Manitoba Hansard — 13 August 1986 (Sitting 66, 33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-66

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 13 August, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon . M. Ph illips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COM MITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speaker, the Commi ttee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, di rects me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. Madam Speaker , I move, seco nded by the Honourable Member for lnkster that the Report of the Comm ittee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MIN ISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. HON. J. WASYL YCIA-LEIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the 19 86-87 Estimates, Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Recreation. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Highw ays. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I wish to table the Supplementary Information for the Department of Government Services. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: Madam Speaker, I beg leave to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the 1986-87 Estimates of the Attorney General's Department. MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motions . . INTRODUCTION OF BI LLS MR. G. MERCIER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 54,

An Act to amend The Real Property Act (3); Loi no3 modifiant la

Loi sur les biens reels. ORAL QUESTIONS MTS - calling of standing committee MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. 2911 MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Mini ster responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. I wonder if he can ind icate whether the Commit tee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will be sitting again tomorrow morning to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Telephone System. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister responsible for MTS. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I've had some dis cussion with the House Leader and we're still discussing that question as to whether or not we should have it tomorrow or sometime later. MR. G. FILMON: I wonder if the Mi nister would ind icate whether or not Mike Aysan will be available for the next sitting of the committee so that he can be asked questions by members of the Assemb ly. HON. A. MACKLING: That matter will be determ ined, of course, as well, and I wish to confirm that the commit tee would not be convening tomorrow but sometime later. MTS - Judicial Inquiry re MTX and subsidiaries MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question further to the Min ister responsible for the Telephone System is, given that the credibility of many senior officials of Manitoba Telephone System and MTX is in question because they have misi nformed this Minis ter, and in fact successive Min isters responsible for the Telephone System, as well as mem bers on this side of the House on a number of occasions, will he now be calling a judicial inquir y to open up for examination all of the records, all of the information with respect to the operations of MTX and its subsid iary and related corporations? HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, as I ind icated yesterday, as soon as this Minister received information from the affidavit that indicated that there was a potential public wrongdoing of persons involved in MTX, I contacted the Attorney-General's Department and the RCMP are currently conducting an investigation in respect to these matters.

I think it is appropriate for the RCMP who, through their commercial investigation unit, the Fraud Squad, have full professional ability to investigate and to make appropriate recommendations in respect to any charges that may be necessary should there be substance to those allegations, Madam Speaker. In addition to that, I've ind icated that in respect to the legitimate concerns in respect to the management

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 decisions, generally, in respect to MTX, aside from the question of the concerns about the Saudi Arabian involvement of MTX through the joint venture, which is the subject of the allegations and which is the subject of the investigation by the RCMP, that we are appointing an internationally recognized management firm to give us a full and complete analysis of the MTX operations and make full recommendations in respect to the manner in which that enterprise should be managed. We will take that advice, Madam Speaker, and act upon it. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that the allegations are not just of criminal activity, as important as that is; given that they're not just allegations of im proper management decisions; given that we have evidence over the past two weeks of this Mini ster having been misin formed by senior officials of the Telephone System; and I remind him, having been misinformed about the return of equipment from Saudi Arabia; having been misi nformed on the flogging incident; having been misinf ormed on the employment of Theresa Aysan; having been misinformed about which company it was that paid the kickback; given all of those concerns that are obviously out there in the public mind, that will not be covered either by the criminal inquir y or the management system review, will he not appoint a proper judicial inquiry that will allow for people to be examined under oath for all of the operational problems of the company to be placed open before the public so once more we can restore confidence in the Telephone System as a Crown Corporation of the people of Manitoba?

HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, all members of this House share a concern as to the seriousness of the allegations that are contained in the affidavit that was tabled in the commit tee the other day . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order. Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: . .. But I am troubled, Madam Speaker, that honourable members would suggest that somehow an investigation by the RCM P would involve cover-up. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order. Order please. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, when any citizen of Mani toba becomes aware of in formation that ind icates public wrongdoing, it's not a question of holding a hearing to find out whether there's subs tance to those charges. If it appears there is any su bstantial allegations likely to lead to a criminal prosecution, then the duty is to involve the police immed iately and not hold a hearing to determine whether or not there should be an investigation. Madam Speaker , the Ho nourable Leader of the Opposition has the sequence all wrong.

When there are specific allegations, then that's a matter for police investigation immedia tely, and that's the course of action that was followed in this instance. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Order. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, I have never suggested a cover-up. I'm suggesting that the gap between the two studies is so wide that very many of the things that should be examined can't be examined. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that many loyal emp loyees of the Telephone System have legitimately feared for their jobs and have not come forward to talk to this Mi nister or his predecessors; given that their employment can be placed at risk by having to talk privately with a management consulting firm about concerns they have about misinformation and other mis appropria tions and the way the management systems have caused the whole thing to go rotten; given that they can't be given this immuni ty without a judicial inquir y, why will he not call a judicial inquir y and let these people come forward?

A MEMBER: Maybe you should resign. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Min ister responsible for MTS. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the Honourable Leader of the Opposition in the one question, or the statement involving a question, ind icates the system is all rotten and, at the same time, expresses concern for the innocents who might be involved. Madam Speaker , we are not jum ping to conclusions that everyone inv olved has been in volved in public wrongdoing. There have been specific allegations made in a written document, sworn before a Notary Public.

Those are very serious allegations, if subs tantiated, will obviously involve criminal charges. Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that those specific charges be acted on immedia tely, and that's what I did within one hour of receiving the document that was tabled in the committee. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition is seeking the floor. I will recognize him when there is order in the House. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Given that this Min ister has been hung out to dry on at least three occasions during the past week alone because he's been provided with false and incorrect information, wo uldn't he take it upon hims elf to set the record clear to allow all of the members of the senior staff who have been giving him this misleading and incorrect information to be examined under oath in a judicial inquir y, to open up the air and to allow the corporation to once again be able to hold its head up high and to know that many of the employees, the vast majority of the employees, have absolutely nothing to do with this?

All they want is to have the corporation restored to its good graces in the eyes of the people of Manitoba. 2912

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I share the concerns of the honourable members. I've ind icated that all members of this House want to see a full and complete RCM P inqu iry to determine with precision who, if any, persons have been involved in public wrongdoing. I am not prepared to condemn carte blanche all management in the Telephone System, Madam Speaker. It's appropriate that there be an investigation and that, flowing from that investigation, there be whatever disciplinary actions are necessary. That's the course of action to be followed, Madam Speaker, not to condemn everyone.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. MTS - telephone equipmment - Southeastern Manitoba MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I di rect a question to the Min ister responsible for the Telephone System. Madam Speaker, some eight or nine years ago, the System installed in the Dugald area, servi cing the southeast portion of the province, new telephone equipment, I believe, valued to be around $8 million or $9 million worth.

I think, Madam Speaker, I or indeed perhaps the former Member for Brandon West was perhaps the Min ister responsible at that time for the Telephone System. Can the Min ister confirm or tell me whether that equipment is now being replaced by the new state-of the-art digital equipment in the Oakbank area, servicing that southeast corner? Is that equipment now being replaced? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I should, after learnin g from bitter experience recently , take the qu estion as notice and I will.

How ever, it is my recollection - I will research it and provide a precise answer as to date and time and value of equipment, but it is my - (I nterjection) - the honourable member says, why am I gun-shy. Not at all, not at all. Madam Speaker, it's been my anxiety to provide early and responsive answers that perhaps has, admitted ly, led me into some difficulty in the House. I will take the question as notice. I belie ve that there has been a commitment to a new digital system in that area. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the Minis ter's response.

While he's taking that question as notice, would he also take as further notice, the question as to whether or not that equipment that was valued at $8 million or $9 million some seven or eight years ago is now being transferred to the books of MTX for a nominal sum, and has subsequently been sold to the community of Keewatin, Ontario for a few hundr ed thousand do llars. I wonder if the Minis ter could undertake to provide that information to the House. HON. A. MACKLING: I'll take that as notice , Madam Speaker.

MTS - management consultant committee re investigation MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Mi nister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. Madam Speaker, the Mini ster is putting off the need for a full judicial inquir y by attempting, at some point in time, to hire an international management consulting firm to investigate the operations of MTX.

My question to the Min ister responsible for the Telephone System is: Will that management consultant firm have the abil ity to call MTS emp loyees and members in MTX, both corporations, to bring before them, without fear of loss of job, to provide information on the way that books may not have been kept properly, the way transfers of eq ui pment from Mani toba Telephone System to MTX at nominal values and then later resold, maybe become part of the public record; and will those employees enjoy full immuni ty from discipl inary action, firing and demotion?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster responsible for MTS. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I thank the honourable member for that question because it certainly has been my view that it should be made clear to employees - I thought that employees would always appreciate the fact that they could share with responsible people concerns they had. I regret the fact that the information contained in that affidavit had not been brought to the attention of this Minis ter or previous Minis ters earlier.

I can assure the honourable member that I' ve talked to the chairperson of the Telephone System Board about those concerns, about making sure that emp loyees understand they have complete assurance; that they can cooperate fully with the R.C. M. Police and with the management review, with complete assurance that that wouldn't affect their employment status, providing, of course, that they have not been culoable and involved in wrongdoing themselves. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, a supplementary to the same Min ister.

Will the information taken from those officials in MTS and MTX, and particularly from the senior officials who, in the past, have misled this Min ister, be given under oath to the management consultant comm ittee? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, that matter has not been decided yet. It may be that that kind of authority may be necessary to be gi ven to a management review function. I don't know whether that's usual.

I think it's unusual to that kind of function, but certainly we want to assure that the management review - (Int erjection) - The Honourable Member for Emerson wants to interrupt and not hear an answer to a question put by his honourable colleague. Madam Speaker, he hollers "cover-up" when I indi cate an R.C.M. Police investigation. 2913

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. I do presume that the honourable member who asked the question wants to hear the answer. If any other members have questions, they can certainly ask in turn. The Honourable Min ister. HON. A. MACKLING: The answer, Madam Speaker, is yes, no question, but that message will go to employees. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Pembina with a final supplementary. MR. D. ORCHARD: Did I just hear the Min ister say that employees will now testify to the management consultant committ ee under oath?

You just answered yes to the question and that was the point of the question. MTS - Judicial Inquiry re MTX and subsidiaries MR. D. ORCHARD: My question then would be: Why would you not call a judicial inquir y if you're requiring testimony under oath, which is the purpose of a judicial inquir y? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. A question has been asked; the Min ister is going to endeavour to answer it. The Honourable Minis ter responsible for MTS. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, the honourable member asks several questions, interprets answers in the way he thinks it's most appropriate for him.

I indicated that in respect to the question of testimony under oath, that's a matter that would certainly be considered, that no decision is made in respect to that. In respect to the question of whether employees will understand and appreciate that they have full immuni ty, the answer is yes. That's the answer I gave to the honourable mem ber. MTS - management consultant committee re investigation MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, a question to the Min ister responsible for the Telephone System.

This investigation, using a management consultant team, will it be open to members of the media as a full judicial inquir y would be open to members of the media and members of the Opposition, to peruse, to watch and to be present at all of these presentations by MTS employees? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons that the RCMP are called upon to investigate is so the in formation that th ey ded uce is not telegraphed; people don't know what information is being disclosed - (I nterjection) - MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, what is under way right now is an RCM P investigation. Those kind of investigations are not held in public for the reason, to be effective, they are held in-camera. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, obviously the Minister responsible for the . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a supplementary question? MR. D. ORCHARD: . . . did not un derstand the question. I did not ask about the police inquir y, Madam Speaker, I asked about the inquir y, the investigation undertaken by the management consultant firm into the administrative practices of MTS.

Madam Speaker, my question to the Min ister, since he did not hear it, or chose not to understand it in the first ins tance: Will the management consul tant's analysis of MTX and MTS, at which MTX-MT S employees will be present, will that inquir y, will that investigation be open to members of the media, to mem bers of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition while those employees are testifying to this management consultant committee? MADAM SPEAKER: That question is repetitious. It is almost identical to the former question. Order please.

If the honourable member is not satisfied with an answer from a Min ister, he is not able to dictate an answer to a Min ister. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina on a point of order. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, the Mi nister resp onsible for the Mani toba Telephone System deliberately misund erstood my question in order to hide facts from the people of Manitoba. He knows full well, Madam Speaker, I did not ask about the RCMP investigation, that I asked about the management consultants. He refuses to ask that question in order to further cover up his incompetence.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. The member cannot rise on a point of order to complain about the answer a Min ister gives. I presumed that the member was rising on a point of order to take issue with my admonishments about repeating questions and about insisting on an answer from a Min ister. The honourable member does not have a point of order. Infill Housing Program MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question for the Min ister of Housing.

With the Infill Housing Program being very successful, line-ups waiting to look at homes and so forth, I'd like to know exactly how successful this program is. Are there many homes left to be sold? What is the situation? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The honourable member has a right to ask a question in this House and has the right to have an answer. 2914

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 The Honourable Mi nister of Housing. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Yes, I'm very pleased to get the question and to give facts, not opinion, that suggests and tells us that the Infill Housing Program that has been going since 1982 is one of the most successful housing programs, to help revitalize the inner city, that we've ever had. We made available for the sale to the public 75 Infill houses. The response was tremendous; about 32 homes were sold in one day. We are receiving telephone calls and orders every day.

If you have a constituent who is interested in living in the inner city, which many people are, then they should call quick ly. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice with a supplementary. MR. H. SMITH: A supplementary question. If the program is this successfu l, is the Min ister contemplating expanding it in the coming year? HON. M.

HEMPHILL: It's clear that with the tremendous response that we're having in making affordable homes available to people in the inner city who otherwise could not afford to buy a home, and the fact that we are buying up empty lots which are just garbage heaps and putting good, beautiful homes on them and helping revitalize the city, clearly we will want to continue this program, Madam Speaker. Spruce Industries - late funding MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

On July 23, I took as notice a question from the Me m ber for Gladstone reg arding some delays of payments made to Sprucedale Ind ustries and the Manitoba Agricultural Museum, both in Austin.

I can report with regard to Sprucedale Ind ustries, the method of payment is, that on the fifth day of the month following the month which service is provided, they have to invoice the Department of Communi ty Services and processes of the payments are then made through Community Services and Financef The records show for April, May and June that payments were issued for the end of April on June 5; May on July 15 ; and June on July 23, so the payments ranged from 23 days to 45 days, which is a lot shorter than the two to three months that the Member for Gladstone had indi cated.

The time for processing varies by the workload in both of the departments but, in any case, the one month where there was considerable delay was as a result of the normal year-end delays that take place in the processing of payments. Manitoba Agricultural Museum - late funding HON. E. KOSTYRA: With regard to the Manitoba Agricultural Museum, the payments were made on June 9 and July 23. There are two payments made every year.

In the one case it was just under a month later; in the other case it was eight days later than the previous year and that was as a result of the transfer of authority from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Culture, Heritage and Recreation. MTS - services re rural Manitoba MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH: Thank you , Madam Speak er. My question is to the Min ister responsible for MTS.

In light of the fact that there's been tremendous losses in Saudi Arabia and in light of previous statements that the Min ister has made in regard to service to rural Manitobans, particularly those in the surrounding areas such as my riding of Springfield, and he's often referred to the fact that the former member made strong representation, a member who I might add, was in the same Cabinet who authorized the . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question. MR. G. ROCH: Yes.

Will the Mi nister now, immed iately, extend the Winnipeg Exchange service to those MTS customers who have been subsidizing these losses in Saudi Arabia so far? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister responsible for MTS. HON. A. MACKLING: The Honourable Member for Springfield should know that his predecessor in this Ho use, the previous Honourable Me mb er for Springfield, addressed very eloquent arguments to me and I've ind icated that in respect to the concerns of the people of Springfield for im proved telephone service.

But I think the honourable member should talk to the Member for the Interlake because apparently there's some disagreement. I know that there were plans, if they had not been completed, in respect to very substantial im provements in the exchange facility in Springfield and I gather that he doesn't appeciate that effort. Madam Speaker, the honourable member will recall my indi cation that the whole matter of expanded services of the telephone system in Manitoba is under active review by the Manitoba Telephone System Board at the urging of this government. MR. G.

ROCH: Seeing we have so much money to throw away in Saudi Arabia, could he at least, in the best interests of the citizens of Manitoba and especially rural Manitobans, reduce the horrendous costs of FX service, as well as charge the same rates of inter ests, which would be lower, as those charged for our Saudi Arabian colleagues? 2915

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, if there was a new question involved, I didn't hear it. There's a concern about rates. I've ind icated that the whole question of service throughout Manitoba by the Manitoba Telephone System, including a review of the multi-line service, a review of the extended calling area or regional calling area, all of those matters are under active review by the Manitoba Telephone System through dir ection by its board and this Min ister. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, I don't think the Mi nister is understanding the questions again.

What I was asking was, in view of the fact that we have so much money to pour into other areas of the world besides Manitoba, will the Min ister undertake to reduce immediately the cost of those subscribers to FX - that have FX service - and also reduce the rate of inter est to those who are possibly a month late in their payments, the same as we give a reduced rate of in terest to other people such as those in Saudi Arabia? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

That question is, in essence, the same as the previous supplement ary, and if the answer is not to a member's satisfaction, then that's as I have said before the way it is. Does the member have a final supplementary? MR. G. ROCH: Yes. Madam Speaker, in light of the answers that the Min ister is giving or the non-answers, I may as well hang up on him. Crown corporations - code of conduct MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Deputy Premier .

Madam Speaker, can the Minis ter tell us, are all Crown corporations in the Province of Manitoba subject to a code of conduct similar to that imposed upon all federal Crown corporations by the Government of Canada? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Mini ster of Commun ity Services. HON. M. SMITH: During the, I think it was the'83-84 period, the ERIC Comm ittee of Cabinet did develop a fairly extensive code of conduct and it does apply to all Crowns. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, a supplementary question to the same Min ister. Can we have a copy of the code distributed to all members of this House?

HON. M. SMITH: I think that can be done, Madam Speaker. MTS - Judicial Inquiry re MTX and subsidiaries MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: A new question to the Deputy Premi er. Madam Speaker, in li ght of the charges and allegations that have been addressed towards both the Minis ter of Manitoba Telephone System and also to the Chairman of MTS and to the President of MTX, and in light of the fact that we have already had one judicial inquir y this year into clearing the good name of the Min ister, why is this government unwilling to act with consistency and to call a judicial inquir y on MTS/ MTX?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mi nister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, it's our opinion that the management audit will be very thorough and the RCMP investigation will not only cover the ground but cover it in a very speedy and effective manner. MTS - services, rural Manitoba MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for MTS. I'm inter ested to note that the plans are in place to im prove the phone services in Springfield.

The people of Eddystone, Bacon Ridge and Ebb and Flow will not be heartened to hear that because their phone service has been somewhat inadequate for the last year-and a-half. Problems have been ongoing. The staff is working beyond their normal hours well into the night. My question is, Madam Speaker, will the Minister take this concern to the corporation and ask them to provide a service which these people should be entitled to? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi ni ster responsible for MTS. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, as one who enjoys telephone service albeit a party line .. .

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The honourable member asked a question. I would hope that his colleagues would allow him to hear the answer. The Honourable Min ister. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I was trying to ind icate to the honourable member that I do appreciate the concerns of residents in Manitoba who are on multi line service because I enjoy that kind of service myself. There are some frustrations that occur from time to time and one of the concerns that we have is that we seek to eliminate multi-line service in Manitoba.

That is one of the mandates of the studies that we have referred to the Telephone System to bring forward. Included in that is a concern for residents in areas of Manitoba to have larger free-calling areas so that there can be more effective and more reasonable rates in respect to communi cation in the various regions of the province. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, a new question to the Minis ter, if I may. 2916

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 I believe he has confused my question today with the previous concern that I had expressed to him. My concern is not with party lines. My concern is that there is no communication at all and have been intermittent for the last year-and-a-half. In fact the only way that commun ication could be had out of the community the last day-and-a-half is by the pay phone. It would seem to me that it's improper to ask people who are trying to run a business to have to go to another community to get a phone to make a long-distance charge ... MADAM SPEAKER: Does the mem ber have a question? MR. G.

CUMMINGS: The question to the Min ister, Madam Speaker, is: Will he undertake to give dir ection to MTS to examine their service in this area and to ascertain if they are receiving service that is up to the standards that we should expect from MTS in this province? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the concerns of honourable mem bers. From time to time I do get requests from honourable members. I know that colleagues on this side of the House have brought to me concerns in respect to the degree of service that is available in their areas. I welcome those concerns; I will refer them to the corporation.

MR. G. CUMM INGS: A supple ment ary, Madam Speaker, to the same Min ister. In the communi ties of Alonsa and Mccre ary, where without any long-distance service for a considerable length of time recently, and the answer that they received from personnel was that the equipment is not of any value, so what do you expect. My question to the Minis ter is: Will he attempt to look into the long-distance equipment that's being used in that area and have the officials ascertain if it is in fact quality equipment?

MTX - disciplinary actions of employees in Saudi Arabia MADAM SPEAKER: Would honourable mem bers please keep order. Would the Honourable Member for Lakeside like to ask a question as well? MR. H. ENNS: Would the Hono urable Min ister tell us about the caning, just once more, that gentle caning that some of the MTS employees received, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Would the honourable Mi nister care to answer? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I think that question has been flogged enough. MTS - services, rural Manitoba MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Apparently the Mini ster is unaware of what my next question was going to be because the personnel, when they received complaints from my constituents, were abrupt, abusive and impolite. They've got the same attitude that Min ister has. Will he give us some answer as to why we don't get better service in the province? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , I think I ind icated my concern that if any member had issues or problems in respect to telephone service in their area, I had sympathy for that.

I'd ind icated that colleagues on this side of the House have brought concerns to me and I'd brought those to the attention of the corporation. I welcome the honourable mem bers bringing that to my attention. I don't think I was arrogant, I don't think I was abusive in my answer, I don't think that I was abrupt in my answer. I think I was reasonable and the record will show. But I would like the honourable member , when th ere is a problem, to bring it to my attention immed iately and I will act on it as I have done in every case.

Agriculture - Feed Subsidy Program MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. C. BAKER: It's hard to hear, Madam Speaker, but thank you. My question is to the Honourable Minis ter of Agriculture. In view of the recent simul taneous announcements in Mountain, Halifax, Charlottetown and Edmundson that the Federal Min ister is offering $35 million, the five-year Feed Sub sidy Program, has the Federal Mini ster of Agriculture confirmed to the Min ister of Agriculture whether this means a federal subsidy will apply to Western Canada as well? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Agriculture.

HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, there's no doubt that I can understand the Federal Government's assistance to livestock producers of Eastern Canada in terms of lowering their costs of feeding their livestock.

But as well, Madam Speaker, we have taken the position that agriculture and the grain indus try in Western Canada needs support, needs immense support in order for the grain ind ustry to survive; therefore, in view of the announcement that the Federal Government has made several weeks ago when I met with the Federal Min ister of Agriculture, I raised the question whether or not there would be deficiency payment in line with what Western Premiers have raised and our Premier has raised at the Premiers' Conference in Edmonton, Madam Speaker.

We continue to say if it's good for eastern farmers, certainly the grain ind ustry in the west should be protected. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable House Leader. 2917

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, before calling bills, we have some committee changes. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: Yes, comm itte e chan ges for the Muni cipal Affairs Committee; the Member for Brandon East substituting for the Member for Gimli. MESSAGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, before calling bills, Madam Speaker, I understand that there is a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Govern or. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Finance. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. MADAM SPEAKER: The Lieutena nt-Governor transmits to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, Estimates of further sums required for the services of the province for Capital Expenditures and recommends these Estimates to the Legislative Assemb ly. Le lieutenant-gouverneur transmet a I' Assemblee leg is lativ e du Mani toba, le bud get des sommes supplementaires relatives a !'immobil isation qui sont requises pour !'admin istration de la Province et recommande ce budget a l'Assemblee legislative.

The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Attorney-General, that the said messages, together with the Estima tes accompanying the same, be referred to the Committee of Supply. MOTION presented and carried. ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Madam Speaker, could you call Second Readings for Bills No. 37, 39 and 52 on Page 4; and, following that, could you please call Adjourned Debates on bills in the following order: Bills No. 23, 25, 30, 32, 42, 44, 14 and 4.

It's my understanding, as well, that there will be no Private Mem bers' Hour this afternoon. SECOND READING BI LL NO. 37 - THE CITY OF WINNIPEG ACT HON. G. DOER presented Bill No. 37,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Urban Affairs. HON. G. DOER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'm pleased to introduce the Second Reading of Bill 37,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act. More than half of the amendments, Madam Speak er, prepared for consideration for the Legislature, have been drafted in response to specific and legitimate requests made by the City of Winnipeg. For the most part, Madam Speaker, Bill 37 contains amendments which are administrative in nature. These amendments to The City of Winnipeg Act elimi nate obsolete references and correct minor errors and omissions and inconsistencies. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Could we conduct the business of the House in an orderly fashion?

There are several private conversations going on which I'm sure could be conducted elsewhere. HON. G. DOER: Among the administrative amendments is a change to the act to permit the City of Winnipeg to charge a property owner through the tax roll with any expenses associated with the demolition of ins anit ary premis es for an order to comply with minimum maintenance and occupancy standards. The costs being referred to include bailiffs' fees, court expenses, the cost of placarding of premises and other such administrative expenditures.

Another admin istrative amendment is intended to make uniform the method of advertising a public hearing upon subd ivision applications with a hearing for rezoning applications. Currently, the requirements under the act for advertising public hearings are different for subdivisions and rezoning applications. The proposed amendmen t would require that, as with rezoning applications, public hearings for subdivision applications be advertised in one newspaper having gen eral circulation and in one newspaper, where available, having local community circulation.

Also among the minor amendments in Bill 37 is one which deals with the busine ss trade licences. Concern has been expressed to the city by the local busine ss community over the fact that the licence fee for transient traders and non-resident merchants is paid at the same rate. The amendment will permit local busi nesses paying taxes to the City of Winnipeg to pay a smaller licence fee than non-residents for conducting business off the premis es of their established locations in Winnipeg. Bill 37 also contains two subs tantively important amendments.

The first of these would introduce into the act provisions for granting property tax relief for heritage buildings while they are undergoing major renovation work. Essentially, the amendment would permit buildings on the city's building conservation list to be exempted, in whole or in part, from property taxes during the period of substantial renovations. This tax relief, during substantial renovations, would only be available until the building in question can be occupied but the exemption cannot exceed two years. The two-year limit on exemptions from property tax 2918

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 assessment would make the provisions for heritage buildings similar to those existing in the act for new construction or additions to existing structures. This legislation was prepared in response to a request from the City of Winnipeg. The city has been approached by heritage building renovators for property tax assistance during the period of reconstruction or conversion. For instance, the developer proposing the residential conversion of the Ashdown Warehouse in the Exchange District has requested tax assistance not only from the province but from the city.

Likewise, non profit housing groups have made similar requests regarding other residential conversions in the city . Another particular one is the Great West Saddlery Building on Market Avenue, also located in the Exchange District. Gi ven the provincial commitment to the renovation and rehabilitation of historical buildings and through residential development in the central area of the city, i.e., the Core Area Initiative and the new Heritage Resources Act extending to those heritage buildings, the temporary tax exemptions currently enjoyed by new buildings and additions would be a consistent policy response.

The second substantially significant amendment deals with the City of Winnipeg Police Commission. This amendment req uested by the city would de lete reference to the City of Winnipeg Police Commission and the Committee of Finance as the body to hear internal disciplinary matters. Instead, the Board of Comm issioners would be assigned responsibility for hearing other matters related to internal discipline of the police staff. Of course, Madam Speaker, we also have the body established under the Manitoba Police Commission for more general investigations.

Currently, the Board of Comm issioners deals with other city staff grievance hearings. Therefore, it would be quite appropriate and consistent to have one body responsible for all internal di sci pli nary hearings, including those involving the police department staff. In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I would recommend Bill 37 to the honour able mem bers for th eir consideration and adoption. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKE R: The Honourable Mem ber for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, perhaps before I speak, could I ask the Mini ster a question with respect to the bill?

Could the Min ister advise why all of the sections that appear to relate to the duties of the police department - members of the department and oath of office, etc. were deleted and then simply replaced with, I appreciate, maybe updated wording, but very similar types of wordings? HON. G. DOER: This was the wording that was developed consistent with the city's request, the staff of the Attorney-General's Department and the City Solicit or. MR. J.

ERNST: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can pursue that a little further once we get to the comm ittee stage, 2919 but at this time I don't see any major problems with respect to the bill. Many of these recommendations have been abroad for a while and have been expected or anticipated by the city. Madam Speaker, what concerns me more is the fact not so much as what's in the bill, although it's a welcome change, I'm sure, in amending a number of areas, but really what's not in the bill, and the concern that there are a great many other amendments that ought to have been addressed over the past any number of years.

Madam Speake r, the re are 30 or 40 pages of amendments that have not yet been dealt with, have not yet been addressed, many of which are again in a technical or minor nature on which we spoke during the Estimates process. So, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased that some of these amendments at least are proceeding.

I know that the question of the heritage legislation for one will be a welcome edition, and I know that there are a number of projects that are eagerly awaiting this legislation so that they can take advantage of the same kind of tax break during their construction process that new buildings have enjoyed for the past number of years.

Madam Speak er, the qu estion of a two-year moratorium on taxes will, I think, spark a number of additional heritage projects, particularly in downtown Winnipeg, which will be most welcome and which will, I think, dovetail quite nicely with the renewed Core Area Ini tiative Agreement that will be coming on stream, hopefully, in a short period of time. The question of the police department and the police commission, I think also a decision had been taken by the city to abolish the police commission, effective the first meeting after the election in the fall of 19 86.

Of course, the legislation is coincident with that and will force that to happen. Madam Speaker, I really don't want to prolong debate so much on this bill and I would therefore see it move on to commit tee. Thank you. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 39 - THE MANITOBA ENERGY AUTHORITY ACT HON. E. KOSTYRA presented Bill No. 39,

An Act to amend The Mani toba Energy Authorit y Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Regie de l'energie du Manitoba, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SP EAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a copy of the speaking notes for the critic, but I guess we'll give it to Mr. Manness. I'm pleased, on behalf of the Min ister of Energy and Min es, to place before this House amendments to The Manitoba Energy Authority Act. These amendments are largely technical in nature, clarifying the MEA's role in a numb er of areas in which the Authority has been active for some time.

- _ _1._� Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 In line with the previous adminis tration's di scussion on attracting aluminum companies to Manitoba, the previous Minister of Energy and Mines directed that the MEA become involved in attracting energy intensive ind ustries to Manitoba. The amendments before you formalize this responsibil ity. As members are aware, the Department of Finance is examining the possibility of financing a portion of Lime stone Generating Station on the strength of Manitoba's contract with Nor thern States Power.

The amendments I am placing before the House today would facilitate such project financing to go ahead if it is deemed advantageous. Since, by existing statute, all hydro-electric firm exports must be approved by the Manitoba Energy Authority, the Authority has co-signed with Manitoba Hydro all such export agreements. These amendments clarify this responsibilit y. Finally, these amendments include a provision now included in most Crown corporations-related statutes allowing a member of this House to serve on the Energy Authority's board of dir ectors, and an amendment repealing a

section of The MEA Act which became redundant when the Manitoba Energy Authority became funded under The Loan Act. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Mor ris. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Mi nn ed osa, that deba te be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 52 - THE MANITOBA MEDICAL ASSOCIA TION FEES ACT HON. L. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 52, The Manitoba Medical Association Fees Act;

Loi sur les dr oits de I' Association Medicale du Manitoba, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mi nister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, in December of 19 84 the Government of Manitoba and the Manitoba Medical Association jointly end orsed a Statement of Intent committing both parties to a cooperative working relationship in the search for solutions to problems in health care.

The Statement of In tent in cluded pro posed amendments to The Health Services Insurance Act to eliminate extra billing, approval of binding arbitration on fee di sputes for a trial period of three years, and, if at least 51 percent of physicians voted for such an arrangement, an approval of mandatory MMA dues if a ballot indi cated a positive response on this subject.

This cooperative approach had an immediate and sizable financial imp act on the Manitoba Med ical Assocation; for example, the MMA's sponsorship of two physici ans on th e He alth Services Review Commi ttee and the establishment of special MMA commit tees on fee income disparities, medical power, utilization and high technology, together with the legal costs involved in the binding arbitration process. Legislation to prohibit extra billing was passed at the 1985 Session of the Legislature.

An agreement between the Manitoba Medical Association and the Manitoba Health Services Com mission has been concluded that contains a provision for mediation arbitration on fee disputes for a trial period of three years starting on April 1, 1986. Late last year, ballots were dis tributed and positions on the matter of compulsory payment of MM A dues and the results were audited by an independent firm of chartered accountants. With the ballot returned from positions, 53 percent voted in favour of compulsory payment of MM A du es.

The Manitoba Me di cal Association has asked for legislation on compulsory payment of dues to be placed by September 1, 19 86. This bill would accommodate that request. The Manitoba Medical Association points out that legislation for the compulsory payment of Medical Association dues by all practising physicians exists in the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The same principle applies in Quebec where physicians pay du es to either general practitioners' or specialists' federations.

We understand that the concept is under serious consideration by the Sask atchewan and British Columbia Me di cal Associations. The association points out that the MMA negotiations di rectly benefit all fee-for-service physicians, mem bers and non-members alike. The negotiations also influence salary schedules. As the Manitoba Medical Association serves as the collective voice of Manitoba physicians, we are prepared to respect their request. Compulsory payment of MMA dues would provide ongoi ng su pport for MM A program s.

It should be note d that the propos ed legislation makes it mandatory for every duly qualified medical practitioner who owns a current licence under The Me di cal Act to pay the Manitoba Me di cal Association dues on or before September 1 of each year. If a physician does not wish to be a member of the association, he/she will not be required to pay the portion of the annual membership that is payable for membership in the Canadian Medical Association. Also, if a physician becomes licensed during the year, there is provision for a proration of the compulsory fee.

The legislation contains a penalty whereby if the medical practitioner fails to pay the fee required by the due date, the physician is subject to a fine of $1 ,000 in addition to the amount of the fee. The Manitoba Medical Association would be able to recover the debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

The legislation would not apply to a physician who holds a resident 's licence or to those physicians where the fee is waived by resolution of the board of dir ectors of the association, if the board is satisfied that the payment of the fee would result in undue hardship or would not advance the purposes of the legislation. The legislation also contains a provision whereby compulsory payment of fees would be suspended if the agreement between the Manitoba Health Services Commission and the Manitoba Medical Association is ter mina ted. If a new agree ment is su bsequently 2920

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 arranged between the commission and the association, the Lieutenant-Governor -in- Council could lift the suspension. On the basis of the foregoing explanation, Madam Speaker, I would recommend passing to the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, C. Santos: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I want to make a few comments on Bill 52. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, what we have in Bill 52 is the institution of unionized doctors in Manitoba, because what we're doing now is before they can belong or practise in the Province of Manitoba, they are going to be paying dues to the MM A. There is no exception. If they're a medical doctor in the Province of Manitoba, I believe by the definition in the act, full or part-time, all medical practitioners in the Province of Manitoba with Bill 52 will be required to pay dues to the Manitoba Medical Association without exception. That, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is unioni zation of our doctors.

That is a check-off if they're going to perform medi cal practit ioner services in the Province of Manitoba. The act, as the Min ister indicated, does provide an exception where undue circumstances would guide the board of di rectors of the Manitoba Medical Association to provide an exemption to that physician. I don't know what circumstances that might involve but that is the only exception. I would think, given the income levels of doctors, that a financial hardship would probably not be a reason for an exemption. I think basically what we're talking about in this legislation is compulsory union dues check-off.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that presents some interesting philosophical questions. I would suspect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is exactly why only 53 percent of the returned ballots that the Min ister referred to supported the compulsory dues aspect of the MM A. The interesting thing, and I cannot put the figure on the record because my memory fails me, but the 53 percent was not of medical practitioners in the Province of Manitoba; it was only of those who returned their ballots.

There were a number who did not return their ballots and I believe that the 53 percent figure, if it was considered over all of the medical practitioners in the Province of Manitoba, the percent supporting by that ballot falls to less than 40 percent, probably in the 35 percent range. That means, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that substantial num bers of doctor s are not ent husiastic about compulsory payment of dues. That is not to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that they aren't already paying them because it's my understanding that approximately 80 percent are paying them now.

Given the return of the ballot, it would seem that a majority of them don't appreciate the compulsory aspect that is required in this legislation and the unionization, if you will, of the professional doctors in Manitoba. One aspect of the bill does trouble me somewhat in that the payment of dues is necessary to the MMA, but membership in the MM A is not necess ary. In other words, you can have a physician who by choice and by principle decides the MMA is not an organization 2921 he wishes to belong to.

This legislation compels him to pay his dues, however, to that association to which he chooses principally not to belong. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there appears to be - and we will get further explanation, no doubt, at commitee stage - a

section in the bill which would allow the Manitoba Medical Association to disallow membership in that association but still collect the dues from the physician. Mr. Deputy Speaker , that presents an in teresting challe nge. There is an organization called the Association of Independent Physicians who are quite solidly opposed to this compulsory dues check-off.

In a democratic society and within a democratic organization, one could make the argument that if the Association of Independent Physicians are of sufficient num bers, that they can become members of MM A, elect thems elves to the senior executive positions of MMA, and then reverse this legislation, they would have their will. There appears to be a clause in the bill which allows the MMA to not grant membership to any physician in Manitoba, but yet still compel that person to pay his dues to the association. That would seem, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if that in fact is exercised and is part of the legislation, to be a denial of the dem ocratic process that I have just outlined as a method for a group like the Association of Independent Physicians to achieve their point of view through the MM A. They can never get to be the president of the MM A or in an executive position in the MMA, if they're not allowed to become mem bers of the MMA. Yet their funds - they will be required to pay dues there and they may be denied membership in the MMA. I think that is something the Mi nister should seriously look at.

There's another area of the bill that I have concern with. It ind icates that the association, meaning the Manitoba Medical Association, shall give notice of dues being due, or the dues being payable, but yet a later portion of that particular

section says, however, that if they fail to do that or if the physician does not receive that, the dues are still payable anyway. Why would you have a "shall" requirement in a bill and say at the same time but a failure by the association, either to present that bill to its mem bers or failure of the member to receive it, still requir es payment of the dues? That's confusing to me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In addition, the penalties in this bill are onerous. There is a fine of $1 ,000 to which any physician who refuses to pay his Manitoba Medical Association dues is subject.

It's not as I read the bill, a fine of up to $1 ,000; it is a fine of $1 ,000.00. In addition to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he is compelled to pay his dues as well. So a doctor who is philosophically opposed to the principle in this bill, and by principle and by personal conviction refuses to pay his Manitoba Medical Association dues, they go up from a figure of approximately $595 today to a figure of $1 ,595 because this legislation will compel him to pay the dues and compel him to pay the fine as well. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that hardly seems democratic because under other legislation, and I haven't checked all the prof essional acts, etc., but here we have legislation which allows an organization, for failure to pay dues, to impose on the members and collect and put in the same treasury the fine for failure to pay the dues. That makes it a very lucrative operation for MMA

.. --- Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 to take any physician who refuses to pay dues from a principled standpoint, because the collection then goes from $595 to $1 ,595.00. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, one other area that is of some concern is that the collection of dues may be suspended by Order-in-Council and I presume the circumstance under which this would be triggered is if the, as the Min ister explains, the binding arbitration has not yet achieved an agreement and it appears to be at an im passe, then the MMA can request that their dues not be collected because presumably this binding arbitration is supposedly to benefit all doctors and that's why they are saying that all doctors must pay. But, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if there is an agreement struck after the first Order-in-Council is passed, then a second Order-in-Council comes along passed by the Cabinet again and can be retroactive. So there is no exemption from dues under this exemption.

That is simply window dr essing for the termina tion and suspension of dues by Order-in-Council because I would suspect that if a termination of dues was granted by Order-in-Council and then reins tated after an agreement was in place, the second Order-in-Council would reinstate the dues back to the first date at which it was suspended, and I don't believe that those clauses in that

section of the bill would necessarily be usable. Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is one other area that I want to address briefly and this is an area in which comments have been made to me by physicians who are opposed to compulsory dues check-off and are, I believe, and I'm not certain of this, but I believe are not members of the MM A. They foresee the MMA with compulsory dues legislation becoming a bureaucracy that will grow and employ more physicians in executive positions, etc. Mr .

Deputy Spea ker , we'v e often heard this government and this Min ister indicate that we appear to have too many physicians in Manitoba and that the problem down the road is that we're going to definitely have too many physicians because we're graduating more than what the province of a million people need. If the government holds that as a concern and a problem, then maybe those physicians opposed to compulsory dues check-off do have a legitimate case.

Maybe with compulsory dues check-off, there will be hiring of more and more physicians into the MMA in executive positions requiring more and more dues and higher and higher dues. Once again, this legislation when passed does not allow in any way, shape or form, I believe, any physician to not pay those dues.

As I said, the AIP as an association opposed to it could hardly, I think, in most cases, plead financial hardship to have an exemption as is provided under the bill, so that I don't think that any physicians who are opposed to this from a principled standpoint will have any alternative with the passage of this legislation but to pay their dues, or pay their dues plus a fine. There is no way out. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, this legislation does not allow for legitimate expression of personal freedom amongst the physicians in terms of their choice of funding an organ ization that may be viewed by mo st to be beneficial, but the minority who views it as not beneficial have absolutely no say with th e passage of this legislation. That is undemocratic. That unioni zes the doctors whether they wish to belong to the union or not, and it will be said by those independent physicians, and I'm not referring to Association of Inde pendent Physicians because there are independent physicians not aligned to any particular group.

That will be considered by them no doubt to be a blow to their freedoms in this country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, from that standpoint, we will be allowing this legislation to pass on to Commi ttee and will not be supporting this legislation. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I won't prolong this debate too long, but nevertheless, I'd like to comment on some of the statements that were made.

First of all, my honourable friend talked about the 53 percent who returned their ballots and were in favour of it and said that there wasn't very much interest and that was it. It seemed to put everybody else who did not vote in favour of it or they had not returned the ballot as being opposed or not too anxious to have this legislation passed. I think we can always say also that only 47 percent of those who returned their ballots were against it. The others were - (I nterjection) - that's not what I'm saying. I'm talking about those who returned their ballots. There were 43 percent that were against.

Those who did not return ballots, I don't think we can automatically assume that they were against it. Because I think with all the advice that was given, the advance notice that was given, certainly those who were very much opposed against it, I think there'd be more of a tendency to have those people vote than those who find they didn't really care, so why bother. There is one thing that my honourable friend brought up that concerns me. He stated that the MMA could refuse a membership to a practising doctor and still they would have to pay fees and therefore they could keep people who are against it out of it.

I didn't read anything in th ere to state that. But I thank my honourable friend for that, because I certainly would not pay for that. I think it has to be - (In terjection) - that's the one I've got - 3.1, but I don't read it like that. I read it more - and I'll make sure that legal experts will look at it again - as to make sure that people are not forced to join the association, but if I'm wrong, we certainly will consider an amendment in there at all because I would agree. If we don't mind bringing this at the request of the MMA.

It has been - I think they're very seriously looking at the problems that we're facing, the challenge that is facing us. They've had some costs - there's no doubt about that at all - but it was never explained to me and it was never mentioned, and I would be very surprised if the intention was to keep anybody out, because they can't. Anybody can take it - in a democratic society, those who are opposed to that should cert ainly have the chance to form th e membership or get the majority of the votes to ask us to reverse that and we would look at that, because as I say, this was requested by the MMA.

Now also, the statement was made that if there was no agreement, well then this would be suspended, if after three years. This is on a trial basis like all the 2922

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 agreements. My honourable friend seems to say well as soon as that is resolved. Well, that doesn't mean an agreement. You don't really need an agreement for this. If you have binding arbitration and if they say fine there is an agreement now, and it's the first time there has been an agreement between the MMA and the government and the department. There has been an agreement between the MM A and the Manitoba Health Services Commission. Now if there is binding arbitration, you don't need any further agreement. I wasn't talking about the result of binding arbitration.

I was saying that if after three years, the MMA would come forward and say well you know we don't want an agreement any more; we don't want this; we don't want binding arbitration. Then we have to have another agreement, because that was negotiated as part of the package and that's what it is. So I'm not too concerned about that. But I thank my honourable friend for that particular thing. I'll double-check to make sure that this is correct, because I don't think that we could support anything where they could choose their mem bers and pick their members.

In all fairness, I would doubt very much that was the intention of the MM A. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Min ister having closed the debate, the question before the House is whether we shall have Second Reading of Bill No. 52. Is that agreed to? The Honourable Min ister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I closed the debate, but the motion still has to be put to have the Second Reading. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, on division. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On division. ADJOURNED DEBATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 23 - THE CHARTER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT AMENDMENT ACT, 1986 MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate of the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney General, Bill No. 23, The Charter Compliance Statute Amendment Act, 1986, standing in the name of the Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We're prepared to pass this bill onto committee for examination there. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 25 - THE LAW SOCIETY ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the adjourned debate on Bill No. 25 on the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General,

An Act to amend The Law Society Act, standing in the name of the Member for Fort Garry. 2923 MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a few comments concerning this bill. Just before I start, I would like to remind the Minis ter about the request made by the Member for St. Norbert about tabling the agreement between the Law Society and the Attorney-Gener al's Department and I'm not certain whether that has been done. I would just like to remind the Min ister that was a request of the member and we would like to see it before the matter is dis cussed in committee. I have two general areas of concern.

One of them is basically a question. As I understand the bill, the interest generated, some 50 percent goes to Legal Aid Services, and then some 18 , or almost 19 percent is to go to the Law Societ y. This takes up approximately 70 percent of the generated revenue. The que stion I have, is the transferring of responsibility for the Public Interest Law Department and Legal Aid Clinic, the funding of that, as I understand, is to go for at least three years out of the funds of this.

Is that to come out of the balance of the 30 percent or is it to come out of the pro rata share that would be going to Legal Aid Services and the Law Society? If it's to come out of the 30 percent portion, or the residue, then is there a guarantee of funds that will be there, or I understand there is a pro rata basis if there is insufficiency or shortfall to cover that, then is everything prorated or is it just the amount that would be funding to these two particular bodies, the Public Interest Law Department and Legal Aid Clinic? Is it their grant that would be then reduced proportionately?

I'm not clear as to just how those funds are to flow. I believe the Min ister made reference to 100,000 for the - no, that's the Law Reform Commission. There are other commitments to fund other portions of certain activities, such as the Law Reform Commis sion and Legal Research Institute at the Faculty of Law. Then are they also to come out of the residual 30 percent of the interest generated and, if so, then do they all share proportionately if the amount should ever fall below whatever is anticipated by the guarantees or the agreements that have been worked out for the next three years?

My main concern about this particular bill is that the appointment of five of the members of the board by the Attorney-General and the ability of the Attorney General to appoint the chairman or vice-chairman, the concern I have is that this is a body that is to undertake certain specific functions and, in fact, to promote the concerns of legal education, legal research, and the concerns of the communit y, for various legal aspects or problems.

It would become a funding agency and, in fact, an arm's length agency from the government to try and provide some funding in those areas that come along from time to time, and some current ones that will carry on for awhile, about the ability to be able to carry on certain projects. The question then is, it's like Caesar's wife: She should appear to be virtuous and must be virtuous.

The question: By allowing political appointees to the board, especially when they form at least 50 percent, the appearance will be, to the public, that perhaps it is not an independent institution but merely an arm of government and therefore may impact or affect its effectiveness as far as the perception in the public's

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 mind is. I mean, the granting of the funds are one thing but are they politically-motivated or a politically-funded thing? I don't think we want an institution like this to be sort of brought down to some cheap politics, or a perception in the public mind that it is just a political entity.

So I have concern there because I think what was being attempted by all th e bodies, in cluding the department as well as the other individuals being consulted, was to create an entity that, in effect, was arm's length, with the idea of trying to function in an independent manner and to serve the legal concerns of the community as they should develop from time to time. I would ask that the Mini ster then consider the reduction of the number appointed by the Attorney General, from five to four. You can still have public appointees to the board outside of the legal fraternity. I'm not concerned about that aspect.

It's just to give the impression that the thing is not controlled, in fact, by political power. I would like to know, and perhaps the Min ister could advise us either now or at commi ttee stage, whether or not the other provinces have sim ilar types of composition on their boards, and whether or not the Government of the Day can appoint at least 50 percent, and the chairman and vice-chairman of the boards. It would be interesting to note if we are in fact creating a new precedent here or following the lead of other provinces. Those are my only comments on the particular bill. MR. H.

ENNS: Why must Caesar's wife do that? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister, closing debate. HON. R. PENNER: Yes. thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I noticed the Member for Lakeside is also curious about Caesar's wife. Actually it was said of her that she had to appear to be above reproach. It wasn't said, and indeed it would have been too much to have said that she should both be virtuous and appear to be virtuous. Appear, yes, that way you're above reproach. But even, perhaps especially in ancient Rome, it was too much to expect that she indeed be virtuous.

You'll read all about it in the "Lays of Ancient Rome" by Cicero. With respect to the question, however, serious ly, there's only one other jurisdiction, to my knowledge, where the Attorney-General, or the government on the recommendation of the Attorney-General, appoints a majority. Here it's not a majority, it's just 50-50. That's in Nova Scotia. In Nova Scotia, the government appoints an absolute majority of the memb ers. The reason for that is this.

With the other members being appointed by legal organizations, the Law Society, or law-related organizations, the Law Soci ety, the Manitoba Bar, and the Faculty of Law, the concern was that inde ed the broader commu nity, which ought to be represented, would not be represented.

Therefore, the position is that the Attorney-General, in appointing five, has to take care that at least a significant number of those, five, ought not to be necessarily lawyers and not necessarily from a law society-like body, but from the communit y, because a lot of the research that is envisaged should be encouraged, a lot of the innovative kind of legal assistance programs that ought to be tried on pilot project bases, suggestions of these should come from and should be reflective of the needs of the comm uni ty and not jus t of the needs of the professionally trained members of the communi ty.

So I think we ought to try the proportions which are suggested. This bill can always be amended in a subsequent Session. I think when members have a chance to look at the recommendations that are to be made for appointment to the first board of the foundation I think that they will find that it is indeed pretty representative of the community and will, I can assure members, contain at least two members who are not lawyers, and I think that's right.

That's about the only way, in that kind of a composition, where you have five of the mem bers coming from the Law Society, the Manitoba Bar and the Law School, that the other five should be able to reflect the non-professional commun ity.

With respect to the other questions of the tabling of the agreement, yes, I was waiting until I actually had the signed copy of the agreement from the Law Society, which just arrived in my office at the weekend, or the end of last week, and I'm glad that you reminded me and I'm now in a position to table that and will table it at comm ittee, if we get into commi ttee on this tomorrow. I've taken note of that.

With respect to the other question, the idea is this, that if in fact there is more than the amount guaranteed by statute to the Law Society and to Legal Aid, as indeed there certainly will be, I can tell the members now that there will be a significant of money over and above the statutory guarantee to the Law Society and to Legal Aid. Then that amount is distri buted by the foundation. The foundation is however, by terms of an agreement between the Law Society and the government, is given a priority with respect to $200,000 or $300,000 of the surplus, over and above the statutorily guaranteed amounts.

These priorities are, however, only established for three years. Even then the public interest department presently of Legal Aid, the University Law Clinic, the Law Reform Commission will have to make application to the board. The agreement doesn't say that they get that money regardless of how they perform.

They'll have to file with the foundation, reports of their activities with the money to make sure that in fact the money's being expended along the general li nes that the foundation expects it to be expended; but they're in a sense given the first cut of the surplus, over and above the statutorily guaranteed amounts. I'm confident that the amount that's available will be available for the foundation, will in fact significantly exceed the amount that is covered by the agreement so that the board indeed will have dis cretionary funds for other projects beyond those.

Should it happen that the amount of money that is surplus to the statutorily guaranteed needs of the Law Society and the Legal Aid is less than the $200,000 or $300,000 - whatever the total is - then, yes, it will be prorated between those groups. No group stands on a higher priority in that list than any other. Those groups you will recall, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are the Legal Research Institute of the Faculty of Law, as to $50,000; 2924

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 the Manitoba Bar Association, as to $25,000; the Manitoba Association of Rights and Liberties, as to $25,000; the Law Reform Commission, as to $10 0,000; and the Public Int erest Law Department of Legal Aid as to $200,000.00. Those are the amounts and they would be prorated. I should ind icate incidentally that since everything is done on a lag year basis, the amount of money that is presently available to be distributed is money that was accumulated in the last fiscal year and that will be distributed according to the present law, 75-25.

It's only the money that started to flow as of April 1, 19 86, that will be in fact dealt with by the foundation, so that the foundation will have to be quite careful in any early payouts from the fund to make sure that the money is flowing in at the expected rate, so that it is able, both to meet its statutorily guaranteed obligations and to pay the dis cretionary amounts. So with th ose words of explanation and my undertaking to table the agreement at comm ittee tomorrow and my incursions into the literature of ancient Rome, I recommend this bill for passage to committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

BILL NO. 30 - THE JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 30, The Ju stice for Victims of Crime Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I'd like to make a few comments on the principles of this bill and I would like to make some reference to the opening remarks made by the Attorney-General when he introduced this bill, and it states, "In one area of our justice system, the treatment of victims, the scale is somewhat out of balance," and it says, "The passage of this legislation will likely be an important step in rebalancing the scales to ensure that victims of crime are dealt with properly." It further goes on, he states, "It is but the most recent measure firmly anchored on the foundation of existing services." Mr.

Deputy Speaker, when one looks at the legislation and when one looks at the existing legislation that is in place, I'm not convinced that the new legislation goes as far or, in fact, goes anywhere - except for a very small tentative step - that the Mini ster would like us to believe and in fact is actually taking place. In fact, it's been my experience in two Sessions of this Legislature that often, when a bill is lacking in substance, the principles tend to be incorporated into the act, thereby giving it perhaps a broader or bigger appearance than actually the contents of the act really contain.

The act is in three parts, the first part setting out the principles of the so-called legislation; the second dealing with primarily the area of the creation of the Victims' Assistance Commit tee and what it should do; and the third portion being really the taxing portion to give revenues to this particular area. (Madam Speaker in the Chair.) When one looks at the principles, Madam Speaker, one wonders what society, what the Attorney-General's 2925 Department, what the Police Department have been doing for victims to this point in time.

In reading and looking at one of the principles, it says, ". . . provide justice for victims of crime," who are set out in this particular act. Well, what have we been doing for those particular victims in the past? Have we been doing nothing? Surely the whole society, the whole system to this point should have been providing services to victims.

There are some concerns of victims that aren't being addressed, and I question whether or not this particular piece of legislation will, in fact, address those particular concerns, because the victim is the forgotten indi vidual in any incident or violation of our statutes in Manitoba and any federal statute. Yet I find it surprising that we would set out in great detail that the victim deserves consideration. Well, if he or she doesn't deserve consideration, what have we been doing? It seems strange that we would set out a whole series of criteria of what we should be doing for the victims.

The thrust of the bill, it seems to me, should be that you are to help a victim; you are to encourage the wrongdoer of the particular offence or act, to compensate that victim and every step should be taken to ensure that the person who causes the problem, in fact, satisfies or causes remedies to the victim. Yet there is contained in here a principle whereby the victim is enco ur aged to, thr ough mediation, reconcilation, to try and resolve any dispute as it relates to financial or other redress to the victim.

On one hand, there's an attempt to try and say the victim should have rights, but then there's a clause saying it should be diminished; they should neutralize or water down and try to reconcile these things. It doesn't seem to make sense, Madam Speaker. There is only one portion in the first part of the act that, quite frankly, provides any substantive principle and provides the need for the act. In fact, the

preamble can be done away with. That's dealing with the considerations of the victim's interest. That's merely one clause of the first four or five pages of the particular act. I believe that the Mi nister and his department has laboured mighti ly, but produced something that is far, far inadequate and does nothing to promote the true inte rests of the victim. We then go on to find out that the Victims' Assistance Committee will study concerns, will deal with various people. may develop principles, but doesn't put into place anything that will be used as an effective tool to help the victim.

In fact, if the Mi nister was serious in attempting to provide service for victims, there is already in place an in stitution and a piece of legislation that, in effect. is attempting to deal with victims. It's known as The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, and that's been in effect for a number of years. This is a body that knows about the experience of victims. This is a body that attempts to compensate, albeit in a limited fashion, for those people who are victims of particular acts against themselves.

It would seem to me to have been prudent and wise to build on the good works of this particular entity, to give them the authority to expand their mandate, to develop and make certain that the victims' in terests become paramount in the legal system and in our society. They also have the experience of a num ber of years in how to deal and relate to victims and their concerns.

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 In fact, in many instances, I belie ve they cannot give assistance because the particular application falls outside of their legislative mandate. So it seemed to me, if the Mini ster was truly comm itted to the Victims' Assistance Program and to create a proper force for victims and their assistance in this commun ity, he would have done well to have built upon the authority, the experience and the capabilities contained in a piece of legislation that's already on the statute books.

As far as the question of dealing with compensation for the vict ims, the last portion merely gives the government authority to tax to raise funds but as the Min ister ind icated in his opening statement, I believe that if it only relates to provincial matters it will produce some $350,0 00 .00. They will need some feder al legislation to produce, I think, about .75 million.

If the government if serious about compensation of victims, and if the government is serious to ensure that the criminal or the person who causes the act first should pay, then steps should be taken by the courts, whether they be criminal or otherwise, to enforce that the particular indi vidual or persons, in fact, does compensate the victim. Then it seems rather inadequate to provide only a limited form of financial contribution towards the victim because if society must - and I think they should - help compensate the victim, then why should it be restricted to just the small sum of some $350,000.00?

Why does it not flow from the general revenue of the province? That is the case, I believe, in The Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. Those funds, I believe, come from the general public purse, then there is no lim itation as to the amounts that can be given. Under the circumstances here it would appear that once the $350,000 or whatever the revenue that is produced is expended, then there can be no more financial assistance for the victims. Then what do they do? Do they accumulate for the years following? It is not clear as to the intention.

So, Madam Speaker, I find the act sadly lacking, great for headlines, great for political campaigns, but unfortuna tely sadly lacking in any substance, any attempt to support the victims. As I've indicated, there's only two, perhaps three pertinent clauses that have any relevance in an attempt to dealing with the concerns of victims. I'm finding it surprising that the Min ister would waste his time in producing this piece of esoteric fluff, and he would not impr ove and build upon a piece of legislation that is already in place and is working well. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General to close debate.

HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker, I intend to spend a little time dealing with some of the remarks made by the Member for St. Norbert and, just now, from Fort Garry. What regrettably is lacking is not substance in the bill, labelled rather cavalierly by the Member for Fort Garry as a piece of esoteric fluff. What is lacking is an appreciation by the members who have spoken of, not just the bill itself, but what in fact is being done for victims in Manitoba. Why is it that everywhere in Canada, Manitoba is looked on as a leader with respect to victim services? But, for example, the Member for St.

Norbert rises in his place in this House and says, first of all, this bill comes from an admini stration that has been described by outside parties - notice he doesn't name those outside parties - as having the worst record in the country in terms of assistance to victims of crime. Let me deal with that. In the first instance, if that is so, then what was the Member for St. Norb ert doing for four years when he was the Attorney-General.

I propose to table before the commit tee or in the House, first of all, a guide to victim services in Manitoba, a publication of some 95 pages which with respect, Madam Speaker - and I don't say this personally of any person - puts the lie to the notion that Manitoba has the worst record of any jurisdiction in the country. Now I want to, in further response to that, quote from the recognized leader on victims' rights and services in Canada, Mr. Irving Waller of the University of Ottawa, who writes, and I quote: "Mr.

Waller states that a project here and a project there may be better in Canada, but no other province is as good for across the-province performance, and Manitoba goes further than any other jurisdiction anywhere in the world." Yet, you have the Member for St. Norbert saying that thes e experts, un named , these outside sour ces, undocumented, say that Manitoba has the worst record. Well, I say to him and to members of the Opposition that, if in fact Manitoba has the worst record, then that has to fall, first and foremost, on the shoulders of the former Attorney-General of this province.

I searched the records to see what amendments of significance had been introduced by the Member for St. Norbert to the Criminal Injur ies Compensation Bill when he was the Attorney-General, and in fact there were none. Let me go further, and you will understand why I speak with a little bit of heat. During the course of his remarks, the Member for St.

Norbert said, and again I qu ote, after making that gratuitous, unfounded, undocumented and completely wrong statement about victim services in Manitoba, he said and he points out to you - and I'm quoting both of these quotes from Page 1964 of Hansard of this year - that I specifically asked during the 1985 Legislative Session, he raised the question of ". . . the desirability and the necessity of victim-im pact statements as a means of addressing part of the victim's problem with respect to the crime that had been committed upon him or her." It goes on to say, and I'm still quoting: "The Attorney General, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, at that time dismis sed the whole notion as perhaps revenge on the part of the victim and had all sorts of arguments that defence lawyers are presently raising against thi s type of system." Well, I looked again into Hansard, and here is the exchange. After being asked about victim im pact statements and being asked, "Would the Attorney General give consideration ...

"- this is Hansard, Page 15 05 of Thursday, the 2nd of May 1985: "Would the Attorney-General give consideration to, in the instance of violent crimes, assault, sexual assualts upon women, to incorporate into the sentencing procedure a victim im pact statement?" Answer by the Attorney-General: "Yes," on the record answered yes, and he gets up in this House in response to this bill - (I nterjection) - yes, I will, I will, I will. I was waiting for you to ask me 2926

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 for that - and says that instead of agreeing, I denigrated the suggestion. Yes, the Assistant Deputy Min ister of Criminal Justice who was with me, John Guy, advises me that in fact the Victim Witness Board on which he sits, together with the Chief Provincial Judge, and the people involved in the program are indeed considering the whole question of victim impact statements at the time of sentence. What kind of palpable nonsense is this to introduce as a pur ely politi cal way of den igrating this bill, something that purports to be on the record that is not on the record.

Yes, I have expressed concern about victim impact statements being delivered by the victim in court. That concern, of course, is shared by everyone who has any knowledge of the way in which victim impact statements should be delivered. But I never turned thumbs down on the notion of victim impact statements; and Manitoba leads the country with respect to the pilot project on the use of victim impact statements. And in answer to both of the pilot projects, that dealing with victim impact statements and that dealing with the video taping of child abuse victims, the Member for St.

Norbert airily dismissed it saying well, those are funded substantially by the Federal Government. True. The regular amount of the funding comes from the Federal Government but the truth is, that the projects were recommended by the Research and Evaluation Department of this Department of Attorney-G eneral; that's where the ideas came from. Now, further to the remarks that were made and I will be very brief; both of the Members Opposite who spoke deni grated the principals that are contained in the bill. Where do these principals come from? They come from the U.N. Declaration on the U.N.

Convention on Justice for Victims of Crime and it was recommended on a convention adopted by Canada that thes e principals be incorporated in legislation as a bill of rights for victims. Now they can be opposed to a bill of rights of victims if they want to, but let them say so in categorical terms instead of this politically motivated attack on a splendid piece of legislation. Let them say so. The fact of the matter is that similar bills in 13 jurisdictions in the United States do exactly the same thing.

Yes, it is a big deal because it's time that there was in statutory form a recognition of the rights of victims. But this bill goes further. Why? Says the Member for Fort Garry, as if it were a mere nothing - all you're going to have is $350,000.00. Well, that's a great deal of money and eventually we'll be close to $1 million. But it's more than just the sum of money, Madam Speaker. It's a dedicated fund. It is not dependent upon the vicissitudes and variations of financing from year to year; it's a dedicated fund that is there. It puts money where the words are.

It is there and the bill spells out why it's there. It's there to innovate services in a whole variety of ways; to provide, for example, counselling services for the elderly victims of abuse and of crime who suffer the trauma of a break-in or a mugging far more than a younger person might, and give them advice about how to make their apartments and their homes more secure, can give them financial assistance if they can't make their apartments or their homes more secure, to do so. Is that something to sneer at? Is that something to belittle? Is that something to say oh, there's no substance to this bill?

Go tell that to the elderly of this province and they will tell you that you are carrying your political ambitions a little bit too far. I just cannot understand why, when something is brought forward to help victims of crime, instead of constructive suggestions, you get the kind of hot tem pered response of the Member for St. Norbert who said, why that was just an election promise. Well, it's an election promise upon which we're delivering and I want to tell you that I've had calls and letters from organizations representing the victims of crime in this province who say, thank you very much.

They will receive, let me assure you, copies of Hansard, the speech of the Member for St. Norbert, copies of the speech of the Member for Fort Garry and copies of the material that I am replying on. Finally, Madam Speaker, the member speaks about well, why don't you use the Crimin al In juries Compensation Board. First of all, the criminal injuries compensation scheme is administered through the Workers' Comp ensation Board because it is a compensation scheme, unlike many of the schemes of a similar kind in other provinces of which is based just on a lump-sum payout.

It is for that reason, incident ally, that as of today, Manitoba pays the second-highe st per capita amount out to victims of crime of any province. Is that something to denigrate? You say, well how much money you're paying; you're paying a trivial $350,000; we're paying in this coming fiscal year $1 ,600,000 to people who have suffered injury as a result of crime, only $1 00,000 of which comes from the Federal Government - $1, 600,000 - only $1 00,000 of which comes from the Federal Government.

And Manitoba has a record of which we can be proud and it was an NDP Government that in troduced that legislat ion; and it's an NDP Government that's introducing this legislation. I'll tell you what the reality of the situation is and I conclude with this.

The reality of the situation is, that the Conservatives in the last election thought the whole question of justice for victims of crime, that the whole question of law and order was somehow a precious and separate and unique Tory platform, so they put up their show candidate in the constituency of Wolseley around whom they were going to build their law and order plank as one of the most important planks in their platform. Well, what happened? The Member for Wolseley in creased her votes significantly and their whole platform, which was based on a whole hodgepodge of criticisms of federal actions, came a cropper.

And what we have here, certainly in the words of the Member of St. Norbert, is sour grapes. People who play with sour grapes end up with purple fingers. I conclude. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 32 - THE PENSION BENEFITS ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mi nister of Labour, Bill No. 32, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Brandon West. 2927

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Spe aker, we have reviewed Bill 32 and we're prepared to see it moved to committee. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for Thompson. MR. S. ASHTON: Madam Speaker, on the principle of the bill, that's why I'd like to speak on Second Reading. First of all I would commend the Min ister of Labour for bringing in the bill. I think it addresses a matter of growing concern in Canada and that is the use of surplus pension funds by employers for purposes other than for the benefit of the pension fund itself.

I think anyone who's looked at the trend has to be concerned about exactly what has been happening. I would just reference a few examples of the magnitude of some of the removals of surplus pension funds that have taken place. I quote from an

article of July 12, 1986, The Financial Post, for example, Madam Speaker, entitled: "Firm's Eye Pension Fund Cash," and it references the fact that Dominion Stores, with Conrad Black actually making the move, removed $62 million from a pension fund earlier this year. It references an attempt by Marshall, Drummond, McCall Incorporated of Lachine, Quebec to remove $15 .5 million from one of the company's two pension plans.

I quote from another article, Madam Speaker, in the Winnipeg Sun, Sun day, July 13, 1986, which ind icates that the Hudson Bay Company wants to tap $35 million from its employees' pension fund to help pay off the joint conglomerates debt, and also the fact, Madam Speaker , that approx ima tely one year ago, the International Nickel Company of Canada, lnco, removed I believe it was close to $10 0 million from one of its pension funds - pension plans from Ontario, as a matter of fact.

So it's a growing problem and one that I think has to be addressed, particularly here in Manitoba, but also I think across the country, and I was pleased in that regard to see that not only is a bill being intr oduced in Manitoba that would bring in amendments to The Pension Benefits Act to deal with this particular question, but also that the Mini ster of Labour call for a national approach which would ensure - for example in the case of the lnco pension plan, which was established outside of this province - that there would be some hope that employees whose funds were affected, Madam Speaker, would be able to have some protection against the corporations - such as in this case, lnco - withdr awing them unilaterally from the pension funds.

I'm pleased, Madam Speaker, that the bill before us does empower the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations regarding the use of surplus pension funds. It brings in amendments to ensure that employers must receive the consent of the Pension Commission before removing surplus pension monies, and also ensures, Madam Speaker, that an equitable share of surplus pension monies is going to be used to increase employees' pension benefits. I think that's probably the most important feature of this bill.

I think it recognizes an important principle, a principle that most people in our society would subscribe to, Madam Speaker, and that is that funds, which are essentially deferred wages in this case, surplus pension funds should be used for the benefit, not of the employers, but of the employees. In fact I think in a way the whole use of the term, "surplus pension funds," is perhaps somewhat misleading.

It may be surplus in the context of established benefits, but I think in cases where funds, due to investment of those deferred wages, do result in a benefit to that pension fund that they should be put to enhancing those pension benefits and enhancing the rights of employees. So, Madam Speaker, I support the principle of the bill.

It may be a very short bill, but I think it's one of the mor e signific ant bills in this Session of the Legislature, and I would certainly hope, at commit tee, subject to the detailed discussion, that we could see some support from mem bers opposite, because I believe this is a principle that all membe rs of this House can support. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The question before the House is Second Reading on the proposed motion of the Ho nourable Min ister of Labour , Bill No. 30 - the Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. D. SCO TT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Just very briefly, because I want to speed this onto committee as well, but I don't want the opportunity to go by without saying a few words of praise and of credit for our Min ister of Labour in bringing forward this piece of legislation. It is, I think, more im portant than ever, in a time when the ability to predict what future economic conditions are going to be like, that we protect and we guarantee essentially through an additional review through the commission - or the pension funds that people have gone ahead, made an investment, put their future . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Could we please continue the debate in an orderly fashion? If members wish to discuss other issues than what's before the House, there's lots of other places they could discuss it. - (In terjection) - Order. MR. D. SCO TT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. If the members opposite would calm down a little bit, maybe I will be able to proceed and finish up that much sooner.

The practice that has been increasing in the past few years when some firms have become perhaps a bit tight on cash flow, to dip into their pension funds when they show an actuarial surplus, which is an estimated surplus over and above what they believe, through their ability to forecast what future economic conditions are going to be, that there is more money in a pension fund than is required.

We've had examples of people di pping in and takin g out hun dr eds of thousands, in some instances; millions upon millions in other instances, from a pension fund that is estalished normally on a contractual obligation between the union or the bargaining agent of the employee and the employer. 2928

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 It is beyond me why we allow a practice - and we have allowed a practive - where one of those partners is entrusted with the ownership of the future security - the deferred income as the Member for Thompson so clearly put it - of the employees of that firm, to go in and perhaps put in jeopardy the future earnings of those people upon retirement. In a sense it is two parties initially contributing in virtually all instances to pension plans, the employer and the employee.

Withdrawals should not be made from that fund, as increases in pension contributions are generally not made in the fund without either negotiations or at least an agreement between the two parties, in mo st instances; and yet, one of the parties - the employer in this instance - is often given an ownership and he can go in and pull out money that people, in good faith, Madam Speaker, have invested in for their future securit y. This legislation gives an added element of security to stabilize and enhance those pension contributions that people have made and the future security of those workers.

For that reason, I give full credit to the Min ister of Labour, in having brought this to our attention in caucus, as many of us were not aware of it going on, as the members opposite I'm sure, if they were aware, they did not act or certainly never raised it as a concern of their s. I believe that we will have their support in this because they recognize as well the seriousness of the situation, if it is allowed to continue.

Once again, Madam Speaker, I think Manitoba will be leading the way in pension legislation, as we have in the past five years of our administration, leading the way in this country with all the other provinces; and in fact, frequently the Government of Canada following suit in copying our legislation, and I hope they do because I feel that all workers right across this country, all Canadians, should have the same protection that we are giving Manitoba workers. Thank you, Madam Speaker. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

BILL NO. 42 - THE INSURANCE ACT AND THE QUEEN'S BENCH ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Ho nourable Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affai rs, Bill No. 42, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I first of all will be very brief in passing the recommended bill go onto committee. First of all I would like to congratulate the insurance industry in promoting this compensation plan to protect insolvent insur ers. It is their doings.

It is a program that was first started in Ontario and I would like to set the record straight that it's the insurance industry which is particularly caring in regard to protecting those insurers. The Min ister alluded to the fact that in the past five years six general insurance companies have collapsed, and the most notable to the Manitobans was probably the Northern Union Insu rance Company that went down in 19 83, affecting approximately 2,000 policyholders in Manitoba. This apparently I know has not been finalized. I know that the public and the agents were concerned.

I felt at the time, and I was a little disappointed that MP IC didn't follow the dir ection of the Saskatchewan Government Insurance Program by providing an interim coverage, so that the people who were affected did not have to go through that 12 or 14 days of not knowing whether they were covered or not. Madam Speaker, the plan will be operated by a non profit corporation set up by the general insurance indus try which will cover people or cover claimants up to approximately $200,000, and that would be any claims over the $500 deductible.

Madam Speaker, there are several procedures that are not apparent or haven't been explained in the proposal. At the time it does go to committee, I will be asking those particular questions. I thank the insur ance indus try for proposing this particular bill. I must recommend the administration for bringing it forward at this Session. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: I thank the Member for Riel for his remarks.

I would just like to point out, as one of those who, in fact when I was Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, was involved in the evolution of this plan, it's true that the industry played a significant role in the evolution of this plan, and it is a good plan. But I do want to pay tribute to the Superintendents of Insurance from coast to coast, including our own Superintendent of Insur ance, who worked very actively with the indus try and with the indus try committee. In fact, the ind ustry committee was headed by a former Superintendent of Insurance in Ontario, so that it wasn't just an industry plan.

Indeed, when this plan was reaching its penultimate stage, it was di scussed extensively at a federal provincial-territorial meeting of Min isters of Consumer and Corporate Affairs at Hecia in the fall of last year. That was the final sort of jumpi ng-off point for the development of the plan, the establishment of such thi ngs as the deductible, the max imum, the administration. What I should just point out and it may deal with one of the questions the Member for Riel, who seems to have now spoken and lost in terest, mi ght be interested in, that the bill doesn't require the indus try to put money up front.

The bill only . . . MR. G. DUCHARME: Point of order, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: There was a remark made by the honourable member that I had spoken and lost interest. I want to emphatically say that I was sitting here listening to every word he was saying. I want to go on record that I will not lose interest until this goes through this particular House and clears through the committee and final stages. MADAM SPEAKER: A dispute over the facts is not a point of order. 2929

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNE R: I can't tell you how delighted I am that the Member for Riel has not lost interest. In fact, I only said that he seems to have lost interest, and that may have been an unfortunate reflection of how he appears, for which I apologize and have nothing further to say. But we shouldn't lose sight of the point that the industry plan doesn't require ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. R. PENNER: ... doesn't require the ind ustry to put money up front.

It only requires that, in the event of a failure, then the plan kicks in and the amounts that are paid in, in order to meet the claims of the policy holders in the first instance, and indeed it is related only to the policy holders and not to the shareholders, the amount that is available for the policy holders is then prorated depending on the premium sales and the particular ju risdiction in which compensation has to be paid. It's a good plan, and I welcome the support from members opposite. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

BILL NO. 44 - THE JUDGMENT INTEREST AND DISCOUNT ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 44, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, finally we have a bill dealing with this particular subject that adequately addresses the subject.

We have pursued this matter for some time at the previous and particularly at the last Session of the Legislature in 1985, at which time the Attorney General introduced a bill which was finally realized even by hims elf, I believe, to be totally unsatisfactory, and has obviously taken it back and now brought forward a bill, Madam Speaker, which I bel ieve is quite satisfactory.

There may be some questions with respect to some minor matters in the bill at committee that we will raise or will be raised by people inter ested in this bill but finally, Madam Speaker, we have a bill that I think will bring some equity into the settlements of claims by, generally speaking, giving to plaintiffs interest from the date of their loss, which I belie ve will encourage a settlement of more actions and certainly will encourage settlement of claims much quicker than has been in the past. Madam Speaker, we are glad to see that this bill is back in the House, and that it is now in an acceptable form.

We support passage of this bill through committee and Third Reading. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 14 - THE MANITOBA ENERGY FOUN DATION ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mi nister of Energy and Min es, Bill No. 14 , standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Fort Garry. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Honourable Member for Fort Garry does not appear to be available to debate the bill at the present time, and I would appreciate the opportunity to do so at this point in time.

MADAM SPEAKER: Is the honourable mem ber suggesting then that the bill stands in the name of the Ho nourable Memb er for Fort Garry? Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Hon ourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON : Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. It's a pleasure to be able to speak on Bill 14 , The Manitoba Energy Foundation Act. Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House have expressed very serious concerns with respect to this legislation in the past.

We have expressed concerns publicly and, Madam Speaker, I intend to place on the record a few comments that would in dicate the purpose of our opposition, our firm and uns werving opposition to this particular legislation. Madam Speaker, I note that, when it was introduced by the Minister responsible some time ago, he referred to it as a major initiative that fulfills a major commitment to the people of Manitoba by this government. Madam Speaker, this, I think in a nutshell, gives an indication of just precisely what the intention of this legislation is.

It really isn't legislation that is designed in my view to assist or create something of long-lasting value for the people of Manitoba, but it is in fulfilment of an election commitment. Now, Madam Speaker, this leaves in my view the clear and unmi stakable conclusion that it is a cruel hoax, because it is an example of a government that wishes to put forward a cheap political deception to try and convince people that something is happening in the future of this province that really, in essence, will never be there.

The effect of this legislation, Madam Speaker, is to mislead the people of Manitoba into believing that there will be sign ificant surplus funds out of the extra-provincial sales, principally from the Northern States Power Agreement, and that these funds will, in future, be used to help in social development and in economic development for our province.

Madam Speaker, I don't think that anything could be as misleading as that impression that was attempted to be put forward by the Min ister when he put this legislation before this Assemb ly, and in deed in comments that have been made by a number of his colleagues and the Premier where they proudly refer to the fact that they are establishing this wonderful heritage fund for the future of our province.

Well, Madam Speaker, I think that, to put it most succinctly, to be charitable this legislation has been termed in an editorial as "like buying a piggy bank when you know that you won't possibly have any money to put in it for at least 15 years." After that 15 years, 2930

Wednesday, 13 August, 1986 of course, you have to examine whether or not there is any probability of having funds to put into that piggy bank. The assumption that is being made by the Min ister of Energy and Mines is that on the basis of assumptions he's made on the inflation rate, on the exchange rate for the U.S. dollar, and I might remind members opposite that Manitoba Hydro in this past year alone suffered foreign exchange losses of $80 million. Just one year alone they suffered foreign exchange losses of $80 million.

So when they tell you that they have made an assumption on what the foreign exchange rate will be, vis-a-vis the U.S. dollar, you have to ask whether or not their assumption is going to be any better today than it was over the past decade when they entered into major borrowings that last year alone resulted in $80 million worth of foreign exchange losses. (Acting Deputy Speaker, M.

Dolin, in the Chair.) It further is based on an assumption of interest rates that will prevail over the course of the contract with Northern States Power, interest rates that they will have to pay when they enter into a financing agreement for Limestone.

It's further based on an assumption of the price of coal, and we already know that their assumption of what the price of coal will be over the next couple of decades has been thrown totally out of whack by the changes in world energy prices, the changes principally in the cost of oil, and that resultant effect on what the price of coal will be over the next couple of decades. The track record of the Min ister of Energy and Mine s, of his think tank in the secretariat that's led by Mr.

Eliesen, the Manitoba Energy Authority and those people, the track record that they have for making valid assumptions upon which to base a conclusion that we will have an energy foundation and a great deal of money in the future is absolutely abysmal, and I suggest to you that is the basis upon which I suggest that this bill is a cruel hoax.

If there are any profits, and I remind you that even if the assumptions that have been made by Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Energy Authority, even if they come true, their own figures in their presentation to the National Energy Board say that there would not be any surplus of revenues over expenses until at least the year 2,000.

That is why I suggest that this bill, this very important bill, this major commitment on behalf of this government in this Legislative Session, does nothing for today, does nothing for the foreseeable future and, in fact, is really, as the editorial said, like buying a piggy bank for when you know that you're not going to have money to put in it for at least the next 15 years, and using your last dollar to buy it, as my colleague says. This bill attempts to convince people that they can have their cake and eat it too.

It attempts to convince people that we can have both low hydro rates and at the same time build up a heritage fund to pay for all of our dreams and desires.

In that respect, it's a very dangerous piece of legislation because it takes the attention of the Manitoba ratepayers or, more im portantly, in the mind of this very thoughtless and manipulative government, it takes the attention of the ratepayers of Manitoba Hydro and all of our taxpayers off the reality of the true facts of Hydro's necessity to operate in a fiscally and economically sound manner. 2931 Hydro in the past has always had a mandate to maximize the returns from our very valuable hydro electric resources and convert those returns into low cost hydro-electric rates in our province.

It takes the attention completely off that former objective and former mandate and it fixes their attention on an illusory dream. It's just like we have the same principle in selling lottery tic kets where tho usan ds of people are encouraged to buy these lottery tickets based on a dream, the dream that they are going to be the lucky one who hits the jackpot, gets the major return from the purchase of a ticket and someday they are going to be the big winners.

It totally ignores the fact that for every big winner there are tens of thousands - millions, indeed - who continually buy lottery tickets and never ever get a prize from these purchases of lottery tickets, never get any benefits whatsoever. It's that kind of illus ory dream that is called forward by this Manitoba Energy Foundation Act, Mr. Acting Speaker. You never get anything for nothing. Everyone of us in this Chamber knows it, or at least those on this side of the House know that you never get anything for nothing. Ultim ately, we're not printing any money by passing this act.

Ulti mately, we're not creating a double source of income, something that we can spend twice. We only get the revenues from the sale of our hydro-electric energy and we only get them in accordance with the energy that we produce and sell. In this past year alone, we sold over $10 0 million outside of our province - $10 0 million worth of energy. But we can't use the money twice. We only get it once and we then have the choice of deciding how that money is going to be used, how it's going to be applied. You can only spend it once.

The way that Hydro's revenues have been invested in the past has been designed to keep our rates down as low as possible. Indeed, we have amongst the lowest rates in North America, and this is in comparison with utilities everywhere in North America, and that I think is thanks to the sound management and the proper development and good business principles that we have been following for more than 50 years. In the past, we have reinvested all of the revenues in the utility where they belong to keep service levels at a very excellent standing and to keep hydro rates as low as they can possibly be maintained.

Ever since the advent of extra provincial sales of our hydro-electric energy, and that has been going on for more than a decade, Mr . Acting Speak er, we have done this systematically, put the revenues back into our hydro utility to maintain the competitive advantage that we have over all other jurisdictions; yet now, for purely

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-66
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 66.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9e101b82d0971b1d4268035b570ecd0140af7c98

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