Manitoba Hansard — 9 June 1993 (Sitting 79, 35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-79

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Fourth Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 42 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLII No. 79 • 1:30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9,1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and PoiHical Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, 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. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan 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 Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River Rossmere Rupertsland PARTY.

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

4007 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 9, 1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTI NE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Monsieur le president, j'aimerais presenter Ia petition de Lorraine Rondeau, Es telle Comte, Allan Charbonneau et d'autres personnes demandant au ministre de Ia Sante de considerer a restaurer le Programme dentaire des enfants au niveau dont il beneficiait avant le budget. rrranslatlon] Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lorrain e Ronde au, Es telle Comte, Allan Charbonneau and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) to consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the budget. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Kevin L. Thompson, Laird Simpson, Tammy Vandenberghe and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 19 93-94 budget. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lucinda Carels, Val Norrie, Leslie E. King and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 19 93-94 budget. Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of A. Smirl, Doreen Geirnaert, Monique B. Martel and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 19 93-94 budget. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Rosanne Labossiere, Brenda Fiddler, Roselynn Poiron and others requesting the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 19 93-94 budget. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mrs. Carstairs). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:

WHEREAS the Misericordia General Hospital has served Winnipeg for over 95 years; and

WHEREAS the Misericordia General Hospital has a long record of dedication and service to its local community and the broader Winnipeg community; and

WHEREAS the Misericordia General Hospital is identified by the residents in the surrounding area as "their hospital"; and

WHEREAS the Misericordia Hospital plays an integral

part in maintaining and promoting the health of the community; and

WHEREAS the Misericordia Hospital provides diverse services including emergency, ambulatory care, diagnostic and inpatient services, acute and chronic care which are vital to the community; and

WHEREAS the Misericordia Hospital is currently engaged in developing innovative and progressive community-based outreach programs; and

WHEREAS the Misericordia Hospital is ideally located to be within the "hub" of the health care delivery network for Winnipeg. WHEREFO RE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the government of Manitoba to consider keeping the Misericordia Hospital open as an acute care facility. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Loui se Dac quay (Cha irperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me to report progress and asks leave to sit again.

4008 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 93 I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. * * * Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairperson of the Standing Com mittee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fourth Report of the Committee on Economic Development. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic Development presents the following as its Fourth Report.

Your committee met on Tuesday, June 8, 19 93, at 10 a.m., in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of Moose Lake Loggers Ltd. for the year ended March 31 , 19 92. Your committee has considered the Annual Report of Moose Lake Loggers ltd. for the year ended March 31 , 19 92, and has adopted the same as presented. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member of St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. * (1 335) TABLING OF REPO RTS Hon.

James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for the Department of Energy and Mines, as well as the Supplementary Information for Manitoba Department of Northern Affairs. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) : Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the second Quarterly Financial Report of the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. 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 Landmark Collegiate thirty Grade 5 students under the direction of Mr. Russ Dirks. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Children's Dental Health Program Cost-Effectiveness Study Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr ..

Speaker, last evening, I attended a communit�· meeting in Arborg dealing with the Children's Dental Program. Trustees, students, parents,. dental nurses, dental staff were at the meeting to bring their perspectives on the changes in the budget introduced by the government. Mr. Speaker, there were, of course, strong statements about the quality of dental care for children in rural northern Manitoba that has been potentially eroded with the change the government is implementing at the end of June. There were also some questions and some concerns about costs.

Many people produced information tha.t said it will cost a lot more money to take 300 people in a remote community out for dental care, children, than it would to have two dental staff go into a community. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), has he received a cost-effectiveness study on the changes that his government ma de to the Children's Dental Program in the budget his government introduced last month? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I attended a similar meeting in Minnedosa some, I guess, five or six weeks ago.

Clearly, the curtailment of the treatment portion of the program is not a decision that anyone on this side of the House took with any kind of pleasure. It was a difficult decision. It was a decision that has been proffered as an option for a number of years, including when my honourable friends were government. We did not accept it in past years, but this year with the continuing financial pressure on the department, we did elect to remove the treatment portion and funding for the treatment portion of the Children's Dental Health Program.

I have said to my honourable friend that this decision is not a reversible decision in terms of reinstatement of any portion of the treatment program, but that we intend to maintain the very valuable educational and prevention component of

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4009 the program, which has been exceptionally effective in promoting proper dental health amongst children and in maintaining and creating very good dental health for children in Manitoba. • (1 340) Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows and we all know you cannot put into pigeon boxes the treatment program and the prevention program because it is a holistic program for the quality of children's teeth in remote and rural communities. Good treatment is good prevention and good prevention is good treatment. Mr. Speaker, I would like to table a letter signed by Dr.

Peter Cooney, president of the Canadian Society of Public Health Dentists, wherein he states that the government cost estimates of $1 1 million over the next three fiscal years as a saving to taxpayers is incorrect. He goes on to state that the cost will actually be $22 million in actual costs to Manitoba taxpayers based on the increased travel to receive care, increased disease levels due to the removal of chairside dental prevention and reduction of preventative classroom education in terms of Manitoba.

He goes on to state that this scientific material is available to verify his analysis, and he has been told that there was no such scientific information in the minister's own department. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) has been copied on this letter. Has the Premier reviewed this? Has the Premier asked the Minister of Health for that cost analysis, as alleged by Dr. Peter Cooney? Can the Premier indicate today, are we actually going to be spending more money as the doctor has indicated rather than saving money on the one line in the budget of the Department of Health? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, Dr.

Cooney contacted my office about 10 or 15 minutes ago to offer to myself and to the ministry that study my honourable friend is referring to. I would be most anxious to receive it and to analyze it. Mr. Speaker, there is an interesting blend of taxpayer commitment here. Clearly, the taxpayers will not be funding $3 million per year of treatment program. That cost clearly will be transferred where treatment is needed to the families of those children, but those are not the taxpayers in general in Manitoba.

The budgetary reduction is a real reduction which curtailed- forestalled, if you will-the necessity of raising taxes on all Manitobans to sustain this program. It does mean, Sir, that parents in Winnipeg, parents in Brandon and parents of age groups beyond the treatment program, will be responsible for treatment with the education and prevention portion of the program being maintained in the school system. Mr. Doer: Well, the minister knows there has been absolutely no communication, no strategy, no action in the education field to deal with the allegations the minister makes in this Chamber on that issue. Mr.

Speaker, there is a difference between remote communities, their costs, which will not be borne by the Department of Health but actually will be borne by the Department of Family Services. There is a difference between rural children who do not always have available the fluoride treatment programs and other programs. They do not have the same ratio of dentists to citizens. There are differences between Winnipeg and northern remote communities and rural communities. There are real differences. Mr. Speaker, the government was offered this study on May 8, 19 93. The Premier (Mr.

Filmon) was offered this study in a letter that was written and copied to him on May 8. I heard about it last night, and I asked for the study immediately, as I would expect any member of this Legislature to do. Last night, the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) was at the same meeting and he said, and I quote: I hope I can convince our minister to reconsider his decision on the Children's Dental Program.

I would ask the Premier today: Will he take the same stand as his member for Gimli and tell the Minister of Health to reconsider and reinstitute the Children's Dental Program, which is the most cost-effective preventative program in all of Canada? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is partially correct in part of his

preamble and his statement. The children's dental treatment program may well have been one of the most cost-effective because it was one of the sole remaining ones in Canada, Sir. Is that not quite an interesting analogy my honourable friend makes?

401 0 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 Now, I point out to my honourable friend, no one on this side of the House enjoyed having to make those kinds of difficult decisions. Those are never easy decisions and that, Sir, is why provinces across the length and breadth of this country are trying to negotiate, for instance, social contracts in Ontario, where they extract $2 billion from the public sector funding commitment.

My honou rable friend the Leader of the Opposition here recommends to Premier Bob Rae in Ontario that he should take 12 days off for workers in Ontario, and stands here and opposes the process we brought into place. That is the kind of hypocrisy, Sir- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. * (1 345) Children's Dental Health Program School Division Involvement Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey). The Minister of Health has suggested that school divisions could take over the preventative programs formerly provided through the Children's Dental Health Program .

Given the terms of the contract between the province and the school divisions which requires a six-m onth notice period , can the Minis ter of Education tell the House today what notice has been given to school boards and divisions that her government is eliminating the Children's Dental Program and that the school divisions may be required to take over this provincial program? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is mixing apples and oranges. My honourable friend is talking about a six-month period of notice for reinstatement of the treatment side of the program .

The prevention program , Sir, has been part of classrooms in the province of Manitoba before the introduction of this treatment program and will be there after the elimination of the treatment program, with fluoride rinse in the schools and education programs delivered in the schools. We have a $1 .2-million budgetary commitment to undertake that. Now, my honourable friend is wrong in terms of his notice requ irement. That is a treatment program reinstatement facilitation that had to be in place for the ch ildren's den tal trea tment program-treatm ent program, Sir, not prevention and education. Mr.

Cllf Evans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder out loud how five people can take care of 63,000 kids. My question is to the Minister of Education. We already know the Minister of Health has no studies to recommend the elimin ation of the program . What action has the Minister of Education taken to review the potential costs to the school divisions if this program is offloaded, as the Minister of Health is suggesting? Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I might provide my honourable friend with a copy of a letter, although I believe the critic for Health probably has it, if he would share it with him .

It was a let te r sent to my office from a superintendent of one of the school divisions as a result of the Minnedosa meeting, wherein the superin tendent wanted to seek advice as to whether school divisions-if there was the will of parents to maintain the program within the school syste m, to maintain it as a parent- pay-for-the program initiative. It is the school divisions which are asking whether that is a possibility. Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend talks about offload. There is no offload of the treatment program to the school divisions. That has not been contemplated, is not contemplated.

However, I indicated in Minnedosa, as I have indicated subsequent to receipt of tne letter from that superintendent, that we would consider any options the school divisions wanted to undertake in discussion with government. Fluoride Treatment Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, this minister talks about the prevention program being kept in place. Can he tell this House today why a school division has already given notice, just this past week or so, that fluoride treatment to elementary children in that school will be totally eliminated as soon as supplies have expired? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would be appreciative of knowing which school has provided that kind of advice.

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 401 1 Economic Growth Western Economic Co-operation Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Now that the very brief fanfare surrounding the release of the government's so-called Framework for Economic Growth yesterday has completely subsided, I trust that the Premier understands why it was not quite the public relations boon he thought it would be. It included, in fact, a lot of high-blo wn principles which were certainly well put out.

However, there was no real framework, no real initiatives, no real timetable, and, as a result, offered no real hope to the people of this province for economic growth. I have suggested a number of specific programs and directions for the government. I would like to ask the Prem ier, specifically with respect to weste rn ec onomic co-oper ation, which is a definable, real approach to take in this province and in this country, when is the Premier going to give his Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Stefanson) a specific mandate and a specific timetable to work on a co-operation agreement with the western provinces in this country, given that the most recent estimate is that there is a $5-billion potential western economic dividend to be had? * (1 350) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, as usual, the member for St. James totally misses the point.

Yesterday, we had approxi mately 75 of the leaders of the commu nity of Manitoba together to receive the Framework for Economic Growth, to hear the presentation and to ultima tely make a comm itment to go back to their stakeholder commu nities and implement and begin to work on the implemen tation of this Framework for Economic Growth. This is not a public relations exercise. This is a fr ame work for future economic development, Mr. Speaker. It is the shallow thinking of the member for St. James that only gives that kind of one-liner for him. He is joining the club of the memb er for Concordia (Mr.

Doer), where he is looking for the cheap political trick. I say to him that he will gain just as much from it as does the member for Concordia with his eight-second clips for TV. That may be his retention length, but it is not that of the people of Manitoba who really want to make decisions on investment. I say that he only need look at today's news media and see that Winnipeg 2000 is putting out a study with respect to the telecom muni cations opportunity for Man itoba, part of the economic frame work , showi ng wher e they perceive opportunities for investment and job creation, that kind of thing.

We were meeting at lunch today with people who are in another one of those sectors, who have a proposal that would bring thousands of jobs to Manitoba in one of the other target sectors, Mr. Speaker. Those are the kinds of things we want to see happen in Manitoba- leaders in the commu nity, economic and business leaders in the commu nity, making comm itments to implemen t this Framework for Economic Growth. That is what we are interested in, and that is what I say will happen as a result of the release of this report. Mr. Edwards: Mr.

Speaker, I do not think I missed the point, and I think the point is, after five years, there really is nothing to implement. There is nothing here that this government has not said before and that the people of this province do not already know. What they are looking for is some real timetable, some real initiatives. That is what they are looking for, and after five years, that is what they have not gotten. Now, Mr. Speaker, my question for the Premier is-and he did not address it. I am not taking cheap political shots. Rather, I am putting forward ideas that I am asking him to look at and do.

Those are definable and those are real, and I am asking him, when is his government going to take western economic co-operation as a means of reducing government costs and increasing wealth in our province? When is he going to take it seriously? When is he going to give his minister a timetable, an agenda and a mandate to talk to the other provinces and move in this direction? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, at every meeting that I have attended of the western Premiers since I took office in 19 88, that has been one of the major topics

4012 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 on the table for discussion. At every meeting, we have sought new, better and different ways of ensuring that we continue that co-operation. Mr. Speaker, the member opposite says no progress is being made. There are 7,000 more people employed in this province today than were employed in August of last year. Even looking at this articl e, it deno tes 700 jobs in the tele communic ations field that have been announced within the last three months for Manitoba.

I could go on and read for him initiatives such as Black & Veat ch' s state-of-t he-ar t centre of engineering exce llence, such as Monsanto's investment in a dry Glyphosate plant for Morden, such as the quadrupling of the size of the Ayerst plant in Brandon and so on. People in the industrial sector and people in the business sector know that the progress we are making is a result of the initiatives we have been taking. *

(1355) Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the real people out there know that if we had remained at the same job levels we had in 1988, the same percentage we had in 1988, there would be 8,925 more full-time jobs in this province. They know that. The people out there know that. My ques tion for the Premier: He says there have been benefits gained. There was a 1989 procurement agreement that had more exemptions than inclusions.

When is this Premier going to sit down with his fellow Premiers and start saying it is time we dealt with each other first, before we make it easier to trade with Chihuahua, Mexico than Saskatoon, Saskatchewan? When is he going to sit down with the other Premiers and say, Canada first? It is time we had a new agreement and we had more inclusions than exemptions in this country. Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this province has been the most steadfast, most comm itted province in the entire country with respect to re moval of interpro vincial trade barriers-abso lutely. Mr.

Speaker, what do we have? We have other provinces like British Columbia who are stating publicly they want no part of it. What are we to do with that kind of thinking in this country? This is the issue today, that you have people for partisan pu rposes who will not get into the removal of interprovincial trade barriers, who believe that the way for them to improve their own efforts in their economy is to raise the bar rier s and deny opportunities for businesses from outside their province to come in and trade. Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the wrong way to go.

This gove rnment has been absolutely consistent and steadfast in its commitment to remove interprovincial trade barriers, more so than any other province in the country. Economic Growth Provincial Comparisons Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East) : Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask the Premier a qu estion about this repor t, Framework for Economic Growth, because this document is filled with platitudes, meaningless generalities and, even worse, unsu bstantiated claims. It contains the same old right-wing rhetoric that we have been fed for the last five years.

On page 19 of this report it states: Manit oba's economy is per forming relatively better than most of the country. Mr. Speaker, that is a total fabrication. Some would even say it is a crock. Mr. Speaker, since 1988, our research has shown that the Manitoba economy- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East was just going to put his question. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, our research has shown that the Manitoba economy has shrunk relative to the national economy.

We are even less significant than we were in 1988, and even the latest figures show that 1 0 out of 13 economic indica tors sho w that Man itoba is performing below- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please. Mr. Leonard Evans: My question for the Rrst Minister is: Exactly where is your data to back up your claim that we have done relatively better than the rest of the country? You cannot prove that. *

(1400) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we now have a clear picture of the New Democrats' appr oach to looking at growth-{interjec tion] You

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANI TOBA 401 3 do not rule the House here. You do not even rule your own caucus, so just keep your opinions to yourself. Mr. Speaker, New Democrats found out very quick ly that they could artificially inflate GOP numbers by simply spending government money, borrowing money and spending it. For every 3 percent of additional spending, they could increase GOP growth by 1 percent in this province, and year after year after year, they increased their spending by 6 and 9 percent so they could add 2 and 3 percent to the GOP growth of this province. What did it leave us with?

Debt, Mr. Speaker, debt on which we pay $560 million of interest every year, debt that costs us $560 million that we cannot spend on health care, that we cannot spend on social services, that we canno t spen d on education. I am not going to resign the people of this province to more debt. They are not going to be given more debt as a result of the NDP wanting to just simply inflate GOP numb ers. That is not the way to look at it.

What we have in this province is individual private-sector people like the telecommun ications centre making investments, long-term investments, creating job opportun ities-people like Monsanto, people like Ayerst, people like Black & Veatch ma king lo ng- term investme nts crea ting job opportunities. That is what we are working on, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Leonard Evans: The Premier did not answer the question. He does not have any data to back this up so it is just a crock. There is no data. Employment Creation Strategy Mr. Leonard Evans (Bra ndon Eas t) : My question, Mr.

Speaker, to the Premier: How can this go vernment expect to achieve more em ployment in Man itoba thr ough policies enunciated in this document, which are the same economic policies that we have had for the last five years and during which time we have lost 7,000 jobs since this gentleman became Premier of the province- 7,000 fewer jobs in Manitoba today than we had in May 19 88? Hon. Gary Fllm on (Premier): Mr. Speaker, every single bit of information in this document is based on fact, information that is readily available. The problem is this mem ber does not understand what is happening to the economy.

He cannot read. International Herald Tribune from last month-a story about what is happening in Europe as they go through restructu ring; countries like Germany, one of the most powerful economic forces in Europe over decades, suffering as a result of restructu ring. Talk about Phillip s Corporation, some of the lar gest mu lti nationals in the world-[i nterjection] Mr. Speaker, the members opposite want to put their heads in the sand, want to say it does not matter what is happening in the world's economy.

All we have to do is spend more money on short-term, make-work jobs, and we can fight everything that is going on. That is absolute nonsense. Manufacturing Industry Mr. Leonar d Evans (Brandon East) : Mr. Speaker, the people of Manitoba would be more prepared to accept this document if there was a little more integrity in terms of statements that can be substantiated. Mr.

Speaker, how does this government, how does this Premi er expect to get a significant increase in manufacturing jobs in this province when the data show consistent decline for some time now, and especially now that we have the Free Trade Agreement? We have been losing manufacturing industries out of the province, so there has been a significant shift out of the province. We have become even more of a periphery in terms of manufacturing activity in North America. How does he expect- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, there is more integrity in this document than in any of the fraudulent statistics that are put out by the memb er opposite in all of his kinds of phony analyses that he puts out to his constituents. This is real integrity, not like the phony statistics from that phony economist over there. Point of Order Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I stand on a point of-if the Premier would sit down because I am on a point of order.

4014 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA June 9, 19 93 Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Brandon East indeed has risen on a point of order, and we will hear what the point of order is. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that the Premier referred to a fraudulent document. He im puted motives to me that somehow or other I was putting out fraudulent informa tio n. This information is based on Statistics Canada data, and I invite the minister to study it or get his staff to study it. I want the First Minister to withdraw that remark. He is imputing motives to me.

That is my point of order, which I think is very valid. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable member for Brandon East, he indeed referenced "fraudulent." Fraudulent, indeed, I will remind the honourable memb er for Brandon East, does show up under parliam entary language. As much as we do not like it, it does show up as parlia me ntary. Indeed , the one tha t is un parliame ntary happens to be fr audulent character, which I believe the honourable First Minister did not use. Therefore the honourable member for Brandon East did not have a point of order. *** Mr.

Speaker: The honourable First Minister, to answer the question. Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, that point of order was as phony as his statistics are. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have already ruled on the point of order. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, our rules are very clear, that when a point of order is raised and the Speaker has ruled, that is the end of the matter. The Premier was out of order making reference to that, and I ask you to not only ask him to withdraw that comment, but perhaps also to answer the question raised by the member for Brandon East. Mr.

Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable me mber for Brandon East, I had already previously just told the honourable First Minister that I had ruled on the point of order, and that matter has been settled. *** Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister, if he wants to finish his answer. Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I accept totally your judgment and I agree with it. [interjection) No, I always agree with the Speaker. I am consistent. Mr.

Speaker, the point the member for Brandon East fails to understand is the entire world is going through a restruc turing, a massive restructu ring that is, in fact, destroying jobs in many major sectors of the economy. Instead of standing up and railing away, saying this should not happen, even though decisions are being made throughout the world consistently that affect people everywhere, including Canada, what we have to do is choose the path in which we can get the new economy jobs. That is the path that is put forward here in this framework.

That is what Winnipeg 2000 has recognized when they talk about telecommuni· cations. That is what the aerospace industry, that is what the health care industry, that is what the food processing industry, that is what the tourism industry has recognized, that these are the areas of opportunity for new jobs-high-tech, value- added, new-age jobs for Manitoba. Ins tea d of ra iling away ag ai ns t what is happening, get invol ved. Be pos itive . Encourage people to invest and be a part of this new growth in Manitoba, instead of coming up with this negative, phony criticism. Personal Care Homes Fee

Schedule Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, within 60 days, there will be some new growth in fees at nursing homes in the province of Manitoba. Within 60 days, nursing home fees in some cases will be almost doubled by this minister and this government. Many nursing home officials are concerned that they will be responsible for determining who pays and how much those people pay. What system will the minister be putting in place to determine who is eligible and how muc h they will be paying? * (1 410 )

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4015 Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I explained to my honourable friend previou sly when he posed this que stion, in developing some of the budgetary initiatives in the Ministry of Health and other ministries, we took the opportun ity to undertake some collaboration with provinces to the east and to the west. The reason we chose the $46 maximum rate, if there was the abilit y to pay that rate by the individual, was that it made us consistent with Ontario's rate which has recently been established at $46. Mr.

Speaker, the formula of the higher rate of payment or an increased rate of payment is very sensitive to the income of the individual resident. It is sensitive to a second feature in that we have indicated we will not have charges based on income of an individual which might compromise the ability of a spouse to live independently of the personal care home system . Now, Mr. Speaker, those guidelines are being finalized, and commu nication, I expect, will be underway with our personal care homes in terms of explaining the guidelines and the assessment of the new rates, if applicable, by ability to pay. Mr.

Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, well, I understand now what is happening in other provinces, but I still do not know what is happening in Manitoba. Will the means test, the incomes test, be in trod uced by this mi nis ter? Will it be administered by the nursing homes themselves? Will they have to go and administer it themselves, which was my ini tial qu est ion, or will the department be administering the means test or the incomes test for those people who are inside nursing homes? Mr. Orchard : Mr.

Speaker, it has bee n the intention, and it has been communic ated to all of our per sonal care home ma nagers, that the determi nation of whether the resident has the ability to pay an additional sliding-scale contribution towards their stay in a personal care home will be administered by the administration.

It will inc rease in ste ps, I belie ve five- or 1 0-cent·per.cfay steps, from the current $26.50 to a maximum of $46, which will, I repeat, Sir, follow two criteria-reflect the ability to pay for that additional charge and not compromise the opportunity for indep endent living of a spouse outside of a personal care home. Mr.

Chomlak: Will these administrators of the nursing homes, who the minister has now admitted will be responsible for determining how much will be paid by these people on the means test, will these administrators who have had their budgets cut back, will they be required to review and can they legally do people's income tax in order to be able to determine the income levels? How will this be determined, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Orchard : Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to my honourable friend, that process is in the course of being developed and will be commun icated with the personal care homes in the very near future.

Hemophiliacs HIV Compensation Package Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Last year, the federal government gave up its responsibility to compen sate all those patients who received HIV through tainted blood. It was almost irresponsible, immoral and on the brink of criminal, Mr. Speaker. Similar incidents which happened in France caused much despair, and I think the government did not learn the lesson. The question is, Mr. Speaker, those people who ha ve HIV are sti ll a par t of our pr ovi nce. Somebody has to bear the responsibility.

We can lose one of them on a daily basis. We are asking the minister again: In view of the statements made by Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, can the minister tell us why those people are not compe nsated on an interim basis to make sure their livelihood is not affected? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speake r, as I indicated yesterday when my honourable friend posed the question and some 1 0 days ago whem my honourable friend posed the question, we have the item placed on the agenda of the September Health ministers meeting.

I had discussions with the New Brunswick Minister of Health this afternoon, because it was alleged in one of the newspaper articles that New Brunswick was not waiting until discussions in September, and that, of course, apparently is not an accurate reflection. New Brunswick is waiting for the September meeting. Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to my honourable friend why. My honourable friend indicated the

4016 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 federal gov ernmen t assu med a role in compen sation some three or four years ago in isolation from the provinces, with no provinces at the table even aware that discussions were going on.

One of the ins tructions that the federal government gave to the Canadian Hemophilia Society in concluding an offer of assistance was that should they require more, they should go to the provinces who were not even at the table, and, fur therm ore , tha t to rec e ive the fed er al compe nsation, those individuals had to sign their righ ts away from futur e compen sation by the federal government. Even that process, Sir, has been questioned by a recent parliame ntary comm itte e.

Woul d my honourable friend not want the federal government, as well as the provincial and territorial govern ments, at the table this September to develop an initiative which has a nationai- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we are not denying those facts. The federal government gave up the responsibility. One of the views was that probably some of those patients may not survive by that time. It is almost immoral.

We ar e asking the gove rnment, on compassionate grounds, to have a compensation package, because the government is going to meet on the 22nd of June, so that will at least give some hope to these patients and their families. Mr. Speaker, there are horror stories. I am sure the minister and the Premier (Mr. Film on) will really boost their confidence and do a moral obligation, which is our moral responsibility in this House. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend does not have the corner on the market for compassion. I feel for those people, as every member in this House feels for those members. Mr.

Speaker, two of the decisions were made in the midst of an election campaign. Does that demonstrate compassion? Mr. Cheema: No. Mr. Orchard: My honourable friend says no. Well, I thank him for that answer. I cannot answer that directly. Sir, what I am saying to my honourable friend is that in Canada, is there not a desire to have some consistency of approach and treatment of citizens across Canada? We have Nova Scotia being quoted as having a compens ation package far beyond the beliefs and hopes and expectations of the Hemophi lia Society in that province. In Quebec, we have them saying, well, it is not enough.

That is why there is a role, we have always said, for the federal government to be at the table. They should be at the table. Even their own parl iamentary committee said they should, and we are having that happen in September. Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, we are not blaming this government. We are simply asking them to do what is right. In the interim period, can these patients get some kind of assurance from the minister, and can the minister tell us what kind of policy statements he is going to direct his officials to take to the June 22 meeting? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speake r, not a dissimilar statement to what I have given to the House right now, not a dissimilar statement to what the New Brunswick Minister of Health will send to that June meeting in anticipation of the September meeting. If there is a need and a cry for consistency, it is on this issue, Sir, because that is a very important issue in which the federal government cannot be allo wed to, behin d closed doors, without any dis cussion with the pro vinces, offload th eir responsibility onto provinces. I think that is a very offensive principle of nationalism in this country.

I have said that from the day the program was announced, and, consistently, we have attempted, Sir, to try to make provincial appr oaches consistent and to provide each province with support and assistance to those individuals who are so afflicted. Student Social Allowances Program Current Students- Completion Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, when this governmen t e limi nated the Student Social Allowances Program , they made one of the stupidest decisions of their entire budget of this Min ister of Finance (Mr. Mannes s).

To take stu de nts out of school , pu t them on social assistance and deny them their chances of getting better employmen t or even employment at all was dumb, dumb, dumb.

,... June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 4017 Since this Minister of Family Services has refused to reins tate the program , will he at least respond positively to the request from the City of Winnipeg to allow the 850 students enrolled in the Student Social Allowances Program to at least continue in the program and finish their education? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that this was one of the many difficult decisions that government had to ma ke within this budget process.

I would remind the member that this was a program that existed in no other province in this country. We did not take this decision lightly. We have indicated this program is going to be terminated at the end of June. We have been involved in discussions with the municipal tier of government over regulations and have indicated that perhaps within their sphere of interest, they may be able to assist those people. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll) : I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs.

Render), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendment s be am ended as follows: the memb er for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the memb er for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the memb er for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine); the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister) for the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) ; and the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). Motion agreed to. Mr. Nell Gaudr y (St. Bo nifac e) : I move, seconded by the mem ber for Ink ster (Mr.

Lamoureux), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: The Maples (Mr. Cheema) for St. James (Mr. Edwards). Motion agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call second reading of Bills 39 and 40, and then follow that with debate on second readings, adjourned debate Bills 11 ' 15, 22, 14. SECOND READINGS Bill 39- The Provincial Court Amendment Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Sp eak er, I mo ve, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness), that Bill 39, The Provincial Court Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Cour provinciale), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to ensure the independence and impartiality of Manitoba's part-ti me judges, which in turn will strengthen the integrity of our province's justice system. The Manitoba Provincial Court Act was amended in 1989, to establish a clearly defined process for the appointment of judges to the provincial court. However, these amendments did not deal with part-time judges.

Since that time in 1 991 , the Supreme Court decision on the constitutionality of part-time judges in Quebec indicated that there are Charter requirements which must be met to ensure an independent and impartial judiciary. *

(1420) Based on that ruling, Mr. Speaker, we are introducing amendments that provide legislative safegu ards by set ting clear guideli nes and limitations which will ensure the impartiality and independence of part-time judges in Manitoba. Through this bill, we are putting into legislation, procedures that have become common practice over the years. Some of the features of this legislation include strict guidelin es regarding the appointment of part-time judges. The appointmen ts mus t be based on a demonstrated need of the court.

Futur e part-time judges must be recruited from judges who have previously been appointed under The Provincial Cour t Act. Furthe rmore, the appointments will be nonrenewable and must not exceed a five-year term . In order to ensure impartiality, a part-time judge is prohibited from practising law in the Provincial Court. In addition, part-time judges are restricted

4018 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June9, 1993 from hearing cases involving people they have worked with when practising law as a counsel party or witness. Mr. Speaker, before I finish on part-time judges, I think that I should just pay brief tribute to those people in Manitoba over the years who have served as part-time judges. They have made some sacrifice to take their place on the bench and, by doing so, effectively eliminating themselves from the competition that does go on very often between members of the legal profession because of conflicts that could arise.

So they do indeed make quite a bit of a sacrifice, and in this legislation we are moving forward in terms of guaranteeing the independence and impartiality of part-time judges. I suggest there ought to be no difficulty on the part of honourable members with this bill, and I would be asking them for their support. Thank you. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Kiidonan (Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. 811140- The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendment and Crown Attorneys Amendment Act Hon.

James McCrae {Minister of Justice and Attorney General) : Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill40, The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendment and Crown Attorneys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d'aide juridique du Manitoba et Ia

Loi sur les procureurs de Ia Couronne), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this legislation is to enable people who are not lawyers to provide prosecution or defence services in communities de signated by the Lieutenan t Governor. Under the existing Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Act and The Crown Attorneys Act, these services can only be prov ided by lawyers. However, there are cases where it would be beneficial to have the active participation of local communities.

For example, our government recognizes that aboriginal people have a better understanding of their communities and aboriginal values. Through extensive consultation with aboriginal commun ities, we are developing innovative approaches to enable aboriginal people to play a more active role in the justice system. Manitoba's aboriginal people have indicated that they view this approach as a very responsive and culturally sensitive one and are anxious to participate, and I am delighted that that is the case.

As I mentioned, in designated communities, aboriginal people who are not lawyers will be able to act for the prosecution and for the defence. We are proposing this amendment to set up a legal framework for nonlawyers to be employed for defence and prosecutorial functions. The new legislation specifies that nonlawyers may provide services under the Legal Aid Services act if they are under the general direction and supervision of a solicitor. Nonlawyers may also act as prosecutors when they are under the direction and supervision of a Crown attorney.

The legislation restricts a lawyer who has been disbarred, suspended or struck off the rolls from being employed under either act. This legislation was prepared foll owing consultation with Legal Aid Manitoba, the Manitoba Association of Crown Attorneys and the Law Society of Manitoba. This legislation will help us as we attempt to design and implement systems in the future for the delivery of justice to Manitobans in designated communities. I hope honourable members will support this, because this will help us move along with our plans. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS 811111- The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Mun icipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr.

.. June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 401 9 Derkach ), Bill 11, The Regiona l Waste Mana ge me nt Au thorities , The Mu nicip al Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion des dechets, modifiant Ia

Loi sur les mu nicipalites et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for the Interlake. Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill 11. This bill is giving the opportu nity for municipalities and local governmen ts to attack, I guess, the problem and work towards resolvi ng the problem of waste management and waste disposal sites. I have had the opportunity to deal with this matter, Mr. Speaker, as mayor of Riverton, 19 89 to 19 90.

Waste management and disposal sites were a constant conversation within council amongst councillors and amongst the people of the community, and along with other jurisdictions as to how to address the situation we presently have with waste disposal sites. * (1 430) With the im pie mentation of the

section under The Environment Act proclaimed in 19 91 , Mr. Speaker, I think the situation has indeed gotten to a point where municipalities are really put in a position which they are unable to deal with as individuals. In speaking with municipalities and councils in my area in the past three months, I have brought Bill 11 to their attention and requested that, in fact, we have some input. Mr.

Speaker, the problem that the municipalities and councils have indicated to me is the fact that even though the government is moving in one direction to be able to provide an outlet and provide a chance for local governments to combine in dealing with the problem , their concern is the fact that the costs could be, in fact, a burden upon the municipalities. Presently, to deal with waste disposal sites and waste management situati ons, the local government jurisdiction may in fact, through their tax levy, deal with the costs and with the maintenance and the issues at hand in dealing with waste disposal sites. Mr.

Speaker, we know there is a problem out there. Agai n, I can mention that I know the problem first-hand. Having to deal with it has been a tremendous problem. We have looked to the government for assistance on this. We have reques ted that govern ment step in, perhaps provide information, provide some guidance. To date, I think that some municipalities are satisfied with the response from government but others are not. This bill, Mr.

Speaker, will in fact provide the door, the opportunity for two or three or however many mu nicipalities feel that that would be worth com bining as an organization, as a sep arate organization to deal with a regional area as far as waste management. We know that perhaps dealing with it collectively as a group of two or three municipalities where access to sites would be more available and having all the mu nicipalities deal with one site instead of three or four or five, as some municipalities in fact do have-s ome municipalities in my own constituency have three to four sites in their own ju risdiction.

Again, it is creating a problem and has created a problem for many years-the control, the fact that the maintaining of it, what goes into these sites, what goes out of these sites. So I look at this bill as an opportu nity, as a door for mu nicip alities to get toget her, organiz e themsel ves and deal with a problem that has, for certain municipalities, over the past many years, created not only a financial but an environmental problem for their jurisdictions. I have a problem with dealing with my councils, the problem of the initial costs to do all of regionalizing and combining.

The minister and the government have indicated that now they are giving the option to combine their resources and to develop regional waste sites, and the Department of Environment has recommended, has urged this bi ll, too . The bill would, in fact, give the municipalities just another outlet to be able to deal with a problem that we have had to deal with for many years. Within my own constituency, Mr.

Speaker, the Interlake Development Corporation, a very strong regional development group with councillors and reeves and mayors from different municipalities, has undertaken, through funding from within the municipalities that are involved with the IDC, a regional waste management study that they have requested a consultant to put together for them and giving them an idea and all the munic ipalities within the Interlake Development Corporation branch an

4020 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 op portunity to co-ordina te th eir specific and individual problems, combine them and discuss them, having an option to be able to deal with an issue that again is very front and centre and a problem that most mu nicipalities have. Mr. Speaker, I know that in speaking with members from MAUM and UMM , they have given me no indication, nor have they given us in caucus or on this side of the House any indication, that they have a tremendous concern about this act. The fact that they have encouraged this government to propose such

an act tells me that perhaps the government is, at this point in time, dealing up front and atte mp ting to deal with an issue that municipalities have tried to get the government to deal with directly or indirectly, giving them an opportunity to deal with an issue, giving them an opp ortunity to combine thems elves into one regional group, one regional corporation.

It is providing them an opportunity, if funding is needed, to somehow deal with it as a whole so that access to any funding that may be requir ed would be combi ned amon gst thems el ves and shar ed, whether it be equally or on a popula tion or per capita or per quota, for developing a disposal site. Again, I get back to-and I hate to keep referring back to the costs. The costs, in fact, could be for some-and I realize, Mr. Speaker, that this bill gives them the opportunit y that they can get together and they can look at and they can discuss whether they want to combine.

I know it gives them the opportun ity that they have not had before to deal with this matter in that way, but again, we have to look at the costs, and we have to look at the have- not mu nicipali ties who are in fin ancial difficulty, where how much that costs to combine and organize and be part of a regional waste study group and disposal site corporation, they would not be able to.

They woul d not be able to com bine, using examples where there may be two or three villages within one municipality, and the municipal ity having the greater population and a better tax base on its side would be able to enter into such an agreement and in fact be able to go to a financial institution and decide whether or not they can and/or will be able to receive funding, obtain the funding and how.

They will have to now-and I would think that how it would be dealt with is that, wiil the municipality or municipalities that have formed into a corporation have collectively or individually assets or capital that would be required to be able to get funding so that (

a) they may be able to go ahead with the study, or (

b) go ahead with the site? When we talk about sites, Mr. Speaker, of course, it is another problem that has been brought forth to my attention. Once a regional group has formed and has decided that, yes, it will work together and, yes, it will work together as the funding-t hat is where the site will be, the site locale for their disposal site. You know and we know, in fact, that no one wants a disposal site in their own backyard. Nobody wants to see the garbage, the materials that are being put in our disposal sites right in their backyard .

I think that is indeed where a problem will occur between the regional groups and the site planning. Now, the act does give the mu nicip ali ties direction so that the Muni cipal Board would intervene or assist with the whole process if need be. But now you are dealing with areas that (

a) are going to have to provide envir onm ental guidelines, and (

b) adhere to the guidelines that are being admin istered through the Department of Environment, plus you are going to have to deal with people, people who are going to say and are going to argue with and are going to go before these munic ipal corporations, these mu nicipal boards or councils, in arguing their case. * (1 440) We may, even though the process may or may not take even longer than what it should, it could be delayed by petitions, it could be delayed by groups who are opposed to a certain site area. The board, the municipal regional corporation that will be formed, will have to deal with these people.

We may get that imbalance and distinction of for and against a specific site. I mean, regardless of the fact that the bill enables municipalities to join and deal with the issue, they are still dealing with the same problem that we are going to be now, that we are now dealing with, that we are having with the sites and having with where they are going to be. Mr. Speaker, we know that now we have sites that are near water tables, near rivers and lakes.

I think that through the assistance of the government that the regional corporations will be able to develop and work towards finding an area that is going to service the mun icipalities that are involved, tha t are going to service the people in the

June 9, 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4021 communities. It also has to deal with the fact, again, as to where it is going to be. Who is it negatively affecting? Mr. Speaker, the bill also addresses concerns raised by munic ip alities with regard to the imposition of user fees for waste management services. Presently, user fees and /or maintenance costs are undertaken through local tax levies. Now, I am not positive where the opp ortunity for two or three mu nicip alitie s combining and giving them the authority to be able to charge for the site, for services, if that is going to also create a problem.

People feel that now their sites are taken care of through their taxes and will feel that they have a right to go and dispose items that they have without any kind of further taxation or further fees. So that is going to create a problem for the regional group itself, that they, too, are going to say, how can we offset the costs besides using user fees for it or increasing the taxes? Mr. Speaker, I would think that municipalities and the local jurisdictions, having this opportunity to deal with some of these issues, will deal with it in a more co-ordinated and a more responsible way.

I think that perhaps the municipalities will have the opportunity then to go in directions of recyclable items, different sites for safety and environment issues. Mr. Speaker, I would like to see just what the municipalities are planning and who is planning to combine, if they so see fit, financially or otherwise.

It has given them the opportunity to do that, but hopefully this opportunity will not also create a little negative pressure on certain smaller municipalities and jurisdictions as to the cost burden that the taxpayers and the people in the commu nities would have to undertake further to get this regional corporation on its feet. So I would like to see mun icipalities at the committee. I would like to hear what their feelings are about Bill 11 and whether they have further negative responses to the bill.

I think that perhaps the biggest negative aspect of this bill that I have hear d is basically the lack of any financial assistance to kick start this opportunity for regional waste disposal observation. An Honourable Member: Put a little life in that. Mr. Cllf Evans: It is a little tough putting life into a disposal site. Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportu nity to meet with and discuss the issue with the minister's staff.

I have brought certain points to the attention of the minister's staff, and of course the minister's staff was very co-operative in some of the points that I had brought forth to them and had in fact made certain changes with respect to my concerns. I brought those concerns forth feeling that it would be the same situation as if I was still within a jurisdiction of a local mu nicipality and having this bill brought forth. I am sure that municipalities have concerns as well as I did, but it seems like the minister and staff have made the changes.

I see nothing that will deter the future of waste management sites, and I see nothing that will prevent, except for the financial burden and the financial possibil ity, the cost for the have-not municipalities of whether they can enter into such an agreement with other municipalities.

So I would feel that perhaps the minister and the department, specifically, keep a tight rein on that to make sure or somehow assist or somehow be there for assistance for those mu nicipalities and those jurisdictions that cannot deal financially with the issues, so that there is some sort of an outlet for them that they can obtain assistance so that they can perhaps get into an organization on some sort of a basis even if it is a payback period of time. I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that option does not have to be used, but I think that the option should be there so that municipalities will have that opportunity to deal with the issue on the financial end of it, and I would like to see this issue of waste disposal sites and regional management be undertaken with full force with the municipalities. I look forward to seeing results. I look forward to seeing who in fact will combine.

I will in fact look to see the type of problems, if any, that the groups will have in accessing sites, and I will be very interested to see how this bill and its results from the organizations will in fact occur and incur on the people of the different constituencies that the sites will be in. I am sure that the local governments will in fact deal with the issue and also deal with the government through the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derk ach) and the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummin gs). Mr. Speaker, I close my few comments and look forward to comm ittee.

Hopefully there will be comments made forth by different mu nicipalities,

4022 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 and if so, I would hope that this government would in fact make any amendments or changes that municipalities and/or the department feels should be made, and tha t the Min ister of Rur al Development (Mr. Derkach) deal with them straight up and give everybody the opportunity to say their piece and also indicate their support or nonsupport to Bill 11. I look forward to committee, and those are my comments. * (1 450) Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

Bill 15- The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 15 , The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act;

Loi sur Ia Commission de Ia boxe et de Ia lut te, stand ing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake. Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Well, Mr. Speaker, this bill-1 do not know. I would like to make a few comments on Bill 15 . Mr. Speaker, The Boxi ng and Wres tling Commission Act has in fact been brought forth. It is the first time that changes such as this have in fact been brought up and brought to change over many year s-m any years since the last time that The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act has been changed. The changes are qui te substantial.

In my discussions with the minister and my discussions with his staff on Bill 15 , again, I brought forth quite a few concerns with Bill 15 , and the minister was made aware of these concerns-- An Honou rable Member : You are qui te concerned. Mr. Cllf Evans: Yes, very. And I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, as far as Bill 15 goes, I agree that a change had to be brought forth. I certainly agree with the fact that a change to the act was indeed necessary.

Over the past few years, the boxi ng and the wres tling enter tainm ent or par ticip ation as a spor t ha s needed some adjustment, some changes to the way things are being run here in this province by the Boxing and Wrestling Comm ission. Mr. Speaker, in speaking with staff, I have indicated that I was rather concerned and upset about some of the facts that the Boxing and Wrestling Commission, the board memb ers would indeed have certain powers that the act provides them.

The concerns were the fact that any one of the board could deal with an issue either on his or her own and also go to a certain function and demand that changes be made, demand the fact perhaps they want to see records, they want to do what they feel is necessary to attack the proble m. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that that was something that I would like to see. I think that we would like to see a different body answerable to the Boxing and Wrestling Comm ission that can deal with this. In the act it says that they are inspectors.

I feel that not just anybody who is not familiar with the boxing and/or wrestling sport has the authority to go and make decisions at a certain function or dealing with a certain promoter or dealing with a cer tain licens ee. So I would like, during comm ittee, to see changes in certain aspects of this act, and I think that in speaking with the minister, we will hopefu lly deal with those issues.

Now, ther e may be a cer tai n amoun t of satisfaction with this bill, but I would like to just make mention that there are also certain people in this province who are very unhappy with Bill 15 and the previous bill and have requested that certain changes be put in. I see, in going through Bill 15 , that a lot of the changes that have been requested have been made. I am sure that the bill will enable tighter control of the goings on within boxing and wrestling, not only within the comm ission itself, but as far as within the aspect of the entertainment and the aspect of the sport. I am pleased, Mr.

Speaker, to see the fact that not just anybody can just go and put on a show of some kind or put on a promotion of some kind without dealing with the proper licensing, the proper docu men tation, so that there may in fact be problems with that, but I think that within the act and the comm ission, the minister has to appreciate that certain levels of the boxing or the wrestling sport are entertainment. There are people out there who want to have the opportunity to not go through the large fanfare of big fees and big permit fees.

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4023 They want to deal with it on a local smaller version than what we have now as far as wrestling in comparison to WWF and with regard to boxing. (Mrs.

Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) I hope that this bill will provide an opportunity for the sport itself, for both wrestling and boxing to grow and to grow to a point where in fact the people will be satisfied with the enter tainm ent, the promoters will be satisfied with the attendance, and the participants will be satisfied with the regulations and with the conditions that they are working under, Madam Deputy Speaker. Another issue that was brought to my attention was the fee that a promoter would have to pay the Boxing and Wrestling Commission. Presently it deals with a range.

Promoters are concerned that the costs to promote an event with the fees that they have to pay would take too much of their gross take and take too much of the expenses that they have to incur to put on such events and prom ote them. Again, during committee I think that will be brought to the attention of the minister. I think that it should be looked at, and I think the fee scale should be perhaps dealt with at comm ittee to deal with an issue that the people who have come to comm ittee will bring forward to the minister in comm ittee.

With respect again, Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to go back to the powers of inspectors as I mentioned before. Now it says that an inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter any premises and ma ke any inspection that is reasonably required for the purpose of enforcing this act or the regulations. The explanation is now that an inspector has the power to enter prem ises and to examine and review records.

Well, that is what I feel that I have a problem with, and that problem was brought forth to the minister. * (1 500) I hope that, again, he will during committee look at making changes so that we are a little more contr olled as to who is going to do these inspections and who is going to be an inspector.

Now I feel that if the Boxing and Wrestling Commission feel that there is any problem with any event or with any promoter that basically they should not-e ither one of the comm issioner s should have the right or someone who they appoint to be an inspector, whoever it may be, has the right to just walk in on an event or in a person's home without justification and without authority. I feel that authority coming from the comm ission itself is not justification and authority enough. I feel it has to be a lot stronger.

If you are going to be dealing with personal records, you are going to be dealing with an event tha t perhaps the comm ission feels there is a problem with, we do not send a baker in to check a farmer's yard to see whether the cows are all fine and dandy. So that aspect, I hope, we are going to deal with in comm ittee. I know that there will be people who will be at committee to discuss and repute this act. I would like to hear, and we will hear during comm ittee, and I offer the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) his attendance to hear the debate on this Bill 15 .

So Madam Deputy Speaker, further commen ts could be made. I think it best be brought forth to comm ittee and let us deal with it in committee. Let us hear the people that have a problem with the Boxing and Wrestling Commission as it has been or as it was or is going to be and what powers that they are given.

One aspect that I see in this, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the fact that if there are any problems bet ween prom ote rs, bet ween people who participate in the events, between people who want to put on the events in their properties and such, that there is an opportunity now to appeal and be heard which there was not, in effect, in the old bill. That opportunity was not there. In fact, a promoter or anybody participating who wants to appeal a decision by the Boxing and Wrestling Commission will have that opportunity, whether it be to the commission first and further on taken into a court syste m.

I thi nk that that opportunity and the implem entation of that within the act is a positive step. We know not whether a comm issioner makes a decision on a certain promoter where truly in fact if it is one on one, whether it be stamped in gold, the promoter would like the opportu nity to be able to bring his case forward or anyone participating bring his or her case forward to an impartial body. The fact is that I was not pleased with the act where it says that only one of the board memb ers of the commission would be able to hear an appeal and might be able to hear the appeal on a phone

4024 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 conversation. I also felt, on the one hand you are putting in something that is required and on the other hand you are again giving authority to make important decisions to people who I feel should be not involved in the decision but perhaps should be involved in the process as far as stating their case and as far as the prom oter or the person responsible his case. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I look forward to comm ittee.

I look forward to hearing what the people have to say out there and, hopefully, the minister will be open in providing the proper details and answers to questions. If in fact there are changes that as he has indicated to me they may be looking at making at my request, I hope the minister is open to also hear changes that perhaps people at the comm ittee will be making in their prese ntati ons. I look forward to seeing the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) at the committee.

Hopefully, we can deal with this in due course and let us get The Boxing and Wres tling Commission Act to a point that would be suitable and satisfactory to all people involved and also for the people in Manitoba. On those short notes I look forward to comm ittee for Bill 15 . Thank you . Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (River Heights): Madam Deputy Speaker, and I should put on the record, first of all, tha:t ! will be the only member of my caucus speaKing io this particular bill, and that we too would l;ke to see it go to committee as quickly as possit>ie.

I find it scmewhat ironic that we are even dealing with an r.�ct called The Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act. I think it is appropriate to talk about just what the so-called sports are all about. We have a society in which we say we want to encourage people to be nonviolent, and we yet have a comm ission act which is dealing with a sport called boxing, which its only purpose is to act in a violent manner, one person to another person, granted, within some controls known as sporting controls. But the purpose of boxing is for one individual to, quite frankly, punch another individual which has to be considered

an act of violence. The second sport that we are having as part and parcel of this particular act is wrestling which, I think, for most of us is a comple te shell game. I mean, it is a sham from beginning to end. Everybody puts on wonderful acting performances about whether they have been hurt, injured and damaged, and then they are immediately up to lambaste the other one again in a very violent way. So here we are as legislators in the land wanting to have a commission put into place for two sports which quite frankly are by their very nature violent. It is an interesting irony, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If I had anything to do with it, and I now speak entirely from a personal perspective and not on behalf of the caucus, I would ban both sports. But I am not speaking for the whole caucus, some of them have differing opinions. I understand some of them do, in fact, go to boxing matches and do go to wrestling matches. I can assure you, I go to neither. I watch neither on television. I have nothing to do with either sport. However, having said that, I think that, if these two sports, which I find an offence, are going to function in our society, they have to be regulated.

The purpose of this act is to in fact regulate them . But, again, I have to point to a certain irony, because when you look through the act, you read things about the terms of the members, and the mem bers and their re muner atio n, and the chairperson and their staff, and their ability to have meetings on phone, and their ability to investigate a member and their records, and their reports to the ministers and their terms and conditions, et cetera.

But the things that I am most concerned about with respect to this sport, if it is in fact going to exist in our society, are the kinds of controls that we put in place to ensure minimal amount of damage. Yet, all of those things are governed, not within the subject of this act, but by regulations. I think that is an unfortunate fact. It is not new, it is not new to this government, it is not even new to the previous government. It has been the way in which the commis sion has functioned since commissions of this nature began.

But it is a sad reflection, I think, on the society in which we live, that we cannot be up- front about the need to put in physical protection for those that participate in such a sport within the act itself. We all know of individuals, particularly in the sport of boxing, who have been perm anently damaged through this sport, some of whom have died either in the ring or shortly after being taken from the ring. It is an extraordinarily dangerous sport. It is not the only sport that is fraught with danger. Many sports which-

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 4025 Hon. Ha rry Enns (Mi nis ter of Natural Resources): Next to farming, it is a cakewalk. * (151 0) Mrs. Carsta lrs: Wel l, the Minister of Natural Resources says, next to farming, it is a cakewalk, and unfortunately it is true, because farming is one of those activities among the most dangerous in this province. It is more dangerous, quite frankly, to be a farmer than it is to be a policeman or to be a fireman or a fir ewoman or a polic ew oman. It is mor e dangerous to be a farmer.

I am in comple te concurrence with the Minister of Natural Resources that if we could do something to do something about that, he would have my complete support. But the reality is that this particular sport or these particular sports that we have before us must be controlled as much as is possible. I have been through the act, and I think that most of the recommendations that are made in this act are positive ones.

I look forward to hearing representation by those directly involved in these two sports before the committee, and barring any unforeseen representations that they make which would indicate that they had difficulties with this act, which I am sure the minister himself would be prepared to make adjustments to, then the Liberal Party will be supporting the enactment of this as quickly as possible. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 15 . Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Agreed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. 811122-The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 22, on the proposed motion of the ho nourable Min ister of Finance (Mr. Manness), standing in the name of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) who has eight minutes remaining, standing in the name of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) who has 32 minutes remaining, and standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?

Some Honourable Members: Leave. Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted. Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Bill 22 is The Public Sector Reduced Work Week an d Com pensation Manag ement Act. One undesirable effect of Bill 22 in the field of public sector employer-employee relationships is that it will override any existing negotiated coll ective agree men t that mi ght ha ve been al rea dy negotiated between public em ployees and the public employer. That collective agreement may contain a clause like a no-layoff clause or so me other no-reduction of-wor king -hour s clauses in tha t coll ective agreement.

Nevertheless , the government, in exercising political authority under Bill 22, will exercise its prerogative right to set aside whatever agreement had already been negotiated. When the government negotiates as a public employer, it is in fact performing two different kinds of roles. The government is a party to a collective contract, a collective agreement, as the employer. The collective agreement defines the terms and conditions of employment in that particular area of the public sector.

Yet the government, therefore, by agreeing to this collec tive negotiated contract, had alr eady bound itself as a party, let us say, to a no-l ayoff clause included in that coll ective contract. But then the government turns around and, acting as the sobering authority of the province, exercises its political ultima te authority and sets aside the very clause included in the collective agreement which it itself had negotiated. Therefore, the government is breaking its own agreement, its own promise in a sense, by passing Bill 22.

When the gove rnme nt br eak s its own com mi tmen t in a nego tiated cont ract , the government is in fact acting in a very unfair and immo ral manner. By governm ental action it confirms the now preva iling belief among the members of the general pu blic that governmental words cannot be trusted. In fact, government will be breaking its commitment under the collective

4026 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 agreement. Governmental action, by passing this Bill 22, speaks louder than government words. If people can no longer rely on governmental commitment in any collective agreement, how do we expect the people to have any more faith or a higher level of confidence in what the government promis es to do for th em? The government, therefore, is not merely a party to the collective contract . As an em ployer, it has entered into a negotiated contract.

In that negotiated contract, it agreed that there will be no layoffs or no reduced hours of working hours-inside the contract . At the same time, it has a role as an employer to see to it that this contract is fully complied with, yet, by passing Bill 22, t he government itself will be setting aside what it had agreed to. If people can no longer believe what government comm itted itself to do, how else can we expect the people's level of trust in public affairs, in politicians, in public, how can we expect them to have a higher level of trust in their own political leaders?

Those who hope to lead our province to any level of greatness must be shown as models who are fearless in principle , firm in pu rposes and yet faithful in promises that they must keep. By passing Bill 22, they will themselves set aside what they have nego tia ted to have agreed to as employer and therefore violate their own promises. In general, anything that we give away, we cannot keep. However, with respect to promises, it is like love.

You can give this thing away and, at the same time, keep it-[interjection] The general rule is that whatever you give away, whatever you promise, you cannot keep--o kay?-b ut, if you give away love, you can still keep love-t he same thing with promises. An Honourable Member: How am I going to explain that to my wife? I tell her I love her, and then I have given it away. Mr. Santos: The memb er for Lakeside (Mr.

Enns) may, for example, brag to his friend that he always has the last word with his wife, but then, when we look at the situation closely and ask what this last word may be, it may turn out to be the words "yes dear." The same thing with the collective negotiated agreeme nt- the collective negotiated agreement is supposed to have established a mutually agreed to set of conditions of work in the public sector.

The government, as employer, is already bound by its nego ti ated contr act, ye t because it is the government, by resorting into its political authority, it can now pass a bill which legitimately breaks that very commitment that it itself had negotiated into. If governmental promises can no longer be kept because the government itself turns around and sets aside its nego tiated contract, then the governmen t is showing itself as a model of a promise breaker. A broken promise is like a broken mirror.

A broken mirror cannot be mended even by the best glue that is available and, if the government has shown examples of breach of promises, then the peopl e thems elves will no longer believe political promises that are made by people in government. * (1 520) One other effect of this Bill 22 is that it destroyed the hard-fought collective bargai ning rights of public sector employees by the mere exercise of sovereign political author ity on the part of the pro vincial gove rnmen t.

This is not a good example for people who are losing faith and who are being skeptical of governmental promises and governmen tal action. Thank you. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I rise today to add my commen ts to Bil l 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compens ation Management Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a bill, I believe, that in effect imposes a 3.8 percent tax increase upon the citizens of Manitoba that are impacted by this legislation. An Honourable Member: You know, this is a contribution. Mr. Reid: Well, it could be conside red a contribution, as the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) has said from time to time. Maybe this is one of the things that was dreamed up in one of their focus groups. I am not really sure. The intent of governm ents, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it has always been my im pression that governments had this role to play at least, is that they have a role ensuring that there is fairness in our society. Now, with this piece of legislation, I do not see in any way where this is fair by its implemen tation, and I will attempt to point out through my comments here today where it is unfair and how it is going to

June 9, 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA 4027 impact upon, in particular, people that live in my commu nity that are employed in the public sector and/or various provincial government Crown agencies. The government likes to use the word "fairness," and I think they use it just to throw it out there, hoping that the people will hang their hats on this and will think that this government is fair. You have to show that you are fair by your actions.

The various public sector unions this government has singled out by their actions, as they did in Bill 70 where they had a wage freeze upon them a little over a year ago-and of course at that time the cost of living ate away at their disposable income during that time, something which they have not been able to make up in the interim. Of course, their bills continue to escalate, but their salaries to offset those costs continue to go down. The government uses the word fairness. This legislation is not fair, as was Bill 70 not fair, to the people that this is being imposed upon.

The government says that those who are employed in the pu blic sector are taking advantage of the taxpayers of the province, and in fact they use the words, wallowing up to the public trough, as we have often heard even through different media sources in this province. Public sector people, people that are em ployed in the public sector, provide essential services for us in this province, services that we have come to rely on, whether they be in Chil d and Family Services, in the justice or law systems, in the health care system, in our Manitoba public insurance.

All of the programs that we rely upon, including education, ar e provided by public sector employees, and that this government has chosen to attack those very employees signals to me their total unfairness in dealing with these people that are empl oyed in these jobs. They said they want to be fair. Well, if you want to be fair, one of the best ways to do it is to keep your word.

To keep your word means that if you have negotiated a contract in good faith by both parties participating in the process and you have affixed your signature to those documents, those are legal, bi nding documents, and your word should be kept until those documents, those agreements expire. This government has chosen not to do it once again as they did during the Bill 70 that they had in this House a little over a year ago, and they are doing it again.

Most likely, over the course of the next year, looking at this legislation, they will continue to impose their will in attacking public sector workers in this province. This government has indicated by their actions that they are totally untrustworthy and unreliable when it comes to keeping their word- [interjection] Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): It must be the other brother ... today. Mr. Reid: Now the Minister of Agriculture says the other brother. He likes to resort to public attacks when he knows that someone is maybe scoring some points on him. It is quite obvious that is the case here.

If you cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. Maybe it would be a good idea to test the waters, call some of those by-elections and we will see whether or not people trust your word anymore, and whether they trust your actions in government here. Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Boy, what a joke. Mr. Reid: It is funny the Minister of Government Services says that this is a joke. I can tell the Minister of Government Services that this is not a joke, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr.

Ducharme: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not refer to the legislation as a joke, I referred to the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) as a joke. Madam Dep uty Speaker: The honour able Minister of Government Services does not have a point of order, it is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Reid: The Minister of Government Services' position, his office that he holds, he has to rise on a personal attack of myself. He cannot take the heat, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is the only defences that he has is a personal attack. An Honourable Member: ... pretty sensitive over there.

Everybody that talks to you is a personal attack. Mr. Reid: No, he makes fun of myself when I stand here to rise in defence of my constituents. When I make comments about the Minister of

4028 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) and he says that this is a joke, this is not a joke when it comes to the livelihood and the quality of life. The people of my community have to rely upon those incomes to support themselves and their families. The Minister of Government Services has said it is a joke. I can tell him that I will take his words back to those people in my commun ity and tell them that he thinks they are a joke, and they do not count in the system, and that his government thinks that they do not count.

That he also said, Madam Deputy Speaker that he thinks- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Ducharme: I reconfirm that I did not say that the legislation was a joke. My father always advised me, if you fight with a fool, you start to look like a fool, so I do not fight with fools. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Minister of Government Services does not have a point of order. Point of Order Madam Dep uty Sp eaker : The honourable member for Kildonan, on the same point of order? Mr. Dave Chomlak (KII donan) : No, Madam Deputy Speaker, a new point of order.

I did not hear the Minister of Government Services state he had a point of order. He simply stood up and interjected. I am wondering if the Deputy Speaker will direct the member to make clear that a point of order be raised. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Kildonan does not have a point of order. The hono urable Min ister of Government Services did not have a point of order. * * * Mr. Reid: It is very obvious that the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) is very sensitive when it comes to this legislation.

I am sure he has had ample opportunity to take this back to cabinet and have them withdraw this piece of legislation. That would have been the best action he could have taken with respect to this Bill 22 and the impact it is going to have on the people of this province, Madam Deputy Speaker. He may think that this is a joke, but it is not a joke. I have had people from my commu nity call me on this. They want to talk specifically about the impact upon them personally that this legislation will have. The Minister of Government Services thinks because people raise these concerns that they are all a joke.

Well, I advise him and I tell him right now that they are not kidding when they raise these matters. They are not fooling. They are very serious, because this is going to have a very detrimental and negative impact upon their quality of life and that of their families, something that it is very obvious that the Minister of Government Services fails to recognize.

By this legislation, it says that the government will emp ower all em ployers, includin g Crown corporations, hospitals, personal care homes, Child and Family Services agencies, muni cipalities, school boards, un iversities, colleges, Crown agencies, including the St. Amant Centre, and publi c sector employees will fall un der this legislation. These emplo yees will have to sustain loss of pay for up to 15 days in both financial years, the current one that we are in and the successive one, the one in '94-95. Now this is going to have an impact upon them because the cost of living is going to eat away.

As small as some members opposite might think that it is right now, it is still going to continue to erode the disposable income that these people have. So they are not only going to lose this pay, which is the equivalent of a 3.8 percent tax on them, but they are going to have to eat the cost-of -living increases as well. So it is well beyond the nearly 4 percent that is involved here. It will be in range of nearly 6 percent to 7 percent a year. That is what it is going to cost them. [interjection] Take a look at Statistics Canada, if the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) does not believe me.

Take a look at the figur es that they publish, what the cost of living is going to be for this year and what it is going to cost these people. It says that this act will prevail over and overrule all bin ding contracts. So it takes away any fairness that was negotiated. Any agreement, any willingness by the parties involved to come to an agreement in good faith, this act overrules it. The government likes to talk that this is a holiday for the public sector employees, as if you just take

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4029 a long weekend and go off to the lake and go fishing, as if everyone can afford to do that. What about the people that are making $20,000, $25,000 a year and have a family to support on that? They do not view this as a holiday where they can go fishing. God knows they have a hard enough time finding any money to take a holiday once a year to stay at home and continue to pay the bills. Now they have to incur the extra days of lost pay for th em.

It is a pen alty on the public sector employees. * (1 530) It says in the legislation here that the employees will be required to take a leave of pay each of two consecutive 12 -mo nth periods. So it is not just the one year that they are being impacted by this legislation, which was bad enough under Bill 70, but they are being hit again over a two-year period this time. What is your next act going to be? Are you going to impose it over a three-year period?

Every time we see legislation come forward from this government where you think that the public sec tor emplo yees tha t ar e overpaid and overcompensated for the services you perform , you hit them with a pay freeze or a pay rollback. Why can you not negotiate something in good faith with these people? Why can you not sit down at the table and say, listen, we have a problem here with our finances, we have a $862 mi llion deficit in this provi nce . You want to nego ti ate someth ing in good faith so that everybody can work together to get out of this problem, but I do not see that taking place here.

It says in the legi sl at ion , Madam Deput y Speaker, that the government is going to give, by this legislation, the ability for employers to act on a unilateral basis. Now I do not understand why employers should have the ability to act on a unilateral basis. Why can we not do something by co-opera tion? Is there something wrong with the word co-opera tion? Maybe it does not exist in the vocabulary of members opposite. Maybe it is something that they have removed. Maybe it is something they have never thought of or tried. Why do you not try it for a change?

What is wrong with taking a program-if you have problems with your deficit and you have to have a system that says you want to have some cost containment or cost control, why can you not have a program that fixes a floor level? Those members of our society who are working in the public sector, not all of them are paid the $50,000 or $60,000 or $1 00,000 like the members opposite obviously think. Those people who are paid maybe under $30,000, maybe there should be a sliding scale in there. Have you considered using a sliding scale that would kick in at anything above that point?

It is obvious that they have not thought of that. The people who are on those salary levels are having to pay the same bills that every one of us in this House have to pay. They have the same utility expenses and the same costs to run their homes as we do, yet on their salaries, they are being rolled back by those same amounts that the people at the higher levels are making. That to me does not seem fair. That does not strike the balance of the sense of fairness. An Honourable Member: They do not know the meaning of the word. Mr. Reid: It is removed from their vocabulary.

The em ployer will have the opportunity to determine the number of days of leave without pay that each employee must take, up to the maximum of 15 per year. When employees must take the days or portions of the days of leave without pay with in the 12 -m onth per iod , the em ployer determines that. The employer also determines the manner and the frequFmcy of the deductions from the employee's wage, in connection with the days or portions of days of leave without pay and any other matter that the employer considers relevant. Why is it that the employer is the only one who is making the decisions in this process?

What about the people who occupy these jobs? They have families to support. Why can they not be part of the decision-making process? Why are they being excluded by this legislation from being part of that process? In this legislation, I do not see anything in here that gives an appeal mechanism. There is nothing in this legislation that gives an appeal mechanism where employees are unjustly treated. There is nothing in the leg islat ion. Whom do you appeal to? So maybe fairness is not the objective here. It is obvious then, if you are not going to consider an appeal mechanism , that fairness is not the objective.

Otherwise, if you wanted to be fair, you

4030 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 would have had something built in there so that if employees were unjustly dealt with as a result of this legislation, they would have had some place to go. That is not in this legislation. Why not? Maybe that is something you should take back and look at an amendment if you are intent on moving forward with this legislation. Put some kind of an appeal mechanism in there. [interjection] ! am sure they will. If you want to call the by-elections, for the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns)-please, call the by-elections, and we will let the members of the public in those constituencies determine whether or not the course of action that you are following now is the right course. If not, they will Jet you know very clearly whether or not you are on the right course. By this legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, there is another

section here that causes me concern as well. This is an area that I would hope that the members opposite would be interested in securing or protecting in some manner. This is where there are emp loyees in the province who do not fall under a bargaining agent or a union for that type of protection. In this legislation, the employer can go to these people, whether they be middle management or empl oyees not covered by a bargaining agent, and give verbal directions to the employees and tell them that they are going to have to take certain days off without pay.

There is nothing in this legislation that says that those empl oyees have to be informed in writing. In other words, you would have some kind of an understanding, long term, of what days are going to be leave without pay that is going to be imposed upon them for the long term . In other words, it says here: No further notice is required by the employer to the emplo yee that is not covered by a bargaining agent. So what is to prevent an emplo yer from going along and changing those days that were verbally given by instruction to their emplo yees?

There is nothing in this legi slation that says employees have to be notified in writ ing. Maybe that is anothe r amendment that the government should consider if they are intent on pursuing this legislation. Give some protection to those employees not covered by bargaining agent status. The next

section in here is the limitation on school boards. The school board implements a reduced workweek, discretionary obviously for the school boards. I know in my own Transcona Springfield School Division No. 12 -and I know the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is probably aware of this-1 believe they have imposed six days leave without pay for the teachers in that division, just like that. What about the other divisions in the province that have a surplus in their bank account? The Minister of Agricultur e knows this, because he went to the same meetings I did in discussion with the trustees.

Those divisions that have a surplus in the bank do not have to impose those unpaid days off for those teachers. They can draw on the surplus, have the teacher s continue to provide the training programs, the education programs for our young people in those divisions. If their surplus is high enough, they might not even have to worry about this next year. Transcona-Spring field School Division does not have that luxury. They have had to impose six days leave without pay on their teachers this year. If the program continues next year, it may be higher next year for those teachers.

That is another bridge we are going to have to cross. Maybe they are going to go the maximum 15 days next year. What is that going to do? How is that going to impa ct up on the qu al ity of education in the commu nities that we represent? I was fortunate yesterday to attend a citizenship forum in my com muni ty at Mur doch Mackay Collegiate high school. We had 18 new citizens being sworn into Canada as citizens of this country. I was very pleased to be invited and to take

part in those ceremonies. They came from 1 0 different countries, those people. In part of that ceremony and that activity we had the good fortune to be entertained for a short period of time by the school band. The band was very well rehearsed, very professional, very polished in their performance. I thought to myself, as I was sitting there listening to them playing their tunes, playing 0 Canada I and God Save the Queen after, as the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) I know likes to take

part in from time to time, as he does in this House, I often wondered, what is going to happen to those band activities should those teachers decide to withd raw the ir services voluntarily from extracu rricular activities, like some have said.

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 4031 Now, that is their choice. It is an extracurricular activity. It is viewed as an extracurricular activity on the part of teachers who have very willingly over the years, even from the time when I was in school, participated in programs such as that to expand upon the education we are given, not just in the curriculum that is mandated by the province but the extras. Now, those programs are going to most likely have to be made up by the families who can obviously ill afford it, because I do not come from a very well- to-do commu nity in a sense.

It is a very modest-income community. That program could be in jeopardy from what I am hearing in the community now. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will take back to his colleagues in cabinet the impact on the quality of life it is going to have upon the children in the communities that he represents, which is the same area because it is covered by the same school division trustees.

The programs are going to be impacted by the decision that his cabinet and his government are making. * (1 540) Teachers, who continue to polish their skills and hone their skills to provide the best quality of education in the most effective and efficient manner possible, these professional development days are going to be eroded. Now the teachers have to choose.

Are they going to continue to do these programs on their own, take time away from their own families, at expense to their families obviously, or are they going to pull back away from these and just rely on the education and the experience and the training that they have developed at this point? We are not sure, as my colleague says, if Bob Kozminski has to take more time or maybe he loses some days off without pay. It is highly unlikely that would be the case.

Most of the teachers that I have had the good fortune and the experience in talking to, for my children that attend the schools in my community of Transcona, the teachers are very, very professional in the way that they deal with and interact with the parents of the community. These teachers are there at the parent-teacher meetings and the conferences and the special meetings that you have to have if there are problems that develop within the school and your children are involved. The teachers willingly attend these meetings and they show their good faith. What is happening to them now?

Now they are losing those professional development days, those days that allowed them to go out and hone those skills that they were putting to use. It might not be so critical at this point for the teachers that are currently employed and have had the good fortune to go through these programs over the course of the years that they have been teachers, but what about the new teachers coming along after them? What happens to them? They will not have the same oppor tu nities obviously to attend thes e pr ofes s ional development days. How do they develop and acquire these skills then?

Where do they go for this type of training? Hon. Ha rry Enns (Min is ter of Natural Resources): How do engineers do it? How do doctors do it? How do lawyers do it? How do the farmers do it? How do veterinarians do it? Mr. Reid: So what the Min ister of Natu ral Resources says is that they should take leave of absence then from their jobs and go back to school. Mr. Enns: Right. Why should it be at public expense? Mr.

Reid: And if you have families that are involved and you have a fam ily to su pport [interjection] In other words, from what the Minister of Natu ral Resources says, put your fam ily considerations aside, quit your job, or go on a leave of absence from your job, and go back to school and put in jeopardy the income that your family has so that you can go back and upgrade and gain those skills. What supports the family in the meantime? What is wrong with an educational program as you are working? An Honourable Member: Jus t tell us where the money is coming from. Come on, tell us where the money is coming from.

You have got all these smart ideas, where is the money coming from? Mr. Reid: Well, if the Minister of Agricultur e (Mr. Findlay) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) were that concerned, what they would do is they would call an election today and let us take those seats over there. Then we will tell you what we are going to do, and then we will show you how to run good government in this province.

4032 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 9, 19 93 An Honourable Member: We are still paying your debts you guys left behind. Mr. Reid: The Minister of Agriculture talks about debt. Let him not for a moment think-when the government changed in 19 88, there was a $57 million or $58 million surplus left in the bank account in this province. Since that time, this government has run up over $2 billion in deficit and debt in this province, at a cost of at least $16 0 mil lion a year in interest that they have incurred by their debt.

Do not tell us about debt in this province when you have had deficit and debt problems ever since you took government. Moving back to the legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, not so that I could be sidetracked for long by the rantings of the members opposite, I have concerns about how Child and Family Services are going to operate with this legislation. It is my understanding that these employees as well will be impacted by this legislation and will be required to take the time off and are curr ently, from my underst anding, I am told by the member for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett), taking the time off as a result of this legislation. What happens to the families who are in the process of breaking up as I have a few in my commun ity right now who have called me on a regular basis over the course of the last year? What happens when those children have to be apprehended, and it happens to occur on a Friday as has happened jus t in this month for one particular family in my community? Who do they call? Who is going to be on in-service to protect those children? Where are those children going to go? Are they going to go to a hotel or a motel?

Who is going to look after them when they are in the hotel or motel and at what expense? Are we saving any money by this? What type of programs or services are we providing to protect these children? 1 do not un derstand the rati onale of this legislation impacting upon essential agencies such as Child and Family Services, because these children are the most vulnerable children coming from these families. A lot of them are in abusive situa tions. That is why thes e fami lies are disintegrating.

Now, these children, do they have to wait until Monday or do they have to be provided the protection and the services from Child and Family Services? Do they have to wait for that skeleton staff that might be available from Child and Family to come and apprehend them and protect them? What services are there to help them? I do not hear any answers coming from members opposite. I am not sure th at they have thought this throu gh. I hope to God that nothin g unfortunate befalls any of these children, because it will be on your heads for making these decisions that have put these children at risk.

I hope you realize the seriousness and the consequences that can happen as a result of this decision. In the legislation, there is a

section here that says leave is not to be considered as layoff. So leave without pay is not to be considered lay off in the sense of loss of service. At least that is my interpr eta tion of the claus e here. It is my understanding, as well, that the purpose of this was so you could not collect unemployment insurance so you would lose up to 15 days pay and you could not collect unem ployment insurance for those days. What impact is this going to have upon the long-service employees of this province, those that by their long service are eligib le by cu rrent contracts if the holiday provision is still in effect.

For those emp loyees who after say 15 days or 12 days of service would be entitled to one day's vacation, do these employees then lose that one day's vacation for those lost days? [interjection] Now the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) does not understand the consequences of this obviously. These are all of the factors. Now the point is, if it is not part of the debating process here to point out the deficiencies of a legislation , including the impact that this legislation is going to have on families- 1 am now talking for the benefit of the member for St. Norbert (Mr.

Laurendeau ), who obviously has not read this legislation and is obviously not willing to enter the debate on this. We would be very interested to hear his commen ts about this legislation. The impact that it is going to have upon the long- service employees in the public sector: They are not only going to lose up to 15 days pay per year for the next two years, is there a likelihood that they will also lose more pay as a result of lost vacation days that they would have been entitled to? * (1 550)

June 9, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 4033 Pretty simple, pretty straightforward-! am sure even the member for St. Norbert can understand this. I remember the days back, I believe it was, into the late 19 70s that the Trudeau government at that time imposed upon the workers of Canada the 6-and-5 program . I remember my salary was affected by that. I was employed as part of a Crown corporation, and I had my salary frozen. It was impacted by that legislation. We had had contracts negotiated in good faith, and they were rolled back to meet the will of the Government of Canada by imposing that legislation.

The cost for all of those em ployees in this cou ntry who had to meet tha t gove rnment legislation was frozen at the 6 and 5, but the cost continued to escalate into double-digit figures for those years. I remember it clearly. Mr. Enns: And David Lewis and the New Democratic Party supported that policy .... Mr. Reid: The member for Lakeside obviously has a long memory and a long history when it comes to these programs, and I yield to his-it was not a minority government at that time, for his information, and our leader at that time, Mr. Lewis, did not su pport those programs.

He did not support those program s, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Enns: David Lewis kept Trudeau around to do it. Mr. Reid : Let the record not show, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the Minister of Natural Resources, the member for Lakeside, is putting these remarks, saying that our party supported the Trudeau government during the years of 6 and 5, because that is not the case.

Not only did we have our contracts negotiated in good faith rolled back to the point to meet the governme nt's legis lation the same way that is happening here in this province now, but the employees had the cost-o f-living increase on top of that, which was double-digit figures at that time. Governments like to freeze the wages of their employees, as this government is demonstrating her e an d as the Tru deau gove rnment demonstrated in years gone by, but why do you not try taking a look at containing the costs at the same time?

Are you going back to your suppliers for this government saying, listen, we have got to roll back our emp loyees by imposing this nearly 4 percent tax on them to contain our costs, to keep our costs of government operation down? Are you doing the same to your suppliers? Mr. Ducharme: In some cases, yes. Mr. Reid: Why not all of the cases? You are doing it to all of your emp loyees. [interjection] Oh, you have got to renegotiate. Well, why do you not impose things? You had a contract that was negotiated in good faith for your employees.

Why should contracts with your supplier s be any different than your employees? Where is your logic there? I do not understand the logic, how you can have a contract negotiated in good faith with your employees and you have a contract you have broken by this legislation, and now, with your suppliers, you say you have a contract that you are not going to break because you cannot do it. Why can you not do something like that? Obviously the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) is way out of touch with this. I know that the members opposite are not too interested. I know the member for St. Norbert (Mr.

Laurendeau) will have the opportunity to add his comments after my time here has expired, Madam Deputy Speaker. In this legislation it goes on to impose its will upon the medical commu nity of this province. Now, from my understanding of the legislation, it is going to limit the medical services that doctors' offices and doctors themselves will provide to the commu nity, and that where doctors have exceeded the cap or the amount the government has imposed that the differences will be deducted back from the doctors.

Now the doctors, I imagine, keep fairly good records through their accounting procedures during the operation of their offices, or at least I hope they do, but there is nothing in this legislation that says that where the doctors have

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-79
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 79.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	97ed9d6766e1a642ac23c173b4a009f5092c56bf

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