Manitoba Hansard — 30 September 1996 (Sitting 56, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-56

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 56- 1:30 p.m., Monday, September 30, 1996 ISSN 0542-5492

Name ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KOWALSKI, Gary LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MACKINTOSH, Gord MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. McGIFFORD, Diane MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon.

MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEWMAN, David PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. PENNER, Jack PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. RADCLIFFE, Mike REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack, Hon. RENDER, Shirley ROBINSON, Eric ROCAN, Denis SALE, Tim SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STRUTHERS, Stan SVEINSON, Ben TOEWS, Vic, Hon. TWEED, Mervin VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WOWCHUK, Rosann MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political AtTiliation Constituency Thompson Wellington Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Pembina Lakeside Charles wood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon The Maples Inkster The Pas St. Norbert St. Johns Elmwood Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Osborne Assiniboia St. James River East Riel Ponage Ia Prairie Emerson Morris Lac du Bonnet River Heights Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Rupertsland Gladstone Crescentwood Broadway Kirkfield Park Dauphin La Verendrye Ross mere Turtle Mountain Fort Garry Swan River l'a.rty N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. Lib. Lib. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P.

3825 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monda y, September 30, 19 96 The House met at 1: 30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Rail Line Abandonment Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

WHEREAS rail access is vital for the shipment of grain and other farm commodities in rural communities; and

WHEREAS the proclamation of the Canada Transportation Act on July 1, 1996, gives railways the ability to abandon lines throughout Canada with minimum notice; and

WHEREAS on July 2, 1996, Canadian National announced that it plans to abandon four rail lines in Manitoba including the lines from Dauphin to Minitonas and Swan River to Birch River; and

WHEREAS the abandonment of these lines would put the future of grain elevators at Birch River, Bowsman, Ethelbert and Fork River amongst others at great risk; and

WHEREAS the foderal government sold CN without any conditions other than the headquarters ofCN remain in Montreal; and

WHEREAS the loss of these rail lines will have a major negative effect upon the overall provincial economy; and

WHEREAS the provincial government has not made any plans to cover the costs of upgrading roads in the areas where rail lines are threatened with abandonment; and

WHEREAS the foderal government has not committed any money from the Western Grain Transportation Adjustment Fund to upgrading roads in communities where rail lines are being abandoned. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legi slative Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Tr ansportation and the foderal Minister of Transport to ensure that the communities cu"ently using the Cowan Sub and the Erwood Sub are able to continue shipping their grain to markets. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Municipal Aff airs First Report Mr.

Mervin Tweed (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Municipal Aff airs): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant) : Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs presents the following as its First Report. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Wednesday, September 25, 1996, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills reforred. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 2-The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Assessment Validation Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'evaluation municipa/e et validant certaines evaluations David Sanders - Colliers Pratt McGarry Deputy Mayor Jae Eadie & Councillor Garth Steek - City of Winnipeg Charles Chappell- Private Citizen Guy Whitehill - Centra Gas

3826 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 Lance Norman -Manitoba Chamber of Commerce Dr. Barry Prentice - University of Manitoba Transport Institute Written Submission 'John Nicol- Union of Manitoba Municipalities Bil/43-The Municipal Assessment Amendment, City of Winnipeg Amendment and Assessment Validation Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'evaluation municipale et Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg et validant certaines evaluations Rhine 0/ynick-Canadian National Railways John Nicol- Union ofMcmitoba Municipalities David Sanders - Colliers Pratt McGarry Henry Dupont- Rickard Realty MS Khan- Westcan Property Tax Consultants Jack Nelson - Profossional Property �Managers Association Paul Moist & Richard Weind- CUPE, Local 500 and Regional Technical Operations Unit Michael Mercury - Private Citizen Deputy Mayor Jae Eadie & Councillor Garth Steek - City of Winnipeg Charles Chappell - Private Citizen 0. William Steele -P rivate Citizen Dr.

Barry Prentice - University of Manitoba Transport Institute Dan Kelly - Canadian Federation of Independent Business Ken Wong - Hong Kong-Canada Business Association Lance Norman -Manitoba Chamber ofCommerce Ike Zacharopolous- Canadian Pacific Railway Thomas Frohlinger - Private Citizen Don Smith - Private Citizen Joe Diner - Private Citiztm Warren Baldwin - Private Citizen Written Submission Jan Ford- City of Brandon Your committee has considered: Bill 3-The Surface Rights Amendment Act; Loi modijiant Ia

Loi sur les droits de surface and� agreed to report the same without amendment. Your committee has also considered: Bill 2-The Municipal Assessment Amendment and Assessment Validation Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'evaluation municipale et validant certaines evaluations and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT subsection 6(1) of the Bill be amended by striking out "1994, 199 5 and 1996" and substituting "1994 to 1997. " MOTION: THAT subsection 6(2) of the Bill be amended by striking out "1994, 199 5 and 1996" and substituting "1994 to 1997. " Your committee agreed to not proceed with the clause by-clause consideration of Bill 43-The Municipal Assessment Amendment; City of Winnipeg Amendment and Assessment Validation Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'evaluation municipale et Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg et validant certaines evaluations at this meeting of the committee, but to defor such consideration to a future meeting of the committee. Mr. Tweed: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources First Report Mr. Frank Pitura (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Standing Coonnittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.

September 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3827 Mr. Clerk (William Remnant) : Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its First Report. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your committee met on Wednesday, September 25, 1996, .at 7 p. m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 16- The Charleswood Bridge Facilitation Act; Loi facilitant /'application de /'entente sur le pont Charleswood Paul Moist- CUPE Local 500 Bill 19 -The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses Written Submission John Nicol- Union of Manitoba Municipalities Bill 34-The Contaminated Sites Remediation and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'assainissement des lieux contamines et apportant des modifications correlatives John Stefaniuk-Canadian Bankers Association Bill Ryall- Union of Manitoba Municipalities Lance Norman -Manitoba Chamber ofCommerce Bill 44-The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg et apportant des modifications correlatives Councillor John Angus- City of Winnipeg Written Submission Valinda Morris - Provincial Council of Women of Manitoba and The Council of Women of Winnipeg Bill 56-The Manitoba Investment Pool Authority Act;

Loi sur /'Office manitobain de mise en commun des placements Rochelle Zimberg - Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities Jerome Mauws - Union of Manitoba Municipalities Your committee has considered: Bil/16-The Charleswood Bridge Facilitation Act; Loi facilitant /'application de /'entente sur le pont Charleswood Bill 19 -The Dangerous Goods Handling and Tra nsportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses Bill 44-The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Winnipeg et apportant des modifications correlatives and has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your committee has also considered: Bill 34-The Contaminated Sites Remediation and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant l'assainissement des lieux contamines et apportant des modifications correlatives . and has agreed to report the same with the following amendments: MOTION: THAT

section 3 be amended (

a) in subsection (1 ), by striking out "This Act" and substituting "Subject to subsection (3) , this Act"; and (

b) by renumbering subsection (3) as subsection (5) and adding the following after subsection (2) : Application to sites under Oil and Gas Act and Mines and Minerals Act

3828 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 3(3) Except as otherwise provided in the regulations, this Act does not apply to a site to which the provisions ofThe Oil and Gas Act or The Mines and Minerals Act respecting the rehabilitation of land apply ..

Obligations under Oil a.nd Gas Act and Mines and Minerals Act 3(4) Where this Act applies to a site because of a regulation reforred to in subsection (3), a person who satisfies all of his or her obligations under this Act and the regulations in respect of the site is deemed to have satisfied every obligation he or she has in respect of the rehabilitation of the site under The Oil and Gas Act, The Mines and Minerals Act and the regulations under those Acts.

MOTION: THAT subsection 60(1) be amended by adding the following after clause (J): (j. 1) respecting the application of this Act or the regulations to one or more sites or classes of sites to which The Oil and Gas Act or The Mines and Minerals Act applies; MOTION: THAT clause 60(2)(

b) be· amended by striking out ", and the foe payable for, ". MOTION: THAT clause 60(2)(

d) be amended by striking out "on other potentially responsible persons" and substituting "or 12(1) ". MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal reforences necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. Your committee has also considered: Bill 56-The Manitoba Investment Pool Authority Act;

Loi sur /'Office manitobain de mise en commun des placements and has agreed to report the same with the following amendment: MOTION: That

section 22 be struck out and the following substituted: Coming into force 22 This Act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent. Mr. Pitura: I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received. Moti on agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Bon.

James Downey (M ini ster of Indus try, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, I have several reports to table: Manitoba Industry, Trade and Tourism for 1995-96; Manitoba Trading Corporation Annual Report for 1995-%; Manitoba Development Corporation, March 31 , 1996; the Cooperative Promotion Board for 1995-96; and the Co-operative Loans and Loans Guarantee Board for 1995-96. Thank you. * (1 335) Bon.

James McC rae (Mi ni ster of Health): Madam Speaker, I am tabling today the Annual Report for 1995- 96 of the Addictioos Foundation of Manitoba; the Annual Report of the Health Information Services of Manitoba for the fiscal period ending March 31 , 1996; the Annual Report for 1995-96 of Manitoba Health; and the Annual Report for 1995-96 of the Manitoba Health Research Council. Bon. Eric Stef anson (M inister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I have several reports to table. The first one is the Annual Report for 1995-96 for the Department of Finance.

The second one is the Annual Report for 1995- 96 for the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works. The next one is the Annual Report for 1995-96 for the Community Support Programs. The next one is the Annual Report for 1995-96 for Other Appropriations. The next one is the Annual Report for 1995-96 for the

September 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3829 Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority. I also have the Annual Report for the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation. I also have the First Quarter Report for the Manit oba Lotteries Corporation. I also have the Financial Report, first quarter, for the Province of Manitoba for April to June 1996. I also have the Public Accounts for 1995-96, Volumes 1 and 2. Bon. Harry Enns (Mi nister of Agricultur e): Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling the Annual Report for the year '96-96 of the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation. Bon.

Jim Ernst (Mi nister respons ible for Spor t): Madam Speaker, I have the report of the Fitness and Sport Directorates for '95-96 to table, and also, on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), the Annual Report of the Conservation Districts of Manitoba. Bon. Harold Gilleshammer (Mi nister of Culture, Heritage and Citizensh ip): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual Report 1995-96 for the Manitoba Centennial Centre Corporation. Bon.

Jack Reimer (Mi nister of Urban Affai rs): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the reports for the Department of Housing; Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation; the Manitoba Housing Authority; the Department of Urban Affairs; the Manitoba Seniors Directorate; North Portage Development Corporation 1994 Annual Report; also the North Portage Develop ment Corporation Consolidated Financial Statements for the fiscal year ending March 31 , 1996; also The Forks Renewal Corporation Financial Statement for March 31 , 1995. Bon.

Glen Cummings (Mi nister of Environme nt): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for 1995-96 for the Department of Environment. Bon. Darren Praznik (Mi ni ster of Energy and Mines) Madam Speaker, I would like to table today the 1995-96 Annual Report for the Department of Energy and Mines; as well, the 1995-96 report for the Department ofNorthern Affairs; as well, and fmally, the 45th Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ended March 31 , 1996.

Introd uction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon twenty-five Grade 9 students from Elm Creek School under the direction of Mr. Dave McGill. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Canadian Wheat Board Mar keting System-Legal Challenge Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister.

Last week, on Thursday, the governm ent announced that it was intervening on the registration case before the courts. This is not the fust time Manitoba has intervened on issues of interest to all Manitobans. It has intervened on the· Canada Assistance Program in the past; it has intervened on environmental decisions that affect the jurisdiction of the environmen t. We have been asking the Premier for the last couple of weeks why he will not take a stand and intervene against the Alberta cases that would effectively elimina�e the Wheat Board. I would like to ask the Premier today a very simple question.

Why has the Premier refused to defend Manitoba's interest and to intervene in the court case initiated by Alberta that will effectively eliminate the Canadian Wheat Board? *

(1340) Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, our government has from time to time intervened on cases and from time to time has not. We make the decision on an individual basis. We evaluate the issues involved and we make a judgment as to whether or not it is appropriate and productive for us to make an intervention. I would take issue, very strongly, with the suggestion that the loss of the case would eliminate the Canadian

3830 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 Wheat Board. That is absolute nonsense. It is so different than the recent case involving Mr. Andy McMechan in which the Canadian Wheat Board lost the case and the government went to the table; passed a regulation that overcame the essence of the decision and it was restored back to the circumstances and the powers that the Wheat Board had said that it enjoyed. No difference here.

If the federal government were in some way to lose this case, they would make a political judgment and their political judgment would be to preserve the Canadian Wheat Board and there would be no court that would disallow them from maintaining the powers that they chose to have with the Canadian Wheat Board.

What is important for the long tenm is that we have a Canadian Wheat Board that serves the best i.J.�terests of all the producers and indeed the farm economy of Manitoba and western Canada, and that means that the Wheat Board has to be flexible enough to ensure that we attract investment, job creation and agribusiness here. We were in a situation prior to the Canadian Wheat Board, in which I believe it was 60 percent of the wheat that was processed in Canada was processed in western Canada. We are now down to less than 3 percent since the circumstances that have prevailed.

I mention but one instance, last week, in which for almost a year we were in a situation in which a processor who wanted to have a flour mill or a pasta plant here in Manitoba would have had to pay more for their wheat than they would in Alberta. That situation prevailed from the time we contacted the Wheat Board in September of '95 until Sep tember 11 of '96.

It took them one year to change that circumstance which was obviously detrimental to our having wheat milled here or pasta manufactured here, and because they have not bec�n able to make those adjust ments, there are many things that are preventing us from having investment and jolbs for Manitobans here. We will continue to speak out to ensure that we have flexibility in the Wheat Board here in Manitoba. Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, the Premier has indicated that he is not worried about the Alberta court case and he does not feel it will elimina1te the single-desk concept and the value of the Canadian Wheat Board.

We believe the two court challenges will 1in fact eli.J.ninate the Canadian Wheat Board as we know it, and we are backed up by other opinion that says the:: same thing. I would like to ask the Premier why he does not believe it is in the public interest to stand up and put Manitoba's case clearly before the board as an intervener in the Canadian Wheat Board Is it because he is afraid to take on Ralph Klein, or he silently supports the ideology of Alberta? Who is he the Premier of? Is he the Premier of Alberta or is he the Premier of Manitoba?

If he is the Premier of Manitoba, why will he not intervene on behalf of producers and jobs here in this economy and this province of Manitoba? Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, I just want to correct-! knew I had the information at my disposal-it was 20 percent of the wheat that was grown in the West that was processed in western Canada. Now it is down to less than 3 percent since the time that the Wheat Board has been in operation. This is not a matter of wanting to create politics either for or against or with or against particular Premiers.

I get along well with my colleague Prem iers, and on many issues I work co-operatively with them. On other issues, obviously, we agree to disagree. The issue here is a desire to have more economic activity, more investment, more jobs and more returns to the farmers of Manitoba. That is our whole purpose in being, to try and maximize the economic i.J.npact of all of the agricultural production that goes on here.

Mem bers opposite suggested that by instituting dual marketing for our hogs in Manitoba that there would be chaos, that there would be destruction of family farms, that there would be a destruction of Manitoba Pork. It could not be further from the truth. What we have is new hog processing taking place here, more investment than ever before in our history in hog production in the province, and economic activity for the benefit of our hog farmers and the benefit of our producers and processors and for the benefit of all Manitobans. That is what we have.

So to suggest that by not inter vening that there is going to be some dire dramatic chaos occur is absolute nonsense. Mr. Doer: With the Premier's answer today, we have fmally discovered the actual position of the provincial gov ernment and the Premier of this province. The Premier is now saying to the people of this province, he does not care if the Alberta gov ernm ent is successful in the two court cases challenging the jurisdiction of the

September 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3831 Canadian Wheat Board. He does not care if those cases are successful. That is why he will not take a position. Is that now not the position of the provincial government? This is totally against the interests of the majority of producers in this province, and it is totally against the economic well-being of our province and our communities. Mr. Filmon: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong, wrong, wrong.

He chooses not to listen when I give him answers that tell him unequivocally that we support the recommendations of the blue ribbon panel, the Western Grain Marketing Panel that was commissioned by Minister Goodale, with representation from all the various interest groups in western farming and agriculture in our country. They came up with a comprehensive set of recommendations to institute more flexibility, to introduce more opportunity for the- Madam Spea ker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition, on a point of order. Point of Order Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, this is the fifth occasion where I have asked the Premier questions about why we will not intervene in the Alberta court case, and the Premier has answered back on the Canadian Wheat Board panel, the Goodale commission. It is important that the Premier not provoke debate. He has the choice of not answering the question. That was not the question I posed to him . We want him to get off the fence on the Alberta court case. I did not ask him a question about the recommendations and the Goodale panel. "'

(1345) Madam Speaker: The honourable First Minister, on the same point of order. Mr. Filmon: With all due respect, on the same point of order, the member opposite said my position was that I was for the destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board. I have told him unequivocally my position is to support the recommendations of the Western Grain Marketing Panel. He ought not to misrepresent it, and he ought not to get up on a phoney point of order that does not exist. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable Leader of the official opposition did not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

Canadian Wheat Board Marketi ng System Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) in his submission to the panel said that harmonization of the U.S. and the Canadian grain system has advantages. When we compare the systems, we see that Canada under single-desk selling captures 22 percent of the world market though we only produce 6 percent of the product. The U.S. market system gives advantages to the large corporations, to grain trade and the food monopolies. I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture, what kind of harmonization is he proposing?

Is he proposing single-desk selling or is he proposing an open-market system? Hon. Harry Eons (M inister of Agricultur e): Madam Speaker, allow me to take this opportunity in responding to the member for Swan River, to also respond to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer), who continues to refer to my Premier's (Mr. Filmon) position on the matter of the Wheat Board as being that of Premier Klein's. His position is simply not that of Mrs.

Nettie Wiebe, who I am sure is a very capable and competent person, who refuses to understand that things are changing in agriculture as elsewhere and who represents the National Farmers Union who speaks for about 2 percent of the Canadian farm families across this country. Harm onization: Of course, there is value to harmonization, particularly in this post-Crow era where our producers and eastern Saskatchewan producers are facing particularly onerous freight bills of up to 250 to 300 percent.

Harmonization north-south for our grains for export grade on the continental market is of tremendous value to any producer to the extent of $25 or $30 a tonne that the Canadian taxpayer now no longer supports. Those are some of the reasons why my submission to the panel talks about harmonization.

3832 LEGISLATIVE ASSE MBLY OF MANITOBA Sep tember 30, 1996 Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, given that the minister's own staff has told him that accepting these reco mmendations could be more problematic for our international reputation as an exporter of high-quality grain, the recommen dations that this government says they support- Madam Speaker : Order, please. Ms. Wowchuk: Who is this Minister of Agriculture speaking up for? Is he SJPeaking up for the big grain companies or is he speaking up for the grain producers of Manitoba? Mr.

Eons : Unequivocally for the grain producers of Manitoba whom I attempt to speak for, equally important for the well-being, the 1::conornic opportunities and growth for the province of Manitoba, which is a more inclusive issue to take note: of. Madam Speaker, the comments that you would expect from senior staff officials, with respect to providing advice to myself as minister, take in all appropriate cautionary not es. One of them is the recommendation of the grain panel with resp,ect to the sale of unlicensed varieties. Last week, I had the Grains Commission in my office to further explain the position to me.

The panel itself makes that recommendation only if proper identification issues can be resolved. So my staff appropriately notes that in their briefing notes to myself as minister. I would expec:t nothing less from my staff *

(1350) Madam Spea ker: The honourab le member for Swan River, with a final supple mentary question. Ms. W owchuk: Given that we now know that this governm ent supports the dual marketing of grain, I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, what kind of long-term advantages does he see for Manitoba producers under a harmonized system of Ca11tada and the U.S.? What are the great advantages that he: sees for our producers under that system? Mr. Enns: It is so easy when one is careless with language to--I do not say d1eliberately but to do all of us, in particularly the debate on the grains issue, a disservice.

The position that has been enunciated by myself and by our First Minister (Mr. Filrnon) with respect to accepting the panel's recommendations does not talk about a dual system for wheat-not at all. It does not even talk about that Wheat Board's own request that perhap s up to 20 to 25 percent sales are to take place under the spot market but still under the control of the Canadian Wheat Board. There is no dual marketing with respect to wheat, which is the major crop that the Canadian Wheat Board hand les.

You have heard my First Minister talk about supporting the panel's recommendation, you hear me talk about it, so we are not talking about accepting the dual marketing system. We are accepting another panel recommendation with respect to barley, of which the Canadian Wheat Board only handles 22, 23 percent of our barley crop. Besides that, we have had a track record. We had dual marketing of barley for a period of time under the previous Minister of Agricu lture, and it did not upset the world. The sky did not fall, and our producers probably received some benefit. So we stick with our recommendati ons.

The panel report is a first step towards making the Canadian Wheat Board more responsive and flexible to today's market needs. Health Sciences Centre Dr. Odim-Buy-Out Package Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kil donan): Madam Speaker, in July 1986, when the Premier (Mr. Filrnon) was in opposition in this House, he stated that when publicly funded institutions use publicly funded dollars and a public ly funded board enters into an agreement with an employee, then that agreement should be made public. The Minister of Health, then in opposition, stated the same thing in June and July of 1986.

I am asking the minister today, in follow-up to my question last week, whether or not he will reveal to the House whether an agreement was entered into between Health Sciences Centre and Dr. Jonah Odirn , the former surgeon at the Health Sciences Centre. *

(1355) Bon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): understand the Health Sciences Centre and the University

September 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3833 of Manitoba have agreed with the physician referred to by the honourable member and that there is an agreement in place. If the honourable member wants to have a look at such an agreement, he could direct his inquiry to the university or the Health Sciences Centre. Mr . Chomiak: Madam Speaker, I thenk the minister for that information. I wonder if the minister will advise this House whether (

a) he will table the agreement and, (

b) whether or not he will indicate whether any members of the Department of Health were aware of this agreement prior to the execution of this agreement between the university, the Health Sciences Centre and Dr. Odim. Mr . McCrae: They would not have been, but they have since-of course, since the honourable member has raised the matter-become aware of it. Mr . Chomiak: Madam Speaker, my fmal supplementary: Is the minister not concerned that the arrangement with Dr.

Odim to go to Atlanta and the ongoing inquest, that that information was not communicated to the official bodies in Atlanta, and does that not cause concern for the minister concerning perhaps other physicians who may want to practise in Manitoba and our not being made aware of other kinds of circumstances like that affecting physicians outside of Manitoba who subsequently come to Manitoba? Is the minister prepared to review that and come back to this House with his concerns and perhaps recommendations? Mr .

McCrae: Madam Speaker, the honourable member does have a legal background and understands the processes involved. It would be my concern if there was some suggestion that due process was not part of all of this, and that is not the suggestion the honourable member is making. If he is suggesting something other than the appropriate processes that are in place to deal with situations like this, let him say so and we will consider it. Soc ial Assistance Housing -Brand on, Manitoba Mr . Leon ard Evans (Brand on East): Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Family Services.

On Wednesday, October 2, two apartment blocks, 1202 and 1280 Rosser Avenue in Brandon, housing over 25 people will be shut down because public health officials have condenmed them as being unfit for human habitation. Most of the tenants are on welfare, including several mentally ill persons. The local Canadian Mental Health Association is desperately trying to fmd safe, decent alternative housing for these people but is having great difficulty because the social allowance program only provides for $285 per month for both rent and utilities.

The minister's department has refused to provide additional assistance even on an emergency basis to help the displaced persons. Will the minister, out of compassion for these mentally ill persons and others depending on social assistance, personally look into this problem to ensure that they obtain safe and decent housing and do not simply transfer to other substandard and deplorable accommodations? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Mi nist er of Family Services): Madam Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question.

I indeed will look into the situation personally, but I also understand from my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) that he has directed his department to deal expeditiously with those with mental illness. * (14 00) Ma dam Speaker: The honourable member for Brandon East, with a supplementary question. Mr. Leon ard Evans: I thank the minister for the answer. Supplementary: Would the minister conduct a survey or check her departmental files to find out just how many of her social assistance recipients are living in slum conditions in the city of Brandon and how many of these suffer from mental illness?

Mrs. Mitchelson: I take the questiqn from my honourable friend very seriously, and I will work very closely with my colleague the Minister of Health, with my colleague the Minister of Housing (Mr. Reimer) to ensure that appropriate accommodation is there for those with mental illness in the city of Brandon.

3834 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 Mental Healtllt Care System Housing- Bran don, Manitob a Mr. Leonard Evans (Bra111 don East): I would like to ask the supplemen tary question of the Minister of Health.

I appreciate what the Minister of Family Services just said about the minister's interest, but would the minister, who has often boasted about his mental health reform program and deinstitutionalization, ask his staff to determine how many mentally ill persons are living in slum housing in the city of Brandon, and would he take action to ensure that all mentally ill patients are provided with decent and safe accommodation? Bon.

James McCr ae (Minister of Health): Madam Speaker, the fact that the Hc::alth department is involved with declaring 1280 and 12:02 Rosser Avenue unfit for occupancy, to me that says that the system is working the way it is supposed to, that when standards fall below the level that is acceptable, the Department of Health takes action, and as my colleague has said, the Health depart ment is taking a specific ilrtterest in the mental health clients who are resident at those addresses to ensure that they are properly housed in future. This is why we have regula tions.

The question is how far or how low do standards go before they breach those requirements, and I suggest that housing standards and other standards have been in existence for a very long time, including the time when the honourable member for Brandon East was responsible for significant matters here in the province of Manitoba, and virtually the same rules apply today. Manitoba Public lm�ur ance Corporation Call Centres Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (lnlmer ): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings).

It would appear that MPIC is somewhat on the move and we are concerned greatly in terms of the direction that this governm ent is suggesting that it take. Now I understand that call centres :are in fact, at least I believe, being looked into in terms of delivering a service as opposed to the Autopac brokers. I am asking if the minister can come clean with Manitobans and tell us, what is MPIC doing with n:spect to call centres and the whole distribution of insurance through brokers? Bon.

Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the administr ation of The Manitoba Public Insu rance Corporation Act): Madam Speaker, I think the member received the corporate information last week.

The fact is the corp oration is, not in any clandestine way but in a very public way and through communications to its brokers and to its customers, saying that it has an obligation to review how it delivers its services and make sure that they are done in the most appropriate manner, but I think it does no one a service to raise allegations or fears that somehow there is a hidden agenda to deal in an inappropriate way or to change the way services are being delivered without first taking a look at what is an appropriate and functional delivery system.

We have a very good delivery system today, one that involves a good partnership between the public and the private sectors of this province and there is no reason to change that except to provide greater efficiency. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Minister resonsible for MPIC can make it very clear to Manitobans, is MPIC today looking into the possibility of including call centres in the delivery of automobile insurance? Yes or no? Mr. Cummings: The answer would be no. Mr.

Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I am wondering then if the Minister responsible for MPIC could tell us why then there is a study that is being conducted, in a memo that I tabled the other day, which was signed off by the president and general mana ger of MPIC, indicating that there is a study that is ongoing, and he is saying that study has nothing to do with the call centres. Mr.

Cummings: Madam Speaker, I think the member is probably doing the best he can, given the limited information that is probably available to him at this point, but the fact is that the corporation has a call centre for taking in calls on windshields and service to brokers and all sorts of infonnation that needs to be distributed to the existing broker service, among other things. If he is taking an advocacy position that there should be no changes made in the present brokerage system, that is flne. The corporation is communicating regularly with

Sep�ber30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3835 the brokers and has indicated to them that they are looking at methods of improvement. I think the member would have to acknowledge that there is a body of the public that is asking, how can the corporation continue to improve services to them, and they would be remiss in not doing their best. Cabinet Ministers Spousal Travel Expenses Mr.

Tim Sale (Crescentw ood): Madam Speaker, can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs tell us what members and staff of the Manitoba government and what members of their families were on a trip to London, England, to unveil a statue of a rather famous bear, and how much government paid for the travel and other expenses of spouses, of the minister and of civil servants for this particular event? Hon. Jim Ernst (Mi nister of Consumer and Corporate Aff airs): Madam Speaker, I attended last summ er, on behalf of the government, to do the official unveiling in the London Zoo of the statue of Winnie the Pooh.

I have no idea immediately what the costs of the travel were. Mr. Sa le: Madam Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I asked, what spouses, at what cost, of what ministers and what civil servants? Will the minister please answer the question? Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, my spouse travelled with me at no cost to the taxpayer. I believe the Clerk of the Executive Council also travelled there. I do not remember whether his wife attended or not. Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, will the minister please undertake to table with the House immediately the costs for the travel and associated expenses of his spouse, the costs for the travel and associated expenses of Mr. Leitch's spouse, and will he tell the House and table for the House the dates on which the monies associated were repaid to the government of Manitoba? Mr. Ern st: Madam Speaker, if in the case of my spouse, there was no cost to the government, nothing was necessary to be repaid. I cannot answer for the Clerk of the Executive Council, but I will inquire.

Manitoba Telephone System Privatization -Public Hearings Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Speaker, all Ma nitobans know today that the government broke its promise on not selling MTS, but another promise they have broken too was to have public discussion and debate. In fact, within two weeks of sending a series of letters out throughout the province indicating there would be public discussion before any decision, they made the decision in cabinet to sell it off, but it turns out there have been a few meetings held across the province, invitation only meetings.

I know of one with some municipal officials in the Selkirk-Interlake area. There was one with MTS officials in Carberry. I would like to ask the Premier, how many invitation-only meetings have been held to discuss the sale ofMTS in Manitoba? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I just want to make sure that the member does not put on the record anything that is not factual. I am sure that would be a concern to him . At no time did the government promise not to sell Manitoba Telephone System.

When we were asked the question, when I was asked the question, I said, we had no plans to sell it, Madam Speaker, and we did not. I told the member many months later the sequence of events when we received the report from the Crown Corporations Council. The member knows that there will be an opportunity when the bill comes before committee for public representation, and that will be an opportunity for Manitobans to express their views, as they always can, on legis lation that is passed that is presented in this Legislature. Mr.

Ashton: I appreciate the Premier's attempt to defend the fact that he said he had not plans to sell MTS . That is exactly what I said. I would like to ask why-and I will repeat the question perhaps for the Premier-there have been no public meetings on the MTS issue and, in fact, only a series of a handful of invitation-only meetings?

3836 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Sep�b er 30, 1996 Can the First Minister at least indicate who has been given the chance to discuss the future of MTS since the vast majority of the public has not? *

(1410) Mr. Filmon: There hav�: been information meetings, I am aware, held throughout the province with municipal governments and representatives. I do not have any information as to how mlmy and where they have been held, but I will take that as notice on behalf of the Minister responsible for the Telephone System (Mr. Findlay). Mr. Ashton: Final supplementary.

Since the Premier is saying that the only public input will come through the committee stage of discussion of the bill on MTS, I would like to ask the Prerruter if he will do the right thing and allow public hearings to take place on MTS throughout the province, and given the fact that he has been doing this with his backbenchers on a variety of issues who have been holding hearings throughout the province, most recently tlh.e member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe), will he do that with MTS, a corporation we have owned publicly smce 1908?

Will he give rural Manitobans and northern Manitobans a chance to have a direct say in the future ofMTS? Mr. Filmon: There have been all sorts of public discussion and debate on this. I know that the member opposite has been sending letters to every municipality. In fact, that is one of the reasons why these meetings have been held with municipalities, to dispel all the misinformation that the m<:mber for Thompson has been spreading. Absolute nonsense, sheer baloney that he has put in. Point of Order Mr.

Ashton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask you to call on the Premier to withdraw that comment. The only thing I asked the municipalities to do was pass a resolution if they felt that MTS should not be sold off. In fact, more than 50 did so. So I would like to ask you to have: the Premier withdraw that inaccurate and unparliamentary remar k. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. Madam Speaker : The honourable First Minister, to complete his response. Mr. Filmon: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The fact of the matter is that there has been a great deal of public discu ssion and debate. I have been receiving various letters and communications both for and against the privatization I understand that an ad has been placed in the Brandon newspaper with my phone number on it for people to call if they are concerned about MTS privatization. I have received a few calls both for and against, and under those circumstances we continue to listen to the public, and the public will have further opportunities when the bill comes before the committee of the Legislature, Madam Speaker.

Forestry Indu stry Cutting Rights Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Premier. This morning, the Premier addressed the World Commission on Forests and Sustainability and forgot to mention the word "forests." He also forgot to mention that this Order-in-Council gives anybody in the Forestry Branch the authorization to increase annual allowable cuts by 20 percent with no public consultation.

Can the Premier tell us how 20 percent increases in timber sale agreements can be monitored for sustain ability when they are signed off without any consultation from the public or even from within the Department of Natural Resources? Bon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, yes, indeed, I did have an opportunity at their invitation to address the World Commission on Forests and Sustain able Development.

They are holding their hearings in Manitoba because of our reputation as a leader in the field of sustainable development. [inteijection] Well, I know that it hurts the members opposite to hear the truth, but that is fact. The commissioners were very interested to hear about all the things that Manitoba has done with respect to

September 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA 3837 sustainable development, with respect to recycling measures, with respect to many of the measures that we have taken to protect our resources and to ensure that they can be harvested sustainably-in all those cases, I would say. This government is the first that has ever held, fo r instance, public hearings from the Clean Environment Commi ssion with respect to a fo rest management plan.

The members opposite, when they were in government, gave carte blanche, with just a stamp of approval from cabinet, the right to harvest more timber than is currently being harvested by Manf or-M anfor which, under the members opposite, had the worst environmental record of any organization in Manitoba-and we spent millions of dollars cleaning up the mess that they left fo r us. That is exactly the kind of attitude they had.

Now, of course, in their hypocritical way, they stand up and they try and portray themselves as def enders and protectors of the environment, never held a hearing of the Clean Environment Commi ssion, never had any environ mental approvals given to Manf or or to the largest hydroelectric project in the hi story of this province, the Limestone project, and now they are born-again environ mentalists. Well, that is absolute nonsense and nobody believes them, Madam Speaker. Mr. Struthers: This is the same Premier who received an F on his last environmental report card- Madam Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member fo r Dauphin, with a supplementary question. Mr. Struthers: Did the Premier this morning in his address include the fact that this province has given away land and cutting rights to companies at a stumpage fe e of $1.55, which is the lowest in the country? Sustainability, I do not think so. Did you mention that this morning? Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I talked this morning, as I rightly should, about our commitment to sustainable development, a commitment that was never seen or understood by members opposite when they were in government when they destroyed our environment and . ignored any opportunity for the public to be represented, because they never held environmental hearings into Manf or or into Limestone or into any project.

So, yes, the members of the commission were very in terested in the progress that we have made since those bad old times under the New Democrats, were very interested in hearing the record that we have fo r going through public hearings and having a process that is recognized right across Canada and throughout the world. They were interested in knowing that we are committed and, indeed, that all of our decisions are made with respect to the long-term sustainability of our fo rests and all of the various resources that we have under our care and jurisdiction. Mr. Struthers: I guess he did not mention that fa ct.

Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member fo r Dauphin, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Struthers: Madam Speaker, then did the Premier tell the commission that it was his government who fired a wild lif e biologist when he questioned the sustainability of this government's practices? .,

(1420) Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, one of the things that fo rtunately prevails in a quasi-judicial process, an objective process like the Clean Environment Com mis sion, is that you have an opportunity to listen to people with all diff erent perspectives, and you have an opportunity to have scient ists, to have engineers, to have fo restry experts, to have technical experts come bef ore the commission and put their inf ormation on the table, so that you do not have to take inf ormation based on nonsense and hearsay like members opposite want to put fo rward, political dribble that they try and substitute fo r real knowledge, real fa cts and solid inf ormation, and that is the basis on which decisions are made in our system of Clean Environment Commission objective review.

Cabinet Mini sters Spousal Travel Expenses Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, given that the Minister of Consum er and Corporate Aff airs took a deputy minister and the clerk of the privy council, Jim Eldridge and Don Leitch, with him over there to pull the statue's little cover off -I mean a little bear this hi gh-how many deputy ministers and staff does it take to unveil a bear?

3838 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 Bon. Jim Ernst (M inister of Consumer and Corporate Affai rs): Madam Speaker, the Clerk of the Executive Council had ongoing discussions and negotiations with the London Zoo. On that behalf he attended, along with myself, to conduct the appropriate unveiling in the ceremony surrounding that. Madam Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS W. J. Joe McDonald Native Resource Centre Mr.

Mervi n Tweed (Turtle Mountain): The past two weekends I have had the pleasure of attending the community of Boissevain, which is located in my constituency of Turtle Mountain. The first Saturday, in conjunction with the Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba, we opened the W.J. Joe McDonald Native Resource Centre, and at that time it was suggested that Boissevain was becoming one of the centres of native history and native resources and perhaps one of the largest centres for this resource in Manitoba and perhaps western Canada.

On the following Saturday, along with the minister, the Deputy Premier, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), we had the pleasure of unveiling two more murals in the town of Boissevain, one depicting the North-West Mounted Police and the other the flowers of rural Manitoba. It was attended by many and also by many tourists from south of the border, and it was presented at that time that Boissevain was actually becoming one ofthe cultural centres of rural Manitoba.

The pride in this commmtity of their murals and of their native resource centre I think exemplifies what the people are trying to do in rural Manitoba on initiatives of their own. It is something that the community has pulled together, and at present I believe the total of murals in the community is 14. They represent a selection of murals and paintings done by Manitoba artists, showing some of the history and the pride of rural Manitoba. The one mural that we opened, or that we had the signature for, was depic:ting the North-West Mounted Police.

It was very interesting to have a gentleman there by the name of Dominic:k French, who was one of the RCMP officers depicted on the mural along with his father and his grandfather who also served with the North-West Mounted Police and actually resided in the community of Boissevain. In closing, Madam Speaker, I would just like to invite all Manitobans to tour southwest Manitoba and visit the fine community of Boissevain, and please stop and take a look at our tourist attractions, the cultural centre and the murals of Manitoba. Thank you. AIDS Walk Canada Ms.

Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, yesterday, Sunday, September 29, about 400 Manitobans joined people across Canada in AIDS Walk Canada . The motto for the march, a pledge is the first step, reflects the idea that relieffor those living with HIV-AIDS requires our financial commitment and our commitment to social action. The national pledge goal was $2.6 million, and I understand that the Winn ipeg marchers and their supporters pledged in excess of $35,000.

This money will be returned to the AIDS service organizations who will use it for AIDS education and prevention as well as for the care and treatment of persons living with HIV AIDS. From my personal involvement in the commun ity, I know that these funds are desperately needed and that they will be greatly appreciated. Madam Speaker, the Walk for AIDS is an annual event and for several years I have participated. Yesterday, I was delighted to see that a large contingent of Manitoba Young New Democrats joined the walk and despite the bit ter cold carried their banner proudly. These young people are worthy models.

Certainly their passionate commitment to social justice and to a society which nurtures all its citizens gives hope to my generation, assuring us that the struggle for justice will continue. In closing, I want to acknowledge the walk's corporate sponsors, Kahlua, SoapBerry, NAYA Spring Waters, Molson's and Club Monaco, as well as Neil Wilcox and his organizing committee. Last, most of all, congratulations to all those who solicited pledges, then collec ted them and finally joined the walk. We cannot have a walk without walkers, just as we cannot combat AIDS without public commitment and government support.

Thank you.

Septem ber 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3839 Dawson Trail Dispatch Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask all member of the Legisla ture to join me in congratulating the Dawson Trnil Dispatch on its premiere issue this month. The paper provides readers in southern Manitoba and southeast Manitoba with inf ormation on issues and events and is distributed free of charge within the southeast area.

The Dispatch's editorial staff designed the paper to emph asize the entrepreneurial spirit and to instill pride in the increasing economic develop ment in the communities in this southeast area. This community -based newspaper will cover issues of concern directly relevant to its readers and, in return, Manitobans will be able to commun icate and offer advice and comments to the editor. The Dawson Trail Dispatch banner includes a sketch of the Dawson Road and its construction.

According to the editorial staff, each log that was laid down on the road, which stretches through the muskeg country of eastern Manitoba, was crucial to the road's sturdiness. These individual logs represent each person living in the comm unities to which the newspaper is distributed. It is the philoso phy of the Dispatch that every member of the group contributes to the community, thus the community would be weakened if one person were to be remov ed.

The symbolism used in the naming and philoso phy of the Dispatch emphas izes the sense of community and camaraderie that is essential in the creation of any rural business. Madam Speaker, I hope this new paper will lead the readers of southeast Manitoba to rediscover the corduroy region once again through the communication and the interaction. This paper provides an excellent opportunity for southeast Manitobans to become involved in their community. It is reassuring that the Dispatch has been overwhelmed by the positive response from adver tisers, writers, in the week leading to its first publication.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see the further creation of small business in rural Manitoba, and I wish the editorial staff and the people of southern Manitoba a great deal of success in their new endeavour. RCMP Run for Cancer Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the RCMP runners, the many volunteers, the generous donors, corporate sponsors and organizers who worked to organize the annual RCMP Run fo r Cancer this weekend.

The RCMP Run fo r Cancer was initiated in the summer of 1983 when six members of the Brandon detachment ran a distance of 1 70 kilometres from Brandon to Dauphin in order to take

part in the RCMP homeco ming in Dauphin. Initially, the team was simply going to run the relay fo r the fun of it, but decided that this was an opportunity to raise funds fo r the Canadian Cancer Society. Over the years, the run has fo llowed several routes. As the run wound its way through many diff erent com munit ies, the distance covered varies from 170 to 360 kilometr es. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Madam Speaker: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask fo r the co-operation of all honourable members to have your private meeti ngs either in the loge or outside the Chamber.

I am experiencing great difficulty hearing the honourable member fo r Swan River. Ms. Wowchuk: The RCMP Run fo r Cancer has always been a nonstop relay-style event. Each runner on the team completes approximately 40 kilometr es. The fo urth team event coveted the entire province. Six individual runs took place on September 27 and 28, from Thompson to Flin Flon, Russell to Swan River, Manitou to Portage, Brandon, a circular route from Winnipeg to Selkirk and another Winnipeg to Selkirk run in the Interlake.

The long-term commitment of the RCMP, the work and the enthusiasm of hundreds of volunteers, wonderful public support, and the special community events is something to be commended. Since 1983, the RCMP Run fo r Cancer has raised over half a million dollars fo r cancer research. This year's goal was $1 10,000, and my · understanding is that it was probably reached. I want to take this opportunity to recognize some of the runners that I had the opportunity to meet over the weekend.

They are: Ken Aspen from Winnipegosis, Perry Farnsworth from Dauphin, Rick Johnson from Roblin detachment, Bill Pertson from Dauphin, Steve

3840 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 Sumner from Swan River, Ken Barker from Ethelbert, Theresa Gribbon from Grandview, Calista MacLeod from the Russell detaclunent and :Simon Hriech from the Swan River detaclunent. All of us should recognize the tremendous work the se people are doing in their Slll pport to fight cancer . * (1430 ) Dawson Trail Mr. Ben Sve inson (La V.::ren drye): Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise in the House today and tell my fe llow members the story of the Dawson Tra il.

I attended the 125th anniversary of the official opening of Dawson Trail this swnmer at Dawson Trail Day& in Ste. Anne. A book titled the Gateway to the West was published in commemoration of the anni versa ry. The book is a tribute to Simon Dawson and his accomplislunent building the first all-Ca nadian route to western Canada. Simon James Dawson was a surveyor and engineer. Dawson's elaborate and expensive plan called for the building of wagon roads over various portages and for the construction of locks at Fort Fra nces. Because of cost, the pro ject was ignored until after Confederatio n.

In the early months of 18 70, more than 1,0 00 men were working on the project. Within a year of completion of the Dawson Trai l, a government immigration transport service was established and settlers bound for the prairie were using the road The villages of Lorette, Ste Anne and Richer, in my const ituency, share a common historical background closely linked to the construc:;tion of the Dawson Trail. In fa ct, construction of the trail started in Ste. Anne. The Dawson Road cairn was erected in Ste. Anne in 1959 to commemorate the construction of the trai l.

Finally, there is the famous folklore about the lost treasure of the Dawson Trail which I would like to share with the memb ers. Ac cording to the storyte llers , some where east of Winnipeg along the Dawson Trail there is supposed to be a treasure of gold. The tale says that the soldier was carrying $1 0,000 of gold to pay the troops with the Wolseley expedition.

Accor ding to the story the soldi�r was chased by the local First Nations people along a portion of the traill where he dumped the pouch containing the gold Little more is known except that the story surfaces from time to time and the mystery of the Dawson gold remains, but the question rem ains, is there a tr easur e hidden along the Dawson? Most people think there is, if not in gold pieces, then in the legacy of the Dawson Tra il. Thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY WRITT EN QUESTIONS Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood) - 1 (

a) Between 1990 and 1994, how many spousal trave l requests were made by cabinet ministers, how many were re jected and how many were approved? (

b) Who were the cabinet ministers who made thes e requests, and what were the dates and destinations of the trave l? (

c) What was the cost of this spousal travel, itemized by type of expense? (

d) Since 1994, when the spousal travel polic y changed, how many trips have cabinet ministers made with their spouses? (

e) What were the dates and destinations of these trips? (

f) What were the itemized costs of these trips, for both the cabinet ministers and their spouses? House Business Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Agriculture will meet tomorrow evening at 7 p.m. to cons ider Bills 5, 6, 23, 24, 30 and 31, all of which were passed through second reading las t week. If you can hold off for one

sec. 1 wonder if I might have leave to move - Madam Speaker: Can I do the commit tee announce ment first?

Septemb er 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 384 1 Mr. Ernst: Oh, sure. Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Agriculture will meet tomorrow, Tuesday, October 1, at 7 p.m. to consider Bills 5, 6, 23, 24, 30 and 31. Mr. Ern st: I wonder if I might have leave of the House to give Bill 75, The Commodity Futures Act, second reading. Mada m Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs have leave to give Bill 75, The Commodity Futures Act, second readin g? [agreed] SECOND READINGS Bill 75-The Commodity Futures Act Hon.

Jim Ernst (Mi nister of Consumer and Corporate Affai rs): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 75, The Commodity Futures Act (Loi sur les contrats a terme), be now read a second time and ref erred to a committee of this House. Moti on presented. Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I firstly want to thank the members of the two opposition parties for agreeing to allow The Commodity Futures Act to remain after first reading on the Order Paper and receive second reading during the fall session.

We had discussed the issue with respect to the Commodities Exchange and their desire to expand their horizons and the need for regulatory authority to be in place. So both the members of the official opposition and the members of the Liberal Party co-operated to bring this bill before us today. The Commodity Futures Act will be a very important step forward for the administration of the commodities business in Manitoba and in Canada, and we are very proud to introduce this legislation. In 1978, Manitoba was one of the first jurisdictions in Canada to adopt legis lation governing trading and commodities futures.

The legisla tion was rather limited in scope and expressly excluded the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange from its jurisdiction. At that time, trading on the exchange was limited to futures contracts on grains which were governed by the fe deral grain futures act In the years since then, Madam Speaker, the business of th e Winnipeg Commodity Exchange has expanded and evolved into several new areas that are beyond the scope of our legisla tion. These include options on a number of existing contracts as well as new futures contracts on commodities such as fe ed peas which are outside its traditional scope.

As a result, the exchange needs a legisl ative framework that can keep pace with this growth and movement into new areas, and this is the reason for the bill. Since our act came into force, other Canadian jurisdictions have adopted comprehensive commodity futures legisl ation. Our new legislation follows these other acts. The intention is to give the Manitoba Securities Commission regulatory responsibility for trading in commodity futures contracts and options in general, and the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange in particular.

Madam Speaker, under Bill 75, the role of the Manitoba Securit ies Commission will be one of super vision. Like the similar legislation elsewhere in Canada, Bill 75 divides the responsibility for regulating commodities futures markets between the commission and the exchang e. The bill is based on the premise that the exchange will continue to have primary responsibility for regulating its memb ers. However, the Manitoba Securities Commission will be required to approve the internal rules and regulations of the exchange and act as an appeal body from its disciplinary and other deci sions.

As I said earlier, we are proud of this legis lation which, together with our bills on the Commodity Exchange itself and the Winnipeg Stock Exchange , constitutes an important strengthening of the basic laws governing our major financial markets and the organizations that operate those markets. We have consulted with a wide body of stakeholders in preparing Bill 75, and there is broad support in the industry for this bill.

We are confident that the bill and its companion acts will enable our major financial markets, and especially the Win nipeg Commodity Exchange, to move forward and to meet the needs of its clie nts. This in tum will strengthen the position of Winnipeg as a participant in stock and commodity futures activity in Canada. So, Madam Speaker, again I commend Bill 75 to the House, and I again thank my

3842 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 honourable colleagues for allowing this bill to come forward. Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned. Moti on agreed to. Bon. Jim Ernst (Govern ment House Leader): Madam Speaker, would yolil call Bills 18, 47, 70 and 49. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 18- The Payment of Wages Amendment Act Madam Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), Bill 18, The Payment ofW ages Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur le paiement des salaire:

s) standing in the name of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) . Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed] Mr. Daryl Reid (Trans(:ona) : Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to add my comments to Bill 18, The Payment of Wages Amendment Act, that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) tabled in this Chamber back during our spring sitting.

This piece of legislation will make some changes that will allow for an expansion of the powers of the provincial government through the Department of Labour and Employment Standards, for the continuation or the exchange of and enforcement of The Payment of Wages Act in the province of Manitoba and other acts that may be enforced in other provirtces, territories and now, with this legislation, with jurisdictions, because that is the word that is being brought into play here. *

(1440) It is my understanding that this piece of legislation will allow for changes and that will allow the Lieutenant Governor now to make by regulation and designate other jurisdictions as reciprocating jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing in Manitoba an order or a judgment made by another jurisdiction. It is my understanding that this piece of legislation, currently in effect in the province, has reciprocal enforcement provisions that we share with our other sister provinces and territories in Canada.

It is my understanding that we have four provinces and two territories for which we have those reciprocal arrangements for enforcing each other's payment of wages, orders that may come forward. It is my understanding that, as the minister has pointed out here I believe in his comments some time ago and through our research, we have been able to determine as well that the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan are the provinces, as well as Nova Scotia, which we have reciprocal arrangements made for the enforcement of each other's payment of wages orders.

It is also my understanding that we have similar arrangements with the Northwest Territories and Yukon. The minister has indicated during his comments here that we have, through the Department of Labour, Employment Standards been working on also having agreements in place with the Province of Ontario. It is my under standing, work may be being done presently with other Canadian jurisdictions as well to allow for enforcements of each other's payment ofwages orders.

Madam Speaker, I think that this legislation, to allow for that is probably a move in the right direction and that we can, of course, seek where there are orders that are handed out through Employment Standards, through the director's orders or through Labour Board orders to allow for other jurisdictions to enforce those orders on our behalf for employers that may not be in this province or for orders for people who are living in this province now that have come from other jurisdictions, asking us to assist in the capturing of those wages that are due and payable to the employees, being that the employee would have earned those monies t.'rrough employment with the employer in question.

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to go back and to take a look at the Payment of Wages Fund itself and to take a look at when this fund came into practice and some of the discussion that has been taking place with respect to this act over a number of years and to take a look at the hist ory, the real history ofthe Payment of Wages Fund

Sep�ber30, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3843 itself and the monies that have been associated with The Payment ofW ages Act over the number of years through successive governm ents and also some of the problems that have been encountered by the fund and when the fund and the act have come into being. It is my understanding that the Payment of Wages Fund was established through the Schreyer government back in the 19 70s. I believe it was 1975 that The Payment of Wages Act was estab lished .

The purpose of the act was to help those employees, those working people of our province that have been working for a particular company or for a particular employer where the employer has by various reasons fa iled to pay the employee the monies that are due and payable to the employee for the hours that were worked.

Now, the reasons can be varied and many, could also involve bankruptcy or receivership of the company, but it also can take into account the fa ct that there are employers that are still currently in business and just, for whatever reason, refusing to pay their employees the wages that are due and owing.

Now, one would think that most employers of our province, or we would like to think that most employers of our province, are reasonable people and that they would treat their employees fa irly, but I can tell you that I have cases in my files downstairs in this building where employers have not been treating their employees very fa irly. I think these cases, from what I am told, have been ref erred to Employment Standards . In some cases, the employers have been found to be in contravention of the act. (Mr.

Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Now, with The Payment of Wages Act, when it was estab lished, I think Howard Pawley was the Minister of Labour at the time. Howard Pawley was the minister responsible for labour. Howard Pawley, as the Minister of Labour, came f orward with the legislation to bring into being The Payment of Wages Act itself, and I think it was a good move. I think working people of the province of Manitoba really appreciated that progressive step .

It was some time later that a subsequent governm ent-and I believe it was under the Lyon government at the time- An Honourable Member: Lyon or lying? Mr. Reid: Lyon, L-Y .Q.. N. There is some

interpretation as to the spelling of the Lyon government, but we will leave that to others to debate at a later point. It is my understand ing that, through the Lyon governm ent, recognizing the importance of The Payment of Wages Act, went the next step and established the Payment of Wages Fund. Now the Payment of Wages Fund, when the government of the day recognized, in looking back through Hansard, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that while The Payment of Wages Act was a good step and would allow employees to proceed through Employment Standards for the collection of wages owing, especially in cases of receivership or bankruptcy or wages in dispute, where employees would have to go a number of weeks, in fa ct, in some cases, up to years bef ore they were able to collect any monies that were owing to them by way of wages-now the government at that time, from my under standing, in looking through the Hansard comments , recognized that further steps had to be taken and the governm ent of the day brought into being the Payment of Wages Fund.

It is intere sting to look back at some of the comments that were made with respect to that fund and some of the debates that take place, and I know that looking through Hansard, one Gerry Mercier had added his comments a number of times on issues respecting Payment of Wages Fund. He was quite bold in his comments in saying that when we were in government, we introduced the Payment of Wages Fund and goes on to speak highly of the program itself and how it served the people of Manitoba and that they were quite proud to support it.

Looking at the history of the Payment of Wages Fund and The Payment of Wages Act, we can see demonstrated quite clearly that this was

an act and a fund that has served and continues to serve the people of Manitoba very well. I noticed that at that time the Conservative Party, Mr. Mercier goes on to say, had the interest of workers at heart in situations involving the working people of the province of Manitoba. Now, it is intere sting to note that members opposite continue to say that they support working people of this province, but if they just turn on their thinking caps for a moment and think back to April of this year when they introduced their most recent provincial budget, they will recall, through the Department of Labour Employment

3844 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 19 96 Standards, this government totally elimin ated the Payment of Wages Fund. Now, it is interesting to note that the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliff

e) says here today that that act and that fund has not been fulfilling its mandate to the people of Manitoba, and I will g1et to his comments in a fe w moments, Mr. Deputy Spe:aker, when we look at what this fund means to working people in this province that have been short-changed the:ir wages because of diff erent circumstances involving their employe rs, whether it be receivership, bankruptcy or failure to pay. I want to look back to some intere sting comments that I came across by Mr.

Mercie:r, at that time, when he says , and I quote, the Payment of Wages Fund was set up to compensate employees for wages that they had lost. It did not say that these employees should have to wait the extended periods of time . It did not say that these employees should be short-changed their funds and should have to endure hard.ship fo r themselves and their families by waiting weeks and quite often as long as years for these cases to be re:solved through the courts for the more serious cases and that these families should have to wait that. * (1 450) That is not what Mr. Mercier was saying.

He was saying at the time that this fimd was set up to compensate employees fo r wages which they had lost, and it was not set up to wait over six months to provide some compensation to employees. That is a further quote from Mr. Mercier at the time. It was to provide some payment of wages to these employe:es under this fund which the government established and was not just sympathy, it was not social assistance, it was not welf are and it was not sympathy as is now being claimed by this government fo r the elimination of the Payment ofWages Fund. So we have to take Mr.

Mercier's comments, and these come from the April 5, 19 83, Hansard, which we have researched out because, qui1l� frankly, I wanted to educate myself on the hist ory of this fund and The Payment of Wages Act so I could have a clear understan ding of what it meant to the governme nts of the day, the circumstances under which they were bringing fo rward this legislation in this fund and what they were trying to do to help the people of Manitoba. What we are seeing now is that the government of this day, the Filmon governm ent, has eliminated totally that fund and it will create, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, hardship fo r the working people of this provin ce. Well, it is inreresting to note that the government over a number of years, successive governmen ts, I might add too, both New Democrat and Conservative government s, have continued with that fund since that time, and there was no need, no willingness and no reason to withdraw funds, the Payment of Wages Fund itse lf. You take a look at some of the cases that have come before the Labour Board, and I have before me statistics right out of the Department of Labour's document .

If you take a look back to, fo r example, 1989- 19 90 year, out of The Payment of Wages Act, statistics relating to the administr ation of The Payment of Wages Act, we find that the number of applications filed was 33 1 at that time and that there were orders issued by the board for 302 and there were 62 cases pend ing. So you can see that there were a si gnificant numb er of cases where working people came fo rward because they could not fm d any way that was available to them to pursue and obtain the payments of wages to them to which they were legally entitled and had earned.

If you take a look at the Department of Labour's document fo r the year 19 91- 92, you will find that there were 15 4 cases carried over that year from the previous year and that there were 215 new cases that came fo rward that year fo r a total of 369 cases that had to be dealt with and had to be resolved under The Payment of Wages Act. The board had issued orders on 283 of those cases; 40 were carried over to the next year. Then, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if we take a look at the year 19 94-again, under the Department of Labour's documents, statistics relating to the administration ofThe Payment of Wages Act-there were a total of 211 cases fo r the most recent year fo r which I have documents in front of me. Of those, 99 were resolved and 69 outstanding, and there were a few of the cases that were withdrawn.

Now, if you take a look, it is obvious that there are employers in the province that are refusing or failing to pay their employees for wages that have been earned; and, if you take a look at the number of cases, as I have explained here, there is not a significant decline or change in the number of cases that come fo rward. Working people of this province have been disadvantaged and

September 30, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3845 need to have some way to recover their wages. It is my understanding, and looking at the amount of monies that have been involved, the historical high for this fund has been in the range of about half a million dollars in annual budgets for the province, and that the most recent year that money had been reduced to about $225,000, from a half a million dollars down to a quarter million dollars. Of course, this year that fund has been totally eliminated. Now, the minister says-getting back to the comments fo r the member for River Heights (Mr.

Radcliff e )-that the Payment ofWages Fund is no longer necessary. He says it is because unemployment insurance funding kicks in first before those funds can ever be paid out to working people of the province of Manitoba; theref ore, it justifies in his mind and gives him reason enough to eliminate the Payment ofW ages Fund. What the minister does not tell us here, and I have had the opportunity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to talk with people that work in Employment Insurance commissi on-! think that is the new name for it, EIC, now-f or the fe deral government.

Quite frankly, the fe deral government was not even informed by this provincial governm ent that they were withdrawing and eliminating the Payment of Wages Fund, and that it was going to have negative consequences and repercussions fo r the working people of our province . Now, you would think that there would be some communications between governm ents, especially where it is involving working people whether through Human Resources Canada and the Department of Labour or some other means through governm ent mechanisms that we have in place to communicate the changes that are taking place.

The unemployment insurance people, after I had called them and asked them what would be the role of unemployment insurance if an employee came fo rward and said, I have worked these two weeks or I have worked this month and my employer refuses to pay me for a reason, whether it be receivership, bankruptcy or just refusing to pay, unemployment insurance inf orms me that the employee would not be eligible for that period for which they have worked and for which the employer has not paid them. Now, that seems to be contrary to what the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Toews) has been saying in his comments and his colleagues here have been saying in the Chamber. So what is happening here is that the government has not informed the Human Resources Canada of the changes, the elimination of the fund. Human Resources Canada has received complaints which they told me about in a general way. People coming to them have been unable to collect monies, the people coming to them fo r unemployment insurance have been unable to collect monies for that period of time for which they had worked.

They came to unemployment insurance thinking that that plan would pick up the slack, and were being told that is not the case, unemployment insurance through Human Resources Canada will not pay fo r the period fo r which employees have worked and the employer refuses to pay. So unemployment insurance does not kick in fo r that period of time. What does that mean to the fam ilies that are involved here?

What that means is that the working fa milies of this province, the working people of this province go to work day in and day out for an employer, and they put in the hours and the honest effort on behalf of the employer in the performance of those duties. The employer refuses at the end of that period to pay, for a variety of reasons which I have already indicated here, and then the Minister ofLabour (Mr.

Toews) says he is going to elim inate this fund and say to those working people: Go to unemploy ment insurance, put in your waiting period of two weeks-! believe that is still the waiting period-but nobody is going to help you with the two weeks or the one month that you worked and did not receive any wages. So what that minister is saying is that we are going to leave you to hang out there to dry, and it is up to you as individ uals to process this through Employment Standards and/or to proceed to the courts on your own to try and recover those monies if, as a working person, you can aff ord to do that.

The minister says that unemployment insurance funds would kick in bef ore monies could be given out through the Payment of Wages Fund. Well, I wish to correct the minister on that. He knows full well that the Payment of Wages Fund allows for and regularly gives dis cretionary powers to the of Employment Standards, the ability to make on-the-spot decisions to give funds to workers who have not been paid by their employers fo r periods of time that they have worked and earned those monies.

It is a standard practice of Employment Standards through the Department of Labour to pay those monies out to working people in those cases, and this minister says that

3846 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 1996 monies do not flow. Well, I wish to tell him he had better go back and talk to the people in his own department, because his words do not jibe with the actions of his department .and have not for a period of time balanced or equated to what the department is doing versus what the minister is saying. So the minister is obviously either misinformed or he wishes to distort the facts with respect to the payment of funds out of The Payment of Wages Act. Now I think that, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, ifyou take a look at the employment standards, it has not changed- An Honourable Member: We used to have employ ment standards. * (1 500) Mr. Reid: We used to hav(: employment standards, that is true, we did. If you take a look at some of the infractions that have been happening under Workplace Safety and Health, some of the claims-[inteJjection] These are not my wor ds, these are real life situations that are coming to me from working people in this province.

So what the Minister of Labour is saying now is that working people are going to have to wait, that there is no longer any discretioruuy power on the part of the Director of Employment Standards to issue monies. Even in hardship cases there will be no discretionary power, because the money has been totally eliminated.

Now if you take a look a1t a quarter million dollars, to a lot of people that is a lot of money, to working people that is a lot of money, but irt the grand scheme of things , if you equate that quarter million dollars that was in the fund compared to the $5.5 billion that this government expends in a year, in a fiscal! year, it is a very, very small amount of money but provided an immense amount of reassuran ce and financial relief for those people that had the opportunity to make use ;md receive payment of those funds under The Payment of Wages Act and Fund.

Now if you take a look at the various Estimates books over a number of years, you will find that it does not change from year to year under Employment Standards and the way they define the fund, but the Payment of Wages Fund was the payout of an estirnated-and it would give the annual amount and that is the way they would spell it out in their document.

The annual documents for the Department of Labour would pay out monies to wage earners who are unpaid as a result of bankruptcies and receivership s, so that the likelihood of individuals to capture any of these monies-now, I do not know if members opposite are concerned about their constituents who are now no longer going to be able to receive this money without having to wait an extended period of time and maybe never receive any money because, in cases of receivership or bankruptcy, the chances of recovering any of those monies are probably slim and none, that the employees the mselves will have to go without and their families will have to do without any wages for that period of time that they worked and did not receive funding.

And therefore, the bills still rolled in for the families at the same time, but the government has chosen to disregard the real impact on the families by the elimination of the Payment of Wages Fund. It is interesting to note that the Payment of Wages Fund had reasonable limitations on it, that it would only compensate employees once during the fiscal year up to $1, 200 oflost wages and was usually done for employees who had worked at businesses that had gone under, in other wor ds, to receivership or bankruptcy.

Now, this program has been around for about 15 years and there have been quite a number of claims, as I have already spelled out here . What the gov ernm ent is now saying is that the Payment of Wages Fund was a tool but it was not its most eff ective tool and that they could go after the bank accounts of directors and companies.

But what they do not tell you is that if you are in receivership or bankruptcy you can try to go after them, but your chances of succes s are very, very slim and that the people, the working people themselves, would be significantly disadvantaged having to wait that period of time knowing that the bills were continuing to pile up. Now, if you take a look at the headlines, it seems that the media understand the impact on the working people of this province even if the government does not understand. Take a look at the headlines here.

It says, Tories kill wage liferaft, and that the fund provided cash for workers unable to collect from employers. So the media understand what the impact of this is going to be on wor king people in the province here. The minister says by his own comments that he viewed the Payment of Wages Fund as a form of social assistance. The minister says that this is welfare for the

September 30, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3847 working people of this province, the people that were legitimately owed monies. I do not know how he can say that, because the people went out and they worked their regular shifts in good faith with their employers and no doubt worked very, very hard trying to meet the nee ds of their employe rs, and then their employers defaulted on the payment ofthose wages. The minister says, by the government having a very meagre fund that they had in place, that he viewed that as social assistance for the working people .

He does not understand the concept of hardship obviously for the families that went to work for those periods of time, had expenses related to workplace, going back and forth to work, they had bills that were coming into the family for that period of time for which there were no wages coming into the household to pay those bills-the minister says it is social assistance to hand out those funds. Perhap s it was. If you take a look at the ministe r's words, and maybe I am misreading what the minister says, maybe he is right.

Maybe it was social assistance, but it was not for the working people of this province , it was for the busines ses of this province. That is where the social assistance came in. That is maybe what the minister was saying he did not agree with.

I can tell the minister, if that is what he meant by his words, it was social assistance for the business com munity, then I say that while on principle I disagree with that form of subsidy for busines s, and I hope that the business community would in general disagree with a subsidy for busines s from government, that it was a small price to pay to help the working people of Manitoba meet the needs of their family in cases where employers refu sed or failed to pay wages that were owing.

So I hope the minister, when he looks at his Payment ofWages Act and his Payment of Wages Fund, because this fiscal year is now proceeding along and we are at least six months through the fiscal year, that this minister will look at bringing back into the budget next year the Payment ofWages Fund that will allow for discretionary powers on the part of the director of Employment Standards to recognize the hardship cases that come bef ore him and to make the nece ssary payments to the families that are disadvantaged by employers who refuse to pay for wages that have been earned by the employee .

I seriously hope that the Minister of Labour and the government will review- An Honourable Member: Do we have a Minister of Labour? Mr. Reid: Well, perhaps he is not a Minister of Labour. Maybe he is the minister of anti-labour, I am not sure, judging- An Honourab le Member : He is the minister of bashing unions and workers. Mr. Reid: Well, he se ems to be taking that tack the se days where he does seem to bash unions, but I will not go down that road here today.

This bill, if you take a look at the reciprocal arrange ments, will allow for e xchanges of information and the enforcement orders be tween various jurisdictions and provinces. Now, the minister ref erences the fact that it will include other jurisdictions into the United States , and we will have reciprocal enf orcement orders with the United States and perhaps other jurisdictions in the world as well. On a positive note, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with respect to this bill, I think it is a move in the right direction.

It will help, I believe, working people recover the monies to which they are entitled, having performed their duties in good faith in wor king for their em ployers, and this government, having brought forward this bill, should recognize that they have an obligation to the working people of this province, not just on an inteijurisdictional position but also with respect to the Payment of Wages Fund, and that they should reinstate that fund in successive years and recognize that that fund doe s provide relief to families and is not social assistance for working people of this province, even though it may be social assistance for the business community in Manitoba.

With those fe w words, I look forward to going to committee with Bill 18 , The Payment of Wages Amendment Act, and I look forward to hearing any public presentations that may come forward at that time and having the opportunity to ask questions of the minister with respect to this legislation.

3848 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA September 30, 19 96 Thank you for the opportunity to add my comments here today. Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in th.e name of the honourable member fo r Wellington (Ms. Barrett). Bili 47-The Public s,:hools Amendment Act Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the hon ourable Minister of Education (Mrs. Mcintosh), Bill 4 7, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecole publiques), standing in the name of the honourable member fo r Transcona (Mr. Reid). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed] * (1510 ) Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolsdey): Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is the second in a series of education bills presented to the House in this session. In introducing this bill in June to th.e House, the minister argued that this bill aimed to restore public confidence in the public education system.

It would enable local communities to make decisions that have a positive impact upon their students and will create ways for all pillents to be involved in their children's education. The mini ster believes her bill lays out the rights and responsibilities of parents and children. Her bill, she believes, also aims to require standardized reporting of financial accounts of school boards and specifies more ways in which the minister expects school boards to be obedient to the party in power. There is, as is so often the case with this gov ernm ent, a large gap between what is said and what is done .

To suggest that this bill will restore public confidence irt education suggests that the minister has not understood the public perception of the Filmon education system and believes that school choice that she is pro posing here and different accounting systems can undo the damage that has been done by her gov ernm ent. In considering this bill, we should remember the role of the Filmon gov ernmen t in undermining the public school system. Their first step af1ter they achieved a majority governm ent was to systematically begin to cut the funds to public schools.

Instead of fulfilling an election commitment to move to 80 percent provincial funding for education, they began to cut back until today it stands at 63 percent, with more than $400 million having been withdrawn from the grants to school boar ds. The Filmon government then required the boards to spend their swpluses, encouraged them to cut professional develop ment days to meet the Filmon Friday wage cuts, reduced transpo rtation grants and cut the number of clinicians available to school divisions. All of this was acco mplished within a short period of time.

At the same time, the government used the power of the state to channel more funds to private education. Until last year, this was done through a formula agreed to privately with the private schools to pay them 80 percent of the provincial grant to public schools. However, as the grants to public schools declined, the grants to private schoo ls increased at a slower rate than the private schools had anticipated. Thus, a second agreement was reached, again, in private.

Indee:i, for several days, the minister refused to answer questions on it in the House, and this agreement has now tied private school funding to the total expenditure on public school pupils, an amount that includes both the provincial grant and the sum of local taxation.

Public school trustees are now aware that as they increase the amount of local taxation to deal with increased costs of transport, building maintenance or the high cost of supplies, they are inevitably and irrevocably incr easing the amount of public money going to private education and by some calculations thus diminishing the amount of dollars available in the education envelope for the public schools ofthis province . Mr. Deputy Speaker, the government is quite consciously using the power of the state and public money to tip the balance in favour of the private education system. As my colleagues for St.

James (Ms. Mihychuk) and for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and I demonstrated in a press conference last week, public schools are being fo rced to draw more and more of their income from private sources, including fees and fund raising by parents and children. The cost differential between the public and private systems is narrowing, and it is setting the province on a dangerous path. The evidence in school financing is very clear. This go vernmen t has deliberately chosen to erode the funding of public schoo ls. The minister has a very long way to go

September 30, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3849 to convince anyone of the likelihood of any bill of hers restoring confidence in the public education system. There is much more to be said on the role of this government in undermining public education, and I do not have time here to list all the ways. The approach to curriculum changes is a classic example of invented crisis. Manitoba had a co-operative approach to regular and consistent assessment of curriculum. The minister wanted to join the western consortium.

There were some good reasons to do so, but one of the difficulties with the minister's approach to new curriculum is that in fact it became much more centralized, much more distant from the classroom teacher, was introduced at a very rapid rate with many reversals and in fact has been very destabilizing for some elements of the public education system, and, as in so many areas, centralization has been at the heart of the exercise. It is so disturbing, I find, that the minister would have us believe that such changes encourage local decision making. It is the very opposite.

It is very distressing that this is a government who chooses the language of local democracy and decentralization to try to mislead. Government must say what it means and mean what it says or it will not be trusted. This government is smJOth and practised at dissimulation, and it has opened up a gulfbetween the governors and governed which does not serve our society well. The gulfbetween school boards and the government is evident. For three years, the government kept the school boards in turmoil as they proceeded to full steam ahead with plans to amalgamate school divisions.

They knew it would be a difficult political sell, particularly in rural Manitoba, where communities rightly believe that they were being asked to sacrifice either their school or their community. They made their voices known, but the government could not believe that they had spoken so forcefully. Eventually, after three years and more than a million dollars, the Minister of Education backed off a full frontal attack on the school boards.

It should be noted, however, that this government, as is so often the case, was not prepared to do this with a statement in the Legislature but deliberately chose to wait until the Legislature had risen before making any announcement. A minister who is afraid to face the House to answer public questions on a policy, which she had twice asked the advice of thousands of Manitobans, does not give one great confidence. It is difficult to accept at face value her belief that she is enhancing local decision making. Finally, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, can we really put any credence in the words of a minister who publicly argues that Manitoba teachers are overpaid, overeducated and underworked? Her discussion paper for the Render-Dyck hearings suggested clearly that these were the assumptions of her government. This is hardly the basis for a good relationship, and I suppose one can only say matters have deteriorated ever since.

Several of the bills in this session take steps to undermine the position of teachers, whether it is in the sections of Bill 33 which enable the minister to determine all methods of assessment in all classrooms or in Bill 72 or in Bill 54 which extends to teachers' associations the requirement for financial reporting but deliberately excludes them from all the protections of The Labour Act. It is the hallmark of an authoritarian government isolated from reality and undeterred by reason that it beli eves that it can effect any kind of change in the classroom without the co-operation of teachers.

This governm ent has a longjoumey to make to begin to regain the trust of the province's 12,0 00 teachers. I urge them to begin taking those steps now for the sake of the public interest and the future of Manitoba families. This particular bill contains a number of proposals which are relatively noncontroversial. The provisions for particular kinds of accounting practices are a little puzzling to the many divisions which already practice them, but perhaps there is an argument to be made for continuity and standardization of the reporting of financial accounts.

The provision for an annual report to the residents of the school division by the board also has merit, although the bill takes a rather narrow view of the range of reporting requirements. The sections dealing with pupil records is sensible, and there are many school divisions which already have appropriate records policies. It might have been helpful if the minister had identified such best practices and assisted school divisions to examine them.

It is perhaps quite typical of this government that they would choose to take a high-handed approach even in a good cause where example and persuasion would have been as effective, particularly given the present gulf separating the minister and so many school divisions.

3850 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Septemb er 30, 1996 It is important I think to point out too that good record keeping and storage is an added financial cost to school divisions at a time when the gov ernm ent has cut funds so severely. I look fo rward in this to the comments of the school trustees when we come to examine this at commi ttee. I shall also be interested in the disposition of the documents after the student has graduated or left the school division. What is the future of these records? How long must they be stored by the division? What role will the Provincial Archives play in their future ?

And has indeed the government got any kind of plans for tllis? A second group of provi sions in this bill are a little more puzzling. The rights of the pupil are defined in an unpleasantly narrow way: th•e right to be tested; the right to see one's record if one is over 18 and the right to be accompanied by an adult to make representation to the school board before a decision is made to ex pel. I find that very narrow, even fo r this government, and I was drawn to make comparisons to the international Dec laration of the Rights of the Child.

I want to read some of those rights of the child into the record and invite members of this House to compare them and to compare the vision that is offered there for a child, for its educati on, for its protection 1md fo r its development , and compare that to the narrow perspective of this govern ment: the right to be testedl, the right to be represented before one is expelled. * (1 520) The United Nations, howe:ver, proposes 10 principles, and I will not read them all. I will pick those that are relevant more directly to €:ducation.

Principle 2, for example, says that the child shall en joy special protection and shall be given opportunities and facilities by law and by other means to enable him to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal mann er and in conditions of freedom and dignity. In the enactment of laws fo r this purpose the best interests of the child shall be the paramount consi deration. The response of this gov ernm ent is the right to be tested. Principle 4 says that the child shall en joy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health.

To this end, special care and protection shall be provided both to him and his mother, including adequate prenatal and postnatal care . The child shall have the right to adequate nutrition, housing, recreation and medical service s. The response of this government is to reduce the amount of money available to mothers with young children on welf are , and the right to be tested . Principle 5 of the United Nations Charter says that the child who is physically, mentally or socially handicapped shall be given the special treatment, education and care required by his particular con dition.

The response of this gov ernm ent is the right to be tested. The child in Principle 7 is entitled to receive education which shall be free and compulsory, at least in the elementary stages . He shall be given an education which will promote his general culture and enable him on a basis of equal opportunity to develop his abilities, his individual judgment and his sense of moral and social responsibility and to become a useful member of society. The response of this gov ernm ent is to reduce the funding fo r s::hool boards so that fee s are indeed being charged and to respond with the right to be tested .

Principle I 0 says that the child should be protected from practices which may fo ster racial, religious and any other fo rm of discrimination. He shall be brought up in a spirit of understanding, tolemnce, friendship among peoples, peace and universal brotherhood and in full consciousness that his energy and talent should be devoted to the service ofhis fe llow men. The response of this gov ernm ent is the right to be tested. If we were to take all of the principles, I think the contrast between them and between those of this go vernm ent is remarkable and perhaps needs little further comment upon my part.

The government also in this bill looks at the respo nsibilities of pupils. This I think is even more puzzling. It is not, and I want to emphasize this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that anyone would quarrel with the sentiments expr essed that students have a respo nsibility to attend regularly and punctually or that they complete their assignments and that they treat school property and that of others with respect. But what on earth does the gov ernm ent think it will accomplish by putting this into legisl ation? Surely this is an expression of values, not laws .

Surely it is part of the job of the school to impart these values . Surely this

September 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 385 1 is the journey which young people take as they begin school. Punctuality, responsibility, respect-the se are the things that we attempt to develop both in the home and the school, but here is a government which intends to enforce this by law. Is the government truly intent on criminalizing the absence of homework? Who will decide whether or not a student has treated property with respect? What does it mean anyway to treat with respect? Does the govern ment mean thou shalt not steal ; thou shalt not deface?

Surely these are dealt with in the general law of the land. Is the governm ent intent on creating a separate kind of offence for dealing with school property and lack of respect thereof? It is difficult to believe how this one got by the legislative drafting procedure. Is this one of those bills which was sent out to be done under private contract as so many were this time? What on earth is Mr. Justice Sterling Lyon going to make of this when the first child, age five, is brought before him for not having done his homework? Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it brings to mind both Charles Dickens and Monty Python, pathos and farce at the same time. Come to think of it, it might not be a bad epithet for the government as a whole. So I sincerely hope that the government takes the time to rethink this one. The attempts to balance rights with responsibilities is helpful. The desire of parents and teachers everywhere that assigmnents be completed is worthy, but the enshrinement in legislation in this mann er is ill advised. More fundamental to the Manitoba education system are the sections of this act which set out criteria for school choice.

Now some elements of school choice have been present in Manitoba for some time. Since the expansion in educational diversity of the 1970s, Winnipeg schools in particular, but not just Winnipeg schools, have been able to offer specialized programs such as French inunersion, German, Hebrew and Ukrainian immersion, advanced placement, international baccalaureate and aboriginal language programs. This in itself leads to a form of school choice where parents are able to choose or sometimes must choose schools outside their regular catchment areas. The school, however, must accept the children who apply.

Only where there is not enough space can the schools select children, usually using criteria such as the presence of siblings, or on a fust-come, fust-serve basis. In addition, some school divisions, and the one I am most familiar with is Winnipeg No. 1, also have a policy of open boundaries for all programs generally instituted in the 1980s. Across Manitoba there is also a continual moving back and forth across school boundaries with transfer fees being paid in some cases and not in others as the divisions so arrange between themselves. In the boundary report of Mr.

Norrie there is a useful compilation of this movement and the financial arrange ments accompanying them. So at one level, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there is nothing new about school choice, but there is something new about the proposals of the government in the education legislation of this session. When you take all the bills together, particularly this one and Bill 33, you can see that the government is perhaps moving to a fundamentally different approach to education. I am not convinced that Manitobans will react to it in the precise market terms the minister hopes for.

Expe1ience indeed in Winnipeg suggests that they will not, but that will remain to be seen, and we shall maintain a watching brief on this. I want members of this House to remember that this comes as part of a pattern. First, the government reduces funding for public schools. It requires trustees to put pressure on the local tax base. It attacks the educational quality of public schools. Remember the discomfort of Mr. Manness when he found out that in national testing Manitoba students did better than he expected. It increases the funding for private schools.

It destabilizes by the rapid introduction of new curriculum. It forces some school divisions to reduce programming. It forcibly attacks the teaching profession and tries wherever possible to rule education without the encumbrance of the locally elected school boards. In fact, the one piece that went awry in the master plan was the energetic and successful defence of local decision making by the school boards themselves. The government had originally planned to eliminate half of the school divisions this year. The system as a whole would have been in the throes of amalgamation as

3852 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Sep�ber30, 19 96 this piece oflegislation as w1ell as Bill 72 was in process. Indeed in the Norrie report itself is the blueprint for choice. The plan to amalgamate the schools boards was in fa ct combined with the proposals on eliminating boundaries in transport and parental choice. · This bill sets out those same princip les. It permits parents to choose any school in the province. Many parents will welcome this.

But they should be aware that this bill also puts in the hands of the school principal or perhaps the superintendent but certainly not in the elected school boards the criteria for selection by schools of the child ren they will accept. Parents should be aware of this. .In the end it will be the schools which select the fam ily and not the fa mily which s1elects the school. This bill recognizes th is.

Its main provisions in fa ct are for the principal to have the right to reject children on the grounds of behaviour, disabil ity, space or indeed any other reason or circumstane<: that the minister has yet to consider in the regulations. The principal can do this without any f onn al evaluatiolll, merely, as the act says, on the basis of his or her opinion. Most distressing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that there is no appeal process, and there is a reason for that .

School choice has been introduced in other jurisdictions, and if you look at the experience of the last five years-and I am most fam iliar with the practices in Great Britain -there has been a huge increase over the last five years in the number of appeals around the boundaries and the issues of school choice. There is a reason that there is no appeal process, and it is not just that this govemmen 1t thinks it is inf allible. The limits on school choice are in fa ct many, and parents and schools should be aware of them. It is unclear at this stage what eff ects such chartges will have.

They may have little impact as they did in the city of Winnipeg, where the largest proportion of our population lies. In some rural areas the dis1tribution of population and the challenge of distance will make choice of school irrelevant for most of the population. Sc hool choice will, as it always has been , a prerogative of the rich.

Where it will make a diff erence is in border lan ds, places where schools are small and the removal of one or two fa milies fr om a local school will in (:ffect mean the end of that school, so that one or two people will have removed the choice for others and may have inadvertently undermined the local community by reducing the level below which a school can be maintained. * (1 530) In earlier sessions , Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have asked the minister what kind of planning saf eguards she is prepared to put in place in these conditions.

The answer, of course, is none, because th is is an ideologically driven change, and there is no place for th is government for the regulation of the market . I draw these concerns to the Legislature again . It should be of great concern to those who represent the bedroom constitue ncies around Winnipeg as well as those in more sparsely settled areas. Mr. Deputy Speaker, what is really intended by these changes is to create a market system in education. The government believes that the market is the only efficient distributer of goods.

The apparent choice in schools, the encouragement of competition in teacher wages suggested in Bill 72, the proposals in Bill 33 to allow the minister to require school boards to publish exam results , thus creating league standings of schools, the continuing increa ses and fund ing, and consequently enrollment in private schools all are part of a plan and of a context to bring what Tories would see as the discipline of the market to Manito ba's education system. Mr. Deputy Speaker, as social democrats we would argue that the market may distribute some luxury goods in an efficient mann er.

We do not believe it is the appropriate mechanism to distribute social goods, health or education in a fa ir society in an equitable mann er. Since the 19 50s Manitobans have tried under various governm ents to distribute education resources fa irly. As a province we have tried to equalize the opportunities for rural and urban school divisions and for poor and wealthy neighbourhoods. We have tried to pay teachers equitably across the province. We have tried to find additional assi stance for those students who are especially disadvanta ged.

We have off ered across the province innovative programs, whether in languages, in aboriginal education, in physical education or alternative education, through in-services and through the work of the curriculum specialists and their committees and the department We tried together to make the best practices available in each field to all parts of the province. Co- -

September 30, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3853 operation between department and divisions, between classroom teachers and department specialists, between parents and teachers, were an important factor in the kind of equitable and fair education syst

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-56
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 56.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	a0a098c02cf1fd3eacc865a3fd4636d20341cded

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