Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 15A (35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-15a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLI No.15A ·1:30 p.m., MONDAY, FEBRUARY 24, 1992 Printed by llle OfflC1I of 111e 0.-.s Printer. Province of ,.,._ ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty- Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOM IAK, Dave CONNE RY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STOR IE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOW CHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

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

Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

617 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, February 24, 1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): It is my duty to inform the House that Mr. Speaker is unavoidably absent and therefore, in accordance with the statutes, I would ask the Deputy Speaker to take the Chair. ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I beg to present the petition of Rey Manguba, lan McDougall, Brent Tierney, and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Madam Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay): I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibili ty of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. (Ms. Barrett) I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibil ity of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. (Mr. Chomiak) I have reviewed the petition, and it conform s with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the crime; and

618 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) * (1 335) TABUNG OF REPORTS Hon.

Jim Ernst (Mnlster of Urban Affairs): I would like to table the 1991 Annual Report of the North Portage Development Corporation. Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to table the Quarterly Financial Report, nine months ending July 31 , 19 91 , of the Manit oba Public Insur ance Corporation. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 5� The Workers CompensaUon Amendment Act

(2) Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 55, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les accidents du travail, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Reid: To give a brief insight on the purpose of the bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is to afford protection for those who are continually ongoing, day in and day out throughout the year, putting their lives and the health and the financial security of their families at risk as they fulfill the requirements of their job in the protection of society so that we may afford them the same sense of security that the other members of our society have as a result of their activities.

We bring this bill forward to provide that sense of security for those who are involved in the firefighting activities and other areas of our province, who provide that secu rity for members of our commu nities. Motion agreed to. * (134 0) Bill 50- The Beverage Container Act Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): I move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that Bill 50 , The Beverage Container Act;

Loi sur les contenants de boisson, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion presented. Mrs. Carstalrs: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is time for beverage container legislation in this province to be effe ctive. We have tried a voluntary system in the past, but even the most optimistic of estimates would indicate that it manages to recycle less than 50 percent,

whereas container legislation similar to what we are proposing in the province of Alberta in fact has almost a 90 percent recovery rate. We think it is time for that type of action in the province of Manitoba, and we ask all members of the House to support the legislation. Motion agreed to. Bill 51- The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act Mr. Gui zar Cheema (The Maples): Madam Deputy Speaker, ! move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), that Bill 51 , The Health Services Insurance Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'assurance-maladie), be introduced and that the same be now received and read for a first time. Motion presented. Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, Canadian health care is under attack from all directions. This bill will safeguard the most essential principle which has made it the envy of many countries around the world. The five basic principles of medicare are public admin istrati on, com pre he nsive ness, universality, aff ordability and accessibility. These are found in the Canada Health Act.

It is time that we also entrenched them as an administrative principle in Manitoba law, and this bill will do it. Motion agreed to. Bill 48- The Personal Property Security Amendment Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 48, The Personal

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 619 Property Security Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les sOretes relatives aux biens personnels), be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. Motion agreed to. Bill 53- The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that Bill 53, The Danger ous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses, be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I am pleased to table his message. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Madam Deputy Speaker: Before we proceed, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afterno on twenty-five Grade 9 students from Victor Mager School. They are under the direction of Mr. Larry Pattrick.

This school is located in the const ituenc y of the honourable Mi nister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. Also, we have seated in the public gallery twenty-seven Grade 5 students from Phoenix Elementary School under the direction of Mr. John Loa dman. This school is situa ted in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs and Minister of Housing (Mr. Ernst). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today. * (1 345) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Economic Recession Social Programs Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, the recession has been hard on Manitobans and Canadians. There are 57,000 people unemployed now in this province, a 51 percent increase in welfare recipients in the city of Winnipeg alone. We have a lot of hardship in our province. Durin g the Speech from the Throne, the government stated that they are committed to maintaining and enhancing vital social programs for Manitobans who are in need or at risk.

Again the government's Speech from the Throne promised that Manitoba's vulner able and disadvantaged citizens would have an important obligation to carry out the partnership involving government and caregivers. My question to the Premier is: Will he give the peo ple of Mani toba and this Chamber the commitment that his government will not cut vital services and programs to people who are most vulnerable in our economy today? Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): Madam Deputy Speaker, firstl y, I want to say that we, I think, like all Canadians recognize with great regret the impact of the international recession under which the entire world is reeling these days. It is a recession that has gone on longer than most economic forecasters predicted, and it is a recession that none of us would choose to have facing our economy.

I know that if the Leader of the Opposition is doing his reading, he is well aware of how hard the recession is impacting other areas of the world, even areas that have heretofore maintained strength over previous decades, places like Germany, and so on. The United States is reeling very hard. In our own country, under New Democratic administrations, we have in Ontario a situation in which 260,000 people have lost their jobs in the period of the recession.

We have a situation in which the government of Ontario is implementing funding measures on hospitals, affecting our most vulnerable in society, that will cause the closure of an estimated 4,000 beds, Madam Deputy Speaker, something that we have not seen in this province since the New Democrats were in government themselves, when they closed beds at hospitals in Brandon and elsewhere in the province. They also, of course, limited their transfers to schools, limited their transfers to education to 1 percent in Ontario, limited their transfers to municipalities and to others to, in many cases, zero percent.

Under those circumstances, they have

620 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 cau sed treme ndou s pain and har dship for vulnerable people. We , Madam Dep uty Speak er, have said throughout the past couple of years that we have to be fair, we have to be reasonable, and we have to be balanced. The fact is that we have undertaken the review of Estimates this year on that basis of fairness, of balance and of n�ason as we look at all the services. We will do everything possible to protect services for the vulnerable in our society. * (1 350) Manitoba Tax Assistance Office Closure Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Premier.

Does the decision of his government to close down the Manitoba Tax Assistance Office for purposes of helping people prepare their individual tax forms effective May 1, 1992-the 15 ,000 people at low incomes in Manitoba who receive help from the Manitoba Tax Assistance Off ice-does their reading of this document that says they will no longer be available for these vulnerable taxpayers after May 1 , 1992, fit the criteria the Premier has just outlined, a balance of fairness, concern and meeting the needs of Manitobans who are most vulnerable? Does this fit the test the Premier has just outlined in the Chamber? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, in keeping with the answer just provided by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), decisions with respect to providing service and the evaluation of services, from time to time cause great difficulty, and indeed this is one of the areas of decisions made by this government whereby it was a difficult choice. To main tain the highes t pri ority of this government, to maintain keeping hospital beds open and maintain our health care commitment, certain decisions have to be made.

I want to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition that we still prioritize those who have received free tax preparation services by the government to the extent that those who are shut-ins will continue to have that service provided to them by government. Furthermore, we were ensured by officials and those people from the community that there is a growing number of firms, indeed, Revenue Canada themselves, who are prepared to provide this service to our needy on a free basis. That is what the community tends to do during difficult times. They tend to reach out and help those who cannot help themselves.

That is what the community is indicating they are prepared to do for us and relieve some of the debt burden of government, help us to mai ntain health care services, and I would say, that is the better way. Mr. Doer: Perhaps we could ask another question of the Minister of Finance. How could he morally justify giving a $7 -m illion tax break to corporations in his last year's budget and cutting back a very small amount of money that is necessary in providing services to 15 ,000 of the lowest-income Manitobans?

Is this the test of fairness and equity that we see from Conservatives across the way in tough times, in vulnerable times? Is this the kind of standard of fairness we see across the way? Mr. Man ness: In case the Leader of the Opposition does not recall, the benefactors of that reduction in taxes were those people who were going to be trained and retrained, because of course there was an off set. The reduction provided was an offset against the payroll tax instituted by these people across the way who have destroyed jobs in this province for years. It all comes back in a tax way to the members across the way.

They are the ones who have caused the wrack and ruin in some respects, and they have the gall to stand up here and challenge us for reducing taxes in support of training. To the member opposite, I say shame. It comes back to you every time, does it not? * (1 355) Manitoba Tax Assistance Office Closure Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Deputy Speaker, yes, the government's fairness and equity program seems to be: Make the poor pay. Since this Tory majority government was elected 18 months ago, they have cut student social allowances, ACCESS programs, home care and increased Pharmacare deductibles.

Now we find that the Manitoba Tax Assistance Office will no

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 621 longer prepare income tax returns for low-income Manitobans. Has the Minister of Family Serv ices (Mr. Gilleshammer) determined the impact this closure of this program will have on Manitobans who live on less than $1 4,000 a year, which is the ceiling for preparation from this program? Has he determined what that impact is? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, let me indicate, I am led to believe, and I can stand corrected on this, but I am led to believe that we are one of the few provinces, if not the only province, in Canada that has provided this service for a number of years. Let not members across the way try and portray the fact that this is a service that is provided all across Canada.

More importantly, why do the members opposite not acknowledge that the federal government, that Revenue Can ada has an alternative for free tax preparation services next year, that the volunteer program under the co-ordination of Revenue Canada will be able to accommodate a substantial portion of the Tax Assistance Office's former clientele.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we are knowledgeable of the fact that many accounting firms in this province are providing their services through the organization free-1 will say free-through Revenue Canada and are asking those people in society, those who earn $1 4,000 and less, if they so wish, on a voluntary basis, to leave their names on a registry. Revenue Canada will match those names with the free services of the accounting firms in this province to set up free services for these people, who might be displaced under this program. That is the community working.

That is the community reaching out to the less advantaged in our society. Ms. Barrett: Madam Deputy Speaker, did the Minister of Family Services consult with the Minister of Finance prior to the axing of this program, which will save the province less than $50,000 a year while costing the most vulnerable low-income Manitobans upwards of a quarter of a million to half a million to have H&R Block prepare those taxes for them? Mr. Manness: If the government had sensed that there was not a fall-back free system being provided by the community, indeed this decision may not have been made.

If indeed what the member says, and using her supposition that everybody would have been forced to pay extremely large fees to an accounting firm, maybe we would have looked at it differently, but after we were given the comfort that there were free services being offered by the community, then the decision was made. The member may try to portray it as just another $50,000, but it was that type of attitude that has the general purpose debt of this province at $6 billion, courtesy of the members opposite. * (1 400) Ms. Barrett: Will the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) now guarantee those tens of thousands, 15 ,000 last year, low-income Manitobans, many of whom are senior citizens and have no access to those volunteer groups that perform these functions, that those services which have been provided by this government for 20 years will do what this government's own program says and make sure that every Manitoban is entitled to all the benefit� Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Manness: I do not know what the member opposite has against the community volunteering services to those in need. I do not know what about that model that the member finds objectionable.

I can say that Age and Opportunity, I am led to believe the Manitoba Society of Seniors are also organizing and co-ordinating the efforts of those in the community who are prepared to do this service freely to make sure that those lesser-advantaged in our community have opportunities to access this free service. I would say that that is the way the system should work, Madam Deputy Speaker. Employment Retraining Programs Funding Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): My question is to the Minister of Finance.

Public faith in the political system is not enhanced when it appears that figures and dollars are manipulated by politicians of all political stripes. On January 30, the federal government announced that Manitoba would be receiving $75 million additionally in equalization payments with $55 million coming this year and the additional $20 million the following year. A little over two weeks later, this figure had been cut to $25 million. On February 11 , the provincial finance minister said that all of the $55 million was spent, and there was

622 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 nothing available for the job retraining program that we encouraged him to initiate. Six days later, when the $30 million disappeared off the table, the provincial Finance minister said that the deficit would not be affected because of a better performance in other provincial revenues. My question is the following: Can the minister explain why he could find $30 million in increased revenues on February 17 , when he could not find those same $30 million February 11 , and why he cannot invest in job retraining in the province of Manitoba? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Let me correct the record in one respect, because it was attributed to me that there was a reduction in equalization. There was a reduction from the $55 million in transfers that we were expecting, because there was a revision again within the corporate income tax and within the personal income tax area. As it was reported that the so-called additional good news, the $55 million, was now going to be reduced by $30 million, that is true in numbers but that is not true with respect to equalization.

We got it on equalization, but we lost it on income tax and also on corporate income tax. The net result is as a result of numbers coming in in a significant fashion, varying in large measure over the last month. Today we have fewer dollars to spend at the end of this fiscal year than we did exactly one month ago. Indeed, ministers of this Treasury bench will tell you it has impacted upon them and the decisions that they are making on a daily basis. The reality is, Madam Deputy Speaker, that today we do not have the degree of windfall that we thought we did a month ago.

Provincial Revenues Additional Revenue Sources Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, that begs the question, the minister said he was using all of the $55 million, and then when he learns that he in fact is not going to have all of that money, he made the statement: Although the reduction in payments is not good news, a better performance in other areas of provincial revenues will save the province from increasing its deficit. Where is he coming up with this additional revenue? Hon.

Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, I think it will be clear to the members opposite once I table the Third Quarterly Report. I will be doing that in advance of the budget. I expect to maybe do that even this week, if not, at the beginning of the next, at which time the forecasts of all the revenues and indeed the latest forecasts of expenditures will be evident. In that time, most of the questions that the member puts today will be answered. Employment Retraining Programs Funding Mrs.

Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, will the Minister of Finance tell this House today why he cannot find monies for retraining, monies which are so desperately needed in the province of Manitoba when, by his own admission, he has increased revenues available to him? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I had one source of revenue increase. I had equalization within the three transfer areas of federal transfer areas. That one area there was an increase.

I can say to the member opposite, I have also had reductions, and that will become evident when I table the Third Report. Sales tax revenues have dropped, consumption tax revenues have dropped, payroll tax revenues have dropped from forecasting, so the reality is then, when you look at the government as a whole, nearly $5 billion of revenue decisions are made, not on one line of revenue, but the sum of all the lines of revenue. Right today, the forecast of revenue for this fiscal year is no higher than it was when I brought the budget down some several months ago. Home Care Program Nancy Whlteway Case Ms.

Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been documenting serious and growing concerns about home care on a regular basis in this House. The publicized case of Nancy Whiteway again points out the need for the Minister of Health to act now and to address a series of concerns, starting with the right of health care consumers to have some control and some say in health care, home care arrangements pertaining to

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 623 their own bodily functions, and in the privacy of their own homes. I would like to ask the Minister of Health if he has addressed the specific request from Nancy Whiteway for a regular orderly in the evening to assist with a bowel procedure and exercise requirements. Has he moved to consider the general con cerns of mov ing toward an independent-living-based home care model so that people like Nancy can be consulted as people with integrity and competency? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, given that issue was in today's news, I attempted prior to Question Period, knowing that my honourable friend's research would be up to date, to try and determine how much we have been able to accomplish since the writing of that article. I want to indicate to my honourable friend that we are providing a service. There was some difficulty in terms of communication with the individual's physician in allowing us to proceed with a resolution.

We believe we have that resolved and that we will be able to provide the kind of service that will allow, as all of us wish to have happen, an independent living style for the individual in question. Madam Deputy Speaker, to answer the second part of my honourable friend's question, we initiated some year and a half ago plans for a project wherein those requiring home care services might in effect undertake those with their own provision of service, budget provided by government. That is the self-managed care project which we have underway now.

I am not certain as I stand today whether the individual in question applied to access the self-managed care program that- Point of Order Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Madam Deputy Speaker, I did not raise a single question about the self-managed home care program. That is a separate issue from the questio n of an independent-living-based home care model. Madam Deputy Speaker: The honourable member for St. Johns did not have a point of order. It is a dispute over facts. *** Mr.

Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, then I guess I will certainly look forward to my honourable friend's input in debate of the Estimates, because I believe when she indicated something to the nature of self-directed home care, that is really what the self-managed home care program Is all about, where the individual is empowered to provide and retain their own service providers with dignity and with respec t for their independent living opportunities. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: If the minister checks Hansard, he will know I was raising an independent- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Does the honourable member have a supplementary question? * (141 0) Advisory Committee Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Madam Deputy Speaker, would the minister now activate his own advi sory committee entitled "advisory committee on consumer inputw into the continuing care program set up two to three years ago, a committee which has not met for over a year and interestingly includes on its membership Nancy Whlteway as alternate for the Manitoba League of the Physically Handicapped? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, again my honourable friend seems to not be consistent in her approach when she one day criticizes government for having too many committees and now today says we should activate and bring forward meetings with yet another committee.

I presume my honourable friend is referring to the implementation committee, and she will clarify this no doubt at her next answer, which was put together to attempt to bring forward action on recommendations emanating from the Price Waterhouse investigation of the Home Care Program, which was commissioned by my honourable friend when she was part of government. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: I hope the minister studies his own briefing book which clearly- Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Johns have a final question?

624 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA February 24, 1992 Advocacy Office Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Would the mi ni ste r now tak e steps to mo ve on recommendations of the Price Waterhouse study, of his own task forces, of health care consumer advocates and organizations for an advocacy office and an independent review process so that people like Nancy, who are competent, who want to live independently, have a say when their home care services are being reduced or altered? Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): My honourable friend might want to take this opportunity to table the page of my briefing book that she has. I may be able to update her with a new one, because I am not always certain that she is up to speed. Let me deal with some of the issues that my honourable friend has raised in terms of the Price Wa terhous e rec ommen dat ion. We have im plem ented a su bstantial numb er of those recommendations.

That has allowed us to make much better use of the ever growing Home Care budget which, as I pointed out to my honourable friend the other day, will exceed some $57 million this year. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, Beauchesne's Citation 41 7 is very clear. Answers to questions should be as brief as possible, deal with the matter raised and should not promote debate.

I believe the minister has been out of order all three counts for most of this Question Period, and I would ask you to call him to order and to answer the very specific question ask ed by the memb er for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) . Madam Dep uty Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) does not have a point of order, but I would caution all honourable members to use brevity in phrasing their questions and respondents to also exercise the same brevity in responding to the questions. Mr.

Orchard: I will apologize to all members of the New Dem ocratic Party if I have provoked debate by providing truth to the inaccurate accusations of cutbacks. Point of Order Mr. Asht on: We jus t ha d refe rence to Beauchesne's, Madam Deputy Speaker, and now the minister seems to be not only debating the issue but debating your ruling. I would like to ask you once again to bring the minister to order and have him answer the questions that were put by our Health critic, the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia- Leis). Madam Dep uty Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson does not have a point of order. *** Mr.

Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe I had answered my honourable fr iend's question. Board of Review Chaulk Hearing Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): My question is for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General. Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General signed the Or der-in-Council putting Robert Chaulk in custody. The minister appointed the review panel that reviewed his case, and the minister received notice of the Chaulk hearing and is a party to it. Why did the minister or his department fail to make representations on behalf of the public at the Chaulk hearing? Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, on January 29, I wrote to the Board of Review asking for further information with respect to their recommendation about the release of this individual into the community, asking that another psychiatric opinion be sought. On February 5, the law of the land changed and the government of Manitoba had no part, no role in the release of what were formerly Lieut enant Governor-in-Council Warrant indi vidua ls. A decision was made by the review board. It was the review board's decision.

We have concerns about the process by which they arrived at that decision, and we are appealing on the basis of that process. Government Representation Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister is: What procedures is his department putting in place to ensure that when Order s-in-Council are in place, when a review committee sits, that the minister does make representation at the review panel hearings

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 625 that are held so an event of this kind does not repeat itself? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The problem that we have, Madam Deputy Speaker, which stems from the Su preme Court of Canada ruling and the subsequent legislation that followed in the House of Commons of Canada, is that the government is basically out of the process. Our problem is, we face the future. It need not be a problem.

We have at all times to respect the individual rights and liberties of individual Canadians in this country, but we also have a role in terms of protection of society. The procedure is now laid down in the Criminal Code that our role is relegated to that of appealing decisions of the Board of Review. Pedlar Commission Recommendations Mr.

Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Madam Deputy Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister is: Why did the minister not follow the recommendations of his own Pedlar Commission at page 62 and notify family members and other interested individuals of the fact of the impending hearing and the possible release of Robert Chaulk? Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable member's question is a good one. I will make sure that the Board of Review is made aware of that question, because it is the Board of Review, Madam Deputy Speaker, who releases these people.

I would hope that the Board of Review would also accept the Pedlar review recommendation, which is indeed a good one. Clarification Provincial Revenues Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to correct an impression that I left on the record with respect to an answer provided to the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs). I would just like to say that I had made reference to the budget as being the last accurate forecast of revenues for the province.

I should have referred to the Second Quarterly Report, which will be updated in the Third Quarterly Report sometime soon. Madam Deputy Speaker: I thank the honourable minister for that point of clarification. Health Care System Licensed Practical Nurses' Role Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): My question is for the Minister of Health. I would like to ask the minister about the effective use of human resources in our health care system. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are about 2,400 licensed practical nurses in this province, and they see the future of their profession in grave danger.

While the other provinces are improving education and expanding the role of the nursing profession, here in Manitoba we see a moratorium on the education of LPNs at Red River Community College and the coming closure of the LPN school at St. Boniface Hospital. Can the minister tell us: What is the future of many dedicated and experienced LPNs in this province? *

(1420) Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, my honourable friend is correct in that there is a moratorium at Red River Community College in terms of the training program for licensed practical nursing. My honourable friend made reference to closure at a similar school at St. Boniface General Hospital. I would just like to indicate to my honourable friend that it has been discussed at the board level, but to my knowledge to date no decision has been made.

I would not want my honourable friend to be possibly speculating around rumours that have circulated around that school of nursing at St. Boniface. Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot give my honourable friend a definitive answer today. What I can tell my honourable friend is how we are addressing the issue in terms of process.

In January of this year, given similar rumours that my honourable friend had indicated and rumours around reorganization of staffing patterns which would see LPNs replaced with registered nurses, baccalaureate nurses and nurses aides, I had my deputy minister expedite an employer survey to indicate to the province what their current staffing structures are as of toda�' and to give us their best projection on what those staffing patterns and needs should be five years out so that we can begin almost immediately to tailor educational programs to ensure the future of various trained disciplines in the nursing profession.

626 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 Mr. Cheerna: Madam Deputy Speaker, we are talking about 2,400 very experienced health care professionals. Their future is in grave danger and we are simply asking a question. Will the minister tell this House where the LPNs who are currently practising or who are about to complete their training will get a job in Manitoba in their own profession? Mr.

Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I cannot, and that is not unusual, because ministers of health do not hire anybody to work in the health care field with the exception of staff directly employed by the ministry of Health. The responsibility of hiring and staffing patterns in our institutions, which is the question my honourable friend is no doubt posing, is the responsibility of administrators within the health care system. They have budgets under which they are required to deliver care, and within those budgets they determine the staffing patterns appropriate to assure that kind of patient care delivery.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I cannot tell my honourable friend what the institutions will hire in terms of new graduates from LPN no more than I can from RN or BN programs. Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, can the minister at least guarantee that all LPNs will be provided with the training and education they need to practise the LPN profession in Manitoba? It is a very simple question. The government set the policy. They are providing the funding. They should have the answer. Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure which direction my honourable friend was attempting to point Liberal policy.

Let me indicate to my honourable friend some of the background that I had shared with me in attempting to find out whether there was depth to the rumours surrounding, for instance, St. Boniface school of LPN nursing. I asked the very obvious question: What has been the employment rate of graduates from that course over the last three graduating classes? I am disappointed to indicate to you and to my honourable friend that the percentage of employment has been decreasing to less than something like 19 percent in the last graduating class, only one of those individuals receiving full-time employment.

That is why we Initiated a survey of current staffing patterns and disciplines with a projection into the future, so we can provide those kinds of answers my honourable friend wants for those entering the nursing profession. Consumer Warning Odometer Rollbacks Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On Friday, the RCMP seized six cars from a Winnipeg used-car lot on suspicion of odometer rollbacks. Today the RCMP are charging the owner with six charges of fraud under

Section 380, subsection 1 of the Criminal Code and six counts under the Weights and Measures Act for rolling back odometers. Since this practice may well be widespread elsewhere, I want to ask the minister if she has issued a consumer warning to alert the public. Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, this issue has just been brought to my attention. I will be discussing it with my staff later this afternoon. Business Practices Act Restitution Mr.

Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, has the minister used provisions of The Business Practices Act to see if restitution can be obtained for anyone who has been a victim of such transactions since January 1, since this was made public last Friday? Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this matter had just been brought to my attention today. We have received no complaints across my desk, have been informed of this through the media and, as I indicated, we will be discussing it this afternoon.

Consumer Protection Amendment Act Government Support Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, will this government support a private members' bill putting forward amendment to The Consumer Protection Act, since other provinces seem to have such legislation?

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 627 Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Madam Deputy Speaker, as I indicated, I received no formal complaints on this issue. It has been brought to our attention today, and I will be discussing it with my staff later this afternoon. GATT Supply Management Proposal Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question regarding the issue of supply management once again. As the Deputy Speaker well knows and most of the members know, concern is deepening on this issue.

My Leader has asked the Premier (Mr. Filmon), who gave no satisfactory answers on this issue on Friday. We have asked the Minister of Agriculture why he has refused to support the supply management system, the orderly market system in this country. He has refused to provide the unequivocal support, even though 11 percent of our production in this province is generated from the supply managed producers in this province.

I want to ask the minister: Since he refused to sign a document supporting this, will the minister admit that the tariffication proposal that is currently before GATT will, in fact, result in the loss of 80 percent of our production in the supply managed commodities and as high as 95 percent of our supply managed producers as a result of this being passed? Will he admit and is he prepared to sacrifice- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. *

(1430) Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker, on the question of supply management, I want to again, for about the fourteenth time, tell the member across the way: We unequivocally support all our farmers, including our supply management producers, our grains and oilseed producers, our red-meat producers. We are at a very, very critical stage in the history of agriculture in this province and western Canada with regard to a trade deal which will allow us to have market access for the 60 percent of the products that we have to export from this province to other consumers in the world.

We continue to support this dual-track, balanced Canadian position that was basically formulated by producers and governments right across this country, with everybody around the table. It was agreed to some two years ago, and we have continued to support that position. Without any weakening at all, we continue to support all our producers in this province and all producers across this country. Mr. Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, in view of the fact that we have an existing situation- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Does the honourable member have a question? Mr. Plohman: Yes, I do.

I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Madam Deputy Speaker: Will the honourable member for Dauphin please put his question now. Mr. Plohman: Yes, I would, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the fact that we have some 1 ,500 producers who are dependent on this system at the present time, how can this minister say that his is a balanced position when, in fact, it is jeopardizing those 1,500 producers in this province? How is there any balance in the- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put. Mr.

Fi ndla y: Madam Deput y Speak er, all member s of supply managemen t nationa l associations were at the table when the balanced Canadian position was negotiated, and they agreed to it completely and wholeheartedly. The members of those national associations and the provincial boards continue to say that they do support the dual-track, balanced approach for the Canadian position at the GATT table. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The time for Question Period has expired. Nonpolitical Statements Mr. Guizar Cheema (The Maples): Madam Deputy Speake r, could I have leave for a nonpolitical statement?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the member 'for The Maples have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave has been granted. Mr. Cheema: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in this House to recognize

628 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 all participant s in the Winter Olympics from Manitoba, namely, Shawn Ireland and Susan Auch in the area of speed skating; Cal Langford and Greg Haydenluck, Lorna Sasseville in the area of cross-country skiing; and Jacqueline Petr, who displayed the true Olympic spirit with her performance in ice dancing after sustaining a 22-stitch cut in her calf; Curt Giles and Trevor Kidd, who won the first silver meda:J in hockey.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I would ask all members in this House to join with me in sending special thanks to the coaches, organizers, competitors and, above all, the families who have acted as good will ambassadors for Manitoba and Canada. In all respects, each one is a winner, and we are very proud of them. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House for a nonpolitical statement. Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Health have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave? Leave has been granted. Mr.

Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I knowthat all members in this House will want to join with me, firstly, in congratulating the North foursome who won the mixed curling championship and will represent Manitoba in Grande Prairie this year. I know, secondly, that all members in the House will want to join in congratulating the fine community of Manitou in hosting the mixed curling playdowns in Manitoba.

The event was carried off flawlessly with the work of many, many dedicated volunteers in the community of Manitou, supported I might say, with an addition to the curling rink, which was supported by the Community Places Program and provided additional space for hosting of that event. I think it is appropriate that we also congratulate Weston's for their foresight in sponsoring that very important mixed curling championship event in the province of Manitoba. Again, our congratulations to the North rink in achieving success at that mixed bonspiel. Mr.

Cllf Evans (Interlake) : Madam Deputy Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Interlake have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave? Leave has been granted. Mr. CIH Evans: Madam Deputy Speaker, we too on this side of the House, in accordance with my honourable member, congratulate all the Olympic participants throughout Canada who did their utmost, the coaches and such.

The fact that we had done the best in many, many years with our medals, I think that all members here should congratulate everyone on the Canadian team, the members from Manitoba. I would also like to extend congratulations from our side of the House to the mixed championship curling team, also the junior ladies curling team who this past weekend won Its championship to represent Manitoba. We here on this side of the House wish to offer our congratulations to all, in curling, and Olympians. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon.

Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Madam Deputy Speaker, would you call second readings of the bills as listed on the Order Paper, to be followed by debate on second readings in the order as shown on the Order Paper. Madam Deputy Speaker: Second Readings: Bills 6, 9, 21, 22, 34, 42, 45, 46 and 47. SECOND READINGS Bill 6-- The Denturlsts Amendment Act Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), that Bill 6, The Denturists Amendment Act; Loi modlfiant Ia

Loi sur les denturologistes, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Orchard: Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to briefly indicate to all honourable members that this act deserves their support. A bit of background: The current legislation under the Statutes of Manitoba D35, The Denturists Act and Manitoba Regulation 229/85 under The Denturists Act make the Minister of Health responsible for the licensing and disciplining of members of the Denturist Association.

That has caused some difficulty internally with the denturists of Manitoba, and they asked some two years ago to have that authority vested in the association. This legislation proposes that the

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 629 Minister of Health be removed from both the process of licensing and disciplining denturists. That gives The Denturists Act similar operational procedures as The Dental Association Act and will allow the denturist board to licence and discipline its members. These changes have been discussed with the Denturist Association and the Manitoba Dental Association, and both associations have agreed that they will support these legislative changes.

I can assure the House that the public interest will be protected in this change because government still retains appointments to the disciplinary boards of the Manitoba Denturist Association so that citizen representation is part and parcel of the amendments that will allow the denturists to self-discipline and license. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): I move, seconded by the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), that debate on BillS be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Blll 9- The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act Hon.

Gary Fllmon (Premier): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act;

Loi sur le Conseil de !'innovation economique et de Ia technologie, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. •

(1440) Mr. Fllmon: Madam Deputy Speaker, since the election of this government in 1988, we have been working to make Manitoba strong. Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act, plays a very important role in our government's planning to build a strong Manitoba economy. Manitobans want a strong economy. They want an economy that provides the economic opportunities they desire for themselves and their families. Manitobans want an economy that supports the vital health, education and family services we rely upon.

The national recessi on, coupled with the legacy of high taxes and huge deficits left by past NDP governments, has made the task of rebuilding our economy even more difficult. Every province in this country has been hit and hit hard by the recession. Comments of Premiers at the recent First Ministers' Conference on the economy served to confirm that fact. Premiers of every political stripe are now beginning to deal with the reality of their growing government spending, high taxes and higher deficits.

Madam Deputy Speaker, today those Premiers of all political stripes, those governments are talking about solutions that our government began to put in action back in 1988. To build a strong Manitoba and Canadian economy, we must control government spending. High government spending means higher taxes and higher deficits, 1 0 times out of 1 0. Increased taxes and deficits cost Manitobans and Canadians jobs. We have made the difficult decisions necessary to lay a solid foundation for growth.

We are working hard to create and maintain the positive climate that will attract investment and encourage Manitoba businesses to expand. That approach is working. Since 1988, our government has participated through loans or grants in business relocations and expansions that will create over 5,000 new jobs when all the projects reach completion. In addition, Manitoba is being identified across Canada and throughout the world as a good place in which to invest, to live and to work.

I have led several trade and investment missions to a wide variety of destinations and, let me assure you, the world wants what Manitoba has to offer. We have also begun to put in place a new structure for economic development in Manitoba. Government's traditional departmental approach must become more flexible. Key sectors must be in volved: Education and Training, Natural Resources, Environment, and Health, in addition to the more traditional Departments of Finance and Industry, Trade and Tourism.

By focusing the policy development process in establishing a new organizational structure, we will be able to continue our emphasis on government's fiscal responsibilities through public sector reform and develop initiati ves crucial to getting the economy growing. In November, we announced the creation of a new committee of cabinet responsible for Economic Development. The Economic Development Board will serve as a key focal point of our government's efforts to encourage entrepreneurship, economic growth and job creation.

630 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 That board will co-ordinate economic initiatives across government departments. h will create and maintain a positive climate for business and investment. It will promote economic linkages between industrial sectors in Manitoba. It will promote Manitoba's advantages worldwide. The Economic Development Board will also play a lead role with various agencies of government, including cabinet committees, to· ensure ec onomic development opportunities within government are identified and acted upon now.

The board will also, of course, ensure that the Crown Corporation Council is utilized to determine the best use of Crown corporations in stimulating economic growth. That board will liaise with the Round Table on Environment and Economy to ensure our commitment to economic development in harmony with the environment is maintained. That board of course will interface with the Treasury Board to prioritize government's economic support expenditures, investments and policies. The Economic Development Board will be supported by the second element of our new structure, the Economic Development Secretariat.

The third and final piece of this new structure is the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. During the 1990 election campaign I said that innovation would be a cornerstone of the economic framework for Manitoba in this decade. Indeed, most Industrialized countries have come to the conclusion that innovation and investment in technology are key components for improving their competitive position. Similarly, Mani toba's economic future is directly related to the province's ability to adapt, create and apply new ideas to create good s and services that are competitive in international markets.

The Economic Innovation and Technology Council will strengthen the working relationship between government and the private sector by providing a forum for consultation and dialogue. The council will have the ability to identify the needs of industry and make recommendations for a long-term strategy to help Manitoba businesses take advantage of developing technologies. A new $1 0-million fund and the entrepreneurial spirit of Manitobans will drive the new council.

The fund, financed by proceeds from the sale of Manitoba Data Services, will be used to provide loans, grants and other financial incentives for research, economic restructuring and commercial technology transfer. The Economic Innovation and Technology Council has been created through a restructuring of the Manitoba Research Council. The technical operation of the Manitoba Research Council will continue without interruption under a division of the new council.

However, to increase effectiveness and broaden the range of Manitoba businesses and economic opportunities, this new organization has been given wider representation and expertise bases, as well as a wider scope that the former Manitoba Research Council. As I said earlier, a $10 million fund will support this initiative, but it will be driven by Manitobans. Only a few weeks ago, on January 15, I announced the appointment of 29 individuals who will spearhead the activities of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. They are outstanding examples of our province's greatest resource, Manitobans themselves.

These men and women are innovators. h is appropriate that they be on this new council which will highlight new ideas and new directions. The 29 council members appointed represent the academic, business, labour and research sectors of our province. Russ Hood, who is vice-president of UMA Engineering Ltd., will chair the Economic Innovation and Technology Council. Mr. Hood's experience and demonstrated ability as the chair of the Manitoba Research Council will be a valuable asset in co-ordinating a rapid start on the work ahead of these special Manitobans.

The council will draw upon the experience, ideas and strengths of Manitobans by promoting dialogue, co-operation and consultation between the major stakeh olders in our economy: government, business, labour, the research community and the general public. By wid ening our scope and identifying new economic growth opportunities, we will harness these new ideas and put them to work for Manitobans. The coun cil has begun consulta tion wi th Manitobans. It has also initiated the preparation and development of the council's operation and mandate.

The council will immediately begin to look at all phases of development and commercialization, including government institutions and the allocation of government resources. Their findings will form the basis of

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 631 long-term recommendations aimed at taking advantage of developing technologies. Madam Deputy Spea ke r, the Economic Innovation and Technology Council gives Manitobans an important opportunity to play key roles in building a strong economy. I have said many times that government alone cannot generate real economic growth. Our government has worked hard to create a positive climate for investment and economic development, but it is Manitoba's entrepreneurs and innovators who create real jobs and real growth.

The Economic Innovation and Technology Council will bring together all groups with a stake in a stronger economy, from the business that develops the technology to the employee who ultimately benefits from the new jobs that technology helps create. I believe Manitoba can excel. We have the natural advantages--a central location, a skilled work force, and a low-cost , hig h-qu ality lifestyl e-t hat have many com panie s and entrepreneurs from other provinces and other countries giving Manitoba careful consideration, and above all, we have our greatest strength, Manitobans themselves.

Manitobans have a tradition of working together in good times and in bad. Our undeniable spirit and determination have helped us endure the most difficult circumstances encountered in our past. They are the solid foundation on which we have built our lives in our province, and they are the keystone to a bright and secure future. Manitobans have the will and the desire to succeed. Our government will stand with them to build a strong Manitoba. Each of us, as elected representatives of the Manitoba people, have the duty, the responsibility and the honour to listen and to lead.

I am giving every member of the House the opportunity to do that today. I ask all members of this Legislative Assembly to join with us, stand alongside your fellow Manitobans, help to build a strong Manitoba for ourselves and for our children. I urge all members of this House to join in support of Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act. Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker, although it is perhaps a little unusual, I would like to respond, I guess, to the Premier's (Mr.

Filmon) invitation, first of all, to become a part of this-at least to add our voice to the purpose of this bill, and I would like to do that. I listened with interest to the First Minister's words, and it struck me that I have heard those words from this minister on many occasions. The unfortunate fact of the matter is, however, that this government's words seldom, if ever, match its actions. *

(1450) Madam Deputy Speaker, we just have to think about the bill introduced in 1989 by the Minister of Environment with respect to The Waste Reduction and Protection Act. The government's commitment to that bill has been thoroughly wanting. We only have to think about the Chamber of Commerce's recent disclosure and comments with respect to the government's Sustainable Development Initiative. This government talks and talks and talks, but when it comes down to actually doing something, this government seldom gets off the mark.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to be very clear, just so the First Minister knows that no one is being buffaloed by this latest initiative. In the 1989 Estimates book, this government produced a set of Estimates for the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism which included $500,000 which it set aside for a Manitoba Innovations Council-$500,000. Madam Deputy Speaker, of course we have now seen the refinement of that concept and the Premie r's announcemen t to creation of an Economic Innovation and Technology Council. We would assume, if you were listening to the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon), that the establishment of this new council would have meant a significant increase in budget, a significant increase in mandate and role, a further cornmitme ntto research and development initiative to technology commercialization in the province of Manitoba. The fact of the matter is, Madam Deputy Speaker, there will be no new money at all in this proposal. The First Minister (Mr. Filmon) wants to say $10 million. The creation of a $1 0-million fund will never, first of all, be spent in three years.

The current Manitoba Research Council received, prior to cutbacks by this government, approximately $2.7 million per year. Madam Deputy Speaker, unless the First Minister is telling this House that he is going to add $1 0 million every year to this new Economic and Innovations Council, then the government is actually reducing its commitment once again for the

632 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 19 92 opportunities of businesses, the researc h community, the university community, to contribute to our economic development. Madam Deputy Speaker, before the Arst Minister (Mr. Almon) hobbles off on his crutches, he should also know that not only did the government introduce a new budget line for the Manitoba Innovations Council, and the same page in the same department, they reduced at the same time the Manitoba Research Council's grant by $700,000.

The net effect was a reduction in commitment by this go vernment to innovat ion and technology commercialization by $200,000 in the first year. Madam Deputy Speaker, unless the Arst Minister is prepared to stand up right now and put on record that the $10 million commitment he spoke of will be an annual commitment, this is actually a reduction in commitment to research and development in the province of Manitoba.

Madam Deputy Speaker, but even of perhaps more concer n-w e are not expecting this particular Tory government to be any different than Tory governmen ts elsewher e in the world-t heir commitment on paper to research and development is extremely good. Their commitment in practice is zero. Just like the Prime Minister of this country, just like Mr. Mulroney, Mr. Almon's proposal will not enhance research and development in the province of Manitoba at all. I ask the Arst Minister (Mr. Almon): Where are the programs like the technology commercialization program?

Where are the other initiatives from this government which would lend some credence to the words that the First Minister put on record today? They have done nothing, nothing when it comes to research and development except cutthe resources available to agencies that are actually doing the research, whether it is our universities or groups like the Manitoba Research Council- [interjection ) Well, the Rrst Minister says, no way. It is in his own Estimates book. It is In his own budget, tabled in this House back in March of 1981, or April. I cannot remember which now.

Madam Deputy Speaker, once again, we have to look at the structure of this council. We have to look at the structure of this council and determine whether in fact it will ever be able to meet its mandate. I have no quarrel with the 29 individuals who are appointed to this council. As individuals, they represent much of what is good in our province: the innovative, the creative, the successful, the dynamic. I have looked over the list of the individuals, and I can find no fault with the names that have been chosen for this council. Is the Arst Minister (Mr.

Almon) going to tell this House that a council of 29, that may expand at some future date, is going to be a decision-making body, the kind of decision-making body that is going to select the winner that is going to participate with the university research institutions, private, nonprofit groups, labour, others who have innovative ideas to contribute? Madam Deputy Speaker, this was not set up to succeed. It is window-dressing of the worst sort.

It Is a continuation of government as PR release, government as public relations effort, just as the Chamber of Commerce said, just as we have said on many occ asions when we talked about the WRAP proposals, when we talked about the real commitment to The Ozone Depleting Substance Act. Madam Deputy Speaker, the bottom line for the people of Manitoba is that Bill 9 means no substantive improvement at all.

Unless the government devises its current approach to the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, to economic development in the province, unless it means that there is going to be additional financial commitment, 8111 9 will be nothing more than another bunch of words put on paper by the Arst Minister and his public relations crew to make Manitobans believe that there is action where there is actually no action. Madam Deputy Speaker, just look at the principles that the First Minister enunciated as being the rule of this new council.

The Economic Innovation and Technology Council is supposed to do these five things. Arst, the Rrst Minister (Mr. Filmon) says it is going to provide a forum for consultation and dialogue. We all know that innovation and change happen in areas sometimes where it is least expected. This forum, the creation of this body, is not a necessary tool to take advantage of change in our economy, change in manufacturing technology, changes that are occurring in terms of research and development that is ongoing at our universities in particular. The Manitoba Research Council was doing the same kind of thing.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to talk to the First Minister about opportunities that this government has missed, opportunities that the government has

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 633 missed that would have provided a much greater impetus, particularly to the manufacturing sector, had they been willing to take a stand at the time. Madam Deputy Speaker, let us first of all talk about the National Research Council building on Ellice. When the federal government first planned that building, it was to support the introduction, the creation of manufacturing technology for the province of Manitoba. The current First Minister (Mr.

Filmon), who was then in opposition, was virtually silent on Manitoba's need to have that kind of institution to support our manufacturing base. The federal government, in 1984, when the Conservative government was elected, what did they do to the plans for that building? Instead of having it directed at developing manufacturing technology, which is sorely needed in the province, they turned it again into a PR exercise.

They solicited a number of private sector companies, offered them inexpensive or free rent in the building if they would at least put up storefront operations and say they were conducting primary research. •

(1500) Madam Deput y Speaker , very little constructiveness has come about as a result of a spending of some $100 million of taxpayers' money on a building, the frittering away of an opportunity to secure an innovative organization, agency to create manufacturing technology, enhance manufacturing technology in the province of Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, the federal government and perhaps the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) and some of his ministers have realized that that restructuring of the National Research Centre has not worked. They are now in the process of evicting the tenants who are already there.

They are talking about now a new format, the new role for that particular building, which is going to focus a little more on some health-related technology. Maybe that will be good, but the fact of the matter is that the original intent of that building, the intention to have researchers here to review, consider, expand and create new opportunities in manufacturing technology, would have fit so well with our own economy. Unfortunately, we did not get the centre as it was originally envisaged.

Unfortunately, since that time and the last three years in particular, we have seen really the decimation of the manufacturing sector in the province. The Conservative governments, both federally and provincially, were essentially silent as all of that happened. We find it a little ironic and perhaps a little sad that today we have the introduction for second reading of The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act perhaps several years, perhaps three years, four years too late to really salvage Manitoba's manufacturing sector. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that the government and the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) are going to use every opportunity to promote the introduction of this act as some monumental achievement in terms of restructuring Manitoba's economy. I just want it to be on the record that this group-an interesting group of individuals have been appointed-th eir contribution at this point is going to be, in my opinion, ineffect ive for two fundamental reasons. It is going to be ineffective because this government has already missed the boat. They have watched the manufacturing sector be decimated-pnt erjection] Ten out of 10, as my colleague from Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) suggests.

This government has stood idly by as our investment in manufacturing has fallen, as the manufacturing shipments have sunk to unacceptable levels. As of the end of November, Manitoba was 1 0 out of 10 in the value of manufacturing shipments compared to 1990, so what good is this latest PR exercise? We need some concrete action, and we need some action now.

I do not care how quickly this council formulates itself, how quickly it reviews its mandate internally, how quickly it decides on a course of action, how quickly it begins to review innovative proposals that come before it, it is going to be three years too late. Every day, every month, every year that ticks by, Manitoba's economy is going to get further and further behind. I believe that the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) believes that this PR exercise is necessary at this time because the government is unwilling to make any other kind of major commitment.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the government's preferred path to supporting the economy appears to be twofold: Keep your hands firmly tied behind your back, and sell off whatever assets you can and call it progress.

634 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 I just want to talk for a minute about innovation. When Manitoba Date Services was created in the Province of Manitoba, it was one of the most innovative ideas across the country. Let us look at what the government has done. It is now saying that it is taking $1 0 million out of the sale of MDS to create that economic innovations council fund.

Rrst of all, again unless we get some commitment from the government, we know that a three-year commitment to the Manitoba Research Council at a previous funding level would have meant more than $10 million being spent on technology innovation. We want to see whether in fact the government's commitment is not another well-disguised, in this case, cut in innovations research, which I predict it is going to be; that is the intent.

What is more is that the government, in its wisdom, sold the Manitoba Data Services, a company which provided approximately $3 million in profit to the government of Manitoba on an annual basis. They have turned that asset, creating wealth for the province, into a $1 0-million fund which, with all due respect, is likely to be frittered away by the innovations council in a very short period of time. Madam Deputy Speaker, if the government had intended to create someth ing worthwh ile, something that was to have an impact on our ability to compete, I think they could have done a better job.

I suppose others will have their time to comment on this bill. Whether in fact this is worthy of support, it seems to me, is an open question right now. Whether in fact it will live up to its very limited mandate I think is an answer that needs still to be debated further. The mandate that it has been given is extremely weak, extremely wishy-washy; and, of course, the format, as I said, the structure of the council itself, I do not think lends itself to responsible, responsive decision making.

Although, of course, if the government proceeds with the legislation, we will have to wait the test of time, obviously, to see whether we can say that this council has been any more responsive than the Manitoba Research Council, than other programs supported and directed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism, which in my view has been very effective. We see the Rrst Minister (Mr. Rlmon) and other ministers referring to the Health Industry Initiative, which again was a program that was created by the previous government and which has been quite successful in many respects.

I believe that the government has decided to introduce this at this time to cover up some other fundamental and I think quite serious errors in judgment, in logic, in reasoning that have been put forward by ministers of the Crown over the past several months. We heard today the Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness) criticize members on this side for their role in the province's economy as members of the previous government. As I noted earlier, this government has had a chance to illustrate in a very tangible way its commitment to research and development, and we have seen financial cutbacks.

We have also seen the government willing to lay the blame of its current economic crisis and the crisis the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) referenced today, and that is the continuing decline in revenues to the province from income tax and corporate income tax-serious problem� the government still wants to blame the previous government. The Minister of Finance said today that the problem was the payroll tax. The Mini ster of Rnance has tabled four budgets.

This government has not eliminated the payroll tax for the vast majority of small businesses, medium-sized businesses who were eligible to pay a payroll tax. Just so the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) does not continue to put falsehoods on the record, let us say- Point of Order Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and Mines): I have not put falsehoods on the record. I have not said anything. He is pointing his finger at me and falsely accusing me of putting falsehoods on the record. I would ask him for an apology, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over facts. *** Mr. Storie: Just so that the Minister of Northern Affairs, Energy and Mines does not misconstrue what I have said, from his seat the Minister of Energy and Mines said that they reduced the payroll tax for

February 24, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 635 the majority of small businesses in the province. That is clearly wrong. When the payroll tax was introduced, two-thirds of Manitoba businesses did not apply to begin with. Subsequent to that, Madam Deputy Speaker, there were some changes which reduced the number of businesses that were affected by the payroll tax by approximately 30 percent. This government made some additional small changes which reduced the payroll liability to a number of others. *

(1510) I do not even wa nt to debate how many businesses remained on the payroll tax after this government's four budgets. H they believed that this was such a detriment, would they not have acted? Are they so stupid, so incompetent that they cannot decide what is important to do? Clearly, all of what we have heard from members opposite on payroll taxes is either inconsistent or irrelevant as far as they are concerned or they would have done something about it. I want also put on the record the findings of an independent group with respect to business costs in the province of Manitoba.

Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which is certainly no political supporter necessarily of New Democrats, has done its own study on the taxation question. In a research bulletin released by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business entitled "Taxing Ourselves to Death," what did they find about the comparison between Manitoba and other jurisdictions of the United States? Let me read from their document, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Their analysis shows-and I hope members are listening and jotting this down for future reference because we would not want to get these facts get lost in some future debate-that payroll taxes are higher in the U.S. than in Manitoba. Let me read that again. Payroll taxes are higher in the U.S. than in Manitoba. No, let me read that again. Payroll taxes are higher in the U.S. than they are in Manitoba. I think I would have to read it fwe times for the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Connery) before he would really understand it.

This is due to the Manitoba payroll tax exemption-listen to this, Madam Deputy Speaker-for small firms and the high payroll tax at the federal level in the U.S. The corporate income taxes are similar in Manitoba, Minnesota and North Dakota, while the absence of any corporate income tax at the state level in South Dakota reduces the burden of this tax for small businesses. Finally, the provincial sales tax systems are very similar among these four regions. Taxes that are within the purview of the provincial government are not out of line. What does this study conclude?

The study concludes that the principal guilty party, if there is one, is the municipal level of government, which has tax levels as much as 50 and 1 00 percent higher than a similar jurisdiction of the United States. I relate this only because it is important if we are going to really, as the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) suggested we do, become less partisan and more constructive. If we are going to deal with the problems that confront small business and medium-size business in this province, or the problems of large business for that matter, we have to deal from a basis of fact.

We cannot continue to say this is the enemy or that is the enemy when facts clearly refute that position. This government Is as guilty of that kind of behaviour as anyone. The press releases from the First Minister and bills like The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act, the restructuring of the cabinet committees, the formation of the Eco nomic Development Board of Cabinet, the Northern Eco nomic Development Commission by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) go absolutely nowhere in terms of solving any of the problems that face us. They are PR exercises in the worst sense of the word.

They do nothing to inform. They are not really designed to initiate, Madam Deputy Speaker. They are designed to obfuscate and procrastinate, and not to resolve the fundamental problems that we face. That Is what is wrong with this particular act, not that it could not serve a purpose under certain circumstances, not that there is anything wrong with the individuals who have been appointed, but that it does not solve the fundamental problems, the very real problems that our small businesses, our businesses face today.

It is not going to be able, because of the structure of that council, to take ideas that are out there today and turn them into opportunities in six months or a year, Madam Deputy Speaker. This council will not be up and operating, will not be providing support, research support directly or indirectly for months at least. That is a tragedy because there are 57,000 people unemployed today, the highest level ever in the history of this province. We have record numbers of bankruptcies. We have businesses

636 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 closing and moving to the United States. The only response of this gove rnment is another PR exercise. That in itself is a tragedy. For the 57,000 people who are unemployed and hoping for opportunity, that is not good enough. For the small business and the businesses today who are closing their doors, not because they are bankrupt but because they are not making any money and they do not foresee the opportunity to make money, for them, closing their doors, it is a tragedy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we have been asking this government for months, years now, certainly for the last two and a half years, to come up with an economic strategy that made sense, to do somethintr(interjection) Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) is right; they have been listening. It appears that they will continue to listen and not act, and that is unfortu nate.

If you are a small businessman waiting for some help, if you are someone at the university with a great idea, with an opportunity and waiting for the government to get onside and come to your aid, then that is also a tragedy. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that there are other members who want to speak on the bill. I am prepared to conclude my remarks, but I urge all mem bers of this House , including memb ers opposite, to review what this bill is really intended to do.

If the government really believes that this council has a role to play, perhaps not in the short term but in the medium and long term, then I ask them to make the financial commitment to the fund that will signify that commitment, that a $1 0-mill ion fund, which if the fund is not fully committed in three years, will actually have been a reduction to the comm itm ent to research and technology commercialization. Then the people of Manitoba will have been mislead and our time will have been wasted. Mr.

Reg Alcock (Osborne): Madam Deputy Speaker, I listened with interest to the remarks of the member for Ain Aon (Mr. Storie), which I believe he opened by stating that he was going to do a nonpartisan discussion in support of this particular bill. I am waiting with some interest to hear his partisan speeches. I am going to make a few remarks on this. I am going to be the only speaker for our party, and I am going to ask the House to pass this bill today. I share some of the concerns which have been expressed by the member for Flin Aon (Mr. Storie), and I want to frame them.

I do not want to spend a whole lot of time talking about what is wrong with what we are doing right now. I want to suggest that we get on with doing something right. There is a problem with the way this particular bill is structured. I am going to talk about that in some detail in committee, but I want to step back and just talk a little bit about what we are trying to accomplish here. We have an economy that is very, very frag ile and very risky.

We know from research, which has been conducted exhaustively and not in this last year but in this last decade or two, that if you want to modernize your economy, if you want to be competitive in the global econ omy which is upon us now, you have to invest heavily in research and development, so heavily that they are talking about investments in the order of 2.5 percent to 3 percent of your gross national product. In this province that would be an investment in excess of the total budget of the Family Services department. It would be an investment between $650 million and $700 million.

Now that investment level, it has never been suggested that government do all of that. In some countries of the world, the government plays a very small role. In the U.S., the government directly influences the R & D expenditures in that country; they directly contribute about 50 percent. * (1 520) One of the things that we know in this province is that private-sector investment, because of the relatively small base and the relative frag ility of this economy, follows public-sector investment.

We are currently investing in research and development, if you squeeze the figures as hard as you can, at about one-third the level we should be. So an initiative which comes along which says that we are going to focus our intention on investing-and I think I liked one of the lines here in this bill,

Section (

c) of the Objects . It says , working to bring about a substantial shift in the Manitoba economy towards an economy based more upon innovation and technology. Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have to make that shift. I believe if we are to survive, if we are not to shrink any further, if we are to grow in this decade and into the year 2000, that we have to make exactly that shift. I think that what is stated

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 637 here in the objectives of this council is precisely right. I note wit h som e interest that the same observation was made back in the late '70s and early '80s. There was an attempt, through the early '80s, to build exactly that kind of base here in Manitoba with the National Research building, with the centre for microtech, with the centre for transportation. The intention was to build as large a critical mass of researchers and research activities as we possibly could in this province, because that is the base upon which wealth is going to be built.

I note also with some interest a meeting I had a couple of weeks ago with some people from the telecom munications research group in Alberta, which are struggling with this same issue: How do you get up to a size where you can truly have the base of research, the base of resources, to be effecti ve?

You know, simply funding a research, or funding somebody to do some pure research in this area, while it may be interesting, is not going to have the kind of ability to shift the economic base of this province unless you build a critical mass in your research community that allows you to truly interact with the global community and truly gives access to local manufactu rers to commercialize and to bring into production and to bring ultimately to sale the products of this research.

The problem that I have-1 think there are two or three of them that I want to point out, and I am going to attempt to discuss these with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and hopefu lly we can see some friendly amendments to this bill to attempt to step back from one of the problems that I fear. let me just deal with one small item. The member for Flin Ron (Mr. Storie) talked about it-a $1 0-mil lion commitment versus a $400- million shortfal l is unsu bstantial and insignificant. Any money in this area is good and you cannot immediately move from zero to say a $200-million commitment overnight.

You have to build up to it. I think the government has to recognize if it is not to be guilty of the charge of window dressing that we are looking for a very substantial commitment over time, that the government has to divert more and more of its resources into this area if we are going to see the kind of economic growth in this province that we wish to receive. We have an opportunity; an opportunity is going to be upon us come 1994-1 995. As the very heavy investment in the northern part of this province begins to bear fruit we will see an opportunity in the growth in this province.

I would hope that the government would increase its investment so that we can get it up somewhere approaching what are considered to be acceptable standards, at least internationally, in this province. I think in a small province one has to exceed international standards if one is going to have the kind of impact that the government hopes to have with the passage of this bill and the institution of this council. The problem I have is that I think the government has founded the council on very, very shaky ground.

I think it is simply going to create the same problem that it is now attempting to undo that was created earlier. It is critical of what the form er government did, so it is going to undo that and It Is going to rebutton things together in its own form . All of the appointme nts to this cou ncil are by Order -in-Council. All of the major decisions are controlled through Order -in-Cou ncil. There is no ownership of this council by the stakeholders and there is no depoliticization of this very important activity.

If I have one recommendation to make to the government, it is that we look for a mechanism that allows the government to step back from this council, that allows the government to truly root it in this province in a way that, should the government change, that the council is able to continue and do its work. I would ask the government to seek the advice of the opposition, and I say this quite seriously, to ensure that the people who are appointed to that council are the kind of people that this Chamber is going to support.

I would go so far as to suggest that we look for ratification of the leaders of this council so that, should the government change, the council not change. You canno t have well-structured research going on to create the kind of change you want to change if you are going to change the people who are doing it every four or eight years. All we are going to have is exactly what the memb er for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) was refere ncing, which is a bone thrown to those people in that community, not a sincere and serious attempt to change the structure of the economy in this province.

638 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 We have an opportunity coming. We have an opportunity to build a signific ant and important research base in this provi nce. We need it desper ately. I am going to be asking the government to consider through two or three mechanisms the ways in which they may involve the stakeholders in this community a little more heavily in the operation and ongoing management of this council. · A small item is th e way in which the board is structured. I do wo nder about a council of 35 people.

I wonder about the effectiveness in a body of that size in making the kinds of decisions it has to make and doing the kind of targeting that it has to do. I have serious concerns about the degree to which the cabinet is involved in the operation of this council. I think the fact that all member s are appointed for one term and there is no staggering in the appointments means you are going to see tremendous instability in the way in which the council is structured. I will, as I have said, come forward with the Premier (Mr.

Filmon) who is the sponsor of this bill, with some discus sions on how it migh t be restructured that would give it the unanimous support of this Chamber, and I think it is too important for it to have less. With that, I would ask that this bill get passed so that we can get down to the work of getting the council going. Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I move, seconded by the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 21-The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act Hon.

Ha rry Enns (Minis ter of Natural Resources): I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 21 , The Provincial Park La nds Amendmen t Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les pares provinciaux), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Enns: I was testing the mood of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see whether or not the bill might not be passed. There is no incumbency on anybody to explain the bill unless somebody asks for an explanation or waive introduction, but I am pleased to provide a brief explanation of the bill before us. BHI 21 is not a complicated or a long piece of legislation. It is a bill that has to do with fairness, and honourable members will recognize it as such.

Having said that, I do not suggest that there will not be some concerns expressed. It can, I suppose, be regarded as a taxation bill, if you like, of some kind. • (1 530) Over the years, it has been drawn to the attention of the provincial gover nme nt-not jus t this government, but I know to my predecessors of the New Democratic Party as well-that a situation was developing in our park system that needed to be addressed, namely this, that a growing number of Mani tobans chose to make their parks their permanent residence.

We have situations that are getting to concern local and municipal governments, particularly up in the LGD of Consol and The Pas area, where the Clearwater Lake Provincial Park is just adjacent to the community of The Pas. We have a growing number of residents who fo und it convenient to make the park their principal residence, but in doing so, avoid paying any and all local and municipal taxes. It is simply not fair, Madam Deputy Speaker. The school division sends in school buses.

The provincial government, we find ourselves having to maintain and plow all those roads on a year-round basis, because the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) would not think highly of her colleague the Minis ter of parks and Natural Resources if I fa iled to do that. I think there is even a provision in the education act that commands me to do so. All of this is being done, and there is no legislative means available to collect taxes. Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a somewhat arbitrary measure.

It has been suggested that-i n fact, the cabinet of this government passed this measur e I believe some two years ago, two summ ers ago, that because we do not have an assessment process within the park system that an arbitrary figure, and it has been talked of in the area of $500, be assessed as a fair measure to bring Bill 21 , The Park Lands Amendment Act, which makes it possible for the government to bring in some fai rness to the taxation regime for those persons who have chosen to make the park their permanent residence.

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 639 Madam Deputy Speaker, we have another group of people who in a similar way have managed to avoid taxation-we ll, it is not really fair to say taxation-fe es or charges that we impose under The Park Lands Act, and that is, we have people, and this may be not known to all, particularly in one of our major parks, the Whiteshell Park, we have pockets of private landholdings.

I send out invoices to all of the 3,400 or 3,500 cottage owners in the Whiteshell to pay their annual fee rental for the site and for the services that the government provides, whether it is garba ge, snowplow and then maintenance. These people who live on private property within the park do not have to pay it. Most of them have paid it in the past, but growing numbers of them in recent years have found out that if they do not pay it, there is nothing this Minister of Natural Resources or any other Minister of Natural Resources or parks commissioner could do about it.

We have had a growing number of people simply taking advantage of it, and our accounts receivable have been growing, or uncollectible have been growing. Again, it is a question of fairness, Madam Deputy Speaker, that just about half of the people who are in such a situation on private land do not legally have to pay, do pay their service charges that the dep ar tm ent sends them , because they acknowledge the fact that they are in fact getting services, and nothing is free in this world. You can understand that if their neighbours are not paying, that creates a situation that is not satisfactory.

While none of us particularly enjoys any new imp osition of fees or taxati on, we particularly do not like them if we feel that they are not being fairly imposed and fairly dealt with. Madam Deputy Speaker, these in essence are the two brief amendments that are contained in Bill 21 . I would ask honourable members to allow the bill to proceed to committee. There will no doubt be representations made at committee. I know for instance particularly that there is an association of private landowners within the parks.

Their position really has been not so much that they object to the payment of these fees but they would like a greater voice in the types and kinds of services required or demanded by the park users. That is fair ball. We will no doubt expect to hear from some of these people when this bill is at committee stage. Madam Deputy Speaker, with those few words I commend Bill 21 for the consideration of members opposite in the hope that it is a fairly straightforward bill and that it could be dealt with with some expedition. Thank you. Mr.

Cllf Evans (Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. 811122- The Lodge Operators and Outfmers Licensing and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Ha rry Enns (Min ister of Natural Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr.

Ernst), that Bill 22, The Lodge Operators and Outfit ters Licensing and Conseq uential Amendments Act (Loi sur les permis relatifs aux exploitants de camps de chasse et de piche et aux pour voyeurs et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres dispositions legislatives), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme) indicates that this initiative sounds like a very good idea. I want to assure him it is. It is not a complicated bill.

What it in essence does though is, it moves the unit within government that has the responsibility of supervising, licensing and dealing with lodges and outfitters in Manitoba from the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism to the Department of Natural Resources. There has always been a very close relationship between the two departments. It is essentially the Department of Natural Resources that is required to do the background work, the investigation.

An application comes in for a tourist lodge or a fly-in fish camp to be located in the province of Manitoba, officials of the Department of Natural Resources are asked in the first instance to respond as to the suitabil ity of the application, availability of the resource. Again, the Depar tment of Natural Resour ces and its of ficials have to do the negotiations with other users of the resource if there is a com petition in volved. Cer tainly, the

640 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA February 24, 1992 Department of Natural Resources have to be involved in dealing with people of the aboriginal comm unities if it involves their already having access to the same resource.

It was felt, in the interests of simply making it a little easier to do business with the government, that it would be a suitable move to move this function of government, namely, the unit-it is not a large unit-that looks after the affairs of lodges and outfitters, into the Department of Natural Resources, in esse nce , Madam Dep uty Speaker, a housekeeping change in where the shop is going to be housed from the Trade and Technolo gy dep artm ent to the De par tm ent of Na tural Resources. Again, I commend the bill to the House, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr.

Cllf Evans {Interlake): I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. .. (1 540) BIII 34-The Surveys Amendment Act Hon. Ha rry Enns {Minis ter of Natural Resources): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconde d by the honourable Mini ster of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 34, The Surveys Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'arpentage), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Hon. Donald Orchard {Minister of Health): Let us pass this one just to show how it can be done. Come on, Clif. Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, encouraged as I am by my colleague the Minister of Health, let us see if we cannot set into motion, in the spirit of co-opera tion, this very substantive bill that is before US, Bill 34.

Madam Deputy Speaker, all that this bill does is, in that very interesting part of my department called Surveys and Mapping, which is the department that produces a host of maps and other information, that it be allowed, by ministerial regulations, from time to time, to make changes to the costs of the products provided. Right now, it has to be done by costly Or der-in-Council amendment. Order -in-Council is a costly procedure.

Very often, simply not getting it on a cabinet agenda can mean that a new product line that this division reports does not get priced properly and can mean losses of generation of revenue upwards to a hundred thousand dollars, I am told, to the province of Manitoba, if we do not get the right price. I would ask honourable members to look at this particular bill and see whether or not we cannot mark progress today by having the bill committed to the committee.

I assure the honourable members that, if there is any qu estion with respect to technicalities of the bill, they will have an opportunity to ask them directly of the director, Mr. Leeman, of the branch, who would make himself available at committee stage to answer any questions. With those few words, Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend 8111 34 to the consideration by honourable members of this Chamber and hope that it will survive the rigorous examination by honourable members opposite and be speedily passed into law. Thank you. Mr.

Cllf Evans {Interlake) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the de bate be adjourned. Mr. Paul Edwards {St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, with leave, I would like to address this bill. I have no objection to it remaining standing in the name of my friend. However, I would like to make my comments today. Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. James have leave to now speak to this bill? Agreed? Leave has been granted. Mr. Edwards: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have listened intently to the minister's comments.

I must say I am a long way towards being persuaded that this looks to be in the public interest. I do not say that without reservation, because I have learned from experience that is important, of course, to canvass these matters completely at the committee stage. I acknowledge and appreciate that the minister will be bringing further officials from his department to explain the complete ramifications of this bill. I recall, I believe, last year or a couple of sessions ago, when we had a similar such bill in this similar area, we did have some strong debate.

There were som e represen tati ons from the su rveyors' association, I believe, and there was a problem which, fran kly, I would not have caught and I do not

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 641 think my fr iends did, in either of the other two parties, until- pnterjection] We are all friends in this House, for the Minis ter of Health (Mr. Orchard)-the association showed up at the committee stage and pointed something out to us. I recall that there were amendme nts made, so I want to remain cautious and open minded with respect to any indications which would make me think otherwise.

I generally, of course, as an opposition member, like to see things go through the Legislature as opposed to going through by executive authority and Orders -in-Council, because it is not a good way to make legislation without going through the Legislature. However, the regulation-making power is an essential part of a modern parliamentary system. There has to be some way to set things differe ntly in an ongoing fa shion, as long as they do not deal with the principles involved in the bill.

If they are working out the principles in the bill, then that is one thing, and regulations are appropriate to be made in those circumstances. By giving to the minister the ability to establish the tariff offees that may be charged for these materials, I do not see a major problem, I must say. I think it is important to give the minister that ability to charge reasonable fees to Manitobans for the services rendered by the department. I look forward to consideration of this matter at committee stage.

I do, of course, appreciate the commitment that there will be experts available to answer all questions and talk about the fees as they have been and also give us some indication of where they are going and what increases are expected. With those, our party will close comments on this bill. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). 811142-The Amusements Amendment Act Hon.

Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): I would like to move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 42 , The Amusement s Amen dm ent Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les divertissements be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) Motion presented. Mr. Praznlk: I can see my colleague the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is eager, obviously, to debate this particular piece of legislation in due course, whether it be today or on another occasion. This particular piece of legislation, as members gather, is the repeal of the licensing provisions under The Amusements Act for projectionists.

I must say that it is a piece of legislation that I inherited, as I think most Ministers of Labour have done over the years, that represents a licensing scheme for which technology has passed on and made quite redundant. It seems this piece of legislation comes up or has come up on a regular basis for well over a decade. Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe that it has been brought forward by numerous Ministers of Labour. This same provision was included, I believe, in statute law amendment last year. The president of the projection ists' union appeared before that com mi ttee and raised some concerns. We withdrew it.

I had the opportunity to speak with that particular individual and have a discussion about the history of these provisions and the concern that the projectionists' union had. * (1 550) Just by way of history, Mr. Acting Speaker, this particular legislation was initially introduced several decades ago. It was designed to provide protection for the filmgoing or the movie-house-going public.

Given the nature of the flammable film and carbon-arc lamp s that were used in theatres dec ades ago throughout mo st of our province-some are still in place in terms of carbon-arc lamps-th is legislation was designed to ensure that projectionists operating in the province were very fam iliar with the carbon-arc lamp technology of the day and the highly flammable film that was being used and that they would know how to operate what were essentially very dangerous materials and equipment.

However, since that time the type of technology used in movie theatres, the type of projection equipment, the type of film have change d dramatically and the risk for which this legislation was intended have long since left.

642 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA February 24, 1992 What I would like to raise for members opposite, just by way of history, is back in the late '70s and early '80s, theatre owners from across, particularly rural Manitoba, complained regularly that given the change in the equipment and the film, they were havin g gr eat difficulty in securing lic e nsed projection ists in rural Manitoba. The Labour minister of the day, in the late '70s, early '80s, moved to repeal this legislatiOn. This comes to me from information that the head of the projectionists' union gave to me by telephone last winter and there was Mr.

MacMaster, who was minister of the day. The compromise that was worked out interesting enough, that that individual, the president told me that he had worked out with Mr. MacMaster, was that the legislation could be repealed for rural theatres but would remain in place for theatres located, I believe, in Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson with the minister having the power to exempt the licensing requiremen ts in Thompson and Brandon.

Now, if one just thinks about this for a moment, what the Legislature of the day said was that it is okay to be in a so-called dangerous situation in rural theatres or in Brandon and Thompson, but not in Winnipeg. Quite frank ly, there was no danger or very limited danger because, again, the technology had changed. The licensing provisions remained, by and large, because the projectionists' union in Manitoba felt at that time that they gave them some ability to command better wages or better benefits in their agreements, but their mem bers were by and large restricted to operation in the city of Winnipeg.

The Legislature of the day kept in place these provisions essentially for the city of Winnipeg and removed them for the rest of the province. Well, you cannot just logically maintain a set of standards that are applicable in one jurisdiction in your province while not in the other. Quite fran kly, it was an arrangement that I think was worked out to accom modate the projectionists' union.

The difficulty, of course, today as we review our legislation, and other Ministers of Labour, through the decade that followed that amendment, have obviously looked at this legislation and have come to the conclusion that there really is no need for today, given the improvements in technology and film. It has become a redundant piece of regulation. I would just like to refer all honourable members to some of the facts with relation to this licensing provision. The last exam written under this legislation was on December 12 , 1988.

Prior to that, we averaged some seven exams in '86, '87 and '88, but we have not had one request for an examination since December of 1988. Mr. Acting Speaker, ! would also like to refer other members in my discussions with the president of the union and recognizing their concern with respect to their qualifications and their negotiating room, we nego tiated with the president and with the projectionists' union.

The Department of Labour issued to the current members of the projectionists' union who were licensed under that act, some 44 individuals, we issued a certificate of proficiency certifying that they had completed the requirements for registration as a projectionist. I would like to table a copy of the certificate that the department has issued to the 44 individuals who are currently members of that projectionists' union and have licences under the act, so I table that for the information of the House. I would also, and I am sure the member for Thompson (Mr.

Ashton) will take note of this par ticular fact-we noted in the coll ective agreements that the projectionists' union has signed with various theatre companies. I would like to refer to their most recent one, the agreement of Local299 of the International Alliance of Theatrical and Stage Employees and Moving Picture Machine Opera tors of the United States and Canada.

In their most recen t collec tive agr eem ent wi th Famous Players-and the same provisions are in their agreement with Cineplex Odeon Corporation, I believe-and this particular collective agreement was filed with the Department of Labour on August 17 , 1990. In this agreement, the union, which has the right to pro vide, un der the agreem ent, projectionists for the employer, indicates that, and I would like to quo te

Section 2.03 where the agreement says: And the union, I quote, hereby agrees to furnish competent projectionis ts to perform work as required by the employer under the terms of this agreement. Also,

Section 2.05, and I quote : the union agrees to furnish competent and eff icient projectionists to perform work as required by the company under the provisions of the collective agreement. Furthermore, there is no reference in this agreement to the licensing provisions or carrying them out, although they do make refe rence to ensuring that none of their activities contravene the provisions of The Employment Standards Act. Also, in this agreement, in

Article 9.01 , the

February 24, 1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 643 projectionists agree to provide training for new projectionists coming into the field and working with the employer to ensure that new projectionists are properly trained. Nowhere in these collec tive agreeme nts-and I am sur e the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) will take note of this

part icu lar fact -nowhere in these coll ective agreements does the projectionists' union require or indicate that they will provide licensed projectionists to the employers, only competent projectionists. The same kind of provision, a very similar provision, was in place in their agreement which they sign ed-1 would have the memb er for Thompson take note of this fact-in their collective agreement dated 1st of May 1987 with Cineplex Odeon Corporation. The same provision is in the agreement that they would furnish competent projectionists, not licensed projectionists. So it is clear, Mr.

Acting Speaker, that the projectionists' un ion has recognized that the licensin g requirements are not really required as they were decades ago when we had very flammable film and we used carbon arc lamp projectors throughout the province. They have recognized that in their collective agreement. We have worked the union to provide a certificate of proficiency to the current holders of that licensing agreements. It is the position of the government that it is time to update our safety legislation to ensure that it is realistic.

As far as the concern that the union president reflected at the committee about their concern about providing qualified people for projectionists, they do not even refere nce the licensing provisions in their collective agree ment. We have provided the certificate of profic iency, and we think that with this particular piece of legislation that provides for no safety whatsoever in rural Manitoba, it is time to update this legislation and bring it into the modern decade and that is why we were asking for this particular appeal. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 45- The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that Bill 45, The City of Winnipeg Amendment, Municipal Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Ville de Wi nnipeg, Ia

Loi sur les municipalites et d'autres dispositions legislatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. • (1 600) Mr. Ernst: Mr. Acting Speaker, Bill 45, before us today, contains legislation which will enable Headingley to withdraw from the City of Winnipeg's boundaries to form a separate rural municipality. Sinc e 19 87 the Headingley com mu nity has continued to petition the provincial government for secession from the City of Winnipeg.

Headingley residents believed that their property taxes are too high, relative to the limited type of municipal services they receive from the City of Winnipeg. Unlike most suburban residential communities in Winnipeg, Headingley is a semirural community with no municipal sewer or water service, a limited bus service and unpaved roads. The majority of the land area north and south of the Assiniboine River is agricultural. In short, Headingley has more in common with its neighbouring rural municipalities than it does with Winnipeg, in terms of la

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-15a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 15a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	aaec053e7a236302f54e186bdeb2fab84707c94e

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