losses all over the world, with respect to the recession that has unfortunately plagued and damaged the economies of countries and cities everywhere in the world. * (1 340) Every figure that he gives with respect to increases in unemployment can also be given with respectto American cities, with respect to European cities, with respect to cities throughout the world. If he is trying to make some argument based on those figures, I say that the figures do not tell the story, Mr. Speaker. North American Free Trade Agreement Public Hearings Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Premier that the eminent senator from Iowa, Thomas Harkin, has used the Canadian-U.S. experience to be one of the opponents of the extension of the free trade agreement with Mexico, and I would acknowledge the great work and analysis done by the senator from Iowa in terms of the Premier 's comments. A further question to the Premier. Right now, Mr.

Speaker, we have reports out of Washington, out of Mexico, out of Canada, that a tentative trade agreement, an extension of a trade agreement, a Canada-U.S. trade agreement, will be extended to a North American free trade agreement with Mexico. The Pr emier has already-and I use a gentle term-a mended his position from being no to the proposed free trade agreement with Mexico, to be a conditional position with the free trade negotiations, six conditions the Premier has set down.

In light of the fact that this will affect, through United States and Mexico, a tremendous amount of trade between our three countries, in light of all the industries and people who could be negatively affected by these secret negotiations: Will the Premier now agree to amend his government's six conditions and place as one of the conditions the right of the public of Manitoba to see the agreement, to discuss the agreement, to discuss the winners and losers of the agreement before this government takes a final position on this agreement? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, yes, this government has operated in a sense of looking at an issue with an open mind and looking at an issue with respect to the benefits and the concerns of the people of Manitoba being placed first and foremost on the agenda, as opposed to the Leader of the Opposition who operates from blind ideology. He starts out saying, I am opposed to this agreement, now tell me what is in it. I am absolutely totally, completely, unconditionally opposed; but, on the other hand, let me see it because I better find out a little bit about it to find out why I am opposed. Well, Mr.

Speaker, we do not operate from that kind of blind ideology. We do not operate from that embracing of ignorance that the Leader of the Opposition does. We have put down six conditions under which we say an agreement would be beneficial to the people of Manitoba and the people of Canada. If and only if those six conditions are met, then we believe that there is merit obviously in ensuring that Manitoba does benefit, that Canada does benefit, that we get jobs and investment.

That is why we put those conditions forward, and that is why we are analyzing it from an open-mind viewpoint, not from a viewpoint of blind ideology like the Leader of the Oppos ition. Mr. Doer: I would remind the Premier that it was he who stated clearly and unequivocally, and we have the tape from the Leaders' debate in August 199 0, where he said no to a free trade agreement with Mexico, N-0. So the Premier has flip-flopped his position to the six conditions.

Now the Premier has produced an "empirical" study on the ba sis of Mani toba 's indus try, Manitoba's workers on the proposed winners and losers in this agreement. If he wants the people of Manitoba to have the same open view of this proposed agreement, why does he not make his own study public? Why does he not make his own response to the Government of Canada public?

Why does he not expand one of the six conditions to make it absolutely imp er ative that this government and this Premier will not approve the agreement until and unless all the people of Manitoba have had the chance to have the same open public discussion on the winners and losers in this agreement? A very simple request.

3038 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 Mr. Fllmon: The Leader of the Opposition does not seem to understand that an international trade agreement is not within the jurisdiction of this Legislature or this provincial government. It is totally-{interjection) Mr. Speaker: Order, please. * (1 345) Mr.

FIImon: We have been asked for advice by the Government of Canada, and we have given the advice very openly, publicly, there to see for the Leader of the Opposition, for all Manitobans, that we believe a trading agreement amongst Canada, United States and Mexico would be acceptable if six conditions were met. We have been very open about it, and we have put it forward in a way that many provinces have not. Many provinces have not put any evaluation on the table, any conditions, any consideration.

We have been open from Day One, saying these are the conditions under which we think a trading arrangement would be beneficial to Manitobans. We recognize, Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition obviously cannot understand, and that is, the final decision is totally within the purview, totally within the jurisdiction, of the Government of Canada-{interjection] Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition still cannot understand. Our six conditions are put as advice to the Government of Canada saying what conditions should prevail in order to make an agreement that is beneficial to Manitoba.

Racism Investigations Polle e Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First Minister. The AJI report said, quote: Racism played a

part in the shooting of J.J. Harper and the events that followed. Partially for that reason and for a variety of other reasons, two em inent judges in the report recommended that an independent body should investigate all instances of serious police action and/or shootings. Early this morning, tragically, the RCMP were involved in a shooting. While no one suggests that this sh ooti ng was no t jus tified un der the circumstances and does not appear to be racist in nature, Mr. Speaker, nonetheless, the Medical Exa miner has call ed for an indep endent investigation of the RCMP shooting.

I would li ke to ask the Pr emier : Will he immediately move to set up an independent body to investigate matters of this kind in line with the recommendations of the two judges from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, you know, I regret that the critic for the opposition is attempting to prey on and utilize an unfortunate death as- Point of Order Mr. Chomlak: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. He is imputing motives. On a matter of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, the Premier is implying motive on the part of this member.

I suggested a scenario yesterday to the Premier of an event just like this. The Premier ignored it, and tragically, it occurred last night- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. *** Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I did not igno re yesterday's question; I took it as notice. The Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), as the member knows full well, is representing Manitoba at a constitutional affairs ministers' meeting. Ob viously, I could not com e back with a response to yesterday's question. He, himself, acknowledged the incident that he referred to in his

preamble was neither racist, nor did it appear as though there were wrongdoing on the part of the RCMP. Yet, because a death occurred, he used that as the

preamble to sensationalize his question, and I object to that. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On a point of order, our rules are very clear that members should not cast aspersions or attribute unworthy motives to other members, Mr. Speaker. It is quite within the normal traditions of this House for the member to have asked a very serious question, to ask it based on an actual event and other events that have occurred, to ask the government for action. The First Minister has no right to attribute any unworthy motives to our Justice critic for fighting for justice in this province.

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 3039 Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): On the same point of order, certainly no aspersions were cast, and furthermore, I heard the words of the Premier, the First Minister. He said it was unfortunate that the member opposite chose to put the question in the fashion that he did. Certainly that cannot be out of order. Every member of this House has an opportunity to pass their personal view as to why somebody opposite has made a presentation of their question or indeed their answer. The First Minister has done that; nothing is out of order, Mr.

Speaker, and I hope you would rule in that fashion. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, I will peruse Hansard, and I will return back to the House with a ruling. * (1 350) RCMP Shooting Independ ent Invest igation Request Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I will again address my question that I asked in the first instance to the Premier. I did not have to put in the

preamble, and I could have left it without the

preamble describing the circumstances, but I was afraid the Premier was unaware- Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Mr. Chomlak: My supplementary to the Premier is: What will this government do to implement the recommendations of the Medical Examiner who, in this case, independently recommended that a separate body investiga te the shooting that occurred last night? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, because this matter falls within the purview of the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I think it is only fair and reasonable that he be involved in any recommendation or decision with respect to this item.

As soon as he is able to return to the province from his duties as Constitutional Affairs minister, I know that is a matter that he will want to deal with. Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report Recommendations Mr. Dave Chomlak (K IIdonan): I would just like to ask the Premier one final question.

Why has it taken 1 0 months for the government to respond to a recommendation that was put down 10 months ago and could easily have been implemented and could have prevented a lot of this kind of duplication and ad hockery having to occur on the part of this provincial government, which has not moved on any recommendations, basically, in this report? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, not only has this government given a comprehensive response to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry and undertaken to implement and address many of the recommendations of that inquiry, but we have proceeded toward imp lemen tation of those recommenda tions by setting up consu ltative mechanisms. I, myself, met about a week ago with representatives of three of the major abori ginal organizations in our province and then last Friday with the Manitoba Metis Federation, to discuss the implementation phase of the recommendations that we have undertaken to address. We are indeed addressing those recommendations.

I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) will want to further address the specific question that the member has placed. Misericordia Hospital Mental Health Care Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Mr. Speaker, today the Urban Hospital Council released its final recommendations on the Mental Health Services in regard to Misericordia General Hospital. We in the Liberal Party welcome this general thrust and the bold step to start moving the resources from the institution to the community. That has been our policy as of 19 88. One condition must be met.

The condition is that the mental health services in the institutions must be replaced at the community level. My question is to the Minister of Health. We spend $212 million on Mental Health Services each year, 87 percent of that is spent on institutional care and only 13 percent on community-based care. We are only dealing with 21 beds at the Misericordia Hospital.

Can the minister tell us when we will finally see a complete package of mental health reform to make sure that the changes that the minister promised in 19 88 and 19 90 will be met and people can have some comfort that we are seeing major changes in the mental health system? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for the

3040 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 question, and I fully acknowledge the consistency with which he has approached the process of reform of the mental health system. I think it is fair to say, Sir, that today's report-that I have accepted from the Urban Hospital Council with recommendations specific to the acute patient bed capacity at Misericordia Hospital in terms of their services for those mentally ill Manitobans-<:an signify a first step of the move of the resource from Institution to community-based services. Mr.

Speaker, I and my colleagues in government will very, ver y dil igently co n.sider the recommendations of the Urban Hospital Council. I simply indicate to my honourable friend that we will accept them if we believe that we can successfully achieve, in this case, a successful move from institution to community with full provision and protection of quality services to those mentally ill Manitobans currently accessing the inpatient services. Urban Hospital Council Mental Health Care Recommendations Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): The minister's deputy minister is the chairperson of this Urban Hospital Council. Mr.

Speaker, can the minister tell this House which recommendation the minister is going to accept because these are the recommendations that the minister has been talking about for the last two years that we want to see? The people in the area of the Misericordia Hospital will have some comfort if there is a clear direction from the Department of Health. * (1 355) Hon. Don ald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, clearly I have indicated that in other opportunities when questions have come up about how we will handle recommendations from the Urban Hospital Council, I do not intend to take a great deal of time accepting this report and advancing government's decision around the report.

My honourable friend will be aware that there is estimated a nine-month time period, in which if government were to accept and implement this recommendation, that we could reasonably expect to have the alternate services in the community and at other areas of service delivery in place so that we can test the system of providing services in the community which were formerly provided in an institutional setting. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, according to the minister's own wording, the vital consultation has been done for four years.

Many committees have been set and the Regional Mental Health Council has been actively involved, and the minister has been in touch with this committee through his Deputy Minister of Health. It is very important- Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Mr. Cheema: -that the mini ster and this department must send a clear message. Can the minister tell us finally which of these 12 recommendations are not acceptable, because that will clearly send a message- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, that is exactly what I intend to clearly enunciate after consu ltation through government process with cabinet and caucus colleagues, because this is not a decision of the Minister of Health. This will be a decision of government, hopefully fitting the pattern of reform that this government has endorsed in discussion papers in 1 988, an action plan in 199 2, and in the ongoing process that we believe in as government that services can be shifted from institution to community. Mr.

Speaker, I simply Indicate to my honourable friend that if this government has comfort that these recommendations fit the policy directions that we have endorsed and advanced and have substantial supp ort throughout Manitoba for, then these recommendations will be accepted and advanced, Sir. Health Care System Reform Government Agenda Ms. Jud y Wasy lycla-Lels (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, we share many of the frustrations outlined by the member for The Maples this afternoon with respect to health care reform.

The paper released today on psychiatric services we saw last January when the minister released it as a final document of the Urban Hospital Council group. We saw that same document last October when it was first part of a letter that the deputy minister disseminated.

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 3041 Mr. Speaker, we would like to know: When do the photo opportunities, the repeat performances and the paper chases end and the action begin? Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, tha t is exactly the process tha t government is on, and that is exactly the consistent approach of consultation in the community and acceptance of plans for change in the community that we have em barked up on consistently, diligently, with the advice of experts across the length and breadth of the community providing and receiving health care services.

I only ask my honourable friend in the New Democr atic Pa rty to be cons istent in her advancement of positive recommendations when we make them, instead of trying to, from time to time, play both sides of the issue, depending on who is listening. Urban Hospital Council Specialty Nursing Recommendations Ms. Jud y Wasylycla-Lels {St. Johns ): Mr. Speaker, the documents he released today are final reports that were released in January. So he has reannounced the re-release of the same- Mr. Speaker: Or der, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, kindly put your question. Ms.

Wasylycla-Lels: My second question, Mr. Speaker, relates to the study on specialty training for nurses. I would like to ask the minister, since he had the final report of this working group at least since January of 1 992 on specialty nursing, why did he not act then so that the internationally renowned emergency nursing program could have been saved and could have been put on track for the beginning of this coming education year? • (1 400) Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, I do not know how to do this nicely, but my honourable frie nd-and you realize, Sir, my honourable friend, I have an image to protect. My honourable friend simply has not presented accurate information to this House. The task force investigating both specialty nursing training and psychiatric bed closures at Misericordia Hospital and the vesting of those services to community base have been before the Urban Hospital Council for their consideration, feedback process.

My honourable friend might be interested in noting that there was discussion since January with the affected facilities, getting their response back, Sir. Now, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend says I had the report since January. That is false, Sir. The task force reports have been at the Urban Hospital Council, and today, Sir, the Urban Hospital Councii- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minis ter of Health to withdraw that comment, because in fact it is imputing motive and it is contrary to his own January 15 press release- Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Orchard: Yes, I am going to respond to the question, Sir. Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister has responded to the question. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Ali i can say, Mr. Speaker, is the ego has landed. Mr. Speaker : Question? Order, please. The honourable member for St. Johns, kindly put your question now, please. Health Care System Reform Govern ment Agenda Ms. JudyWasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): I would like to know, Mr.

Speaker, when Frank Maynard writes to the Minister of Health as chairperson of the Urban Hospital Council: Will he be writing back to himself when he drafts the response as Deputy Minister of Health? Is this not a conflict of interest? When will this minister straighten out this messy situation? Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it becomes abundantly apparent with every yelling match my honourable friend gets in, the extreme dilemma that I have in trying to soar as an eagle when I am working with turkeys.

My honour able friend the critic for the New Democratic Party has offered, from time to time, to work with govern ment, Sir, but every time

3042 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 government develops an agenda of action and a plan with some process, some consultation to it, my honourable friend then says, well, you have taken too long to consult. Then, from time to time, when we make a decision, my honourable friend stands up and says you have not consulted enough. Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to get consistency from what this working arrangement my honourable friend was wishing to provide to me as Minister of Health and the people of Manitoba, and I would invite her at any time to try soaring with eagles. Mr.

Speaker: I am sure the honourable minister's remarks were not attributed to anybody, but I would ask all honourable members to pick and choose your words very carefully for the watching public. Odometer Tampering Minister's Opinion Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is to the Minister of Consumer and Corpor ate Affairs.

On February 25, the Minister of Consumer Affairs boasted to the local media that there was no problem with odometer tampering in this province, directly contradicting the RCMP, who at that time had already charged one person with six counts and announced that further charges were pending. In fact, the RCMP stated that there was a very serious problem, so widespread that some officers now spend more time under the hood of suspect cars than at their desks. Today, a further 21 charges were announced- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Kindly put your question now, please. Mr.

Maloway: Could the minister tell the House whether she still disagrees with the RCMP on this issue? Hon. Albert Driedger (Mini ster of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the jurisdiction of odome ters is mo re in my dep artment than Consumer and Corporate Affairs. We both have a role to play in this. I want to indicate to you that we have had dialogue with the RCMP who have raised the concern with us that that seems to be an ongoing and escalating problem.

By working together, myself, together with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister responsible for Autopac in terms of developing certain proposals, we want to bring forward eventually to try and deal with the prob lem. Odometer Tampering RCMP Report Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Now that the Minister of Consumer Affairs has been cut off- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable memb er for El mwood , kindly put you r supplementary question now, please. Mr.

Maloway: My supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is: If the minister is now concerned about this issue, will she release the RCMP report on odometers that she has been sitting on since February? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minis ter of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I must clarify, first of all, that I was not cut off at the knees. When I received the RCMP . report which I had requested when the issue came up many months ago, that report was prepared and forwarded to me.

The RCMP in that report indicated suggestions they had that fell under the purview of my honourable collea gue, the Minis ter of Hi ghways and Transportation, not as the member for Elmwood has indicated, under the purview of The Consumer Protection Act which he is trying to amend which is not the act the RCMP want amended. Therefore, I have turned the report over to the Minister of Highways and Transportation who is the lead minister, because odometers correctly, as he points out, do come under his jurisdiction. Odometer Tampering RCMP Report Mr.

Jim Mal oway (El mwoo d) : My final supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh) is this. Is the minister sitting on this report in an attempt to hide its contents? Can the minister confirm that the report outlines- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Hon. Albert Driedger (Minis ter of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I think it is offensive the approach that the member has taken here. He has raised legitimate questions. We have tried to answer that and want to indicate the accusations of hiding a report-it was not a report.

It was a letter that was sent to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and we are working with that.

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 3043 I would suggest that the member straighten out his facts before he makes accusations in this House. Social Assistance Food Allowance Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have worked very hard in this party at trying to support the Minister of Health and other ministries, when they have moved toward a co-ordinated approach to prevention, because we believe that, in the long term, will do more to cut costs in health care than any other single decision made by this or any other government, no matter what political stripe. Mr.

Speaker, I am bec oming increasingly concerned that there is not a co-ordinated approach being taken in the cabinet of the Premier with respect to prevention. We have study after study, one today out from the U.S. government which indicates clearly the relationship between good nutrition and the cost of health. The poorer the nutrition, the increase dramatically in the costs of looking after both adults and children. Will the Minister of Health please tell this House how he believes the decision being taken by the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) to cut the food budgets of those living on social assistance will maintain a quality of health, let alone lead to its deterioration, which all the studies would indicate it will do? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of my honourable friend's

preamble, I simply indicate to her that we have significantly increased the budget and the rates for social assistance in the province of Manitoba. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the City of Winnipeg, with 89 percent of social welfare recipients, gives more money for food than the Province of Manitoba, in its municipal rate. The province is suggesting that we go to the municipal rate and not to the City of Winnipeg rate. That will mean a savings to the province of $5.6 million and cuts in food to 89 percent of the social recipients in the Province of Manitoba.

Will the Minister of Health tell me how that is consistent with good nutrition and prevention of major health problems? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, at a time when inflation is less than 2 percent and food costs in Manitoba, because of our competitive sales environment through competition from grocers large and small, our food costs are amongst the lowest in Canada.

At that time, with inflation less than 2 percent, food costs growing less than 2 percent, we increased the social assis tance rates by, I bel ieve , 4 point-something percent, more than double the inflation rate, to make sure that the necessary food and shelter costs are covered to the best of the ability of the taxpayers of Manitoba. We have demonstrated significantly greater generosity than provinces immediately surrounding us, Sir. •

(1410) Manitoba Uquor Control Commmlsslon Feta l Alcohol Syndrome Warnings Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, obviously the Department of Family Services and the Department of Health are not working in a co-ordinated way to guarantee good nutrition. Point of Order Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I am not wanting to make a big issue of this, but I would ask you to refer to Beauchesne 409, Rule 12. It says, "Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the debate: Mr.

Speaker, I indicated to the House leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Lamoureux) that Bill 70, the basis of the question put forward by the Leader of the Second Opposition, will be scheduled for debate today. It is a small point, but nevertheless it is in keeping with our rules. Mrs. Carstalrs: Bill 70 deals with a one-tier system. The decision, not in legislation, that will be made by the cabinet deals with the rates. That is not part of Bill 70. We have no difficulty with the one-tiered system in Bill 70. What we have difficulty with is a government making a decision to roll back monies for food. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, many similar questions similar to the question asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) have been asked and have been ruled in order previously. The government House leader is correct if he is talking about debate taking place in terms of Question Period. Ob viously, that is not according to

3044 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 our rules. Indeed I believe the questions asked by the Liberal Leader were certainly in keeping with the general tradition of fairly general questions that relate somewhat to Bill 70. Certainly, It is an implication of Bill 70, of capping of rates, and we will get into that debate. It goes further into the question of policy in terms of welfare rates generally and the co-ordination between the two departments. In that sense the question was, I would suggest, totally in order. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised, I had no way of knowing that the honourabl� member's questions, indeed, were anticipating debate on Bill 70. Yet I still do not know if the honourable member's questions focus In directly on Bill 70. So I would simply ask the honourable Leader of the second opposition party to rephrase her question slightly. *** Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, let me ask a third question which does not in any way shape or form touch on Bi1170, so that the sensibilities ofthe House leader will not be affected. Mr.

Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for the Liquor Control Commission. In terms of prevention, one of the serious issues is fetal alcohol syndrome. The cost of looking after such a child in the health care budget can amount to $21 million over a lifetime. Can the minister tell me why she has not been willing to accept the suggestion of this party to put signs in Liquor Comm ission outlets warning pregnant women that drinking during a pregnancy can create fetal alcohol syndrome? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister charged with the admini stration of The Liquor Control Act): Mr.

Speaker, I share the member's concern about fetal alcohol syndrome. It is something that has been discussed with the people at the Liquor Control Commission. We do have pamphlets available on fetal alcohol syndr ome, which I understand will be made available in the liquor stores so that those who come in to purchase liquor can be made aware of that particular syndrome and the effects that alcohol can have on pregnant women. The idea of posters has been looked into. It has not been totally discarded. The effectiveness of posters versus other forms of education is something that is being discussed.

I thank her for her interest on that very serious topic. Annual Water and Waste Water School Government Support Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, there is much concern about the province about this government's regulation of water treatment and drinking water safety. Yet this government Is withdrawing its involvement In the training of the operators that monitor and regulate the lagoons and sewage treatment in the province. They are elimina ting the program without ensuring Manitobans that there is going to be any replacement system.

In light of this, I would like to ask the minister: What system Is being put in place to ensure that mishaps are prevented as much as possible from ensuring that operators are properly trained? Hon. Glen Cummings (Mini ster of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the answer that I gave yesterday was correct, and I would like to re-emphasize that answer. I have just dou ble-checked with my department and the next water and waste water school is definitely not cancelled. The Department of Environment is anxious to work with the association. We have suggested that we will provide the expertise.

We will provide personnel to help with the programs, but because it is being run through the association we have asked that the association do some of the organizing that is behind it, and there will be a waste water school. Water and Waste Water Management Certification Program Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Will the minister also respond to the concerns of the association by moving toward, as other provinces in the country have, a certificate program in a community college or other educational institution to ensure that these operators are properly certified? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.

Speaker, in fact that is one of the options that we are discussing with the association. We would like to see a certification program in this province, possibly at the Red River Community College.

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 3045 Ms. Cerllll: I would ask the minister who is going to be involved in developing the new system that is being put in place in this province, and will there be any involvement of multi-stakeholders' expertise from universities, other people in the industry, so that we do not have a select- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr. Cummings: Obviously the member has been talking to someone in the association who is moving very much in the same direction we are, because all of those questions, I believe, the answer is yes. Rep ap Manitoba Inc.

Renegotiations Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): My question is for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). Over two months ago the minister announced that the provincial government deal with Repap would be renegotiated after Repap had expressed some very serious concerns about the viability of the original plans. While September 1 is the deadline for those negotiations to be finished, residents of The Pas are becoming increasingly anxious. My question is: What is the status of those negotiations? Can the minister report to the Legislature and the people of The Pas today as to what progress has been made to date? Hon.

Clayton Man ness (Minis ter of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I can report there have been two meetings as between represen tatives of the provincial gove rnment and senior principals of Repap. Cer tainly we ha ve developed a signi ficant framework towards renegotiation, and I ask the member and all Manitobans to watch carefully the developments and also to give input from time to time. It is very important to the well-being, not only of the province but certainly of The Pas and district, and I would hope that we would have the support of the members opposite and specifically the member for The Pas (Mr.

Lathlin) to work towards an agreement that is acceptable to all. Certainly the economic well-being of the district which the member represents significantly depends upon an agreement that is acceptable to all. Mr. Lathlln: Could I also ask the minister if he has also met with the communities of Cross Lake, Norway House and Moose lake respecting the renegotiation of the Repap deal, because he has met with representatives of Swan River and, I believe, The Pas. Has he done the same for Norway House? Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, we have met with the bands of The Pas and Moose Lake.

I have not met with the other three bands which the member indicates. Part of the-1 will not say the difficulty-but one of the first issues obviously has to be the size and the scope as to where Repap and the province want to take this renegotiated facility. Once some definition can be given to that particular part, that time I think would be a better time then to include the communities of Cross Lake and Norway House. The Pas, Manitoba Civil Service Positions Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr.

Speaker, since there have been major layoffs in both the public and private sectors in The Pas, I will again respectfully ask this government, throug h the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that as a matter of urgency to listen to the people of The Pas and place a moratorium on layoffs in the public sector in The Pas. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I know what it is the member wishes, but this government, unfortunately, cannot provide a moratorium to decisions within any area of gove rnm ent, indeed, with any region of the province.

Budgetary decisions have been made and they impact, of course, on a number of departments, and we will expect the implementation of the impacts. But let me point out, it seems to me that the impact on individuals, as a result of our last budget, is less than 30 people. So the impact-{interjection] Sorry? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. *

(1420) Mr. Manness: Nobody said 30 in The Pas-30 as a result of the budget across the province, 17,500 Civil Service, Mr. Speaker. So I would have to say that the impact is not going to be significant in any region of our province, Mr. Speaker. So I say to the member, I do not think a moratorium as such to address the specific region

3046 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 of The Pas would not satisfy the decisions of government which indeed have been supported by the members of this House by way of the support of the budget. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing Com mittee on Pub lic Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: St; James (Mr. Edwards) for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). [Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for St. James (Mr.

Edwards), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follo ws : The memb er for Ink ste r (Mr. Lamoureux) for the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). [Agreed] Nonpolitical Statements Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr. Speaker, do I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] This morning at a ceremony at Air Command headquarters In Winnipeg, the Victoria Cross awarded to a Manitoba hero was placed on display. Stonewall native lieutenant Allan Mcleod was flying his biplane over enemy territory when he was attacked by eight triplanes.

Mcleod's piloting skills allowed his observer to shoot down three of the attackers. At one point, the 18 -year-old climbed out on the wing of his plane in order to keep the flames from his plane away from his observer. He managed to bring the aircraft to a rough landing. Despite being wounded five times, lieutenant Mcleod dodged heavy machine gunfire from the ground to pull his observer from the wreckage. Allan Mcleod was wounded again by a bomb blast and finally collapsed once he knew his observer was safe. The teenager arrived home to a hero's welcome September 30, 19 18 .

Ironically, he died six weeks later of influenza. Today I rise to salute the memory of a Manitoba hero. His heroism serves as an inspiration to this day. I also encourage all Manitobans to take the opportunity to view the Victoria Cross exhibit at the Air Comm and headquarters. Thank you , Mr. Speaker. *** Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] Mr. Speaker, tomorrow Dr. Henry Friesen will be honoured by his colleagues and all Manitobans.

For the last 19 years, he has been the head of the Department of Physiology as well as a Professor of Medicine at the University of Manitoba. Dr. Friesen is leaving to take up his new post as the president of the Medical Research Council of Canada, a real honour for a very distinguished man. Dr. Friesen is an internationally known medical scientist and educator. He is a native of Morden, Manitoba, who graduated from the University of Manitoba with his medical degree in 19 58 and became a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1 966.

He is a specialist in endocrinology, widely known for his directing the research and clinical trials into the effectiveness of using human growth hormone. Mr. Speaker, during his distinguished career, Dr. Friesen has held numerous university positions as well as serving on national and international committees. He is currently completing a two-year term as the president of the National Cancer Ins tit ute . Dr. Friesen has more than 400 publications to his credit and has received many honours for his research. He is a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, and was named an Officer of the Order of Canada in 19 87.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Legislative Assembly and myself, I would like to extend my best wishes to Dr. Henry Friesen. Also, I am sure all Canadians and all the members of this House will join with me in wishing him all the best and also saying that he has done very good for the people of Manitoba. The people of Manitoba will always remember his dedication and his work in this province. Hon. Donald Orchard (Mini ster of Health): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] Mr. Speaker, I have to join with my honourable friend the member for The Maples (Mr.

Cheema) in recognizing Dr. Friesen. His contribution to health research in Manitoba is probably second to none. That has been recognized by his elevation to national leadership. I think that all of us in Manitoba

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3047 can take great pride in having a Manitoban so recognized nationally. It is deserving recognition for Dr. Friesen. He has been a very, very excellent-! am not looking for the word-defe nder is the wrong word-advocate of Manitoba and the excellence of research in the medical community that we can undertake in this province. He has been a significant contributor to that excellence over the past. That leadership in Manitoba is now going to work to the benefit of all Canada with his recent promotion and selection. I join with the member for Maples (Mr.

Cheema) in congratulating Dr. Friesen. I simply also say that it is yet another example of southern Manitoba and ru ral Mani toba developing jus t absolutely preeminent and excellent leaders in many fields of endeavour, Dr. Friesen having been born in Morden, Manitoba and growing up in rural Manitoba and elevated now to the national scene. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a nonpol itical statement? [Agreed) We would like to add our congratulations to Dr. Friesen and to wish him well in his new position.

I think one of the important things that we should recognize, that his achievements recognize, is the role of universities in research. Dr. Friesen, in particular, has brought tremendous honours to the University of Manitoba and to the university system in the whole province. He has brought enormous amounts of research money to the university, and I think we should not ignore the straightforward economic impact that has had upon our province.

We recognize, too, in his translation to a position to the director of the national research council for medical research, that this is a very important position, not just for Manitoba's economic renewal and its attempt to find new concentrations of industrial and medical research-it is going to be important for us in that way-but also because I think it recognizes the importance of having active researchers in the directorships and in leadership positions in national granting agencies.

I think those people who are involved in medical research across the country certainly are welcoming the appoi ntmen t of an activ e, prod uctive and internationally known researcher to the Medical Research Council. We are very pleased that he is also a Manitoban. We recognize the loss to our province but also the gain to the nation. *

(1430) Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: The member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for St. Rose du Lac (Mr. Cummings); the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for SturgeonCreek (Mr. McAipine);them ember for Riel (Mr. Ducharme) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose); and the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson). [Agreed) I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The member for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh) for the member for Morris (Mr. Manness). [Agreed) Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities be amended as follows: the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for the member for Flin Ron (Mr. Storie). Mr.

Speaker, I also move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be amended as follows: the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin). [Agreed) ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, before I give the listing of bills on House Business, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Private Bills will meet Tuesday, May 12, 10 a.m., Room 255, to consider Bill 39, The Salvation Army Grace General Hospital Incorporation Amendment Act. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable government House leader for that information. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, would you call the bills in the following order: for second reading, Bills 76,

3048 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 79, 80 and 81 , followed by adjourned debate, Bills 9, 1 0, 12 , 15 , 21 , 43 and 70? Is there a willingness to waive private members' hour? Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? Leave? No? Leave is denied. SECOND READINGS Bill 76- The Pension Benefits Ame ndme nt Act Hon. Darren Praznlk {Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by my colleague the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns ) , that Bill 76, The Pension Be nefits Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les prestations de pension, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, I certainly enjoy this opportunity to lead off some debate on this very important piece of legislation.

Firstly, let me say that the contents of this bill which amends The Pension Benefits Act were largely the design of the Manitoba Pension Commission who were asked a year or so ago to undergo a very thorough review of our pension legislation, which they have conducted with much public consultation and consultation with the various interest groups in the pension community. Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is no surprise to many members of this House that private pension plans in this province are indeed facing a very critical time.

A growth in regulation of those particular plans over a number of decades, combined with other options for saving for retirement, have led to the situation today where we have seen a dramatic decline in the number of private pension plans registered in our province. In 19 88, there were approximately 850 plans registered with the Manitoba Pension Commission. Today there are less than 600. I am advised by our staff and the Pension Commission that plan wind-ups are some four times greater than new plans being registered, and the vast majority of that decline has come in the area of private pension plans.

In fact, a concern that I have as minister, that unless we are able to overturn this trend in the pension community within a very short period of time the only pension plans that will be operative in our province will be those in the public sector. Mr. Speaker, the pension plan has been a tremendous vehicle for allowing people to set aside wealth during their earning years for and to allow it to be saved, protected from taxation, and to allow them to draw it In their retirement years.

In fact, I think most members of this House would agree that if we look at how far we came in the last 20-30 years in developing pension plans-end I would like to congratulate all those who worked toward those changes and promoting pension plans and negotiating them at the bargaining table-we see today a retired community in our province, indeed throughout the country, that is far better off because of their pension plans than any other time, I would think, in the history of our province and country, senior citizens have been.

The object of the Pension Commission's work was to re-examine our regulatory scheme to update it, to ensure that the pension product that was on the market or could be on the market was a product that people looking to get into pension plans were prepared to purchase and to organize. Let me not understate that problem where we have seen this continual decline in the number of pension plans. We have in Manitoba some 850 in 19 88 to less than 600 today and wind-ups at a rate of four times greater than registrations. I think that has to be a concern to all of us. Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite raises the issue of RRSPs, obviously in the federal area of taxation. We cannot address all the problems of taxation and pensions, but I think it is incumbent upon us as legislators to have a Pension Benefits Act in Manitoba that allows for the pension products to be developed that the marketplace people looking to develop pension plans require and want so that we are competitive in our pension plans with other saving vehicles that are out there over which we have no control. * (1 440) Mr.

Speaker, just again by way of background, the Pension Commission of Manitoba developed a consultation document called the Promotion of Pension Plans in Manitoba which they released publicly back, I believe in the early part of 19 91 , in February of 19 91 . They began their public hearing process in May of 19 91 in which interested groups

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3049 and individuals were invited to respond to the discussion paper. Twenty formal presentations were made, and over 40 formal written submissions were received by the Pension Com mission. Following that input, the document was revised to reflect many of the recommendations that were made to the commission. A series of letters went out to, again, interested parties in the pension community enclosing the revised document, and the Pension Comm ission held another round of opportunities for people to make submissions on the revised document.

Over 22 formal written submissions were received in response to the revised document. Mr. Speaker, the highlights of the proposals that we are bringing forward to the Legislature at this time are several, and I would like to take the House through them at this particular point in my remarks. One vehicle, the first highlight would be the creation of life income funds. This legislation proposes that members of plans be of defined contribution or money-purchase pension plans, and Manitobans with pension funds in locked-in RRSPs have this vehicle of a life annuity from an insurance company.

Retiring members would be able to purchase a life income fund from any approved financial institution. The objective of the life income fund is to give members of these plans more control and flexibility over their retirement capital up to age 80, after which they must purchase a life annuity. Again, this gives people the option of using another vehicle in which they have some control over how their dollars are invested as opposed to the current legislation which does not allow for this vehicle. Mr.

Speaker, another very important set of amendments in this legislation are the provisions that allow for jointly trusteed pension plans, and I think for members of this House who follow negotiations in collective agreements the desire to have a jointly trusteed pension plan and the multi-employer pension plan are absolutely critical. We have seen in Manitoba and across North America the trend towards smaller and smaller workplaces and the un ion ization of those workplaces.

This particular set of amendments on jointly trusteed and multi-employer pension plans will allow for pension plans to be negotiated and created that will have more than one employer and allow the trustees of that pension plan to be able to go into the marketplace with some volume in terms of investing and re ducing the per capita administrative charges of those plans.

This is a particular area-l know in the health care sector they have been awaiting these amendments, and various unions that do a lot of work in negotiating pension plans, particularly in smaller workplaces, and want to be able to see this vehicle created to bring pensions into those smaller workplaces where a stand-alone plan would not be practical simp ly because of the co st of administration, this vehicle will allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker.

I point out that in multi-employer plans this bill provides for some limitations on initial liability on contributions, which I think make them attractive to emplo yers. They also allow for a 50 percent employer and 50 percent plan member trusteeship of those plans. So in our legislation we allow in these joint trusteeship plans and multi-employer plans for that kind of participation by plan members. I think that is very important as people gain more and more control of their affairs, which is something I believe is desirable by all members of this House. Mr.

Speaker, another important point in this legislation is increased protection of memb er benefits. This act contains some proposals for the Superintendent of Pensions to be given more authority to order actions necessary to protect the benefits of plan members and to ensure compliance with legislation. I know in my experience as minister responsible for this act, it has been one particular occasion where the trustees of that plan, both a union representative and a company, had made errors in actuarial calculation such that the remaining members of that plan had lost their benefits.

The power to ensure that that would not happen was not there with the Superintendent of Pensions. This legislation provides that power for protection which is so important. I am pleased to say that the plan sponsors and trustees were able to negotiate a refunding of that plan out of their own funds and accepted that responsibility. Very happily, the members of that plan will be able to continue to receive the benefits in which they contributed.

Another very important aspect of this legislation, particularly in terms of building a national unity and ensuring that we as Canadians are able to do business and be employed across this country without undue hardships and regulation across

3050 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 provincial boundaries, is the provision for the government of Manitoba to enter into agreements with other provincial governments to permit all plan members of a plan to receive the same benefits regardless of where they are employed. This change will greatly assist new and established businesses with employees in different provinces as they will not be forced to contend with a myriad of different regulations but can maintain one pension plan under one set of rules that is applicable across the country.

Manitoba, of course, would be doing its share by being able to negotiate that agreement with another province to allow reciprocity in our rules. Mr. Speaker, I think this particular issue is of great benefit to companies doing business in Manitoba and other provinces, and certainly will be of great assistance to those companies' employees. Another particular issue, which is, needless to say, I think, a difficult one to deal with, that this bill will address is the opting-out provis ions of mandatory credit splitting.

This act is being amended to permit separating couples who agree in writing to opt out of the mandatory requirement to divide their pension benefits. I would have the House note that, prior to deciding not to divide their pensions, the bill proposes that both spouses must demonstrate that they are ful ly informed of the consequences: (

a) by receiving independent legal advice; and (

b) by obtaining a statement of the value of the pension benefit from the pension plan administrator. This amendment will serve to provide individuals with an increased level of discretion and flexibili ty while at the same time maintaining the protection of credit splitting for separating spouses who decide that he or she does not want to opt out. Again, I would point out to the House that it requires the mutual agreement of the separating parties. One alone cannot force the removal from the credit splitting.

I would remind members of this House of some of the difficulties that have been experienced under our current legislation. The most obvious one is where we have spouses whose pensions are in different jurisdictions. I know some members of this House who were members of the last legislature sat in committee with myself when the Honourable Gerrie Hammond was minister.

We remember presentations from couples, where in one particular case the wife had a pension which was under Manitoba jurisdiction and was required to split it with her other spouse, while the husband's pension was in federal jurisdiction and did not have to be split. Currently, what our law does in those kind of situations of dif ferent jur isdictions Is take three-quarters of the pension benefits and give them to the spouse who is in federal jurisdiction, leaving one-quarter of the combined benefits to the spouse who is in provincial jurisdiction.

That was exactly the type of inequality in division that the framers of the original act, I am sure, did not want to see happen. Those people who are in split jurisdictions have that problem, and not only were they at that committee, but I know they lobby members, all members, of this House on a regular basis. They certainly have, I think no one can deny, a valid point. So that is one anomaly In our legislation that has to be, I think members will agree, addressed.

Another area, of course, is where two spouses in provincial jurisdiction have reached an agreement, have divided their assets, and want each to keep their pension plan. Our current legislation only allows them to do it if their plans are within 20 percent. Needless to say, the inclusion of a major family asset like a house, which certainly has a value in retirement, Mr. Speaker, which normally would enter into those calculations, we do not allow for that If the difference In their pension plans is over the 20 percent.

I can tell members of this House, we have had a steady demand from people who are in that situation who are outraged that our legislation prevents them from doing what they would like to do with their assets. I would remind honourable members that even under The Marital Property Act, where we split assets in our province, the 50-50 division is only with refe rence to value. It does not determine which specific assets will go to whom, but simply that there must be a 50-50 division of the value accumulated during that marriage. * (1 450) How that value is split is up to the parties.

Whether one party receives the marital home, or some other cash, or what have you, is up to the parties. So these changes bring our credit splitting Into line with, I think, our other marital property legislation and give people the freedom where they jointly agree, where they mutually agree, to make

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 3051 the decisions about the division of their assets that best suit them. I know, Mr. Speaker, this is a rather sensitive issue for some. I recognize that, because there certainly is the fear and the concern on the part of some that a spouse, one particular spouse, may be forced into making a decision about giving up some claim to the other spouse's pension, if a threat is made of a continual battle over custody or some other aspect.

I would remind honourable members that when we are striking legislation, we cannot always protect everyone from difficult decisions and from those types of situations. All this requires to ensure that the credit splitting does in fact take place, is for one spouse not to agree to do it. Mr. Speaker, I know there is always the argument of pressure, but those arguments could also be made under The Marital Property Act when you are debating as to which assets a spouse will get in their 50 percent of the value.

If one particular spouse wants to keep the house and threatens a legal battle over custody or another issue in order to maintain a certain property, that can happen now. We do not have a legislative remedy to that. There is only so far that we can go, ultimately, without impeding the greater right of people to make decisions about their own property and assets. Mr. Speaker, one other issue that I would just like to raise before I close my remarks has to do with the actuarial surplus asset payouts. This bill will end, obviously, the moratorium imposed in 19 76 which restricted surplus refunds to em ployers.

The moratorium was introduced to give the government of the day time to develop guidelines and legislation respecting this very complicated issue. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) The current legisla tion before the Hous e proposes to deal with the issue of actuarial surplus assets as follows: No surplus assets will be paid out of pension plans unless the Pension Commission is satisfied the employer has legal entitlement; otherwise, the employer must obtain a ruling from the Cour t of Queen's Bench es tabli shin g entitlement.

I again would remind members that the first principle here is to give effect to what the original document said determining the ownership of surpluses. If the document determined the surplus is owned by the employees, then it would not be paid out to employers. If the document determines that the surplus is owned by employers, then they certainly have a legal right to it.

This legislation also proposes to prevent future disputes when there are new defined benefit plans created, that before that plan is registered, specific surplus ownership mu st be determined in all governing documents to the satisfaction of the commission. Furthermore, the sponsors ofthe plan must demonstrate that a majority of plan members have con se nted to the su rpl us owner ship arrangement, and also the plan sponsors must provide, in the plan document, a mechanism for resolving future disputes regarding disposition of surplus assets.

So what we do in essence is allow the intention of the existing document to go forward, whatever that may be, and require that in all future pension plans the ownership of surplus assets, and I am talking about defined benef it plans, be clearly determined before the plan be allowed to be registered. I certainly look forward to the debate on this issue, and I am sure we will have a number of presenters before the committee. Thank you. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Committee Change Mr.

Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): I move, seconded by the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Motion agreed to. SECOND READINGS Bill 79- The High ways Prote ction and Consequential Amendme nts Act Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard), that Bill 79, The High ways Protection and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur Ia protection des voles publiques et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be

3052 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Driedger: Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to indicate to the critics that I have spreadsheets here that I will be making available to the critics right after my remarks. Un der The High ways Pr otection and Consequential Amendments Act it gives me great pleasure to present to you Bill 79, The High ways Protection and Consequential AmellQments Act. This act will replace the existing High ways Protection Act.

The intent of the new act is to consolidate control of access and development adjacent to departmental roads under one act and one authority to create a simplified, streamlined and more efficient government process. Following from this, the act proposes to redefin e the mandate of the Highway Traffic Board by transferring many of its current highway protection responsibilities to ministerial jurisdiction and have it function primarily as an appeal body for those matters.

The new act will accord the board a broader mandate and a more vital role to play in protecting the rights of property owners while ensuring the safety of the travelling public. Finally, the new legis lation will clarify and standardize the issue of compensation with respect to the closing of legal accesses. Under the existing act, the Hig hway Traffic Board has the authority for designated, limited-access highways, controlling access onto these highways and approving structures in adjacent controlled areas.

This includes the authority for establishing and removing control lines adjacent to highways and controlled circles at highway intersections by regulation. The board has the power to close exis ting access and order the remo val of unauthorized access and structures. In accordance with statutory requirements, the board holds hearings on alm ost every matter coming under its jurisdiction, including applications for access and structures. This requires sending out hearing notices, publishing and advertising the notice in the Gazette and newspapers and waiting 1 0 working days before the application can be heard.

All decisions of the board with respect to applications are appealable to the Public Utilities Board. As Minister of Hig hways and Transportation I also have the authority to designate a limited access highway by declaring it to be a provincial trunk highway under The Highways and Transportation Department Act. This process occurs by regulation without hearings, without board input, without being subject to appeal, and in reality has created most of the lim ited-access highways in the pro vince.

Similar to the powers accorded to the board with respect to access and structures, the department act provides me with the authority to control access and structures on all departmental roads other than limited-access highways. Like the protection act, the department act has a permit system for access onto departmental roads and structures within controlled areas. The issuing of permits by my department occurs without a hearing and cannot be appealed. Not only do we have two parallel systems, the two acts overlap and interact in a very complex way.

This is evident in the duplication involved in the designation of limited access highways, the removal of common law rights of access, the dual regulation making capacity of the board and the cabinet to achieve the same objectives and the overlap in the approval mechanisms. This creates an anomalous situation whereby appr oval of access and development by the board under The High ways Protection Act is subject to my approval under the department act. Similarly, should the board remove controls or limited access status from a highway, the department act automatically reinstates access and structure controls.

Under the new act all provincial trunk highways and provincial roads requiring access controls will be designated limited-access highways by cabinet regulation. This is consistent with other provinces. However, the act does enable me, as minister, to refer any proposal for establishing additional controlled areas which circles to the traffic board for hearing and recommendation. Further, in the interests of elimin ating the confusion resulting from two parallel systems, expediting the process of applying for permits, responsibilities for access and development control will be consolidated under my authority.

This will not only significantly improve service to the public but will result in considerable cost savings to the government. • (1 500)

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3053 As I mentioned earlier, the board is required by virtue of the act to hold hearings in almost every matter coming under its jurisdiction. This includes permits for advertising signs which are basically straightforward and noncontentious. The board travels out to the area affected by the request to hold these hearings and, if required, to conduct on-site investigations. This results in a very lengthy and costly process. In many instances, the hearing is unnecessary, but required under the present act.

To give you some indication of the number of these hearings each year for the past several years, the board has held over a hundred advertised hearings rendering decisions on approximately 600 permit applications. Not only is this a wasteful expense, it is inappropriate use of the talents of these dedicated and competent board members. In addition, the time required to process requests for permits is exceedingly lengthy. This has become increasingly frustrating to the public who expects, and rightly deserves I might add, speedy replies.

Furthermore, with the dual system we have now, it is highly confusing to the public as to where they should go to apply for permits. There are many instances where individuals have made application to one authority only to find that they have to initiate the process again because the highway did not fall under the first jurisdiction. All of you are familiar with our highway system. Judge for yourself as to whether you know which provincial highways are administered by the High way Traffic Board as op posed to the department. This is the situation we are seeking to correct.

I am pleased to advise that through the proposed legislation we are according the High way Traffic Board a far more vital and valuable role to play in protecting the interests and safety of all Manitobans by establishing the board as an appeal body for departmental decisions respecting access and development. Although the board's primary function will be that of an appeal body, the board will be responsible for off -pr emise advertising signs which include approximately 1 0,000 illegal signs currently in the controlled areas along highways.

Recognizing the difficulties associated with these signs, the new act grandfathers illegal signs for a set period of time. Specif ically, it enables owners of illegal signs to apply for a sign permit within six months of the proclamation of this act. The owners, obtaining such permits, will be able retain their signs for a period of three-and-one-half years before they must apply for a new sign permit and comply with the regulations respecting signs.

In addition to its responsibility for off- premise advertising signs, the board will still retain Its authority un der The High way Traffic Act for establishing speed zones, approving the municipal bylaws respecting speed zones, approving traffic control devices and other specified responsibilities. Additionally, the board will be delegated the responsibility for authorizing mun icipal bylaws permitting the operation of an off -road vehicle on a roadway or shoulder through consequential amendme nts to The Off-Road Vehicles Act proposed by this bill.

I am most pleased to report that the proposed new act provides greater protection of the rights of property owners by recognizing a property owner's right to indirect access onto his land. The present act removes all common law rights of access onto limited access highway and effectively landlocks land adjacent to a highway where permits are denied. The legislation before you corrects this injustice by only restricting the right to direct access onto limited access highways. The new act remedies other deficiencies in the current legislation.

For instance, the new act excludes access development and sign control on muni cipal roads as this dupl icates powers granted to the municipalities under the planning and municipal acts. It is interesting to note that while the present act accords the board the authority to desig nate municipal roads as limited access highways, only one mile of road was ever designated as such since The Protection Act came into force in 19 65. Another important feature of the new act is that it cla rifies and stand ard izes the issue of compensation with respect to the closing of existing legal access.

Essentially it provides for no compensation to be payable in cases where a legal access is closed if another access exists or an alternative access is provided. The new act also includes other highways or roads that connect with limited access highways as a procedure for a municipality requesting public road connections

3054 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 should not be the same as an individual land owner requesting access onto private property. The act provides that these approvals will be through my written consent as Minister of High ways and Transportation. This provides for a much simpler approval system for public roads. Other essential features of the new act Is that it allows for the classification of provincial highways based on their importance. These classifications will simplify and standardize the approval of access and setbacks for different types of deve lopments and signs.

You will also be pleased to note that we will be prohibiting certain signs in controlled areas such as the flashing signs which pose a hazard for the travelling public by distracting motorists. The proposed legislation also provides for better en for ce men t pro visions and simp l ifies th e procedure for ordering the removal of the legal accesses for development by eliminating the need for costly and time-consu ming show-cau se hearings which are presently required under the act.

Further, it enables the department to more readily recover its costs of removing an illegal access or development should an owner fail to comply with an order without having to involve the courts. Another important improvement over the present act is that the new act enables me as Minister of Highways to require an owner to re mo ve or remedy a development in a controlled area that is unsightly or dangerous. We have chosen to introduce a new Highway Protection Act rather than amend the existing act, given that the present act poses considerable

interpretation diffic ulties and is so intertwined with the department act that simple amendments were not achievable. Although I have touched upon the many benefits as I have gone along, I would like to briefl y summa rize them for you. First and perhaps foremost, it will consolidate parallel activities under one authority and provide for a sim pl ified, streamlined, a more efficient government process. This consolidation will clarify and simplify the process for the public and significantly reduce application response time from the current 60 days to approximately 25 days.

This will undoubtedly be welcomed by the public. As indicated earlier, it will accord the Highway Traffic Board a more significant role and enable government to put their talents to better use. Further, it will result in substantial cost savings through the elimin ation of notices, newspaper advertising and board hearings. Last, but certainly not least, it will expand the rights of property owners by eliminating the potential for land locking as well as expanding the appeal process to all decisions relating to access and development.

To conclude, I am confident that through this legislation the interests of all Manitobans will be best served. A clause-by-clause explanation of the provisions of this act will be made available, as I indicated before, to the critics for their consideration. Thank you. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 80- The Den tal Association Amendment.A ct Hon. Donald Orchard (Minis ter of Health) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.

Downey), that Bill 80, The Dental Association Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'Association dentaire, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I just have a few speaking notes here that I want to share with my honourable friends. The Dental Association Amendment Act is intended to repeal and replace discipline provisions in The Dental Association Act.

The new legislation will update obsolete discipline provisions and procedures governing dentists, and in this area bring their act into line with current standards and legislation covering seH-governing profe ssions such as the Manitoba Dental Association. The legis lative amendmen ts In this bill will introduce a two-stage investigation and hearing process into the MDA's discipline procedures. They will require the Manitoba Dental Association to have a complaints committee as well as a formal inquiry or discipline committee.

The complaints comm ittee will investigate compl aints and determine if they are serious enough to warrant a formal hearing. If a hearing is required, it will be conducted by the formal inquiry committee. Madam Deputy Speaker, this two-stage process is considered desirable in matters of prof essional

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 3055 discipline. It is the norm in other health discipline legislation in Manitoba and across Canada. I might remind my honourable f riends that in essence the provisions here replicate the provisions of the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Act last year that was passed with, I bel ieve , a great amount of encouraging support from all mem bers of the House. * (15 1 0) A very important part of this bill is increased protection of the publ ic and increased public participation in the dental disciplinary process. This is accomplished in three ways.

First, the bill will permit a complainant who is not satisfied with the decision of the complaints committee to appeal the decision to a new appeals committee. Second, the bill requires that a layperson be appointed for every hearing of the formal inquiry comm ittee. The Minister of Health is given power to appoint a roster of laypersons from which the MDA may appoint lay representatives to other committees. Third, the bill requires that discipline hearings be open to the public, except in certain narrow circumstances.

These provisions are similar to those used by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association. Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislation also repairs defects in The Dental Association Act concerning the MDA's disciplinary powers over its members with respect to maintaining prof essional standards. In 1990, the Manitoba Court of Appeal ruled that the MDA lacked the authority to order dentists to upgrade their skills or supervise their work or conduct inspections and audits.

These additional powers are among the range of disciplinary orders the association will be able to make under these amendments when a dentist is found guilty of prof essional misconduct or incompetence. This brief outline covers the major points in this bill, which we believe will benefit Manitoba's dental prof ession and increase protection to Manitobans. With these remarks, I commend the bill to the House and encourage its speedy passage. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

BIII 81-T he Optometry Amendment Act Hon. Donald Orchard (Minis ter of Health) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 81 , The Optometry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'optometrie, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Orchard: I rise to introduce, for second reading, amendments to The Optometry Act that will make possible a more appropriate complaints and discipline procedure in Manitoba's optometry profe ssion than is allowed at present. The changes we are proposing will permit informal resolution of a complaint, without the need of a full and formal inquiry. In particular, they will provide a complaints and disciplinary procedure that will protect the rights of the public.

At present, on receiving a complaint, the discipline committee of the Manitoba Optometric Society must hold a full hearing into the matter. Under the amended legislation, the registrar would be able to refe r the complaint to a complaints committee. The committee could try to resolve the matter, but will have the option of refe rring it to the disciplinary committee, in which case a hearing would be required. In addition, a complainant will be given the right to appeal a decision of the complaints committee that no further action is required.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we have further safegu arded pro tection of the public and strengthened public input into complaints and the disciplinary process. The bill says the complaints committee and discipline committee shall each have one lay member, someone who is not a practising optometrist. In addition, the bill requires that discipline hearings shall be open to the public except in certain narrow circu mstances. These open hearing provisions are similar to those used by the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Manitoba Pharmaceutical Association.

The optometrists will also be able to deal with matters affecting a form er member if the case is handled within two years of that member's ceasing to be registered with their association. The changes in this bill arise from discussions with the Manitoba Optometric Society, which found their current complaints and disciplinary procedures

3056 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 too restrictive and expensive. Because the procedures are contained directly in legislation and not in reg ul ations, these amendm ents are necessary. For the information of the House, the changes have been drafted to make optometrists' disciplinary procedures as close as possible to those for pharmacists in The Pharmaceutical Act. Finally, this bill will change the name of the society to Manitoba Association of Optometrists, consistent with terminology used in other professional legislation.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this legislation to all members of the House and would encourage its speedy passage. · Thank you. Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member fo r Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 9- The Economic Innovation and Te chnology Council Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 9 (The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act;

loi sur le Consell de !'innovation economique et de Ia technologie), on the proposed motion of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon), standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): It is my pleasure to be able to rise today and speak to Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act I would like to thank my appreciative fans over on the other side for the opportunity to be able to speak on this bill this afternoon.

I will be the last speaker on this bill as we here on this side of the House would like to see this bill go to committee as soon as possible to have the people of Manitoba come to committee and express their views on the, perhaps, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, window-dressing type of a bill that this government seems to have been introducing over the many years.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I in my short term here in the House have watched and listened to the government on the other side produce different bills, different economic deve lopmen t bills and comm ittees and doing things to stimulate the economy as they say, but I would like to make commen ts on The Economic In novation and Technology Council Act relating also to some of the other economic developments that this government has, so called, produced. An Honourable Member: What other economic developments? Tell us. Mr.

Cllf Evan s: Well, there are again window-dressing produced bills, but nowhere in the last year and a half nor in the last two years have I seen any mo vem ent toward an economic development for not only Manitoba, rural Manitoba, and federally and In Canada. An Honourable Member: Do they have a plan? Mr. Cllf Evans: Well, they say they have plans, but we shall wait and see how these plans and so-called boards and different groups are meeting to stimulate our economy.

I feel that the only stimulation that has occurred in the last two years and even further, the last four years of this government has been in place, is the stimulation of job losses, of economic downfall for this province, for manufac turing to drop, businesses closing, 60,000 people unemployed. The Economic Inno vation and Technology Council that the First Minister is developing, I wish to say and as other colleagues have indicated, that the members that the Premier has put on the board, I feel and we feel here on this side that the people that are on the board are more than capable, are some fine, fine people.

I do not think we have a problem with that. The problem that we perhaps have on this side of the House is this board, as it is going to be in place. It is going to make the decisions as such, but are they going to be able to make the decisions for it, or are they going to get interference? • (1 520) Is this board going to be a board that when they have insight, they have some planning, they have things that they want to do, things they want to produce, things that they want to show the government direction to go, or are they going to get interference in that manner?

Are they going to get interference from the government side, or is there going to be a, I guess, fre e rein to this board? Are we going to see some direction that this board is going to take? Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, with the introduction of this bill we see that this board as such is going to replace the Manitoba Research Council.

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3057 We wonder if this government is so set on setting up councils, research technology for the province of Manitoba, it is like a flip-flop. They take one away, they put another one in. They take that one away, they put another one in. They say that one did not work, but this one will work. Just a flip-flop as to the government's real incentive to make Manitoba get back on its feet, be strong in economics, be strong in employment, be strong really in the whole structure of this province.

With economics, and on the topic, I would like to make comments regarding the rural Manitoba incentive for econ omic dev elopm ent. This government has, over the past four years, indicated that rural Manitoba is important. The economy of rural Manitoba is one that is-and the member opposite nods his head in agreement, but being a rural member, I ask the rural members from the government side, really what have we seen this government do in the last four years for rural economic development? They promised this. They have the Rural Economic Development board here.

They want to do this, they plan this, but rural Manitobans, especially northern rural Manitobans are still waiting for some action to be taken by this government. The Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), has introduced the REDI program that I will comment on in a few minutes, but over the long haul, what have we in rural Manitoba seen? In my mind, to be strong rurally or even urbanly, what I have noticed over the past two years in my trave ls throughout the prov ince and in my constituency especially, is that the development in rural Manitoba is at a standstill. It is at a halt.

We here on this side believe, and I believe, to be able to function economically, to be able to produce eco nom ically, to be able to do what rur al Manitobans want to do, and Madam Deputy Speaker, they want jobs like everyone else. They need jobs like everyone else.

They do not want to be on social assistance like we have now in this province, but I feel that the government at present should-and with this act and the council that they have instituted and the Economic Development board council that has also been implemented-! feel that they should work and use the finances that are available for these boards as such, $1 0 million here, $1 million here, a couple of million dollars here and there. The people of rural Manitoba and the people of Manitoba need assistance, not social assistance.

They need assistance to be able to work on the infrastructure of their communities, their roads, their small businesses, their drinking water as such, if we want to make mention of that. There are important, important issues in rural Manitoba economically that I would like to see and hope to see, that we are not having a walk, as a member mentioned, you know, whistli ng-past the-grave type of a situation. We need, and I say to the government, rural Manitobans need that support and support from boards such as this that the minister has instituted to develop.

The First Minister during campaign, I remember very, very well, came to Interlake, came to Riverton promising this and promising that. Now, I have yet to see those promises come across. Hon. Gary Fllrnon (Premier): What were those promises in Riverton? Tell me. Mr. Cllf Evans: Well, we can debate that another time. I can sit down with the Premier. Mr. Fllmon: I can shoot you down, on record. Mr. Cllf Evans: On record? Mr. Fllmon: Sure. Mr.

Cllf Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Premier, when in Riverton, came to Riverton and said to the people in Riverton, yes, we will assist you in the extension of your hockey arena, promise No. 1. Nothing done about it. The Premier said while he was in Riverton, we will do everything that we can to assist in certain economic problems that we have. They are still waiting for him. Mr. Fllmon: They have you as a representative and you cannot do anything. Mr. Cllf Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, that may very well be as the typical low-road attitude of this First Mini ster.

It is not the fact of who the represe ntative is in any area; it is what this government is doing about anything in this province, which is absolutely zippo. So, it does not matter where your commitment, where your promises, not mine- Mr. Fllmon: You were too busy taking the strippers out of your hotel. Mr. Cllf Evans: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, again the First Minister, as usual, taking the low road, taking the shots as usual. That is fine. At

3058 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 6, 1992 least we here on this side do not go traipsing around the country in a one-paddle canoe going in circles and doing nothing. All we are doing now is just speaking about the economics in the province, that is all. Now, the Premier is being-well, I do not know exa ctl y what word to use without be ing unparliamentary. I was wanting, and being the last member to be speaking on this bill, to be a little positive about this. An Honourable Member: Well, I am waiting. Mr.

Cllf Evans: Well, keep waiting, just as the people in this province are waiting f�r you to do something, but you are doing absolutely nothing as I mentioned. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may continue on the economics in rural Manitoba. The Minister of Rural Development's (Mr. Derkach) announcement a couple of weeks ago on the REDI program, we find here on this side of the House, and I do as other members, that the program, again, says on paper is to help rural Manitoba infrastructure development.

Just what I have said, Manitoba business Student Consulting Program for small businesses, feasibility studies, development support programs, Partners with Youth programs- Mr. Fllmon: It has nothing to do with this bill. Mr. CIH Evans: It does. It does. Mr. Fllmon: The rating program is not in this bill. * (1 530) Mr. Cllf Evans: No, the rating program is not in this bill, but what is in Bill 9? Another committee, another board? Another window dressing, as has been indicated?

There is nothing, nothing, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I do not think that anybody on this side of the House would like to see more than a performance, and a good performance, and a performance for the people in this province, and waiting for this performance from the government presently. That is all we are waiting for on this side is for some action. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I have indicated, my comments, I did want to make my comments fairly, fairly brief to the fact, and the Premier, as usual, wants to egg on situations to make himself look decent and good.

Well, I am afraid that the people in this province see the Premier for what he is, and Bill 9 will be an opportunity for this First Minister to do something about this province's economic situation-take this away, take that away.

I urge, and, as a representative, say to the First Minister that we will, in fact, be on the lookout and watching and hoping that through Bill 9 and through the economic board that something is going to be done, so that the board and the government does something for the people in this province, not just a flip-flop and saying, okay later on we will do this and do that and maybe we will do this, and we will decide to have another board later for another $10 million. Now the idea is there, the funding, $10 million.

We say $1 0 million is a healthy amount of money to put through for something like this, and I agree, but I am also concerned as others are, is the $10 million just going to be a one-time shot? Is it going to be something that we are going to be looking forward to over the years, so that the board can do the job, so the government can do what they say they are going to do? Is the money just going to be a one-time shot? Is the money going to be over a period of years?

Are we going to get some sort of lead from the government as far as the funding for something like this and the funding for other programs that the government in place has decided to put in? I would like to go back again to the economic rural development programs that have not been in place, and hopefully the REDI program will do something for the rural Manitobans in this province, regardless of who is the representative, regardless of who the Premier likes to chide or shoot darts at when the time comes, and egg on, as I mentioned before.

I believe it is time, and it does not matter, it is time that the government in place acted responsibly and acted on behalf of the people of Manitoba. Now, that is all; that, basically, is what I am saying. An Honourable Member: Ask 60,000 people out there. Mr. CIH Evans: True, ask 60,000 people. The minister throws his usual low-ball shots, but does not like the fact that somebody is saying, somebody is showing, something to him. He does not like it; If it does not suit him, he does not like it. Well, I do not think anybody wants to throw low-ball shots across the way.

Let us do something while you are across the way. Let do something while you are in government while, and I say while you are in government. For how long of a while is yet to be seen, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to just say to the First Minister-

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3059 An Honourable Member: Again. Mr. Cllf Evans: Again. That we here-and the assistant deputy premier, just settle down a bit too. I would like to see something worthwhile coming out of Bill 9 and the economic board and an innovation and technology cou ncil. I would like to see something positive coming out of it. We all would. We are giving you the opportunity, or you are trying to take the opportunity, to build up the province as you so say is going to come back. We are still waiting. But let us just remind the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), let us remind him of all the projects that went aside. Let us remind of the unemployment in this province. Let us remind him of the trade deficit. Let us remind the Premier of the economic, I guess, the economic ladder that he is always proud to say his government in place has performed. Madam Deputy Speaker, the people in Interlake, the people in all the other constituencies, northern Manitoba, are waiting. They are waiting, that is all we are saying. We are waiting. There are projects; there are the round tables that are in place in rural Manitoba.

There are projects that the people in rural Manitoba want to continue with, perform with. I know that the First Minister can remember some two years, two and a half years ago when we came to his government from the Interlake requesting that his government look at the natural gas going from Gimli and north into northern Interlake and in other parts of the province. Why? We came to the government because we in the Interlake and in other parts of northern Manitoba and constituencies who felt that with natural gas, with study as such-we are still waiting for results-the opportunity is there for the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) to enhance the economic well-being of northern Manitobans. We are still waiting. Madam Deputy Speaker, everything else is in place there. The rural development boards, the people in Interlake and the people in Gimli and others are ready and are waiting. They have projects that they want to proceed with. They have funding; they are even working on their own funding to get this done, but how long are we going to wait? I say to the First Minister, I would like to see some positive things coming out of this.

I hope that I do not have to, or anybody else on this side of the House has to get up a year or two years from now and say, and reading through Hansard, the same thing again about the issue here, the act going down, that something else . We want to see something positive here. That is all we are asking. Madam Deputy Speaker, on closing, I would just say to the First Minister that we are waiting.

The track record that he has shown me and shown us and the people of Manitoba is not there, but we say, but I say, that the Premier has the opportunity with this board and the other and the council, the finances, the people in place that he has. He has the opportunity to enhance this province's ability for economic development and for any other problems thatwedo facerightnow. ltis there. We aresaying and I am saying to the Premier, let us see it happen, let us see it work. Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much. Mr.

Fllmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am assuming that I am closing debate, if there are no others who wish to speak? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Mr. Fllmon: I am very pleased to be able to close debate and pass Bill 9 along to committee for consideration and public input to the establishment of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. I must say that I am-I should not say I am surprised because I am never surprised at the New Democratic Party representatives taking a narrow partisan view of any particular issue that comes before this Legislature.

You know, I think that the member for Interlake embarrassed himself and his predecessor a great deal by his closing comments in which he talked about the fact that the Interlake is waiting for economic development, waiting for natural gas, waiting for all sorts of development initiatives.

What he is admitting is this sad and total failure of his New Democratic colleagues in government for most of last two decades, because during those two decades they were represented totally during that period of time by one Bill Uruski, who was a member of cab inet in both Schr eyer and Pawley administrations, and his successor is now admitting that he was a total failure , that he did nothing for the Interlake and that they are wanting for- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. • (1 540)

3060 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 6, 1992 Point of Order Mr. Cllf Evans: On a point of order in regard to the First Minister's comments. Not once did I make any remarks toward the previous member of the- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Interlake does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Fllmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, by virtue of his acknowledgementthatthe Interlake is waiting for all of these things, he has admitted the failure of the New Dem ocratic Party in gove rnment.

His predecessor, who was a cabinet minister in two administrations for over two decades, did not do a thing for his area. You see, that is the point that the New Democrats now acknowledge, that they have done zero for their constituents and zero for the regions of this province that they represented over two decades. [inte�ection) Well, that is exactly the same thing that could be said about the northern part of this province which New Democrats have represented for the better part of two decades and have done zero for. That is the kind of thing that happens in this Legislature.

Yesterday, we have the member for Flin Aon (Mr. Storie) on the record acknowledging that Snow Lake does not have the ore body to carry on, when his administration was in government for most of the past two decades and did not do anything to find an additional ore body or additional ore. In fact, they brought in policies that totally worked against expl oration and deve lopmen t initiatives and investment in nor ther n Mani toba. Now his constituents and his residents are paying the price of his ignorance and his inability to do the right thing.

Well, I might say, on a more positive note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Economic Innovation and Technology Council fulfills the day-to-day requests of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), to broadly consult all sectors of the economy, to bring to the table labour as well as management as well as the technologies as well as business people and investors, to get them together, the brig htest and bes t min ds in this pro vince , developing strategies for the future economic growth of this province.

An idea that the leader of the New Democratic Party has called upon this government to implement is being implemented as a result of Bill 9, and his party dumped all over it. So, it just shows the total absence of strate gy, the total absence of knowledge, the total absence of direction on that side of the House, where they take an idea that has been fostered and recommended by their Leader and they dump all over it. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the kind of rag-tag group that we are dealing with in the New Democratic caucus.

We understand why they are getting absolutely nowhere when they can take a good Idea, an idea that their Leader has espoused, and dump all over it.

This council represents not only consultation, not only a broadly representative group of capable people, including labour-and I might say that labour represe ntatives have been attending the early meetings of this council, have been publicly stating to their colleagues and others that this is a good idea, that it is resulting in plans and development strategies for this province that will be positive for labour, that will create investment and jobs over the term of the future, and will be a very good vehicle by which government policy can be influenced for positive results by way of economic development.

All of these things have been coming through very clearly as a result of the early meetings of this council. I met to welcome all the members who have been appointed to the council, and I was very, very impressed. We have, certainly, the first string when it comes to the Manitoba economy, people who are leaders in their professions, people who are leaders in business, people who are leaders in the corporate sector, in the labour sector and in various economic sectors, who are there to give advice and develop strategy for the economic growth of this province. That is of interest to all of us.

All of us want to see a stronger economy. All of us want to see more investments. All of us want to see growth, targeting of the various strategic areas that Manitoba has an opportunity to really build upon and to grow In this province and to have positive results.

These people are coming forward with great ideas and great enthusiasm and making a contribution, and I think it is very sad that members of the opposition, both parties, are denigrating their efforts so much In their comments on 8111 9. pnte�ection) Madam Deputy Speaker, they may want to crawl under the carpet now and try and get out from under the things that they have said, but they are on the record. Their criticisms belie their comments about

May 6, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3061 wanting to help in the economic growth of this province. They show how shallow and insincere their leader is when he offers to have their party's co-operation on matters of economic growth and investment. That is how shallow they are when they just want to use this for their own narrow partisan purposes and dump on the efforts of some of the most capable people in this province. The fact of the matter is that the Economic Innovation and Technology Council is made up of some very, very capable and bright, knowledgeable people.

They are going to be very instrumental in developing for us the strategy for economic growth that will see this province continue to strengthen and grow in the '90s and beyond. They are the people who will make a major contribution through their efforts and their advice to government, and we welcome this board and this council for its potential and indeed for the tremendous efforts that they will put in to the future growth of this province. I recommend the passage of this legislation to all members of the Legislature as a signal to all sectors of our economy.

The labour people who are represented on this board, the business people, the professionals, the people with experience in so many areas, the academics, for the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), who are on this board and have a great deal to contribute towards economic growth-give them the signal that they are wanted and that they are supported on a nonpartisan basis and that their efforts will be listened to and will be utilized for the betterment of the people of this province, and I recommend it for passage in this House, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

The question before the House is second reading of Bill 9 (The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act;

Loi sur le Conseil de !'innovation economique et de Ia technologie). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] 811110- The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 1 0 (The Manitoba Hydro Ame ndment Act ; Loi modifian t Ia

Loi sur !'Hydro-Manitoba), on the proposed motion of the honourable Min ister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin? [Agreed] Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 1 0. Blll 1 0, of course, is a relatively short bill, but I believe that is not an indication of its importance to the people of this province.

It has, I think, significant importance. • (1 550) It reflects a philosophy and approach by this government towards hydro, towards northern development, towards hydro development which I think bears commenting on and bears thorough debate in this forum as well as the province at large. Madam Deputy Speaker, the bill specifically, of course, gives the borrowing authority to Hydro a sign ifican t in crease from $1 50,000 to $500,000-{inte�ection] Pardon me, $500 million. I missed those last three zeros. As the minister says, he is in the big leagues. We are all in the big leagues.

More aptly, Hydro is now in the big leagues. Hydro

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-60
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 60.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	93a26dfd0ba80d86f8319a682ff134c7de163f54

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