Manitoba Hansard — 21 July 1980 (Sitting 119, 31st Legislature, 4th Session)

31-4-119

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 21July,1980 Time 8:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harry E. Graham (Birtle Russell): Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Prese nting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . Min isterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urab le Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr.

Speaker, further to this afternoon and our discussion with the Attorney-General, and my question to the Attorney General, pert aining to Bill 96, in view of the discussions this afternoon and the obvious difficulties and problems pertaining to Bill 96, is the Minister weighing yet the probabili ty of referring this bill to an intersessional committee so we may work to improve the bill in between sessions? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. GERALD W. J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I have weighed that matter. MR. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, then can I assume, in view of the fact that the Attorney-General has weighed the matter, that he has decided that the weight of this bill is too heavy upon his mind to proceed at this point, and is prepared to work with all members of the House, with all parties in this House in order to ensure its improvement in the interests of our democratic process? MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, not on the basis of what I've heard this afternoon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct this question to the Min ister of Education and ask him whether he could inform this House as to the status of the negotia tions and settling or uns ettl ing of a collective agreement with the Gypsumville School District, which is run by the official trustee and as to the reasons why . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I find it somewhat difficult to listen to the question posed by the Honourable Member for St. George. If members wish to ask questions , or engage in private conversations, I think that they should wait their turn. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister whether he could inform the House as to the. reason why a collective agreement has not been signed for two years in the Schoo l District of Gypsumville? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Min ister of Education. HON. KEITH A. COSENS (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I unde rstand that this matter is before the courts, or at least one of the parties to the arbitration is before the courts and is awaiting a decision in that regard. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I understand and the Minis ter is right that the matter of the arbitrator, one of the arbitrators, the choice of the arbitrators, whether he was impartial, the impa rtiality of the arbitrator is in court, but not the basis for salary increases. I ask the Min ister whether or not it may not be prudent for the Minister to instruct his staff to conclude the agreement on the basis of the monetary issues outstanding so that the teachers in that area can have the incr eases that have been afforded to all teachers of the Frontier School Division over the last two years. MR.

COSENS: That may be necessary at some point in the process, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. George with a final supp lementary. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister not consider it highly irregular that teachers from Frontier have been brought into Gypsumville School District at a rate of pay which the teachers of Gypsumville would be entitled to had they been under Frontier School Division, meaning they are being operated by the same school division, although one is an official trustee and one is Frontier, the same dep artmental official heads both areas and both divisions. MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, I unde rstand that matter may be going to arbitration. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to address a question to the House Leader. I may have missed it today in the preceding two sessions, but has there not been a report from the Private Bills Comm ittee which dealt with certain bills and completed them on Friday? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. FRANK JORGENSON (Morris): Mr . Speaker, I shall have to check on that. I don't believe there has been. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm sorry, I did not hear the House Leader. I heard him say something about checking it. Does he say he's going to look into that and report back? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 5827

Monday, 21 July, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Roblin. MR. J. WALLY McKENZIE: Mr . Speaker, radio reports all day long indicate that the West Coast ports will likely have the biggest export year they have ever had in this country. I wonder, can the Min ister of Agriculture advise if the hopper cars that this province and Alberta and Saskatchewan have any input into that market. MR. CHAIRMAN: The Honourable Minister. HON. JIM DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr.

Speaker, I would not only add that the additional hopper cars that have been leased by the province of Manitoba, but I believe the leadership and the directive given to the gr ain indus try by Dr. Ho rner and the Gr ain Transportation Co-ordinator Office has also added tremendously to the co-ordination and the movement of grain out of the western prairies. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if I could direct this question to the Minister of Natural Resources and whether he can advise this House whether he has been able to locate that commitment that he said was given by the former adminis tration to the operator of a park that was able to be visited by thousands of Manitobans to do their fishing and now they are un able to, and when was tha t commitment given? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. BRIAN RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): I believe I advised the honourable member, Mr.

Speaker, that that was a verbal commitment made sometime during the last year or so of the previous admin istration. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, then can the Minister advise as to when the approval was given for the individual to have total control of that area, that people no longer are able to go and fish beyond the park that you're adminis tration established? MR. RANSOM: The app roval for the present situation, Mr. Speaker, was given some time this spring, after, in fact, attempting to implement the prom ise that was made by the previous admi nistration, which was simply to fence off the area and deny access.

That, of course, Mr. Speaker, was not satisfactory as a solution to the problem and so this spring we leased the area to the individual, who is now providing services to it. And it's true, Mr. Speaker, that people I think are paying on the basis of 2.00 a day for access to the area, and for that they are getting services provided in that area that they were not getting before. My staff have been in fairly close contact in assessing that situation over the summer and they report to me that they are very satisfied with the level of service that's being given. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.

George with a final supplemen tary. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Mi nister then confirm as to when that area was actually fenced off from the public using it and then was opened up again. Can the Minister indicate that, when the park area was fenced off, by the department? MR. RANSOM: I believe, if I recall correctly, Mr.

Speaker, that that was first undertaken two or th ree years ago and access was denied to the area and that it proved to be unsatisfactory and I believe then, that the sequence was we said we would try simply to allow access but to try and restrict overnight camping and be able to provide the least minimal services that would be required to keep the area clean and have satisfactory sanitation procedures there.

That didn't prove to be satisfactory and so it was necessary to go to the system that we now have in place and individual users are now required to pay a fee, which is rather a minim al fee really, and in return for that, as I say, my staff are quite satisfied that users of the area are being provided with a fairly high level of service. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. JUNE WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, my question is addr essed to the Honourable Attorney-General. Could the Min ister please tell us when he expects to return to the constitutional talks? MR.

MERCIER: Friday or earlier, Mr. Speaker. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. wonder if the Minister would (interjection) I'm sorry. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was when would I return. I understand the question was when would I leave? MRS. WESTBURY: To return to the talks. MR. MERCIER: Tomorrow morning, I expect to leave, Mr. Speaker, for the third week, and return Friday or earlier. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you. I thank the Min ister for his answer, I was a bit confused by the first answer. Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Honourable Minister will be able to find an opp portunity at the constitutional talks to draw attention to the fact that the Protestant Succession Law is unacceptable to Canadians as far as the Canadian monarchy is concerned and that the preference of tho se Canadians would be that there not be any religious bar against the person who might become King or Queen of Canada. Would the Minister tell us whether it's going to be possible for him to raise this question at those talks, please? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, after a great deal of opposition, including from this province last year, the 5828

Monday, 21July, 1980 issue of the monarchy was withd rawn from the agenda of items by the federal government. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ur able Me mb er for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Tourism. I don't know if he heard me and to ask him about the impending strike at Assiniboia Downs on Wednesday, in relation to the loss in revenue and the loss of tourist dollars, can he report on the situation and will he be playing any role, or his depa rtment, in attempting to bring about a settlement? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. FRANK JOHNSTON (Sturgeon Creek): Mr.

Speaker, yes, I could report on the situation and, no, we will not be involved in the negotiations. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, in view of the impact on the tourist indus try, whether the Minister might report on the situation to the House. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the Ma nitoba Association of Horse Breeders and the Horsemen's Benevolent Society have for years, or the Horsemen's Benevolent Society have for a long time, given bonuses to Manitoba-bred horses.

This year the breeders, the Manitoba Breeders, decided that they would (Interjection) well, we hear nonsense again but anyway the Breeders decided that they would put their money that they receive from the province to assist the Manitoba Breeders for better stock in the horseracing business towards a bonus for purses.

We've informed them that was their own decision with their money and it was logical that if there was more money available to Manitoba-bred horses that it would encourage the industry in the province of Manitoba and we agreed that if they used their money that way that was encouraging the horsebreeding in Manitoba. They pay the money to the Horsemen's Benevolent Association and the Ho rsemen 's Benevolent Association deal with the Jockeys Union. There is an agreement presently in force with that union as to what percentage of the purses will go to the jockeys. The

interpretation of the union by the jockeys is that they should receive 10 percent of that bonus money which is being given to Manitoba-bred horses. The Horsemen's Association believe that the agreement doesn't call for that and they do not, at this point, have any racing on Wednesday because they can't agree. We are not entering into the bargaining basis between the two parties. It's an

interpretation of an agreement at the present time and, Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned that it does have an effect on the tourist industry, but it has nothing to do with the provincial government. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour ab le Mem ber for Elmwood with a final sup plementary. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, they are certainly not a very benevolent association. I wanted to ask the . Minis ter whether he could ind icate when he will receive the report on the whole racing indus try. Can he indicate whether he has it, or when he expects it? MR.

JOHNSTON: As I told the honourable member dur ing my estimates, but he seems to have forgotten. It is expected the first week of September at the present time and it is on schedule. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho noura ble Mem ber for Brandon East. MR. LEONARD S. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. ORDER please. I find it somewhat difficult to listen to the questions that are being asked by members if there are numerous members of this chamber all trying to ask questions or provide answers at the same time.

If members cannot agree that only one person at a time should be recognized, we're going to have a great deal of difficulty with the question period. The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to addr ess a question to the Minis ter of Economic Development and ask the Ho nour able Mi nister whether he can advise . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nour able Member for Elmwood has already had his turn. It's the Honourable Member for Brandon East's time. The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EVANS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Honourable Minister of Economic Development can advise whether it is correct that Manitoba, according to reports issued today, that Manitoba is the only province in Canada to show a reduction in vacancies available for professionals? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Mini ster of Economic Development. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I'll take the question as notice and look at the statistics. It's not my intention to answer the Member for Brandon East on statistics until he tells me where they came from and I have the opportunity to look at them. MR. EVANS: Well, Mr.

Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Minister that he will look into it and I would ask the Ho nour able Mi nister (Interjection) Mr. Speaker, we'r e getting interference here and interjections, that are uncalled for. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. ORDER please. The Honourable Member for Brandon East. MR. EV ANS : Mr . Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's response and I would ask him, when he's looking into this matter or getting his staff to look into this matter, whether they could ascertain the reasons for the seemingly lack of opportunities in Manitoba, compa red with every other province in Canada.

I would ask the Minister a second question then, when does the government expect this situation to reverse itself, the situation where there are 5829

Monday, 21July, 1980 inadequate opportunities, inadequa te demand for professional services in the province of Manitoba? MR. JOHNSTON: Soon, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. DONALD W. CRAIK (Riel): Mr . Speaker, there was a question a few days ago from the Mem ber for Brandon East with regard to the statistics regarding retail trade and I said at the time that, li ke the earlier statistics tha t had been presented he and the Leader of the Opposition regarding the CPI and the construction and so, that I would look into it further.

I have, and the Member for Brandon East asked whether or not it was a fact that the real growth of the retail trade had, in fact, on a year over year basis for May, declined? And while, Mr. Speaker, I' ve been un able to answer tha t specifically for him, I want to ind icate that the examination indicates that while that could well be the case, if that were the case it would be true for all of Canada and that Manitoba recorded the third hig hest year over year growth in retail trade of all provinces in May.

And that according to the latest statistics, the retail trade in Mani toba was up approxima tely 7 percent from May 1979 to 280.7 in May 1980. Retail trade increased 17.4 percent in Alberta, 13.4 percent in British Columbia, which were the two leaders. Offsetting growth of less than 6.5 percent in the remaining seven provinces and resulting in a Canada-wide year over year growth of 8.1 percent. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that while the member's question may well have been correct, which has not yet been verified, whether in real terms it has grown or not, it is the third hig hest in Canada. MR.

EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Min ister for confirming my earlier statement, and that he agrees that it is correct, that the Manitoba increase in retail sales is less than the Canadian average. I believe he has just confirmed that. (Interjection) Well, you said 8.1 for Canada and 7 percent for Manitoba. (I nterjection) No, well, Mr. Speaker, I distinctly heard him say 8.1 for Canada (Interjection) Well, 8.1 is the Canadian average, well all right, 8.1 is the Canadian average and Ma nitoba is below the Canadian average.

My question to the Minis teris, would he not confirm the observation that if the rate of increase in retail sales in Manitoba . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Confirmation of observations is not indicative of the question period and does not really provide any information to this Cham ber. I rule the question out of order. The Honourable Member has another question? MR.

EVANS: Well, in view of the fact that inflation is now running approximately 10 percent in Manitoba and in Canada, and in view of the fact that the current data, on retail sales incr ease, is roughly 7 percent, I don't have the figures in front of me, would the Minister not confirm, therefore, that in real terms there is a lower physical volume of retail trade taking place in Manitoba now than there was last year. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Confirmation of statements is not indicative of good questioning. If the Honourable Minister wishes to answer he may. MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I don't believe you said it was out of order, I think you laid the groundwork for that to have been the case but the real answer is that the member's question, to which I replied, which was for the month of Ma y, which are the StatsCanada figures, Mr. Speaker, I have given the reply to. This is now the third time, Mr. Speaker, that we have had StatsCanada quoted and the third time in a row that they've been taken out of context by the members of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, these are the StatsCanada figures. Mr.

Speaker, to reply to the member's last ques tion, would it be at all surprising if Manitoba fell lower than third place as the drought goes on. We fully expect to have difficulty, but we have a bit of appreciation for the difficulty. All the members opposite do is try and dwell on the doom and the gloom that they can create. MR. EVANS: Mr. Speaker, I think the Honourable Minister misund erstood my question.

The other day I referred to the first five months of the year, not May alone, and our friend, the Min ister of Economic Development is always suggesting we should look at a number of months to get a true picture. So my question to the Minister is, for this first five months of the year January, February, March, April, May to what extent did the drought have any impact whatsoever in that period of time, during which we were mainly in a winter period and an early spring when we were still hoping that we would have a very good summer? MR. CRAIK: Mr.

Speaker, I will be glad to take that question as notice because, having now taken three assertions by the Member for Brandon East and the Leader of the Opposition, and having found, on all three occasions, having walked away a little bit concerned and a little bit worried in that this ought to be checked, having found out that they have taken it completely out of context. Mr. Speaker, on the first occasion when the Leader of the Opposition got up and stood in his place and said that Manitoba had 14-some percent, it was entirely out of context with the rest of the nation for the three-month figures MR.

SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Member for Kildonan has a point of order. MR. PETER FOX: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the point of order is that the Honourable Minister said he would take it as notice and everything that has ensued since then has been a debate and not an answer. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. One of the problems we have in our question period is that members persist in asking questions which are debatable in their very nature, and when you get an answer that does tend to create debate then we lose the very context of the question period.

I would prefer to rule the member out of order, as well as the person that asks the question out of order. The 5830

Monday, 21 July, 1980 question period is designed to seek information from government, and government has the obligation either to refuse to answer or to provide the answer to the question. The Honourable Member for St. George. On a point of order, the Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, it has to be recognized that, while I took the question as notice, that gives me fair grounds to be developing the answer as I go along. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While the Finance Mini ster goes to the fair, I will ask the Minister of Natural Resources as to whether he can confirm which colleague of mine was it that gave this individual the verbal commitment that he alleges was given some several years ago, or could it be that it was his colleague, the former Min ister of Tourism, that may have given that commitment? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the honourable member has misun derstood what I said.

I did not say that it was one of his colleagues that gave the assurance; I said the assurance was given during their admin istration. MR. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, certainly the last time the Minister indicated, he left the impression it was one of the members on this side of the House that gave the commitment. Mr.

Speaker, I ask the Minister that, in view of no Ministerial commitment in this area, is the Minister now prepared to indicate that he is well in favour of such a practice, that a commitmen t by staff is certainly valid for the government, or does he agree that the commitment that was given was the proper one, in terms of not allowing citizens to use an area that they were accustomed to using for many years? MR. RANSOM: Mr.

Speaker, I think it was quite evident that when we assumed government that we attempted to fulfil as many legitimate agreements and arrangements as the previous government had entered into, except those that were of a wildly socialistic nature and were cont rary to the philosophies of our government. This was largely an adminis trative matter, Mr. Speak er, and we attempted to conform with the agreement that had been arrived at. (I nterjection) The Honourable Member for St. Johns , Mr. Speaker, is always quick to correct anyone else when they respond from their seat and now he is doing the same thing. I wish, Mr.

Speaker, that you would call him to order so that I could continue with my answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George with a final supple mentary. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister indicate since when has it been government practice to start leasing the land on the basis of verbal commitment? MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I'm going to have to perhaps take a little more time than I might like to, to respond to this question, because it is evident that the Honourable Member for St. George does not unde rstand the situation that I outlined to him.

I did not tell him that the present situation of leasing the land was something that was a commitment made during the previous adminis tration. The commitment that was made during the previous adminis tration was one to simply close off access, vehicular access, to this area and simply have people have access on foot. That did not prove to be a viable alternative, Mr. Speaker, nor did at least one other sort of arrangement tha t we attempted to work in the meantime.

We have since arrived at the present situation that we have, and I happen to think that it is quite a satisfactory arrangement, the best that we could arrive at under the circumstances, and I am quite prepared to defend that arrangement, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George with a fourth question. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Min ister confirm that the first time that he was aware MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease. Questions of confirmation are hardly acceptable. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister inform this House that 1979 that was the first time that that area beyond that park was closed off, and it was brought to his attention at the time, I brought it to his attention; it was the first time that that area was closed off beyond the wayside park that was developed? MR. RANSOM: No, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George with a fifth question. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Can the Minister then confirm or can he tell this House when was he informed that that area was closed off, and by whom, prior to receiving the petitions and the letters that I wrote on behalf on the citizens who complained to me from Winnipeg, from Teulon, from Fisher Branch, from Gypsumville, from all over the area? MR. RANSOM: It was closed off sometime prior to him writing those letters, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day. The Honourable Minister of Government House Leader. MR. JORGENSON: Mr.

Speaker, will you call Bill 90, standing in the name of the Attorney General for second reading and 95, and then, 96. SECOND READING - PUBLIC BILL 5831

Monday, 21July, 1980 BILL NO. 90 THE BUILDERS' LIEN ACT MR. MERCIER presented Bill No. 90, The Builders' Lien Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Sp eaker, the fun damental purpose of mechanics lien legislation, together with The Buil ders and Workers Act, has been to ensure that a person contributing to the improvement of land is paid for that contribution in accordance with his contractual entitlement. The means of achieving the purp ose of the legislation are, generally speaking, threefold.

First, the imp osition of a trust on the persons who handle funds payable to people who do the work of improving the land. Second, the legislation grants the right to file and enforce a lien for the value of the improvements to the land. Third, the owner and contractors are required to hold back a percentage of all payments due the persons contracting under them so as to constitute a fund to finance claims by lien claimants made after the work is done. Mr. Speaker, the first Mechanics' Liens Act in Manitoba was enacted in 1873. It has been amended many times since then.

However, no amendments of signific ance have been made during the last 25 years. The Manitoba Law Reform Commission has, since 1970, been studying the legislation and finally reported on it August 13, 1979. This report is the basis for the proposed "The Builders' Liens Act". Requests for reform have been plentiful since 1963. Requests for reform have been made by groups representing architects, engineers, lawyers, builders and mortgage lenders, during the past 17 years but none have become law. All these requests were consid ered by the Ma nitoba Law Reform Commission in its study since 1970.

In addition, the Manitoba Law Reform Commission reviewed reforms in other jurisdictions and studies by other Law Reform Commissions in Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia. The Al berta and Nova Scotia reports were publis hed in 1979. The experience of Ontario with the reforms impl emented there in the 1970s was considered. Particular regard was placed on, and use made of, these reforms in Ontario and the detailed submis sion for reform of the Ontario Act made to the Attorney-General for Ontario by the Construction In dustry and Allied Professions Comm ittee dated June 30, 1978.

This submis sion suggests numerous improvements to the Ontario legislation which have not yet been implemented there. Manitoba legal consultants were hired, working papers for reform were prepared and circulated and public hearings were held to determine the particular needs of Manitobans. Many detailed oral and written submissions were received as a result, all seeking major changes to existing Mechanics' Lien and Builders' and Workers' Lien legislation.

As a result of submissions made at the public hearings, the consultants retained by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission concluded that there were basically two major problems in the construction ind ustry, which rather than being cured by the legislation, were aggravated by it, namely: (

a) non-payment of funds; (

b) an ina deq uatae cash flow du ring the continuance of the construction contract. This, in an industry where "the orderly and rapid flow of funds is its life blood". The consultants concluded that the statute was hurting the very indu stry it was designe d to protect, in tha t it "deterred the flow of funds rather than facilitating same". It is expected and hoped that the following changes to the existing legislation will speed up the flow of funds along the construction chain and better ensure their payment. Trust funds : (

a) Imp osing trust obligations on the owner so far as funds received by him to finance the construction project are concerned. (

b) Imposing trust obligations on the Crown as if it were any other owner. (

c) Making breaching the trust obli gations a more serious matter by increasing penalties and extending them. (

d) For educational and enforment purposes, requiring minimu m accounting records and standards to be maintained by the trustees. (

e) Repealing the existing Bui lders and Workers Act and consolidating provisions preserved from that Act in the new The Builde rs' Lien Act. (

f) Confir ming tha t trust funds are not attachable by garnishing orders. With respect to the Holdback. (a)The holdback is reduced to 7 1/2 percent from 15 percent and 20 percent. (

b) Payment of the holdb ack money into a "hold back" account in a financial institution is made compuls ory in certain circumstances or on application. With respect to Substantial Performance: (

a) The release of all hold back moneys upon substantial completion as distinguished from total completion of work under a contract or su bcontract, except the hold back of 7 1/2 percent of the remaining work to be done under the contract or subcontract is made compul sory. (

b) Notice of substantial performance is to be issued and given to interested parties stating that the contract is substantially performed. (

c) If an architect, engineer or other person who certifies completion, does not certify su bstantial performance of a contract or su bcont ract when the contractor or su bcontractor or someone else thinks it is substantially done, that person can apply to court for an order certifying subs tantia l performance. With respect to Other Amendments. Mr. Speaker, in addition, it is obvious that other amendments are required for at least the following reasons: 5832

Monday, 21 July, 1980 1. Extending Lien Rights and the Opportunity to Exercise Them. (

a) The Act has not been kept up to date and therefore does not protect the interests of certain people who have contri buted to improvements on land but have no lien rights or have insufficient opportunity to exercise them. The following changes are intended to deal with these deficiencies. (

i) With respect to Lien Claimants. (aa) Workers' liens are preserved and made more readily enforceable.

Section 34 of the Act provides that every worker who has not been paid wages for work done or services provided has priority over all other liens that are not for wages to the extent of 40 days wages. Special provision is made for a worker to enforce a lien for wages on notice of motion returnable in four days after service.

Any and every device adopted by an owner, contractor or sub-contractor to defeat the priority given to workers for their wages is void. (bb) Liens for rental of equipment without an operator are now permitted. (cc) Rights of architects and engineers to file liens are clarified and extended. (dd) Rights of lien claima nts as against landlords and owners of land are extended in circumstances when the lien claimant performs improvements for the tenant. (ii) The time to register a lien is extended to 40 days from 30 days. (iii) The right to obtain information from owners and contractors is extended and an obligation is imposed on the owners and contractors to disclose information helpful to contractors and subcontractors in determining the prior ity a lien would have, the financial stability of the owner and contractor, and other relevant matters.

A corresponding right to information is granted to the owner as against the prospective lien claimants. (iv) The Act is made applicable to the Crown as if it were any other owner or contractor except where there is no right of sale of Crown land. Ano ther principl e in volved, Mr. Speaker, is Prohibiting Contracting Out of the Act. The fact that one can contract out of the legislation means that the big and powerful can force a small contractor, sub-con tractor, supplier or worker to give up his right to file a lien under the Act by the signing of a waiver. Presently, this done with incr easing regularity.

Lien waivers and other devices to defeat the purpose of the legislation are prohibited and void. Further, the legislation obviates the necessity for comp lica ted and voluminous docume ntatio n traditionally required by mor tgage lenders from owners, contractors and sub-contractors to ensure that the mortgage advance has priority. The mortgage lender receives protection in that all liens must actually be registered in the Land Titles Office before a lien claimant can get priority over a mortgage advance.

All advances made under a mortgage registered prior to any work being done or before any lien is registered has priority. To assure themselves that any advances made will have priority over any lien claim, mortgage lenders· can check at the appropriate Land Titles Office on any day after 3:00 p.m. to determine whether any lien claim has been registered. Thir d princ ip le, Mr. Speaker, is modernizing, simplif ying and making the statute more efficient. Many provisions, words and procedu res in the statute are grossly out of date, un necessary or inefficient.

The following changes are intended to modernize, simpli fy and make more efficient the operation of the statute. (

i) The County Court is granted the power to appoint a receiver in a builders lien action. Formerly this power was limited to the Court of Queen's Bench. (ii) The minimum value of an impr ovement entitling a person to register a lien is changed from 20 to 300.00. The 20-figure was established in 1873 so the equivalent value in today's terms would obviously be substantially more. Another consideration in arriving at this high a figure is to discourage the use of this system for petty claims and abuse of the system.

It was the conclusion of the Law Reform Commission that to make this sum any less would jeopardize the workability of the legislation. Simi lar considera tions have resulted in the minimum amount at issue subject to a right of appeal to be incr eased to 15000 from 100.00. (iii) Procedural: Ma ny special statutory procedures . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. If members of this Chamber want to carry on private conversations, I wish they would do so elsewhere, other than in this cham ber.

It is exceedingly difficult to listen to the comments of one particular member, especially when he has been recognized by the Chair, if other mem bers are constantly talking and making it difficult to hear. The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, many special statutory procedures are deleted and substituted by existing standardized procedures in the general rules of the County Court. If money is paid into the Court to cover a lien pursuant to the Act, an action can be forced to be started on a 30-day notice and must in any event be brought in two years.

Costs are now totally in the discretion of the Court without limit. Documents can be served by registered mail. A breach of trust action, third party proceeding, set off, counterclaim in tort or cont ract can be heard together with a builde rs' lien action unle ss the Court, on applic ation, is persuaded tha t it would be prejudicial or inconvenient. 5833 (iv) Mr. Speaker, the language of the statute is modernized and simplified. The name of the statute is made more relevant to today. The old Mechanics' Lien Act is repealed. Certain time limits are changed. (

v) In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it is expected and hoped that this proposed new statute will better accomplish the original objectives of The Mechanics' Lien Act, more fairly and efficiently and in a manner which can be more read ily und erstood by all concerned. The legislation follows very closely the

Monday, 21July, 1980 reco mmendations of the Ma nitoba Law Reform Commission in its report on Mechanics' Liens legislation in Manitoba. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, apparently we are to debate a bill introduced by the . . . I think he's still House Leader, I'm not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, just what role he's playing here but I was given the impression this morning, Mr.

Speaker, when this bill was distributed and I was immedia tely going to the Clerk's office to find out the date on which it was introduced, in order to find out just what's going on, Mr. Speaker, and I find that the bill received first reading on June 12, it was distributed this morning, July 21, and, Mr. Speaker, I was given the impression this morning it was not to be proceeded with. And now we find a lengthy introduction by the Honourable the Attorney-General and, Mr.

Speaker, like you, I had some difficulty hearing all that he said because there was a great deal of discussion going on in the House, which was indicative of how little interest members had in what the Min ister was introducing. And there's little wonder, Mr. Speaker, this is a very very compl icated and extensive subject. The matter of Mechanics' Liens, I don't know how many textbooks there have been written about it. There's an awful lot of case law on it and it is indeed a very technical and compl icated principal. Mr. Speaker, the Minister read his remarks and apparently it has now been distributed.

I've just been handed a six-and-a-half page document outlining the bill and I listened as carefully as I could and I did not hear any indic ation from the Ho nourable the Attorney-General as to the intentions of the government in regard to this bill. And on the basis of the record of this government in this session, I am very apprehensive now as to where we go from here, Mr. Speaker. Frankly, meeting three sessions a day, meeting in comm ittee, meeting late and expecting members and, Mr.

Speaker, there are a few lawyers on this side of the House, who would have some knowledge and I don't say expertise have some knowledge of the subject matter of this bill and noting that it repeals three bills, The Builders' and Workers' Act,

An Act to amend The Builders' and Workers' Act, and the Mechanics' Lien Act, Mr. Speaker, I, for one, could not possibly give it the attention not that it deserves but that it demands in a session when we are in what some people call 'extended hours', and I'm beg innin g to think that that is a misnomer because the government seems to be practising all the indications of Speed-up in pretty drastic terms. We've had a bill before us, the Elections Act, and already there's an indication, Mr. Speaker, that there is going to be closure impo sed on it.

The closure was suggested by the Honourable the Attorney-General, again I'm not sure just ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourabl e Attorney-General on a point of order. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may, to clarify a matter. I should have referred to it; I apologize to the Member for St. Johns, I wanted to ind icate, when I concluded my remarks, tha t although I indicated quite some time ago that the bill would be brought in, tha t it would follow the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, that we present it to members, we lay it on the table. If they indicate, Mr.

Speaker, that they would prefer not to deal with this bill at this session of the Legislature, that despite having the Law Reform Commission Comm ittee Report for over a year, then I think we're prepared to simply not proceed with this matter and deal with it at the next session of the Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: I'm awaiting your ruling on that point of order. MR. SPEAKER: I think it's a valid point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Well, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that you made a ruling that this a point of order.

I thought it was an interruption and omitted part of the introductory speech which the Minister was suppo sed to make. If he wanted to answer me, he has 30 colleagues, each of whom had the right to respond in the way he just did. What he now tells us is that he overlooked part of his speech when he Introduced this bill and omitted a pretty Important part of the speech; unless he in fact, Mr. Speaker, was waiting to hear our reaction, thinking that possibly we would be willing to pass this bill tomo rrow morning, tom orrow afte rnnon, Mr. Speaker, three days from now, I don't know.

Now I find that the Minister said now, I heard him but I can't quote him exactly well, I thought we would Introduce the bill and then if members opposite are not prepared to accept it for this session then we can lay it over. Mr. Speaker, I tell the Honourable, the Attorney General, I am only one member. I am not prepared to accept it. I don't know if that's enough for him to go by. Mr.

Speaker, I will not assu me the responsibility at this time, with three sessions a day, to acquaint myself with all the impli cations of a 50- page bill dealing with subject matter that I, for one, know is very complica ted and very difficult. Mr. Speaker, now we are given the impression that the Honour able the Attorney-General says, well, It's up to the opposition. If you are not prepared to deal with It, then we can stand it over. It appears that he was prepared to deal with it; it appears that the entire government caucus is prepared with deal with it, the way he put it. (I nterjection) Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the Honourable the Acting House Leader indicates to me he told me that this morning, and he did, Mr . Speaker, and that's why I listened as carefully as I could to the Honourable the Attorney General, to hear what he said when he introduced the bill, and not a word, not a word from the Honourable the Attorney-General about the intentions of government. And that was the only formal way you could get it expressed in the House on introduction. Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you that we had The Securities Act brought in last year and it was allowed 5834

Monday, 21July, 1980 to lie on the table, or actually it was allowed to die. It was brought in again rather late in this session, but the Minister did point out that we had it before, and therefore we did have a quick look at it and one of our members did talk to several people who were knowledgable about the contents. But, Mr.

Speaker, that's a bill that, if I may just refer to The Securities Act, is a bill that is so technical there is no doubt that the reliance on people involved in tha t, and especially Mu rray Peden, who is the Commissioner, if that's his term, the chairman, in any event, of the board, his word was very important to us when he gave us the information in relation to it. But, Mr. Speaker, I don't kno w just who there is in a position to give us assurances on this Act, and we shouldn't rely on assurances; we should be able to study it. The point I am now making ... You notice, Mr.

Speaker, because of the interruption which you ruled was in order I am now changing my tact and I am informing . . . well, the Acting House Leader, that I, for one, can't possibly envisage a proper study of this bill in this session, and I wish he would see to it that the Attorney-General is aware of that so that we are not pushed into it. But I have one other caution, Mr. Speaker. Next year, with this government still in power, I don't know when the Builde rs' Lien Act will come back. Mr. Speaker, if it comes back at this time of the year, as it was brought now, I would, I think, have the same reaction.

Because I think that as MLAs we have a great deal of studying to do and preparation to do with the busine ss before us, and not business that may come before us. I don't think that we would countenance next year a repetition of what happened this year, at this stage. I remember, Mr. Speaker, reading or reviewing is a better word for it, or scanning may be even better than reviewing reports, more than one, from the Law Reform Commission on the Mechanics' Lien Act, and, Mr. Speaker, I will venture a guess that the final report of the Law Reform Comm ittee was distributed months ago.

I may be wrong, but my impression is that the report of the Law Reform Commission was distributed months ago, and one has to ask where was the Attorney-General; where was his admin istration; what was he do ing introducing a bill on June 12th, which is late enough, and distributing it today? This, to me, Mr. Speaker, is another indication of what may happen next year because this has happened this year. Another bill . . . Was it only today that one of the newspapers cited, I think, seven instances of bills brought in and then pulled back.

In this case, at least the Attorney General was quick enough while I was speaking to interrupt me to tell me what the intention was. Well, now, I suppose that statement made by the Attorney-General was not unequi vocal. He did say, well, if mem bers opp osite are not prepared to deal with it then we could stand it over. Well, I only speak for myself, Mr. Speaker; I must tell you that in light of what I was told this morning informally, this has not been discussed by our caucus.

I don't know whether the Attorney-General now wants a meeting of our caucus to inform him as to our position, but it makes it awfully awkward, Mr. Speaker, to be brought this kind of legislation, a Bill 90, not a White Paper, it's not something that is an indication of the intentions of government, it is a bill and it takes up the time and it takes up the effort of officers of the government and of people in the House, the printing and all the rest of it, in order to bring us a bill whose intention it was to delay it, to drop it.

It's almost typical of the Honourable the Attorney-General, and I'm sorry that that is the case. To think, Mr. Speaker, that he didn't even say what the intention was; he said, if the mem bers opposite are not prepared to deal with it. Well he should now know how this one member feels about it and, Mr. Speaker, it is important business and could have been in our hands, I would guess, much earlier in the sess ion, had it been properly arranged. I see the Ho nourable the Attorney-General is shaking his head.

I don't know what his purpose is in shaking his head, but it certainly can't be that it was impossible to do it before today. If it was indeed, then what business did he have two weeks ago to bring in what we call a speed-up resolution, when he would have known then that he would have a bill presented to us two weeks after? Do you recall, Mr. Speaker, how he pressed us to pass that speed-up, to pass it so that we could deal with it? Mr. Speaker, I remember well the speech made by the Mem ber for lnks ter on speed-up bill and commenting on the bills that were waiting to be dealt with. I think he called them silly.

But, Mr. Speaker, he couldn't possibly call this bill silly, because this bill has come as a result of extensive study by the Law Reform Commission. (Interjection) Oh, he called it junk, not silly. I think it was the First Minister who called one of the sections of one of the Attorney-General's bill a silly section. The Member for lnkster corrects me; he called it junk. Well, this isn't junk, Mr.

Speaker, but it is a very serious context and at this time of the year it is really ridiculous to be bringing it before us and putting it in such a way as: Here it is; you want to deal with it, okay, you don't want to deal with it, okay. Is that the way the Ho use Leader plans the busi ness of government? MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honour able Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kildonan ... MR. SPEAKER: The Hono ura ble Mem ber for lnks ter. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I have been referred to in remarks as having referred to much of the legislation that was brought in and that we have been asked to deal with during the months of July as junk legislation. I characterized, Mr. Speaker, much of the legislation as being legislation which was designed to clean up little things, housekeeping, changes that were requested by people who happen to think that a change in legislation is needed in the admi nistration.

I indicated that none of it, or very little of it, was of a vital nature, that members of the Legislature have come here to see to it that the laws are changed in such a way that they can feel that they are properly representing their constituency. Therefore, I indicated to the Minister that although I knew that it was legislation that there might be a 5835

Monday, 21 July, 1980 need for, that it was not legislation which would require the Legislature to ordinarily sit during July or August and I said, Mr. Speaker, at that time, July and August. I won't be far wrong, if I'm wrong at all. Because we certainly are going to get to the fourth week. Somebody said three weeks and I said, it can't be done in three weeks. Tomorrow will be the end of the third week and Wednesday will be the beginning of the fourth week. And there is no real difficulty if it is understood that we are going to sit here for a long time. And I accept that if that's necessary.

I didn't know that members of the Conservative Party believed that the months of July and August, which are the months of summer in Manitoba, which run by before you know them, that they wanted to spend that time in the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I have to admi re their ded ication, to sit here. I guarantee you, Mr. Speaker, that not five out of the 31, or do they have 33? That means 28 of them, I will warrant, have never heard of The Mechanics' Liens Act.

Twenty-eight of them have never heard of the Mechanics' Liens Act; 31 of them have never heard from somebody that they want to a change in The Mechanics' Liens Act. And the Mechanics' Liens Act is now (I nterjection) Mr. Sp eaker, the Minister of Ind ustry and Commerce says I'm wrong; maybe three of them have asked for changes. Mr. Speaker, I will suggest to you that not one of the 23 on this side have been asked for changes in the Mechanics' Liens Act. But I am saying, Mr.

Speaker, if there were changes needed desperately in The Mechanics' Liens Act, the Minister would not say, as he did say and I heard him say, look I brought this bill before you, it contains the endorsation of the Law Reform Commission. Therefore, it may be that you people are just going to let it go through; if you won't, I'm going to set it aside. Isn't that right? That's what he said. Mr. Speaker, I got up to say that I heard the Minister say that if the Opposition feels that this shouldn't be debated now, we'll lay it on the table and not proceed with it.

I was going to say that that seems to be the end of it but is the Min ister is now indicating that's not what he said, that's not what he means. Because that's what I understood him to say and if that's what I un derstood him to say (Interjection) The Member for St. Johns heard that, too. I wanted to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that I think that's the end of it. I really believe that that is the end of it. I believe that we can . . . these down on the House Leader and the Conservative Party for having stolen our summer.

Not only can we do it but I believe that there are at least half of the Tories who will do it, too, at least half. Ho w many Cabi net minis ters are there? Because the rest certainly are saying, they are cursing, Mr. Speaker, they are cursing the House Leader in words which would make mine seem like love letters. That's what they are doing. But, Mr. Speaker, that is our responsibility. The only deterrent or characterization that I would disagree with what the Mem ber for St.

Johns said is that a bill is before us, it will now be adjourned, that really the Minister, if he is determined that that bill should be legislation, then let's not talk about the fact that we are closing shop. The bill will have to be referred by each of us to our various people who will help and we will finish the month of August in the Legislature. Now if that's what you want, that is what is intended, then I have absolutely no objection and, Mr. Speaker, I don't even begrudge the extended hours; I think that we've done very well in extended hours.

I think it's been a good process, from the point of view of permitting us to work, but The Mechanics' Liens Act, the legislation that is now presented before us, I tell the Minister that I believe that it will take some research, that it'll take some debate, that it will involve some discussion, and that if the Min ister says that he is not intending to proceed with it, if it's indicated on this side that it's going to take longer to research than the other legislation, then can we have it at that and know that the legislation is not being proceeded with and cease debating it.

Because if that's the intention of the government then it's like any other bill; it's happened in the past that the government has come in with a bill, put it on the table and said, look here's quite a lengthy bill, we're not expecting it to be passed, but you have it so that next year when we bring it in you will have foreknowledge of what the bill says. Now, Mr. Speaker, if that's the case, then all I can do is say the Member for St. Johns is certainly justified in castigating the government, if one can look at what was said about us, in terms of bringing in bills.

Mind you, I never accepted it as being a legitimate criticism; therefore, I'm not going to place too much onus on it. I'm prepared, though I don't like to, if the Minister feels that it's very necessary that we sit in this Legislative Assembly during July and August to pass this "junk legislation", sobeit, tha t shows what the Cons ervatives think is important. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just add a few words to what has already been said. Mr. Speaker, we would like to certainly have received some ind ication from the Hous e Leader.

This afternoon when we were dealing with The Elections Act and The Election Expenses Act, there was an indication given that those bills would have to be dealt with tonight. There was, Mr. Speaker, the indication of closure, to ensure that those bills were processed. This evening we have had tabled before us the bill pertaining to The Bui lders' Liens Act. We're advised that the Minister must leave tomorrow morning for a Constitutional Conference in Vancouver, and he doesn't anticipate being back until Friday. So that, Mr.

Speaker, I concur, I'm prepared to sit here for just as long as the mem bers of the government would like to sit. This is an important piece of legislation and if that is the case, I would simply ask the members across the way not to threaten closure pertaining to individual pieces of legislation. This Election Expenses Act is a critical piece of legislation and I was hoping that the Min ister might respond during the question period to indicate that it would be put over for further study.

Particularly in view of the fact that he has indicated that now, tonight, that he's going to be away for the next four days; the next four days, Mr. Speaker. 5836

Monday, 21 July, 1980 Now we are dealing with legislation that apparently was looked at in 1970 by the Law Reform Comm ission. Apparently, there have been some concerned being expressed since 1963 pertaining to The Builders' Liens Act. Now the Attorney-General has found it now to be of such a critical and crucial nature that on this date he must deal with it urgently and sudde nly, even thou gh he is leavi ng for Vancouver tom orrow morning and will be no t returning till this Friday. So all that we would like from the Attorney-General and from the government is to indicate . . .

And I have no objection to this, I have no objection; if the government wish to spend a great deal of additional time in the cham ber, then let's spend the next three, four weeks dealing with The Elections Act, The Elections Expenses Act, The Builders' Liens Act, the rent control legislation, the milk prices review bill. Let's not have the threats which we heard earlier today of closure, up on members of the Opposition. You can't have it both ways.

If you want to present important legislation during the Speed-up then give us ample opportunity to deal with thos e bills because we have a responsibility as an opposition to Manitobans in general. On the other hand, if that is not the Minister's intention, then do as was suggested, simply table the bill. I remember the Minister without Portfolio tabling a bill with us in the dying days of the 1978 session, dealing with consumer affairs. We were given months to study that bill intersessionall y, the Minister then returned with that legislation in the 1979 session.

We dealt with it, I think, quite expeditiously and I believe the bill was improved as a result of that opportunity to study and review it in between. So rather than the Minister saying, here is this bill, if you don't deal with it then it's going to be your responsibili ty for not dealing with it at five seconds to twelve o'clock midnight (Interjection) No, Mr. Speaker, it is the Attorney-General's responsibility. The responsibility for this must rest with him. If he wants that we spend the next number of weeks here, fine, we have no complaint.

If that is not his intention and not the government's intention, so that we can avoid dealing with this legislation in a haphazard and a sloppy manner, even though that may be the way the government wished to deal with it, then leave this bill before us so that we can study it intersessionally. So that when we return in the 1981 session, we'll be able to properly offer our views and comments in respect to that bill. Mr.

Speaker, the Opposition surely is here for a reason, not just to receive bills, not just to rubber stamp but to forward those bills for consideration and consultation with those that advise us, to be able to improve that legislation, so that when the bill does become legislation we can be proud of the contents of tha t legislation. It seems tha t the Attorney-General wishes to rob the opportunity from the Opposition of doing that. So I would urge the Attorney-General to specify whic h dir ection he wishes to proceed.

We're prepared to spend, as mentioned, considerable more time here so we can deal properly with the legislation. If tha t is not the Attorney-General's intention, then leave this bill with us over the fall, so that in 1981 we can deal with it in a proper way, along I might say, Mr. Speaker, with the Elections Act and the Elections Expenses Act, both pieces of l egislation that are, I think, crucial to all parties in this chamber. Bills which should have been developed as a result of consultation and consensus, not in a partisan nature. So that when we come back in 1981 we can improve this legislation.

So we can all be much prouder of the legislation; all 57 mem bers of this chamber. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Government Services. HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I don't know what it is; perhaps it is because it is getting on to be July. It would appear obvious that what with the filling of the public galleries that this place is becoming more and more of a tourist attraction, that honourable members opposite feel somehow compelled to make a great to do about nothing. Mr. Speaker, what has happened here is in the finest of parli amentary traditions.

The Honourable the Minister has introduced a bill, agreed a major bill, there is no pressure on the Opposition to deal with a bill. Let the Honourable Member from Logan as is, I thi nk, his responsibil ity, to pick up the adjournment on the bill. Unless and until the bill is called again, by our House Leader, does anybody on the opposite side have any legitimate complaint about pushing or ramming legislation down their throat, particularly impo rtant in long legislation such as the Member for St. Johns describes this particular bill, on this particular subject matter. Mr.

Speaker, everybody admits that they know that this bill was long in the making, long in the drafting. The Attorney-General showed a particular concern, a particular concern and courtesy to the House in having the bill distributed to all members opposite. We are not asking members opposite to do anything other than look at tha t bill and study tha t bill. When we call that bill, when we call that bill next, then you have a legitimate reason to stand up and make the complaints that you've made. Other than that, Mr.

Speaker, what they've been doing tonight is grandstanding a little bit, providing a bit of entertainment for our visitors that come and see us every once in a while. And they're welcome to do that. And, Sir, if indeed, I must say, if the visitors keep increasing then perhaps in deference to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation we should take seriously the suggestion from the Member for lnkster to work through the months of July and August.

I want to tell the honourable members opposite that on this side of the government, the Conservative party has no problems in dealing with the affairs of the people of Manitoba, in July, in August, and in September. We see our responsibility as such and we'll carry out thos e responsibili ties. But, Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a case where a strawman was being built, by the Member for St. Johns, by the Leader of the Opposition, by the Member for lnkster, where none exists, it really is in this instance. Mr.

Speaker, I'll sit down, not to add to the lengthening of this totally futile dis cussion and debate that's taken place. But let's und erstand the facts of the matter and let the record show what the facts are. The Minister responsible tabled a bill and until the government calls tha t bill for further 5837

Monday, 21 July, 1980 discussion, there is no pressure being put on the opposition to do anything with the bill. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns with a question. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Honourable Minister whether I understand the rules correctly and that if this matter stands adjourned and is on the table, the House Leader may at any time bring it back on to the table, ask for mem bers to speak on it, deny the opportunity to further adjourn debate and force a vote.

And in the light of that, does the Minister feel that his colleague who introduced the bill, would be better advised to ask for leave to have it withdrawn at this stage and that way conclude the matter from this session? MR. ENNS: An irresponsible government may well act in the manner that's just been described by the Member for St. Johns. Manitoba does not have that kind of a government at this particular time, so that, Mr. Speaker, is a hypothetical question, one, Sir, that the rules of this House prevent me from answering. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mem ber for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I' d like to ask the Honourable Min ister who has just now done a grandstand whether he thinks it's fair to put the Opposition to the effort of not knowing and yet having to go into studying this bill when the y themselves have not made up their minds whether they do or do not wish to proceed with this bill? MR. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, let the record be clear. The Opposition has expressed deep concern and a desire not to proceed with a bill. We're simply saying, fine, we certainly won't push them. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Government Services referred to much ado about nothing and I couldn't agree more. Can we settle this thing, Mr. Speaker, and get on with the debate that we came here for. Mr. Speaker, I also have another comment I want to make. If the Hono urable Attorney-General is leaving us tomor row morning, to return to the constitutional talks, how in the world can we discuss Bills 95 and 96 in committee.

I would suggest that we're going to return to the same debacle that we had a week ago last Monda y night, when the Honourable Minister was not able to be present and we weren't able to get the answers we needed because there was nobody else there able to provide that. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. I wish the honourable member would address herself to the debate before us, which is Bill No. 90. The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MRS. WESTBURY: All right, Mr. Speaker. Can we get on with this? Would the government tell us whether we're going to deal with 90 or not?

We've had it subm itted with the opening remarks and then another Minister gets up and implies that they're really just playing games with us and they'll introduce it if and when they feel like it later on, which can be any hour of the day or night. This is not a bill that we can deal with lightly, Mr. Speaker, and we have to refer it our resource people. Will the government please have the courtesy to tell us just what their intentions are with Bill 90? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I had not intended to speak on this bill, but in view of the bungling, the bungling that we have seen by that side of the House this evening, absolute bungling. I don't know who is in charge of the store over there. It certainly isn't the Attorney-General; it certainly isn't the Acting House Leader. We have been treated to a forked-tongue treatment by that side of the House on more than one occasion, Mr. Speaker, and this is another example, another example of the type of procedure that this government seems to want to indulge in.

If you don't know what you're doing, then get the hell out of here if you don't know what you're doing, and you don't seem to know what you're doing. We get a Minister who comes in here dealing with a bill (Interjection) once a week, he's like the travelling itinerate preacher. He comes here once a week, gives us a little spiel, and then we're left to deal with this bill on the well, we may call it; we may not. What are we supposed to do in the meantime? Research this and prepare for this bill? This bill has great ramifications to the general public out there.

It has ramifications for the builde rs; it has ramifications with regard to the Mechanics' Lien Act, The Payment of Wages, the whole issue. We have the Attorney-General, if he wanted to deal . . . He got up on a phoney point of order, interrupting my colleague, the Honourable Member for St. Johns, when he was speaking to the bill and said, well, if you're not prepared to deal with the bill, I was going to say that. Why didn't he say so in the first place?

If there's been much ado about nothing and a tempest in a teapot here this evening, it's been created by the Attorney-General and it's been created by the government over there. All you had to do was, when you introduced that bill for second reading, say I'm going to refer it to an intersessional committee; I'm going to put it here where you can study; and I'm going to reintroduce it next year. But no, he's cute, he pretends he doesn't understand what the procedures of this House are. He's been here for three years now or going on three years.

He knows how the procedu res of this House work and if he wishes, and if he's going to get up and try to interfere again . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable Attorney-General, on a point of privilege. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I wanted to clearly indicate to the Member for Logan, the Member for St. Johns and the members opp osite that I indicated, in attempting to assist the Member for St. Johns because of the concerns that he was expressing, that having announced sometime ago that a bill would be introduced following a Law 5838

Monday, 21 July, 1980 Reform Commis sion Report of one year ago, that I present this bill, recognizing the time of the session in which it is brought; that if members opposite still feel that they would prefer to deal with this at the next session of the Legislature, then I'm perfectly prepared to agree with that procedure. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I want to know from you, did the Honourable Attorney-General have a point of privilege, otherwise, I am going to rise on a point of order.

If you look in Beau chesne, interrupting a member on phone y points of privilege and order are definitely breaches of the rules of this House. I want to know, did the Attorney-General have a point of privilege or didn't he? MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Points of clarification can hardly be conside red points of privilege. It is customary, if there is any dispute as to what has been said or what has not been said, a member has the right to rise at the completion of a member's remarks and on clarification of what he has said previously in the House.

A point of privilege is one that ought rarely to occur in this Cham ber, so I find the Honourable Attorney-General did not have a point of privilege, rather a point of clarification. The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Sp eaker, I'm not goin g to comment anymore on what I said at that time was a phoney point of privilege that he was rising on.

But I want to say to the Honourable Attorney-General that, if he wants to settle this issue, I'll yield the floor to him right now and give him leave to ask permission of this House, and I'm sure I can assure him of the members of this side, that he wishes to withdraw the bill. But he doesn't want to do that, Mr. Speaker, he wants to play games and that seems to be the whole issue of the Attorney-General and his operation with all his bills in this House. He likes to play little games. Mr.

Speaker, if he wants to play games, that's his privilege but I think that the business of this Ho use and the bus iness of the people of Manitoba is of a serious nature. If he thinks he's playing games just for his own indulgence, then he'd better think again, Mr. Speaker. A MEMBER: He's leaving. MR. JENKINS: Well, I don't blame him. After the rapping that he's got in both newspapers, the rapping he's got from his own leader, I've often wondered if he ever reads any of the legislation that he introduces into this House. I think we have seen some in comp etent bungling but, by golly, Mr.

Speaker, this gentleman over there takes the cake. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Finance. MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, it's only about a week ago that a bill was introduced to this House for second reading. It was Bill 109 and it was introduced by myself. I ind icated tha t the bill was bein g withdrawn and the comments from the opposi tion· were, well, there's no need to explain all this, all you have to do is leave it on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, if I had spoken to it, the bill, it probably would have gone on to the Order Paper and would have been left there. So, Mr.

Speaker, what is being followed tonight by the Attorney-General is probably what would have, a week ago, have been perfectly acceptable to the opposition. But since what we have followed at that time was their admonition, we now have a great storm arising over the procedure. Mr. Speaker, it raises a question as to what, in fact, is the right and proper procedure to be followed in the House, because what has happened now, happening tonight, the reaction that is happening is entirely 180 degrees opposite from the reaction that occurred on Bill 109 a week ago. I suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the appropriate procedure at this point in time would be for a member of the Legislature to adjourn the debate, give themselves sufficient time as I said a week ago, we wanted on Bill 109 sufficient time to digest 109 and to simply adjourn the debate. That would be the proper procedure and, out of courtesy to the opposition, I think it should be the opposition that adjourns the debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Churchill. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: . . . if the Minister would agree to my asking a question? No, you. Mr.

Speaker, I can only ask the Minister who just spoke. I can only ask him a question and I'd like to ask him a question, if I may. Would he clarify, since I have no recollection of Bill 109, whether it is the intention of the government clearly not to proceed with this bill under any circumstance? Is that the intention, because I don't think that's what was said by the Attorney-General, so I want to know from the Deputy Leader? MR. CRAIK: Mr. Speaker, I can only indicate what the Attorney-General has said here this evening, and that is, if there's a general willingn ess, yes, but he's not pressing it.

Those were the words in which he put his introduction to the bill to the House. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour ab le Mem ber for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it would be proper to adjourn the debate as the Finance Minister has indicated at this time, but I'm not going to do that, Mr. Speaker, because I think the issue that faces this evening is an issue that needs to be discussed in this House before it festers even further.

It's an issue that needs to be brought out into the open; it's an issue that is long overdue and it is an issue purely of the government's making in their inept handling of what has turned into the longest session and it's the longest session because of them. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. Order please. The subject matter before the House is Bill No. 90. The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not only speaking to the actual bill itself, Mr. Speaker, but to the introductory remarks of the Attorney- 5839

Monday, 21July, 1980 General, the remarks of the Minister of Finance, the remarks of others in this House which you can advise me if I'm wrong but which I perceive to be parliame ntary procedu re, that I can address myself to the remarks that were made in the debate in regard to a particular bill. If I am out of order, Mr. Speaker, I will certainly follow your advice and follow your suggestions.

But I do want to comment on what has been said and the Member for Fort Rouge shot up and said, Bill 90, the discussion that we're having tonight about Bill 90 is much ado about nothing and let's get on with the business of this House.

Well, what she doesn't understand is that this is a significant part of the business of this House and this House cannot function the way that the government would try to have it function for the past number of years by throwing a bill on our desks and then standing up and speaking to it, and then suggesting that if we don't like it, the onus is on us now, if we don't like it, then that bill won't be proceed with, but refusing to make the commitment not to proceed with the bill, refusing to withd raw the bill which, if I understand what my colle agues are saying and they are much better versed in parliamentary procedure than I am that would be the proper way to deal with this problem.

Instead of the acrimonious debate, instead of the bitterness, instead of getting locked into posturing impositions, we could have very easily, had the Attorney-General had the courage to stand up and to say this bill has been put on your desk for review but I'm going to withdraw it, we are not going to proceed with it and we will carry on with it next session. That would have solved the matter right there, but he didn't have the courage to do that. He did not have the courage to do that, so what he's done is he's left an inference on the record about the bill, Mr.

Speaker, whic h is 50 pages long. (Interjection) I certainly am speaking to the bill and I'm speaking to the ineptness of a government that would bring a bill in this way and then stand up and say that we don't have to proceed with it, without having the courage to withdraw it. That's what I'm speaking to. I'm speaking to a microcosm of this whole session, Mr. Speaker. This evening has been this whole session wrapped up into one small segment for all of us to view, for all of us to talk about the inepts, the bungling, the total incapacity of that government to govern. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The honourable member has the subject matter before him. I wish he would address his remarks to the subject matter at hand. MR. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I accept your suggestions and will try to confine myself more to the bill itself, although you will realize that it will be difficult to do a detailed analysis of this bill, given the opportunity that each of us in the opposition have had to review this particular bill and so what we asked, in order to be able to review this particular bill, to be able to go through the different sections of the bill, and just looking at it, Mr.

Speaker, it is a fairly compli cated piece of legislation and if there's one thing we've learned in three sessions, it's to be wary of tha t government when it brings in compl icated legislation because it has troubl e bringing in the simple stuff. It has trouble bringing in the nondescript legislation. And they throw a 50 page bill before us, Bill 90, The Builders' Lien Act, and expect us to take their word for it that they've done a credible job for the first time this session. Well, Mr. Speaker, I don't believe that they have done so.

I am certain that a quick perusal of this bill and that's all we've had time to do would indicate to us that it is full of flaws, it is full of errors, that there will be amendment after amendme nt, after amendment, if it ever does reach the comm ittee stage, and that we will find that this is a typical piece of Tory legislation and that is a piece of legislation that it is unworkable, is archaic and is antagonistic toward the rights of the working people of this province. I think that's what we would find if we had time to examine this bill close. That is why we would like the bill withdrawn. Mr.

Speaker, I'm speaking tonight, I think I hold four or five debates in my name. I'm speaking on the Election Financ es Act tonight; the Milk Control Board, if it's called; The Elections Act. I think I hold the Consumer Protection Act. I want to speak of The Payment of Wages Act. If those are called this evening, I have to be prepared to speak to all those bills, as do other people, and then have to speak to Bill 90 on top of that; to have to take this bill back to the caucus room in between those speeches and start reading this bill.

Sir, that is a disadvantage and the government is hur ting themse lves by tha t, because we know and they have said that a good opposition can make a good government. Well, try as we may, Mr. Speaker, try as we may, and we are a good opposition; we're the best opposition that this province has seen in quite some time, since 1969 probably. And we have tried to make them a good government even although sometimes it has not been the politically expedient thing to do.

We have, nonetheless, attempted to perform our role as opposition and when they throw this before us; when they throw that type of legislation that they've thrown before us; when they invoke closure; when they cut off deba te; when they refuse to withd raw what should be withdrawn, such as Bill 90, then we find ourselves at a distinct disadvantage and they need all the help they can get. Because as hard as we have tried, we haven't been able to do much with them. They were starting off in too bad a condition to begin with. But this bill itself, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about this briefly.

Let me just read from, I believe these are the introd uctory remarks . . . Where these the introductory remarks? Yes. And what it says is, on

Section 3, it says a history of the Mechanics' Lien Leg islation. Ma ybe I'll just read a couple of sentences. "The first Mechanics' Liens Act in Manitoba was enacted in 1873." So we have a history here before us here in this particular bill. So it's not a matter of just going and reading this bill, it's reading the history. As a matter of fact, we have a document in our office, I know, that deals with this particular bill, which is a fairly long document, longer than the bill, believe it or not.

And if one were to discuss this bill in a detailed sort of way, one would have to read that document very carefully, compare the recommendations of that document to what is in this bill and compare what has been historically the 5840

Monday, 21July, 1980 situation with this bill with what is in this bill, and try to develop a caucus position on it. It says, "It has been amended many times since then," and I'm quoting from the Attorney-General's remarks. "H owever, no amendments of significance have been made during the last 25 years. The Manitoba Law Reform Commission has, since 1970, been studying the legislation and finally reported on it, August 13, 1979.

This report is the basis of the proposed "The Buil ders' Liens Act." Well, we've dealt with that report before; we've dealt with that report when we were discussing The Payment of Wages Act and, Mr. Speaker, if I recall the Attorney- General's comments du ring the committee debate at that time, this was part of a package. This was part of a package with The Payment of Wages Act, because we quizzed him because we could not understand, even given all our political astuteness and our legislative knowledge, why the Minister was in such a rush to bring in The Payment of Wages Act.

And he says, we have to do that because we're bringing in The Builde rs' Lien Act and The Mechanic s' Lien Act. We're making substantial amendments. We're making changes and this is all part of a package. We asked the Min ister, at that time, to withdraw The Payment of Wages Act for a num ber of reasons. For a numb er of reasons because we thought it was detrimental to the welfare of the working person of this province, to which many have agreed; that we thought it would have a significant and negative impact on the workers of this province.

And the Min ister said, no, I can't withdraw because it's part of the package and The Buil ders' Lien Act is coming in, and changes to The Mecha nics' Lien Act is coming in, and that's why we have to proceed with this. They were in a hellfire sure rush to get ahead with that Payment of Wages Act, Mr. Speaker, and we'll talk about that a bit later. But then they bring this before us, dump it on our desks, 50 pages of legislative amendments to

an Act that is, how many decades old and hasn't had significant amendments in 25 years? They bring a whole new Act into the picture and they say, if you don't want to proceed with it, the onus is on you. You just don't force the issue, we won't force it. But, Sir, we have learned throughout this session that we have to be somewha t skeptical, perhaps even cynical of the assurances that we get from time to time in this House, because they have a way of going awry. They have a way of going wrong. And I'm not going to blame it on the government. I'm not going to blame it on the Attorney-General.

I'm not going to blame it on any specific individual, point fingers or tap heads or suggest that this is why it is. But the fact is, and you've been party to it, you've sat and watched over these cham bers and been party to the mix-ups and the misunderstandings that resulted in such acrimonious debate in this House, hateful debate at times, Mr. Speaker; I'm not certain if that's a parliamentarian word but it certainly is a good description of what went on: Hateful debate; name-calling; debate of the lowest form, because of misunde rstandings. And we're concerned about a mis u nders tandin g on Bill 90.

So what is our alternative? We are caught in a dilemma. No w we have to go back and prepare our speeches for third reading. We have to go back and prepare our strategy. We have to go back and analyse new bills that have come in that we haven't had time to analyse fully yet. We have to do all that and we have to proceed with Bill 90 through our caucus, because we have to be ready for the misu nderstanding. We have to assume the worst is going to happen because if we've learned anything about this government, it is that they can bring on the worst.

They can bring out the worst of parliament; the y can bring out the worst of themselves, and the fact is that we can't rest upon their assurances, we must be vigilant. We must be vigilant because we're in opposition and we have a responsibil ity. We must present a caucus position. We must prepare and present the caucus position on this. We must be ready on the last day of the session at 12:00 o'clock at night for Bill 90 to be called.

Until this House prorogues, we cannot rest easy about this particular bill and, until the House prorogues, we must understand this bill; we must have speakers lined up; we must prepare ourselves; we must prepare positions on it. If the Mi nister were to withdra w the bill, Mr. Speaker, as we have asked him to do, then that would no lon ger be that threat of this bill coming forward on the last night of the session, hanging over our heads.

We could put this bill aside until after the session when we have time, as a caucus and as individuals who are interested in the subject matter, to read through the bill, to anal yse it, to read through the reports, to draw up arguments. I am certain tha t in our deba te we can make recommendations, suggestions and amendments, when necessary, that will make this a better piece of legislation. Or we may even suggest, at a later date, that it be withdrawn permanently, that it's not a good piece of legi slation. That we don't kno w. (Interjection) I've been asked by the Member for St.

Johns to read into the record the Honourable Minister of Finance's comments on Bill 109, which he spoke to just a few moments ago. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. We're talking about Bill 90 at this particular time. The Honourable Mem ber for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall the Minister of Finance speaking to this particular bill and not being called to order on it and I would just wonder if he was speaking to a point of order at that time or if he was involved in the debate at that time, I'm told by the Member for St. Johns, or a point of procedure.

He's talking about the procedure of this bill and I would just wish the same courtesy. It's a very short statement, perhaps two paragraphs long, and I would just like the same courtesy, to be able to reply to something that he put in the record, which would tend to reflect badly if it were left unchall enged, on our particular opposition to this bill, the way this bill was brought in, the procedures that have accompanie d this bill. And so with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would read just what may be 20 or 30 lines. It's second reading, Bill 109,

An Act to amend The Mines Act. Mr. Sp eaker, you recognize the Honourable Min ister of Finance. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Min ister of Natural Resources. 5841

Monday, 21 July, 1980 MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I believe, on a point of order, that you have pointed out a number of times that the debate should take place on the bill. What the honourable member is referring now is debate that took place in this House several days ago and has nothing to do with the bill before us. The Minister of Finance was referring to points that had been raised by the opposition. He's now asking him to place in the record discussion that took place several days ago. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Ho nourable Member for Kildonan. MR. FOX: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I believe it's customary in thi s House when we are debating to create analogies in respect to what we are debating, to show references about what the debate is about, and what the Honourable Member for Churchill is trying to indicate is what one of the Honourable Ministers did in respect to his bill and what he's trying to compare it to is the comparison and procedure of the present Minister in respect to his bill. It's just an analogy and a comparison, and I think he's entitled to do that. MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease.

It is exceedingly easy for the Speaker to find numerous references in Beauchesne, which would, in effect, rule out an awful lot of debate in this Chamber. That is not the intention of the Chair. The intention of the Chair is to allow mem bers to express thems elves in this Chamber, in a manner which, from time to time, I ask them to confine their remarks toward a particular subject but I think the Chair has been exceedingly lenient in the past.

We ask members to try and direct their remarks toward the subject matter at hand because, even when they do, sometimes the Chair has difficulty in recognizing the relevance, even when they do attempt to, so when they don't attempt to, it's almost impossible. I ask the Honourable Member for Churchill to carry on the debate. MR. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I hope you weren't making reference to my convoluted line of logic sometimes, that I get caught up in when speaking during Speed-up. Mr.

Speaker, what I would like to do , and I believe that I had explained to you and to the House that it would be just a very short reading of the record and I would have been done by now, had I been given the opportunity to do it, but I will proceed. Mr. Craik said, "Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might just request the indulg ence of the House to have this bill ... " MR. SPEAKER: Order, order pl ease. The Honourable Member for Roblin on a point of order. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, that point of order and that debate is already in the record of this Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St.

Boniface on a point of order. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. During the debate of this bill, the Minister of Finance stood up and made a comparison and said thi s is what happened in another bill. Nobody tried to bring him back to order. He was allo wed to do it and now my colleague is just trying to set this thing straight and to really read into the record what really happened at this time and I would hope that he will be allowed, without any more interference, to continue to bring in the subject that was brought in during this debate by the Deputy Premier. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin on a point of order. MR. McKENZIE: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, just because the members opposite weren't alert on that occasion, they're not going to accuse us of not being alert on this occasion. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Churchill, proceed. MR. COWAN: You know it has been said, that the Speed-up, I forget who said it, it was one of the members on this side speaking to the Speed-up, said that it was an annual rush into madness or . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We are not discussing Speed-up at the present time.

The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: We certainly aren't, Mr. Speaker, and I thank you for that correction. To read what I had attempted to read a couple of times and have been stopped because this annual trek into madness is playing upon the minds of both sides of this House, I think. I would wish to continue. "I wonder", and this is the Minister of Finance speaking again, "I wonder if I might just request the indu lgence of the House to have this bill carried over and not dealt with at this session of the Legislature. If, of course, the members insisted on it ... " MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please.

The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, that debate and tho se records are already in Hans ard and the Journals of this House. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Churchill. MR. COWAN: I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the Member for Roblin listen very carefully because I might just change one word or two and that would mean that it were not in the Hansard. But I will try to read it as truthfully as it appears before me. " . . . carried over and not dealt with at this session of the Legislature.

If, of course, the members insisted on it, we could proceed but it is one of those bills that could just as well do with a six-month digestion period and we will come back with it in this form or another form, perhaps at the next session. Mr. Speaker, we could proceed with just not calling it. I am advised by the House Leader that the more appropriate thing to do, as a courtesy to the House, is to announce to the House that we request its withdrawal at this time." 5842

Monday, 21July, 1980 Now, why did I read tha t into the record? (Interjection) Oh, it was agreed, I am sorry, it was agreed, yes, the House agreed to that. Why did I read that particular

section into the record? Well, because, Sir, Bill 90 is the type of bill that could just possi bly use tha t six-month di gestion period, perhaps even longer. And, because, as the Minister has told us, tha t we ha ve not had signi ficant amendments to it for 25 years and it has been around for decades. He has already indicated that it is not necessary to proceed with it at this sessiion. We would ask the Minister to have the courtesy, as well as the cou rage, to withd raw it, with no aspersions cast from us in regard to him withdrawing that particular Act.

As a matter of fact, we should be somewhat thankful that he brought it forward, gave it to us in this particular form, and allowed us the opportunity to read it over over the summer recess, if we ever have a summer recess. It may well indeed be the fall recess while we are perusing Bill No. 90, Mr. Speaker. But we would then be able to look through what I, upon first glance, would judge to be some very complex legislation.

I have managed, when reviewing another piece of legislation, to go through the report of the Law Reform Commis sion that would deal with this particular bill, that would deal with The Mechanics' Lien Act, although I can assure you I have not been able to di gest it thoroughly or comprehensively. I have managed to peruse it very briefly and it is a complica ted document which applies to this Act.

So we have a complic ated piece of legislation and a complica ted document and we could use the six month period, we would ask the Attorney-General to withdraw it as a courtesy to, not only members of this side of the House, because I think the Min ister of Finance said it was as a courtesy to the House, but also, as a courtesy to all of us, so that we can clear Bill 90 off the Order Paper; so that we can go about the other very heavy and heady business that faces us as an opposition and as a government; so that we can proceed in what would be a more rational way and deal with what is already on our pla te before putting more and more on our pla te, and thereby do a better job on the legislation that is before us now, as well as do a better job on Bill 90 when next we do review this particular piece of legislation.

I see the Attorney-General. I hope he is going back to his seat, and I would not even mind an interruption if that interruption from the Attorney General were to be his recognition of the fact that this particular bill should be withdrawn. Now, I see he is not going back to his seat, Mr. Speaker. He constantly keeps me on my toes. But the fact is that he will have opportunity to withdraw this bill. But if he wants to do it before his next trip, he's going to have to do it tonight.

I would suggest that by the time he gets back we will have already have examined this bill; we might not be ready to speak on it but we would have used some of our time in going thr ough the particular section-by-section discussion of the bill in our caucus. We do a very thorough examination of these bills in caucus, Mr. Speaker. It takes a fair amount of time. That's how we found many of the mistakes in other bills; that's how we'll find out the mistakes in this particular bill .. And, in order to do that, we have to be able to proceed in what I consider to be a more sensible manner.

So, in closing, because I had not intended to speak the full 40 minutes on this, in closing I would ask the Attorney-General, I would ask the colleagues on his side I would implore them if I were the imploring type, but I am not, Mr.

Speaker I would ask them to with draw this Bill 90 to allow an opportunity for discussion; to allow an opportunity for examination; to allow us to take this to our constituents, who will be affected by it; to allow mem bers on the government side to take it to their constituents, who will be affected by it, because that is part of their job as well as ours; to be able to develop an analysis on it; to review the literature that accompanies it, that the Minister has made reference to; to review the principle; to review the details, in fact, to do those things that we normally do with all pieces of legislation of significance that come before this House.

And , by doing so, I can assure the Attorney-General that we will make his very difficult job easier still. And if anyone needs help at this time, it is the Attorney-General, who has been saddled with a numb er of responsi bili ties whic h have obviously . . . (Interjection) The member said he has broad shoulde rs and indeed, he does; he is trying his best and he is doing, at times, a credible job. But, at other times, he is just too tired to deal with this type of legislation. It is no fault on him.

We all get tired from time to time; we all get discouraged from time to time; we all look around us to see our support and it is gone from time to time; we all get disappointed by the fact that we are not getting the type of co-operation that we should. And, knowing that, knowing that is happening to the Attorney General, I would hope that he would wish to lessen his load; I would hope that he would wish to lessen the load of the opposition right now, which is tiring also. I'll be honest, Mr. Speaker, Bill 90 is not going to help us in any way.

Having to review this Act and having to speak to this Act is not going to make us a better opposition in any way whatsoever this session. But, if we are allowed ample opportunity, if we are allo wed a sensible time period to deal with it, we will, as a better opposition, be able to perhaps make them just a little bit better government, not good enough to get re-elected, but just good enough not to totally destroy all the hard work that we put in during eight years in government. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Economic Development. MR. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is no question that Bill 90 is a very imp ortant bill; there is no question that it has been worked on for a long time and the construction industry, generally, in the Province of Manitoba have met with many of the government members and I have attended a meeting myself with the construction industry and many of the government members who were in attendance. But tonight, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Johns has pu rposely whipped up a frenzy because he found the opportunity to do something he wanted to do.

When he was told this morning by the House Leader that this bill was going to be introduced and there 5843

Monday, 21July, 1980 was no pressure on it, he was told that this morning. It wouldn't have mattered whether the Attorney General presented it and said I am pulling it, and it wouldn't have mattered whether the Attorney General said, I suggest it is on the Order Paper, have it adjourned and, as the Min ister of Government Services said, there is no pressure until it is called again, it wouldn't have mattered what was said, Mr. Speaker, because the Member for St.

Johns, with his sarcastic, syrupy manner which he always does, chose to go after the Attorney-General and, for one reason only, then line up his speakers of that side of the House so as to speak all night. And the one reason only, Mr. Speaker, is this: They have been asking for two days to have The Election Act moved over, they have been asking to have it referred to Committee; now they are actually insinuating, the Member for Logan, that maybe the Attorney-General shouldn't be attending conferences, with his snide remarks.

In fact, I am raising my voice and I thought after 10 years I'd learned not to; obviously, the Member for Logan hasn't. But, Mr. Speaker, they don't want to speak on The Election Act tonight. They know that the Attorney General is going out of town tomorrow morning and will not be back by Friday. They will stand up all next week and criticize the fact that he is not here and they can't talk about it, so it should be held over. They don't want that bill called tonight and the Member for St.

Johns, with his leader, who has no basic reason for being call the leader whatsoever, they are sitting there joking about the whole situation at the present time and for one reason only, one reason only, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. The Honourable Member for St. Vital on a point of order. MR. WALDING: Yes, Mr. Speaker, further to the remarks that the Minister just made, I think it should be pointed out to him tha t the Leader of the Opposition is the member recognized by the Speaker as the Leader of the Opposition. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. JOHNSTON: The Honourable Member for St.

Vital is also playing games like the rest of them. I have been called worse than that, as a Minister, by the opposite side, Mr. Speaker, and it doesn't bother me, but anyway they choose to bring it up. But, Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. Bon iface was going to get up and adjourn the debate tonight and the Member for St. Johns said, don't, don't, what do you want to do that for?. (Interjection) Well, that was my impression, you leaned over and spoke to him. Fine.

Then the Member for Churchill, who got up with his sorrowful eyes and went on about how we would change government and everything else, and how he would make us a better government, three times said, I'm finished, I'm going to sit down, but kept on going, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, let's make it very clear. The opposition haven't got the guts to talk about The Election Act tonight. They are going to use this as an excuse not to have it called tonight.

It wouldn't matter who adjourned it or not, they will still speak on the bill because that is their plans, because they know the Attorney-General is going away tomorrow morning and they are going to complain all week; and the Leader of the Opposition is going to get up every question period and say . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I have chastized other members of this Chamber for not sticking to the subject matter of the Bill; I would ask the Honourable Minister to stay to the subject matter of the Bill before us. Bill No. 90. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, it's a very important bill and the construction industry do want to see this passed. Cash flow at the present time is very imp ortant. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the bill is in a state that can be looked at, can be gone back and spoken to. You can call in your constituents. That's the usual old tear-jerking statement when something like this came up. But, Mr.

Speaker, the fact still remains tomorrow morning, after the opposition have made sure The Elections Act will not be called tonight, I will guarantee that the Leader of the Opposition will get up and say to the House Leader, or say to the Minister of Finance, the First Minister, would you please put it over to Comm ittee; and the excuse will be that the Attorney-General is not here. But they haven't got the guts to talk about it tonight, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Johns on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

You have told us that one can raise the matter of clarification after a speaker has ended. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that this Minis ter has falsely and maliciously attributed motives which are not at all evident on this side. The fact, Mr. Speaker, is that the House Leader, whoever he happens to be at the time, called this Bill ahead of any other bills and it was . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. We cannot have two points of order at the same time. A MEMBER: He's on a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker, not a point of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Member for St. Johns . MR. CHERNIACK: Mr.

Speaker, as I understand it, there is no such thing as a point of clarification. Mr. Speaker, I speak on a point of order, as you know, and as the Honourable Minister doesn't know. The point I am making is that the House Leader chose to deal with this bill first and the Attorney General, who interrup ted me, did not, after his interruption, make it clear that he would withd raw the bill, but rather said that if a substantial number of opposition people are not prepared to deal with it, it doesn't have to go on.

The point made by The honourable the Min ister of Finance was that the courteous thing to do is to withd raw the bill and that is all the point that we were making. So I am saying, Mr. Speaker, the Minister for Economic Affairs falsely and maliciously attributed motives on this side, and to me personally, which he had no right to do. 5844

Monday, 21 July, 1980 MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Min ister of Economic Development. MR. JOHNSTON: On the poin t of order, Mr . Speaker. The Mini ster introduced the bill , it was called, the House Leader informed the members on the other side that it was not going to be going on, and the Minister sat down after he introduced it, and after there was a bunch of sarcasm, he explained his position but it still carried on. And that's the reason it carried on. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns on a point of order. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Speake r.

I want to clarify what I said earlier and that is that the Honourable the Acting House Leader, let's say the Minister of Consumer Affairs, told me this morning this would not be proceeded with. I listened carefully to the House Leader, who did not say it would not be proceeded with. He left it with the House for debate and when he interrupted me he still didn't say what the Honourable the Min ister of Consumer Affairs said. Mr.

Speaker, I have never had occasion to doub t a commitment made by the Min ister of Consumer Affairs, and had the Attorney-General, who is the House Leader, had he not stated, as he should have, that the bill would be withd rawn or would not be proceeded with, then it would not have been a problem. He did not say it; he did not say it pub licly, but I was told . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please, order please. We are now getting into an argument, rather than a point of order. The Honourable Member for Roblin on the point of order. MR. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, as a member of this Legislature, sent here by the people of the province to look after the business of this province, I move, seconded by the Member for Rock Lake, that debate be adjourned. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface on a point of order. Does the honourable member wish to speak on the bill? MR. DESJARDINS: I am not getting up on a point of order. I think there has been too many of them that were false points of order. I' d like to speak in this debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS : Mr.

Speaker, if there was once in 22 years that I have been kind of emba rrassed sitting in this House, it's been tonight, and there was no need for that at all, if the Attorney-General had not tried to be a smart alex. It was said a while ago that I was ready to move an adjournment, and that's true. It was said that the Member for St. Johns told me not to; that is not true. I didn't talk to the member at all. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that it's not going to be called, and I think that this thing should come to an end .

But after lis tening to some of the speeches, and some of them I've heard from the speakers in the caucus room, I'd like to put a few things on record. It would ha ve been very very simpl e for the Min ister to get up; if he wanted to intoduce it, introduce it; if he wanted to speak, speak. Of course it must have been in his mind if he had no intention of calling it again, to say so, to say so in an ordinary civil manner.

He could have said, well, I wanted to provide you people with time to study this bill, but it is not my intention to either withdraw it or, I don't care, I would have been fully satisfied if he would have said it is not my intention to call this anymore, it won't be called this session. But that wasn't done at all. We were led to believe that this would happen, now nothing happened. Then my colleague, who spoke on it, was kind of concerned because we didn't know. The Minister had not said anything; we had heard from the Acting House Leader that this wouldn't be proceeded with.

Now, the member got up on a point of order that was not a point of order, and in this cavalier talking about sarcasm sarcastic way, saying: Well, if you are not satisfied, if you can't do it, although the Law Reform Commi ttee said that it should be done, and so on, well fine. In other words, he tried to blame us, and this is what started it. This is what we didn't like.

And then, when I felt, well all right we've got the insurance now, everything is fine, then the Minister of Government Services got up and made the most asinine, while looking at the crowd and accusing people of playing to the galler y, and nobody is better at it than he is, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please, order please. It is the responsibility of the Speaker to protect all memb ers of this Cham ber, both government and opposition, whether they be in the Chamber or not. The honourable member has imputed motives to the Honourable Minister of Government Services, and I would ask him to withdraw. MR.

DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to withd raw. That member got up in front of you, in front of you, and he made the statement, he said that we played for the crowd. If you think you're going to get me to withdr aw it when he hasn't, you've got another guess coming. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. When members are in this Chamber they have the right to protected thems elves. In their absence, that respon sibil ity belongs with the Sp eaker. I ha ve asked the honourable member to consider what he has said, and asked him to withdraw his remarks against a member who is not present in this Chamber.

The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the Speaker got up, and there were some members who were absent, and he said that we pla yed to the gal lery. And he looked at the gallery and he said that we played to the gall ery, that was all that we were interested in. What I said is that if anybody pla ys to the gallery, he is the best. And I don't see anything that I should withdraw. And you say that he is not here; that's not my fault. If you want to go and drag 5845

Monday, 21July, 1980 him out, I'll wait, and I'll say it to his face. But that is the first time that I have heard that you're supposed to protect somebody; that he can make a statement, run out of the House, and then you're going to protect him. If he hasn't got the guts to stay here and stand behind his statement and defend himself, I don't think it is your duty to defend him. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please, order please. It's very unp arliame ntary for memb ers to refer to the presence or absence of members of this Cham ber, and I would ask the honourable member to consider carefully what he has said.

There is, if the honour able member wishes me to refer to Beauchesne, I have asked him to consider what he has said and to retract what he has said about the honourable member. The Honourable Member for lnks ter. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, perhaps memories can be faded by the progress of the evening, but during the course of this evening the Member for Lakeside, the Minister of Government Services, got up and said that the members of the Opposition were playing to the gallery and there was no reference . . .

I really don't consider the remarks to be unparliamentary, but let's take it at its worst, which the Speaker wishes to take it at, but that is what he said. The Member for St. Boniface, some hour-and a-half later, got up and said that the Min ister of Government Services is the best at playing to the gal lery. The Speaker at that point said, "It is my duty to protect all members of the House and I ask the member to withdraw that remark". Now, I ask you to consider, Mr. Speaker, perhaps it was forgotten that that remark was made earlier in the evening. But it seems to me, Mr.

Speaker, that you're going to have a very difficult time getting a member to withd raw a remark which was alleged at him earlier in the evening, without protest, and then tell him that he must withdraw, on the other side. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you reflect on it yourself, that this was said earlier in the evening to members of the opposition and perhaps if it had been checked at that time it would have not have evoked a response, although, Mr. Speaker, I do want to ind icate tha t I do not consider it an unparliamentary remark, without reflecting on your ruling.

I do think that it's going to be a matter of great difficulty for members to support the justice of a ruling which says that one member in the House can accuse others of playing to the gallery but the reverse allegation cannot be made on the opposite side. Mr. Speaker, I would, not withstanding that you did, and without intervention on the part of any honourable member asking you to do it, you did indicate that you thought it was a remark that should be withdrawn, I would respectfully request that you consider, check Hansard overnight to see whether the Member for St.

Boniface was merely responding to the exact remark made earlier in the evening by another member, without intervention by anybody. MR. SPEAKER: I thank the Honourable Member for lnks ter, and I will take the matter under advisement and check Hansard. The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Thank you, Mr. Sp eaker. I appreciate your taking this matter under advisement. I hope there are two other points you could take under advisement. Firstly, the Minister of Economic Affairs attributed motives to me which I think he had no right to do, and I did rise and you did not ask him to withdraw.

I wish you would look at what he said to see whether or not he should be asked to withdraw. Secondly, Mr. Speaker, one other matter. You reprimanded the Member for St. Boniface for saying that the Min ister of Government Services was out of the Chamber. I hope you will check the record and I think you will find, Mr. Speaker, that you were the one who first referred to that fact. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. MR. RANSOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. The Honourable Member for lnks ter drew an analogy which was not an accurate analogy.

He said that the situation when the Member for St. Boniface was speaking and attributing motives to the Minister of Government Services saying that he was playing to the gallery is a specific allegation against an individual member, Mr. Speaker. The reference that the Minister of Government Services had made earlier was a general reference to the members of the opposition, none of whom rose to take exception to it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for St. Boniface. MR. DESJARDINS: Mr.

Speaker, the point that I was trying to make was that I certainly was willing to adjourn this debate, because I thought it had gone long enough. But then there were certain things said that I took exception to and, unfortunately, you can't suggest or you can't move that the deba te be adjourned and then put certain things on the record. I wanted to make a few things quite clear. First of all, that I was never discouraged or told not to adjourn this motion. That certainly wasn't the case. And to help my friend, I think I know to what the Minister is referring.

First of all, there is so much di slike for the Mem ber for St. John s tha t the Member for St. Johns wasn't involved in that at all, it was the member to my immed iate right, and I suggest when I saw that there was a parade of people leaving, I said, I should move an adjournment in the House, and he said, oh, there is no point, that is just going to prolong it. That's where the thing was said, on that motion. So it wasn't on the question of Bill 90. Now on Bill 90 I also want to say that I am not insisting that the Minister withdraw it, but I said that he should have done it in a civil way in this House.

He could have made a speech and said, well, now, it is not my intention, unle ss you insist that you want to go, but it is not my intention to go in; I'm going to leave this between sessions, as the Min ister of Fin ance said on another de bate earlier. It is imma terial should he withdr aw it or leave it on, providing that it is a clear indication that this will not be called again. I was ready to accept that. I think that most of the credit, if you want to call it credit, for this long debate belongs to the Attorney- 5846

Monday, 21July, 1980 General because of his cavalier way, because he wasn't prepared in his remarks, and he had to interrupt a speech to make that statement. And then, as I said, I thought well, all right, I'm satisfied that he has finally made the motion, and then the Minister of Government Services got up. He is in the House now and I think he could protect himself, and I am going to say that he accused us of playing to the gallery and I say he is the best in the House at playing to the gallery. He looks all over the place to make sure they were here, he made his pitch and then he walked out.

What he said was ridiculous. Wha t he said (Interjection) You see, Mr. Speaker, you were going to defend him and he kn ows that I am right, Mr. Speaker; he knows that I am right, and you were going to defend him. So I don't think you have to bother reading Hansard. I think the answer is here. Now, Mr. Speaker, why I say it was ridiculous is because (Interjection) No, I am

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-4-119
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 4th hansardpdf 119.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	9ea9977ac8db9aa64c67ad193e9ceb8099166cab

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