Manitoba Hansard — 4 November 1996 (Sitting 75, 36th Legislature, 2nd Session)

36-2-75

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Sixth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable Louise M. Dacquay Speaker Vol. XLVI No. 75- 1:30 p.m., Monday, November 4, 1996

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Sixth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name Constituency &rcy ASHTON, Steve Thompson N.D.P. BARRETT, Becky Wellington N.D.P. CERILLI, Marianne Radisson N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave Kildonan N.D.P. CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. Ste. Rose P.C. DACQUAY, Louise, Hon. Seine River P.C. DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. Roblin-Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary Concordia N.D.P. DOWNEY, James, Hon. Anhur-Virden P.C. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. Steinbach P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. ENNS, Harry, Hon. Lakeside P.C. ERNST, Jim, Hon. Charles wood P.C.

EVANS, Clif Interlake N.D.P. , EVANS, Leonard S. Brandon East N.D.P. FILMON, Gary, Hon. Tuxedo P.C. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. Springfield P.C. FRIESEN, Jean Wolseley N.D.P. GAUDRY, Neil St. Boniface Lib. GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. Minnedosa P.C. HEL WER, Edward Gimli P.C. HICKES, George Point Douglas N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. KOWALSKI, Gary The Maples Lib. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LATHLIN, Oscar The Pas N.D.P. LAURENDEAU, Marcel St. Norbert P.C. MACKINTOSH, Gord St. Johns N.D.P. MALOWA Y, Jim Elmwood N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McALPINE, Gerry Sturgeon Creek P.C. McCRAE, James, Hon.

Brandon West P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane Osborne N.D.P. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. Assiniboia P.C. - MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn St. James N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. River East P.C. NEWMAN, David Riel P.C. PALLISTER, Brian, Hon. Portage Ia Prairie P.C. PENNER, Jack Emerson P.C. PITURA, Frank Morris P.C. PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. Lac du Bonnet P.C. RADCLIFFE, Mike River Heights P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. REIMER, Jack, Hon. Niakwa P.C. RENDER, Shirley St. Vital P.C. ROBINSON, Eric Rupertsland N.D. P. ROCAN, Denis Gladstone P.C. SALE, Tim Crescentwood N.D.P. SANTOS, Conrad Broadway N.D.P. STEFANSON, Eric, Hon.

Kirktield Park P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan Dauphin N.D. P. SVEINSON, Ben La Verendrye P.C. TOEWS, Vic, Hon. Ross mere P.C. TWEED, Mervin Turtle Mountain P.C. VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. Fort Garry P.C. WOWCHUK, Rosann Swan River N.D.P.

4689 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, November 4, 1996 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Guaranteed Annual Income Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Irene Wysmulek, Wayne Martel, Mercedes Martel and others requesting that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.

Mitchelson) to consider withdrawing Bill 3 6 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care, that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningful work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families. Manitoba Telephone System Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St.

James): I beg to present the petition of Ken Emberley, Patricia Kovnats, Roger Geeves and others requesting that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Guaranteed Annual Income Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honour able member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense.

THAT in 1976 Canada signed the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognized the right of everyone to make a living by work which is freely chosen, recognized the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, recognized the right of everyone to enjoy a high standard of physical and mental health, and provided for the widest possible protection and assistance to the family; and THAT poor children and adults in Canada continue to die at a higher rate and earlier age than people with adequate incomes; and THAT Bill 36, The Social Allowances Amendment Act, will create even greater poverty among the poor in Manitoba by eliminating government responsibility to ensure that everyone who lacks adequate food, clothing, housing and health care has these needs met; and THAT the bill proposes to punish people by cutting them off from social assistance or reducing their benefits if they fail to meet employment expectations; and WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Minister of Family Services to consider withdrawing Bill 36 and replacing it with improved legislation which provides for a guaranteed annual income that allows people to have adequate food, clothing, housing, child care and health care and that this annual income increases as prices increase and that this new legislation also provides for the creation of real jobs with the goal of creating full employment so that individuals on social assistance can find safe, meaningfUl work of their own choosing that allows them to meet their needs and the needs of their families.

Manitoba Telephone System Madam Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk). It

4690 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? An Honourable Member: Yes. Madam Speaker: Yes. The Clerk will read. Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the Manitoba Telephone System has served this province well for over 80 years providing province-wide service, some of the lowest local rates in North America and thousands of jobs and keeping profits in Manitoba; and THAT MTS contributes $450 million annually to the Manitoba economy and is a major sponsor of community events throughout the province; and THAT MTS, with nearly 4,000 employees including more than 1, 000 in rural and northern Manitoba, is one of Manitoba's largest firms, headquartered in Manitoba and is committed to Manitoba; and THAT the provincial government has no mandate to sell MTS and said before and during the 1995 election that MTS was not for sale.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) withdraw Bill 67 and not sell the Manitoba Telephone System to private interests. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Standing Committee on Law Amendments Eighth Report Mr. David Newman (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): I wonder if I might request leave to present the Seventh Report on the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. We are not on the Order Paper, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Riel have leave to present the report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments? [agreed] Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I beg to present the Seventh Report of the Committee on Law Amendments. An Honourable Member: Dispense. Madam Speaker: Dispense. Your Standing Committee on Law Amendments presents the following as its Eighth Report.

Your committee met on Monday, October 28, 1996, at 6 p.m., Wednesday, October 30, 1996, at 6:30 p.m., Thursday, October 31, 1996, at 6:30 p.m. and Friday, November 1, 1996, at 9 a. m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills reftrred. At the meeting of October 28, 1996, your committee elected Mr. Dyck as Vice-Chairperson of the committee. At the meeting of October 28, 1996, your committee agreed, on division, to a time limit of 10 minutes for each presentation and jive minutes for questions and answers.

Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 48-T he University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur /'Universite du Manitoba Edward Lipsett - Private Citizen Earle Ferguson and Sylvia Jansen - University of Manitoba Faculty Association Dr. E.J.E. Szathmary- University of Manitoba Alden Turner - University of Winnipeg Faculty Association Neil Tudiver - Private Citizen Trevor Lines - University of Manitoba Students' Association Bill 72-The Public Schools Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modijiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques Betty Green, Betty Ann Watts and Carolyn Duhamel - Manitoba Association of School Trustees Howard Friesen - Garden Valley School Division No. 26 Cordell Barker - Pine Creek Teachers' Association - -

November 4, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 469 1 Lisa .Nfartin and Val Thomson- Private Citizens Carolyn Evans- Souris Va/Jey Teachers' Association Loretta Basiuk and Linda Dyrkacz - Agassiz Teachers' Association Greg Fritske- Brandon Teachers' Association Paul LaRiviere L 'Association des Educateurs/Educatrices Francophones du Manitoba Aure/e Boisvert Division Sco/aire Franco- Manitobaine no 49 Erica Stecheson - Private Citizen Dean .Jonasson -Private Citizen Nancy Trush - Private Citizen Gail Eliasson -Evergreen Teachers' Association Ernie Schiman -Intermountain Teachers' Association Geoff Robson Morris-Macdonald Teachers' Association Harry McKnight- Private Citizen Steve Lawrie -Private Citizen Adam Grabowski - Private Citizen Fred Ve/dink- Private Citizen Lawrie Kyle - Private Citizen Rob Hilliard- Manitoba Federation of Labour Henry Wedel- Transcona Teachers' Association Donald Tee/- Winnipeg Teachers' Association Ron Munro- River East Teachers' Association Murray Grafton -St.

Bonif ace Teachers' Association Jean Beaumont - Manitoba Association of School Superintendents Jake Peters and Val Goodridge - Assiniboine South Teachers' Association Phyllis Moore - The Retired Teachers of Manitoba Patricia Gendreau - Private Citizen David Harkness -Private Citizen Karen Minish -Private Citizen Garth Minish - Private Citizen Gail Cherpako - Private Citizen Theresa Ducharme- People in Equal Participation, Inc. Jim Robertson - St. James-Assiniboia Teachers' Association Ben Zaidman and John Weins - Seven Oaks School Division Maureen Gelinas- St.

Vital Teachers' Association Ken Pearce -M anitoba Teachers' Society Heather Hinchcliffe -Private Citizen Michael Thompson - Private Citizen Bob Minaker - Private Citizen Albert Ceri/Ji- Manitoba Federation of Union Retirees Phil MacLellan -Seven Oaks Teachers Association Pat Isaak and Nancy Patterson - Private Citizens Emanuel Tavaris and Jennifer Waroway - University of Winnipeg Education Students Association Fred Pauls -Private Citizen Alan Wiebe- Fort Garry Teachers' Association Ruth Smith - Private Citizen Harriet Zaidman -Belmont School Parents Association Wendy Land- Private Citizen Rick Wilcosh - Private Citizen Neil MacNeil - Private Citizen Bob Dixon -Private Citizen Ross Rowntree - Private Citizen Siobhan Faulkner - Private Citizen Written Submission Tina Gordon- Western Teachers' Association Your committee has considered: Bill 48-The University of Manitoba Amendment Act; Loi modijiant Ia

Loi sur l'Universite du Manitoba and has agreed, on division, to report the same without amendment. Your committee has also considered: Bi/172-The Public Schools Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles pub/iques and has agreed to report the same with the fa/lowing amendments: MOTION: THAT proposed subsections 129(3) and (4), as set out in

section 18 of the Bill, be struck and the following substituted: Other factors 129(3) The arbitrator sha/J, in respect of matters that might reasonably be expected to have a financial effect on the school division or school district, consider the following factors: (

a) the school division's or school district's ability to pay, as determined by its current revenues, including the funding received from the government and the Government of Canada, and its taxation revenue;

4692 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 1996 (

b) the nature and type of services that the school division or school district may have to reduce in light of the decision or award, if the current revenues of the school division or school district are not increased; (

c) the current economic situation in Manitoba and in Mr. Newman: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. the school division or school district; * (1335) (

d) a comparison betw een the terms and conditions of employment of the teachers in the school division or school district and those of comparable employees in the public and private sectors, with primary consideration given to comparable employees in the school division or school district or in the region of the province in which the school division or school district is located; (

e) the need of the school division or school district to recruit and retain qualified teachers MOTION: THAT

section 4 of the Bill be amended by adding the following after the proposed subsection II 0(1): Collective ba rgain ing by mutual agreement 110(1.1) Nothing in subsection (

I) prevents the parties of a collective agreement, by mutual agreement, from beginning collective bargaining before April in the y ear the collective agreement expires, in which case a notice to begin collective bargaining is conclusively deemed, for all purposes of this Part, to have been given under this

section on April 1 in that year. MOTION: THAT

section 32 of the Bill be amended (

a) in subsection (1), by striking out "section 4" and substituting "sections 4 and 22"; and (

b) in subsection (2), by striking out "Section 4 comes" and substituting "Sections 4 and 22 come". MOTION: THAT Legislative Counsel be authorized to change all

section numbers and internal references necessary to carry out the amendments adopted by this committee. Introduction of Guests Madam Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery, where we have this afternoon twenty-two Grade 5 students from Royal School under the direction of Mr. Greg Carpenter and Mrs. Regula Cramm er. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon). We also have forty-fh·e Grade 9 students from the Calvin Christian School under the direction of Mr. John Buikema.

This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson). On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Winnipeg Jets Capital Tax Exemptions Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Speaker, my question is to the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). In June of 1994, Mr. Secter and his enterprises, a partner of the government on the operating loss agreement of the Jets, moved his operation to Quebec. Mr. Shenkarow also on June 17, 1994, moved part of his Jets operations to the province of Quebec.

Given the fact that the Premier was a partner in the operating loss agreement with the two principals I have mentioned, why did the government not take action to deal with the capital tax exemption that would be available to these two partners of the Premier under the Quebec shuffle? Why did he not take action in 1994 and 1995 to deal with and remedy the problem of assets moving out of our province? -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4693 Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the transaction concluding the sale of the Winnipeg Jets closed on July 1 of this year, and obviously the various owners will be filing their appropriate returns sometime subsequent to that. As well, I am obviously not at liberty to talk about ultimately how they will deal with their individ ual transactions. That remains to be seen when they do file their actual tax returns.

I want to point out to the Leader of the Opposition, and I think he knows this full well, that the issue of the so called Quebec shuffie is not something that was well known across Canada. It was not known by the federal govenunent; it was not known by provincial governments across Canada, and in fact Manitoba has taken the lead in closing what is a very offensive loophole in the tax system. I anticipate that we will see action taken by other provinces within a short period of time. Mr.

Doer: Madam Speaker, of course the government has to deal in a retroactive way to deal with their retroactive mess in the operating loss agreement signed by the Premier. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, how can he tell the people of Manitoba that the government was not aware ofthis situation when the 1992-the Canadian Tax Foun dation Conference report, which is available to all Department of Finance officials and through the officials to the ministers of Finance in Canada, dealt with the Quebec shuffie and the fact that people could move their assets out of the province to Quebec?

Why did the government not take action before that time? Why did they not want to alert the public before that time? Were they afraid to alert the public of this shift of assets out of the province with the Jets because they were afraid of their own vulnerable position in dealing with their own partners that were shifting assets out of the province at the same time kids were putting their piggy banks on flatbed trucks to save the team? Mr. Stefanson: The only retroactive mess is the financial mess left by that incompetent group in 1981 to 1988.

That is a retroactive mess, but in terms of the issue, the member is correct that he refers to a 1 ,600-page document that was circulated at a tax conference attended by tax professionals across Canada. All of the provinces were in attendance, I believe, in varying degrees, the federal government. And once again I point out that this issue was a one line reference in a 1, 600-page document, was referred to as being, I cannot quote exactly off the top of my head, but it was viewed as being very aggressive and they were cautioning any tax professionals that chose to use it.

Governments were not aware of it, and I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition, if he knew about it-I gather he did not know about it, but if he knew about it he had a responsibility to come forward and inform this government and the people of Manitoba. I can only assume that he was like everybody else, and he did not know either. *

(1340) Mr. Doer: Madam Speaker, it is this government that signed the operating loss agreement with these partners who moved their assets and therefore our tax provisions out of the province from Manitoba to Quebec. It is this minister's officials, in fact Jules Benson, who helped negotiate the Jets deal one, deal two, deal three. The reports to this Premier who withheld this information, as the Auditor or Ombudsman has noted in The Freedom of Information Act, withheld all kinds of information from the public over a period of time. They are the ones being cited for withholding information.

My question is, in light of the fact they knew in 1992, in light of the fact that Mrs. McKinley from Revenue Canada stated that provinces were made aware well in advance of 1996, why has the government not taken action prior to this date? Why did they keep this thing secret when they knew in 1992 that this provision exists and the Quebec shuffie was created for people like the partners of the Premier on the Jets? Mr.

Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it is this government and we are the first government in Canada to take steps to deal with the Quebec shuffie, and I anticipate that you will see other governments taking steps to deal with it because other governments across Canada have been asking for informa tion in terms of what we are doing and they are becoming increasingly aware that this application does apply to other provinces, that this loophole, this avoidance technique is in existence right

4694 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 across Canada. So this government recognized the problem, this government dealt with the problem and took the appropriate steps to resolve it. Winnipeg Jets Capital Tax Exemptions Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Madam Speaker, it is not this side of the House that is generally into tax avoidance, and it is not up to this side of the House to become tax experts. That is why the government has tax experts; that is why they go to conferences.

Madam Speaker, can the Finance minister possibly explain why every single major national chartered accountancy, and I spoke to four of them, why they all knew about this, why every major tax lawyer in this city who belongs to the tax lawyers committee of the bar all knew about this? These are not people with whom the government is unacquainted. How can he claim that he was not aware of this? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, obviously the member for Cres centwood did not know about it. I just pointed out to this House that we are the first government in Canada to recognize this problem.

We are the first government in Canada to deal with this problem, and it was not brought to our attention by the federal government or by any other provincial government. This government found it out and is taking steps to deal with it. We do not need any lectures about tax issues from the NDP. Just look back at their track record when it comes to their colleagues dealing with the scientific research tax credit or the Manitoba Properties Inc., and the list goes on and on. * (13 45) Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentwood, with a supplementary question. Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, why did the Premier sign an operating loss agree ment in 19 91 which did not require both the general partner and the limited partners to remain resident in Manitoba? It required the team to remain resident. Why did he not require those who owned the team to maintain their residency here for tax pwposes and for any other purpose that they might use to avoid taxes? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, it is wonderful how brilliant the member for Crescentwood becomes five years later, you know. He is so smart that all of a sudden he knows everything five years later.

When he was in governm ent with the New Democrats, as one of their lackeys, what he did was encourage them, of course, to bring in the original tax dodge act which was the Manitoba Properties lnc. that encouraged Manitobans to utilize the sale of the assets of the government into a tax shelter dodge to avoid taxation. That is how much credibility they have on this issue. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Crescentw ood, with a final supplementary question. Mr.

Sale: Madam Speaker, could this Premier explain how, with yards oflawyers, with more lawyers involved in this than angels ever danced on the head of a pin, they could possibly have missed the fact that in 19 94 the assets of the team that they were looking at had moved to Quebec City? How did all those lawyers the government was consulting manage to miss the fact in their subm issions to the Manitoba Securities Commission in April of l995? How did they miss it in July and August of 1995, or was it missed by accident? You- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Fiboon: Madam Speaker, I do not know how many angels could dance on the member for Crescen twood's head, but I can tell you that he is so brilliant now that he even talks about the assets having been moved. It seems to me that the team stayed here and played here all the way through to the end of the last season. The assets remained here, and indeed they remained here for the benefit of Manitobans and indeed the income that prevailed to the people of Manitoba. Child Poverty Rate Reduction Strategy Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, in the chief executive officer's report for 1995 -96 of Winnipeg Child and Family Services, Mr. Keith Cooper says that he is being told that there are too many children in care and there must be more attention to prevention -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4695 and family preservation, that family preservation was risky and that children must be protected, that prevention could take place by mobilizing community resources like churches and volunteers and that none of these activities should cost any money, and that these messages are at best contradictory and there has been little willingness to confront the social and economic conditions which impact considerably on the circumstances of children in this City. I would like to ask the Premier if his government is willing to listen to Mr.

Keith Cooper and take seriously the economic circumstances that force children into the care of agencies, particularly poverty, and what is his government going to do about it? Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, this government commits the highest proportion of its budget to health care than any province in Canada does, over one-third of our entire provincial budget. This govern ment commits a further more than 18 percent to education. This governm ent commits a further more than 12 percent of its budget to family services.

I might tell the member opposite that that is a substantially higher proportion of the budget and a substantially greater number of dollars that go to family services than ever did under the New Democrats in government. That, despite the fact that thanks to the legacy of New Democrats we have to spend over $600 million a year in interest on the debt that cannot go to improving the circumstances of the families and the children of Manitoba, thanks to not only the neglect but thanks to the terrible policy decisions that his government enacted in this province in the '80s. *

(1350) Winnipeg Child and Family Services Government Relationship Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier if he will then listen to the chairperson of the board of Winnipeg Child and Family Serv ices, and I will table copies of his letter of resignation in which he says: "If it is ever possible to establish a relationship with the Government that reflects the reality of your work, things would improve greatly." Will the Premier listen to the chairperson that his government appointed to Winnipeg Child and Family Services and recognize the circumstances under which the staff work and the reasons that children are coming into care in greater and greater numbers because of the policies of this government?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Madam Speaker, I repeat that despite having to spend more than $600 million in interest on the debt that was primarily left by the New Democrats in this province, despite a reduction in transfers from Ottawa this year that amounted to $168 million for our social service safety net, this government today commits more money to family services, both in total dollars and in percentage of budget, than was ever done under the New Democrats. That is how much we are committed to continue to try and solve the problems that face us.

We are not interested in just the simple rhetoric of the members opposite. We are doing things within our power to address the real needs. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Burrows, with a final supplementary question. Mr.

Martindale: Madam Speaker, I would like to repeat my question to the Premier since this is not my rhetoric, this is a resignation letter of the chairperson of the board of Child and Family Services, and ask him what his government is going to do to restore the relationship which is referenced in this letter, as I quoted, so that there is a good working relationship between the Winnipeg Child and Family Services board and this government so that they will recognize the reality in which their staff work. Mr.

Filmon: Madam Speaker, I can assure the member opposite that we will look at the information provided, that we will listen to the individuals who work within Family Services and we will continue despite all of the great, great difficulties that we face in terms of the terrible decisions of the past that were foisted upon this province by the New Democrats that ran up debt that cost us $600 million a year to service, and despite the fact that · we get $168 million in transfer payments from Ottawa less to fund our social safety net we will continue to do our best to solve those problems and to meet those needs. *

(1355) 4696 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 1996 Manitoba Telephone System Privatization-Brokerage Firms Expenses Mr. Steve Ashton (fhompson): Madam Speaker, right from the beginning we have questioned the ethics of appointing three brokerage firms to make recommen dations on the sale of MTS and then having those firms also provide those services. I would like to ask the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), fust of all, if he can answ er the question he took as notice on the amount that was paid for the three firms to do the study and if he can also confum that Wood Gundy will be the book runner, as is the terminology on the prospectus, and Dominion Securities will occupy the No. 2 position in the syndicate and perhaps confum how much money these brokerage firms will now be making on the sale of MTS if it is approved this week. Bon.

Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that the firms hired received about $300,000 for the initial work. Once Bill 67 is voted on, the prospectus will be flied with the Securities Commission. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Thompson, with a supplementary. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, if they were paid $45,000 per each page of the seven-page report, I would like to ask the minister how much they will be paid to be the book runner, in the case of Wood Gundy, and the case of Dominion Securities, the syndicate.

How much are they going to be paid as part of that? Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, that information flows out through the process of the prospectus filing and Securities Commission handling of that prospectus and, certainly, there are industry norms but that will eventually happen through the process as it unfolds from the Securities Commission. Mr. Ashton: Madam Speaker, I think we as members of the Legislature and the public of Manitoba deserve a response now- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr.

Ashton: As a final supplementary, Madam Speaker, I would like to ask if the minister can also confirm the Barnes organization, a Toronto-based finn , has also been hired in this case to run what is being described as the road show, selling off our publicly owned telephone system. Can he indicate if that is the case and how much that Toronto-based company will be paid? Mr.

Findlay: Madam Speaker, in the process of engaging people to do the various work along the way, I will inquire to determine if that particular finn has been hired to do what you are talking about, in terms of the information to potential investors, after the prospectus is approved. Goods and Sen·ices Tax Harmonization Mr. KeYin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

The Atlantic provinces worked out an agreement with the federal government with respect to the harmonization of the GST and their respective prO\ incial sales taxes, thereby saving many Atlantic residents the opportunities on tax dollars being saved amongst the avoidance of duplication of services and so on. My question is for the Minister of Finance. Why is it that this government is being unco-operative and not working towards the harmonization of the GST and PST, which is indeed in the best interests of Manitobans as a whole? Why is he not being co-operative to any degree whatsoever? Bon.

Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): I am interested by this question whether or not the member for Inkster is trying to help the federal Liberals fulfill the promise to scrap the GST or whether he is supporting a continuation of the GST under some new name, but from Manitoba's perspective, the area of concern for us is under the proposal that the federal government put forward.

There would be a massive shift from business to consumers in Manitoba in the vicinity of $3 00 million, a shift onto books, onto children's clothing, onto home heating fuel, onto the entire service industty that would be paid by consumers. Obviously, I would hope the member for Inkster can accept what a devastating impact that would have on our -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4697 economy in the short term and what an impact it would have on consumers and consumer confidence in our economy. That was one major concern. A second major concern is, under harmonization, our provincial government actually loses money. Even though the federal government proposed some short -term bridge funding to cover some of the gap, after the three to four years is up, our Treasury would lose a significant amount of money. The projections are about $100 million per year. So the suggestion from the federal Liberals has been, well, increase some other taxes.

Well, we, unlike the Liberals, are not into increasing taxes. We are into attempting to control and reduce taxes wherever possible. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a supplementary question. *

(1400) Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, it could be summed up by saying, what balderdash. The Minister of Finance- Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Inkster was recognized for a supplementary question on which there is to be no

preamble or postamble. Mr. Lamoureux: I would ask the Minister of Finance then if he is prepared to table any documentations that could somewhat demonstrate any credibility to the answer that Minister of Finance just gave. There is no credibility to that answer. The taxpayers of the province of Manitoba would benefit- Madam Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Stefanson: The member for Inkster is wrong, wrong, wrong. Even the federal Liberals are not questioning our numbers. They accept the concerns that we have and understand the concerns that we have.

What he fails to understand, the difference in the Maritime provinces is the combined rates today in the Maritime provinces are anywhere from 18 to 20 percent because all of the Maritime provinces have double-digit provincial sales tax of 11 or 12 percent. So what is happening in the Maritime provinces is their combined rates are going from 18 to 20 percent down to 15 percent. What we already have in Manitoba is a combined rate of 14 percent-it will not go down-7 percent provincial sales tax, which is one of the lowest in Canada, combined with the 7 percent GST.

That is the difference between the Maritimes and Manitoba. We already have one of the lowest provincial sales taxes in all of Canada, and the member is wrong to challenge our numbers because even the federal govern ment does not question the numbers we are providing, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Inkster, with a final supplementary question. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, will the Minister of Finance then table any documentation that demonstrates that Manitobans would not benefit through any sort of harmonization of the provincial sales tax? Mr.

Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I will certainly provide as much information and detail as I possibly can to the member for Inkster to make sure that he fully understands this issue and the negative consequences and impact on our economy by our taking the position of not harmonizing with the GST. I have already outlined for him the shift to consumers. I have already outlined for him the significant loss of revenue to our provincial Treasury. Those are only two of the major concerns, but I will certainly undertake to provide him as much information as I possibly can. Hughes Inquiry Submissions-Gag Order Mr.

Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice. On questions in this House about the government's truthfulness in dealing with the release of inmates from Headingley Jail, the government is attempting to hide behind the Hughes inquiry, and we now have questions whether the government is attempting to hide things from the Hughes inquiry. My question to the Minister of Justice: Did the minister or her officials in any way pursue the vetting or gagging of any submissions to Mr. Hughes?

4698 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 1996 Ron. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, our government, which called the Hughes inquiry as an independent inquiry, has made it very clear that we expected full

part icipation from anyone who wanted to participate or who had something that they believed was important for Mr. Hughes to know. Mr. Mackintosh: Did the minister or her officials agree to a warning to Justice department staff, including sheriffs officers who transport and escort inmates, that all their submissions to Mr. Hughes had to first be accepted by her department, the very department under investigation? Mrs. Vodrey: If the member has something he would like me to see, then I expect that he will table it. I will ask, Madam Speaker, that you have him table it. He stands with something in his hands.

Certainly, to my knowledge, we have from the very beginning expected full participation. Our government has also made it clear that we fully intend to make the report that Mr. Hughes provides public, because in fact we do not ever want a riot to occur again and we want to move ahead now. Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister then explain a memo to departmental staff from the former director of Winnipeg Courts now given to me by staff in her department who felt a real chill from these words, and I quote, "Could you please ensure that all staff are aware that any mail or deliveries for E.N.

Ted Hughes must be accept ed and routed through my office." -signed Greg Graceffa. Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, no, I am not aware of that memo. I would be very interested to have an explanation of that memo, and I will endeavour to get that explanation for the member opposite. Aboriginal Youth Justice Symposium Minister's Participation Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Madam Speaker, my questions are also for the Minister of Justice.

This is the minister who never misses an opportunity for a photo op no matter how minor it is, but today we have learned that she has refused to send a message to the aboriginal youth symposium, which is dealing with youth crime, and has also declined to go to the follow-up conference with the youth on December 2. I would like to ask the minister to explain why she treats this aboriginal youth symposium in a very negative way. Ron. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, the member is totally wrong in v.hat he has put on the record. I reject it completely.

I received an invitation and was required to reply within 38 hours of demand, in terms of participation. As I was unable to participate, my colleague the member for Riel (Mr. Newman), the legislative assistant to the Department of Justice, did participate. He did participate in a filming which took place. Also, I have been requested on the 2nd to attend personally or to send a representative, and I intend to see that there is representation. I am in fact very pleased that there is this S}mposium going on.

Our government has been very interested in seeing that community participation is really the basis to deal with some of the issues in justice. Mr. Hickes: I guess they must be warming up the member for the next shu.ffi e. The committee has asked for the minister because they feel it is very important for the minister to have an opportunity to address the youth, or the youth to see some kind of reaction from the minister. I would like to ask the minister, what is the real reason why she v.ill not attend the aboriginal youth symposium or attend meetings or visit the reserves in Manitoba?

Is it because of your lack of action pertaining to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry? Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, in response to the first part of the question, again, I received it in the form of a demand to be answered v.ithin 38 hours. In that period of time I was unable to make the arrangements to appear on a video film. However, I did make sure that my colleague, a representative of this government, in fact participated. In terms of the response to the AJI, I only v.ish that you would allow me the length of time to provide the numerous and multitude of responses that this - -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4699 government has put forward. First Nations policing should be among the first of the issues that members across the way can see as a concrete action of this government. This government was the one that entered into an agreement for First Nations policing policy, community participation agreements which deal with probation, dealt with within the community. We are continuing to work with MKO chiefs to deal with a special project in Manitoba which I think will in fact benefit a large number of communities.

The list goes on in the area of Courts, Corrections and policing. The member is absolutely wrong. General Scrap and Car Shredder Environmental Concerns Ms.

Marianne CeriUi (Radisson): Madam Speaker, on October 16 when I asked the Minister of Environment to end the five-year review of the General Scrap and Car Shredder environment licence to stop the explosions from that site, he said, and I quote: "Certainly it has been my impression that the operation is doing everything they can to reduce the explosions." I would like to ask the minister to explain how that can be the case when General Scrap is actually making a profit on the explosions when they occur by levying a fine to the distributor of the scrapped cars. Hon.

Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Madam Speaker, I am surprised and disappointed that the member would accuse the operators of attempting to make a profit from a problem that they have been working actively with the regulators to deal with. As we indicated and discussed in the House before, this is not an issue that can be quickly and easily eliminated, and if there is some issue that the member has that I have not been apprised of, I invite her to share with me. *

(1410) Ms. Cerilli: Well, I hope the minister will answer my letter in this regard and ensure that his staff are accurate. Madam Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member was recognized for a supplementary question. Ms.

Cerilli: Will he confirm, as his staff have told me, that indeed General Scrap and Car Shredder is collecting a penalty from the distributors of the cars and that there has been a financial profit made on these explosions and if he can explain if General Scrap is enjoying this lenient licence with a five-year review because they have donated over $6,000 to the Conservative Party in the last two years? Mr.

Cummings: Madam Speaker, I hope that you and others listening to Question Period would not assume that, because the company in question is attempting to enforce a controlled situation on their suppliers so that they will not continue to hide or to avoid properly providing materials for their shredder, that somehow seemed to be a profit-generating centre because in fact we need to regulate all parts of this industry as the material moves through towards recycling. I really think the member is doing a disservice to everyone involved trying to characterize this as some kind of a profit centre.

Manitoba Telephone System ManGiobe Role Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Premier. The taxpayers through his department, I, T and T, are putting up a half-million dollars for the Man Globe Project. Can the minister responsible explain why he is funding $60,000 for the president's travel budget? Will he table the agreement outlining how much the government is committed to for entertainment expenses, · hardware, software, rent and equipment from MTS? I wish to table some relevant documents. Hon.

James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Madam Speaker, yes, the department is participating in ManGlobe with a loan under the MIRI program of a half a million dollars in partnership with several other private sector companies to encourage employment in this sector, to create new knowledge, to do those kinds of things that we believe are important to the overall growth of our province on the economic front. As it relates to some of the specifics, I will take that part of the question as notice. Madam Speaker: The honourable member for Elmwood, with a supplementary question.

4700 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 1996 Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my supplementary to the same minister is this: Given that this minister and his colleague the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) have made a huge investment in this project, can the minister tell the House what revenues and what new jobs have been created since he began issuing cheques in February? Mr.

Downey: Madam Speaker, unlike the inaccuracy of the member who asked the question last week on the pretext that there was a considerable amount of untendered contract let, I will make sure I get the details and report back to the House. Mr. Maloway: Madam Speaker, my final supple mentary to the same minister is this: Would the Minister respons ible for MTS tell the House how much of the wish list request for furniture, computers, et cetera, was picked up by the MTS? Bon.

Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Madam Speaker, I want to inform the member that MTS gets involved in many arrangements, business agreemen ts, the details of which do not always flow to me. I will take the member's question as notice and reply to him at a future date. Point of Order Bon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, just on a point of order, the member for St. Johns, I requested that he table the document, the alleged document that he was reading from. He has failed to do that.

I would ask that you would request he table it now. Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St Johns): I would be pleased to table it, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St. Johns. Natural Gas Service Expansion Ms. Rosano Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, prior to the last election, the governm ent made commitments to expand natmal gas to many parts of rural Manitoba, but since the election has passed we have had very little activity on the part of this government.

I want to ask the Minister of Rural Development what the plans of this government are to expand natural gas, and is the money still available that was promised to the community of Swan River for the expansion of natural gas? Bon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the member for Swan River that indeed we did work with the community of Swan River in the first round of gas expansion in Manitoba.

However, it was very evident that it was difficult to bring together all the players with regard to natmal gas expansion in the Swan River Valley and it was for that reason that we could not get an agreement established for expansion of natural gas to Swan River. Madam Speaker, since that time we have continued to work with the community. Indeed, there are some different players around the table today with recent municipal changes in the Swan River area. We are working with the community to try and extend that kind of service to the community as soon as it is feasible and it is affordable to the community. Ms.

Wowchuk: Madam Speaker, can the minister ensure the people of the Swan River Valley who are working to get natural gas in the area that the $1.2 million that was promised from infrastructure money is still available for them for natural gas expansion? Mr. Derkach: Well, Madam Speaker, I have to inform the member for Swan River that the infrastructure money that was budgeted has indeed been committed to projects around the province, and one cannot wait with a particular project forever and a day until that community comes together and decides that it indeed is going to put forward its amount of money as well.

I would tell the member for Swan River that she could go a long way in assisting in bringing gas to Swan River by taking on a more positive approach in terms of working in co operation to extend that kind of service to an area that really requires it. Madam Speaker: Order, please. Time for Oral Questions has expired.

November 4, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 470 1 Speaker's Ruling Madam Speaker: I have a ruling for the House. On October 23 I took under advisement a matter of privilege raised by the honourable member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) about the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger). In raising the matter of privilege, the member for Crescentwood alleged that the minister had deliberately misled the House by failing to be truthful in answering a matter raised in this House, and that by doing so the minister had demonstrated contempt of the House. The member for Crescentwood also claimed that the minister had violated

an act of the Legislature. * (1 420) I thank honourable members for their contributions as to whether or not a prima facie case of privilege was made. There are three conditions to be met in order for a Speaker to fmd that there is prima facie evidence of a matter of privilege. First, was the matter raised by the honourable member for Crescentwood at the earliest opportunity? I am satisfied that the matter of privilege indeed was raised at the earliest opportunity. The member required the time to receive and review the Hansards of October 21 and 22 before raising the matter.

The second condition for a matter to proceed is that the member raising a matter of privilege must provide the House with a reparation or remedy. The member for Crescentwood did propose a motion that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, so the second condition has been complied with. The third condition to be met is that sufficient evidence must be presented to suggest that a breach of the privileges of the House has occurred. I must find that the third condition has not been met.

My reasons for doing so are as follows: Joseph Maingot, in the book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, states on page 205, that in order for a matter of privilege to exist, it must be clearly demonstrated that the member in question deliberately or intentionally misled the House. As Speaker Rocan ruled on June 19 , 19 91, the member raising the matter must support his or her charge with proof of intent. In the matter raised on October 23, 19 96, I do not believe that the member for Crescentwood has furnished proof that the minister deliberately set out to intentionally mislead the House.

Also, in raising the matter of privilege, the honourable member for Crescentwood alleged that the honourable Minister ofNatural Resources would look the other way when the law was being broken in the taking and exporting of fish from Sisipuk Lake. The honourable minister has denied this. I must bring to the attention of the House that Beauchesne Citation 31( 9) indicates that a claim of a failure to comply with the law is a matter for the courts, not a Speaker to decide.

Additionally, Maingot, on page 191, states that " . . . allegations of misjudgement or mismanagement or maladministration on the part of a Minister in the performance of his ministerial duties do not come within the purview of parliamentary privilege." Also, the Minister ofNatural Resources on October 23 clearly stated, he indicated at meetings held in his office that the law could not be violated. Beauchesne Citation 494 states that statements by members respecting themselves and particularly within their own knowledge must be accepted.

Therefore, I must rule that the honourable member for Crescentwood has failed to establish a prima facie case of privilege and must rule his motion out of order. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Carman Curling Bonspiel Mr. Frank Pitura (Morris): On Saturday, November 2, Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to participate in a curling bonspiel at the Carman Curling Club. The bonspiel, the third annual, was initiated by a small group of local people whose lives have been touched by cancer. Their efforts resulted in 80 people participating on 20 rinks.

During the last three years approximately $15,0 00 has been raised and donated to Manitoba cancer research. This is a significant contribution to the fight against cancer. Of course, these people had assistance from the community at large. Local businesses, without

4702 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 1996 even being asked, came forward to donate prizes and food to the bonspiel. As well, the Carman Curling Club donates all the ice for the event. A special feature of the bonspiel, Madam Speaker, was a tableful of memorial candles. Individuals could purchase a candle for $5 and light it in memory of someone they know who has contracted this dreaded disease. This bonspiel is truly a community event. Cancer is a tragedy that has struck the lives of many Manitoba ns. The community of Carman, both indivi duals and businesses, have come together to address this issue.

Their success in bringing people together to curl, socialize, share their stories and fundra ise is evident. I would like to take this opportunity to extend my con gratulations to the organizers of the curling bonspiel and, in particular, Cliff and Marg Holliston and Trevor and Kathy Smith. Their efforts are appreciated far more than they can realize. Thank you very much. Aboriginal Youth Justice Symposium Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radiss on): Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the aboriginal youth justice symposium which is entitled Challenging our Choices.

I attended the symposium this morning at the Winnipeg Indian and Metis Friendship Centre and there were more than 400 young aboriginal people discussing issues that are affecting their community and our community. They were discussing the videotaped messages of some of the community leaders in our province . When I was there, they were listening to Judge Murray Sinclair, Chief Phil Fontaine, Police Chief David Cassels and Suzann e McLeod from the Manitoba An ti-Poverty Organ ization, to name a few. The organizers expressed their disappointment that the Minister of Justice (Mrs.

V odrey) did not send in a message as was requested, and they are really wonder ing what the cabinet is doing. They are concerned that the minister has often made reference to the Young Off enders Act and commitments for youth ju stice, but they could not understand the message that was being sent by not sending a videotaped recording. The process for the forum was that the adults and teachers were in a separate room viewing the presentati ons.

One vice-principal said that it was very important that young people are aware of the other symposiums and investigations that have resulted in recommendations such as the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, and there was again a call for this government to implement many of the recommendations from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry which would go a long way in addressing the problems facing aboriginal youth and reduce their incidence of being victimized or involved with the criminal justice system.

I hope that the minister and members opposite will take very seriously the recommendations from this youth conf erence that \\i.ll be presented to them on December 2, and would the Mini ster of Justice make every effort to attend? Boundary Trail Heritage Region Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): Madam Speaker, this weekend I had the pleasure of attendi ng the Boundary Trail Heritage Region's semiann ual general meeting.

The Boundary Trail Heritage Region is a nonprofit inc orporated body whose purpose is to enhance the quality of life within the 12 municipalities of southern Manitoba adjacent to the U.S. boundary and between the Red River and Saskatchewan border. Their goal is to help residents and visitors appreciate their history, heritage and culture and to incr ease opportunities through marketing and promotion of local tourism and economic development .

With the historic boundary commission trail as its focal point, all the communities of the region have worked hard to locate, mark, preserve and display the heritage resources locally so that together they could create, and I quote, a whole that is much better than the sum of its parts. By sharing the work and expense of the promotion of events, tours and sites and by co-operating with one's neighbours on a program and initiativ es, the possibilities are endless. The Heritage Region has done a great deal to promote tourism in the area.

In fact, they have developed a Boundary Trail Heritage Region travel companion which has been circulated to Travel Manitoba tourist inf ormation centre s as well as to local in formation centres, motels, restaurant s, museums and to North Dakota Museum and sent to various schools, tour groups, national groups, Geographic and Readers' Digest. So I would like to congratulate and thank the organization for their continuous promotion of Manitoba as a tourist destination . Thank you, Madam Speaker. -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4703 *

(1430) Standing Committee Process Ms. Diane McGifford (Osborne): Madam Speaker, more than once during recent weeks this government has donned the gown of moral virtue to praise itself as the only jurisdiction in Canada to hold public presentations on all government bills. Strictly speaking, this rna� be true, though other jurisdictions do hold cormm ttee hearings on some bills, particularly on controversial ones. Hence we are not, underline the word "not," the only jurisdiction to allow the public the opportunity to address legis lation at committee stage.

A second point is that some jurisdictions actually consult with the public before drafting legislation. This government did not hold public consultations on _many controversial pieces oflegislation. Bill 67 and Btll 36, commonly and respectively known as the MTS and workfare bills, are good exam ples. Then there is the difference between holding public committee meetings and making them accessible.

Meetings at two and three in the morning when buses have stopped, kids are home in bed, people have to work the next day, and everything happens in Winnip eg cut out most Manitobans and explains why the process is flawed. Presenters who had the temerity to question the process were admonished, at least in Law Amendmen ts, and ins tructed to be grateful for the opportunity to address honourable member s. No mention was made of the fact that each and every committee member has a duty to the electorate who put them in office and pay their salari es. But, for arrogance, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) took the cake.

On CBC Radio he told Manitobans that Winnipeg is the seat of the Legislature, and that if anyone wanted to present, he or she would repair to the Legisl ature. The assumption is that those who did not go were either happy witll tlle legislation or dyed-in-the-wool slacke rs. Lucky for tlle Premier , he can travel when and where he pleases, but most of us cannot, which is a measure of tlle difference between appearance and reality and explains why this process stinks. Brookside Boulevard Twinning Mr.

Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to tlle House today tlle exciting news of how tlle three levels of government are expanding Manitoba's transportation industry by contributing a total of $8.2 million toward the twinning of Brookside Boulevard from Inkster Boulevard to tlle north city limi ts. With such a large number of commuters from this area heading in and out of Winnipeg, this new hi ghway and its improved road conditions will be a welcome ite� for many Manitobans and for tlle trucking industry m the province.

The approved project to construct tlle four-lane divided highway funded by the Canada- Manitoba Infrastructure Works Program was announced on Friday, November 1 by our Premier, Premier Filmon and by Foreign � airs Minist er Lloyd Axworthy. After years of lobbymg tlle City of Winnipeg and pushing for the approval of this project, I am extremely pleased witll Friday's announce ment. The construction phase of the Brookside Boulevard project will create some 4,800 weeks of temporary employment and 150 jobs.

This project will drastically improve Winnipeg's ability to accommodate the flow of cargo to and from the airport and will give truckers a direct four-lane route from tlle airport to tlle north Perimeter and to other maj or hi ghways fanning out from the city of Winnipeg. This project will be especially beneficial for tlle preparation oftlle Winnport plan to make Winnipeg an international transportation and distribution hub. As we widen Brookside Boul evard we will increase the opportunities to create new business and jobs around tllis area.

Since the Canada-Manitoba Infrastructure Works Agreement was signed in January of '94, its total investment of $204 million in tlle province will create over 3,1 00 jobs and more than 375 projects throughout Manitoba. It is evident, Madam Speaker, that this government is committed to creating investment and employment within this province. Thank you. * * * Mr. David Newman (Riel): Madam Speaker, I seek leave of tlle House to rectifY tlle grave in justice done to the honourable members on tlle Law Amendments comm ittee.

Earlier I reported tlle Seventh Report to the Law Amendments committ ee; it should have been tlle Eightll Report oftlle Law Amendments com mittee.

4704 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 Madam Speaker: Does the honourable member for Riel have leave to correct the record? [agreed] I thank the honourable member for Riel for that clarification. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for the November 1 sitting be amended as follows : the member for St. No rbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson). I move, seconded by the member for La Verendrye (Mr.

Sveinson), that the membership change of the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) to the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Monday, November 4, at 9 a.m., be rescinded. Also, I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Monday, November 4, at 9 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). I move, seconded by the member for La Verendrye (Mr.

Sveinson), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Monday, November 4, 19 96, 9 a.m., be amended as follows : the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) for the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger). Motions agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY House Business Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I wonder if there is leave of the House to call the standing committee to sit concurrently this afternoon with the operation of the House.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave of the House to have the standing committee sit concurrently with the Orders of the Day in the Chamber? [agreed] Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, in that case then I will call the Law Amendments committee for 3 p.m. today to consider clause by clause, Bill 32. Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Law Amendments will meet this afternoon at 3 p.m., to give consideration of clause by clause of Bill 32. [agreed] Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet tomorrow morning at 9 a.m., to further consider Bill 67.

Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet tomorrow, Tuesday, NoYember 5, 9 a.m., to continue to hear the public representation on Bill 67. Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, the Committee on Privileges and Elections will sit tomorrow morning at 1 0 a.m., to consider the question of judicial compensation. Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will sit tomorrow morning, Tuesday, November 5, 10 a.m., to consider judicial compensation. Mr. Ernst: I wonder if there might be leave to sit a committee tomorrow afternoon concurrently with the House.

Madam Speaker: Is there leave to sit in standing committee tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m? [agreed] Mr. Ernst: In that case, Madam Speaker, the Committee on Industrial Relations will sit tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m., to consider clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 26 and consider Bill 41. Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will meet at 3 p.m., Tuesday, November 5, to consider clause by clause on Bill 26 and consider Bill 41. Mr. Ernst: The Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will sit tomorrow evening at 6:30 p.m. , if required, to continue consideration of Bill 67.

November 4, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4705 Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet Tuesday, November 5, 6:30 p.m., if required, to continue to consider Bill 67. Mr. Ernst: Also tomorrow evening, Madam Speaker, at 6:3 0 p.m., the Committee on Industrial Relations will sit to consider Bill 17 . Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Industrial Relations will meet Tuesday, November 5, 6:30 p.m., to consider Bill 17 . Mr.

Ernst: Would you call the bills listed in the Order Paper under Report Stage? * (1 440) REPORT STAGE Bi11 18- The Payment of Wages Amendment Act Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh), that Bill 18 , The Payment of Wages Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le paiement des salaires), reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Madam Speaker: Can we move through Report Stage before I recognize the members for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) and Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for additional committee changes? I will move through all the Report Stages first, or do you wish to interrupt and do it now? [interjection] All right. The honourable member for Gimli, with additional committee changes. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Girnli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, November 4, today at three o'clock: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); the member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck) for the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer); the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliff

e) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson); and the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey). I move, seconded by the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for Monday, November 4 at 6:30 p.m., be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh); the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for River Heights (Mr.

Radcliff e); and the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan) for the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations for Monday, November 4 at 6:30 p.m., be amended as follows: the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshamm er) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Dow ney) for the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson). I move, seconded by the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr.

Tweed), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Tuesday, November 5 at 9 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) for the member for Girnli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliff e); the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan). I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) that the composition of the Standing Committee

4706 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 on Privileges and Elections for Tuesday, November 5 at 10 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Gladstone (Mr. Rocan); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for the member for Rossmere (Mr. Toews); the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner). Motions agreed to. Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr.

Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Saturday, November 2, 19 96 for 9 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for Saturday, November 2, 1996, be amended as follows: the member for Concordia (Mr. Doer) for the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar). I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr.

Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Pu blic Utilities and Natural Resources for Monday, November 4, 19 96, 9 a.m., be amended as follows: the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen); Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk); St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford); Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Radisson (Ms.

Cerilli) for November 4, 1996, 9 a.m. I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans); St. James (Ms. Mihychuk) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway); Osborne (Ms. McGifford) for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh); Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) for Monday, November 4, 1996, for 3 p.m. I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Wellington (Ms.

Barrett) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen); Burr ows (Mr. Martindale) for St. James (Ms. Mihychuk); St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) for Osborne (Ms. McGifford); Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) for Monday, November 4, 1996, for 6:30 p.m. I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Industrial Relations be amended as follows: Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson) for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen); Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for Dauphin (Mr. Stru thers); Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) for Monday, November 4, 1996, for 6:30 p.m.

I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Wellington (Ms. Barrett); Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Concordia (Mr. Doer) for Tuesday, November 5, 1996, for 9 a.m. * (14 50) Motions agreed to. Bill 3� The Education Administration Amendment Act Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh), I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs.

Vodrey), that Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'administration scolaire), reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 4� The Pension Benefits Amendment Act Hon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): I move, seco nded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 40, The Pension Benefits Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les prestations de pension), reported

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4707 from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be Motion agreed to. concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 4 7- The Public Schools Amendment Act Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): On behalf of the Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Mcintosh), I move, seconded by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 47, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles publiques), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 51-The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment, Public Servants Insurance Amendment and Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act Bon. Vic Toews (Minister of Labour): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), that Bill 51 , The Civil Service Superannuation Amendment, Public Servants Insurance Amendment and Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la pension de la fonction publique, la

Loi sur !'assurance des employes du gouvemement et la

Loi sur la pension de retraite des enseignants), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 68- The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment, Real Property Amendment and Registry Amendment Act Bon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister ofNorthem and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 68, The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment, Real Property Amendment and Registry Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la propriete agricole, la

Loi sur les biens reels et la

Loi sur l'emegistrement fancier), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in. Bill 70- The Animal Care Act Bon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I move, seconded by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews), that Bill 70, The Animal Care Act (Loi sur le soin des animaux), as amended and reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 77-The Natural Products Marketing Amendment Act Bon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 77, The Natural Products Marketing Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la commercialisation des produits naturels), reported from the Standing Committee on Agriculture, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call for second reading Bill 30 2, The Grand Lodge of Manitoba ofthe Independent Order of Oddfellows Incorporation Amendment Act. SECOND READINGS-PRIVATE BILLS Bill 302- The Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order of Oddfellows Incorporation Amendment Act Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr.

Martindale), that Bill 302, The Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order of Oddfellows Incorporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation "The Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order ofOddfell ows," be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. *

(1500) Motion presented. Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to sponsor this particular bill on behalf of the Independent Order of Oddfellows, a very well-

4708 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 known service organization in Manitoba that indeed has made a significant contribution to our social development over many years and is engaged in many worthy causes. I can think of one, by way of example, in my own const ituency where the local Oddfellows organization sponsored the development of a seniors citizens complex, and a very beautiful one indeed, and has helped therefore many senior citizens live in comfort and security by virtu e of their work in that field.

This particular bill has a number of minor and technical amendments to the Grand Lodge of Manitoba of the Independent Order of Oddfellows original incorporating act. Firstly, the group is proposing that the name be sligh tly amended from one word, Oddfellows, to two words, Odd Fellow s. Apparently this is a common usage today-that is, th e two words as opposed to one combined word-and for all transactions and communications, the lodge has been using the latter spelling exclusively for many years. So we are simp ly recognizing what they are already doing. Another section,

Section 2(1) of the 18 96 incorporating legislation, pursuant to that particular

section the Grand Lodge ofManitoba was restricted in the value of the l and that it could own to a maximum of $1 million. While the restriction may have been reasonable back in 18 96, it has become problematic in today 's market, and they are simply seeking to have that restriction on the land value removed entirely. Another element of the bill relates to

Section 3 of the 1896 act. Pursuant to that 18 96 act the Grand Lodge of Manitoba was restricted in the amount of money it could borrow to a maximum of$50,000. Again, while this may have been a lot of money or provided a lot of flexi bilit y in 1896, it is a very cumbersome provi sion today, and the bill seeks to remove this particular restriction entirely . Another

section deals with realty, real estate held in excess of $1 million obtained by way of a gift, donation or appreciation. This $1 million restriction is being removed by previous

section and therefore

Section 7 of the old act has no further application . Those are the main elements of the bill, Madam Speaker, and, of course, as is usual with bills of this type, it is to accommodate the operation, the hopefully continued successful operation, of the organ ization inv olved. In this case, I am most pleased that the Order of the Oddfellows is carrying on and providing a service to the people of Manitoba. I urge all members of the House to support thi s legis lation, pass it so that we can enable that very good organization to carry on with its work in the province of Manitoba. Thank you.

Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 302. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Madam Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered. House Business Bon. Jim Ernst (GoHrnment House Leader): Madam Speaker, given the passage ofBill 302, it is now referred to the Committee on Industrial Relations . They will sit tomorrow afternoon at 3 p.m. Madam Speaker: Bill 302 will be referred to th e Standing Commit tee on Industrial Relations , which wi ll meet Tuesday, November 5, 3 p.m. * * * Mr.

Ernst: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by th e Mini ster of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Madam Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, Bill 63 . Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a Commit tee of the Whole to consider Bill 63, with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Bill 63- The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1996 Mr.

Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): The committee has before it for its consideration The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 19 96. Does th e minister responsible have an opening statement? -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4709 Bon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, a very brief one. The Statute Law Amendment Act has several matters being dealt with that I think most members are quite familiar with. I did just want to put a few comments on the record about the one issue that was discussed earlier today, and that is the issue of what is called the Quebec shuffie. Mr. Chairman, our government strongly supports lower taxation as a means of attracting and keeping business in this province.

In nine budgets we have introduced at least 36 measures that enhance the competitiveness of Manitoba's tax regime. We are committed to removing impediments to growth in Manitoba's business environ ment. We have undertaken comprehensive reviews and implemented measures that simplify rules, regulations and forms. We have been innovative and successful in promoting Manitoba to investors from all around the world. We have made starting up enterprises and doing business in Manitoba easier and more efficient. We have accomplished all of this while putting Manitoba's finances back on a solid footing.

We are committed to dealing fairly with taxpayers. * (15 10 ) The individuals in busin esses who thrive and succeed in Manitoba benefit directly from the taxation and other development initiatives that we have put in place. In turn we expect them to pay their fair share of provincial taxes. If they do not, they jeopardize continued progress in our fiscal situation, Manitoba's business environment, and the continued commitment of Manitobans to sound public finances and competitive taxes.

This is why it is not acceptable that some taxes may have avoided paying provincial income tax, not only to Manitoba, but also to any other province, by exploiting differences between federal income tax rules to which Manitoba is a party under the Canada-Manitoba tax collection agreement and income tax rules in provinces which administer their own income tax acts.

The federal Income Tax Act and the income tax acts of provinces that collect their own income taxes, like Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, contain many provisions that allow taxpayers to make elections so that businesses do not incur tax liabilities every time they reorganize their enterprises. Some taxpayers may have avoided paying any provincial income taxes by reporting transactions in one way for federal and Manitoba purposes and in another way for purposes of calculating provincial income taxes in provinces that administer their own income taxes.

This is clearly an abuse of these provisions and of the income tax system as a whole. It is an abuse that attacks the agreements under which the government collects income taxes for provinces like Manitoba, a system that promotes efficiency by having a common tax base and a single administration. It is an abuse that our government cannot tolerate. At the same time, our government is sensitive to the implic ation of retroactive application of taxing statute. We did not make a decision to have these rules apply to previous years lightly.

We felt strongly, however, that this tactic went far beyond the bounds of normal tax planning, indeed even beyond the aggressive tax avoidance strategies that governments typically deal with on a regular basis. It is inconceivable that any taxpayer or tax practitioner who utilized this strategy would not have recognized the tactic as abusive and offensive. It is not simply a variant possible

interpretation of the law as enacted by Parliament. Even though this avoidance tactic was not specifically prohibited until now, it is quite frankly an impossible construction of the intent of the Canadian legislatures. The reason it was not prohibited before is quite simple. Governments do not expect citizens to undermine basic principles of responsible government in this way. Because the strategy is so corrosive to every principle of good governance, we felt we had no alternative but to make the application of the rule introduced this session retroactive to all taxation years that are not statute barred.

The avoidance technique the amendment is addressed to should never have occurred in the first place and, to the greatest extent possible, it should be undone. To do otherwise would send the wrong signal to taxpayers who, despite intense competitive pressures, resist these kinds of strategies. The amendments included in Bill 63 were developed in consultation with federal Finance and Revenue Canada.

47 10 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 Other provincial governments are also aware of the issue and Manitoba's response. However, taxpayers who may be affected should-this next issue, I will wait till we get into the actual bill itself, Mr. Chairman, and, with that, those are my opening comme nts. Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable minister. Does the critic for the official opposition party, the honourable member for Brandon East, have an opening statement? Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his remarks.

Of course, this is a bill nonnally putting into legislation various tax changes proposed in the Budget Addre ss and, theref ore, we are following the tradition. Although I might add that I do not necessarily agree with all the minister's remarks on taxes, I think we all can agree that taxes should be equitable and fair. It is, indeed, a challenge to government to ensure fairness and equity in taxation, and I am not so sure whether we necessarily have that in Manitoba.

I would also point out that while a tax regime is one element in attracting business, one element in economic development, it is not the only element. There are so many other factors involved. Sometimes it is very regrettable to see governments engaged in tax giveaways and tax adjustments to attract business, in some cases business that would have perhaps come here anyway. It is corollary to various industrial grants that are given out to business to attract them to develop in the province of Manitoba or indeed any jurisdiction.

So I am not sure that I agree, theref ore, that the tax regime is necessarily significant in the rate of economic development that occurs in this province . So many other factors are involved, including forces well beyond the control of the provincial government, namely the North American economy, particularly what is happening in the United States, certainly trade agreements such as NAFT A, certainly monetary policy by the fe deral govern ment as well as trade policy by the fe deral government and, obviously, as well our natural resource base and the world demand for the natural resources that we have.

The minister ref erred to this tax avoidance situation. It is very regrettab le. It has become known as the Quebec shuffie. It should never have been allowed in the first place. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the importance of that particular piece of this particular bill, that

section of this particular bill, in view of the importance, it should have rea lly been brought in as a separate bill. The advantage, of course, of the separate bill is that it gives Manitobans an opportunity to come bef ore a committee of the Legis lature and present their views one way or the other. Theref ore, we find it surprising, in view of the importance of that

section and in view of the importance of the issue that is was not made into a separate bill but rather included in this omnibus bill. I believe also it is not in keeping with the tradition of bringing forward tax changes that were highlighted in the Budget Address and I do not believe this fits that crite ria. At any rate, when we come to that section, members on this side will have more to say. I know the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has a lot of information and a lot of views that he would like to put on the table. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I suppose we could proceed

section by

section and ask the minister various questions of some of the important proposals that are being made in this bill. Mr. Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for that. The bill \\ill be considered clause by clause. During consideration of a bill, the title and the prea mble are postponed until all other clauses have been considered in their proper order by the committee. Clause 1-pass. Is it the \\ill of the committee to group the clauses? Agreed? Mr. Tim Sale (Crescentwood): Mr.

Chairperson, on a point of procedure, would it be acceptable to the committee if those of us who want to ask questions move to the front bench so you could see our hands when we put them up? Mr. Chairperson: If I could only caution you on this one matter, if you are going to move down we will have to ident:ifY where you are for Hansar d so that they can get this. If it is okay with Hansar d, it is going to be okay. It -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4711 is okay? Okay. Is there leave of the members to come to the front rows then to ask their questions? [agreed] Shall Clauses 2 through 4 pass? * (1 520) Mr. Sale: The critic-sorry, I have a question as well. The critic should go first. Mr. Leonard Evans: Clauses 2 through 4, well, that brings us into the health and post-secondary education tax levy. What you are doing here seems to be to accommodate businesses that, having associated, get into a higher category and therefore subject to the tax. They are no longer subject to the exemption, as I understand it.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate on that. Specifically, I wonder how much money is involved here in going along with this proposal of providing this exemption for a portion of the year. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I believe the member for Brandon East was correct with his

interpretation. What

Section 4 of the bill provides is that commencing in 1997 corporations which become associated partway through the year will be allowed a prorated amount of payroll tax exemption if their payroll for that period prior to becoming associated is within the prorated exemption amount.

Without getting too technical, the proration will be based on the number of days before becoming associated in the calendar year applied to the $750,000-exemption limit but, for the post-association period, the corporations will be associated for payroll tax purposes and the tax exemption that may be available to them collectively is $750,000 less the prorated exemption for the preassociation period.

Basically what we are saying is really because we were receiving a concern from some businesses that the previous rules were if you became associated at some point during the year you were deemed to be associated for the entire year. That is just not fair, that you should be deemed to be associated from that day forward, but why should you be deemed to be associated for the full year? So we are allowing the exemption for that period of time during the year up until they become associated. Mr. Leonard Evans: I gather from the minister's statement that there are not very many companies that are impacted by this.

I do not know whether he knows, but I wonder if he could tell us how much revenue will be lost with this particular amendment. Mr. Stefanson: The member is absolutely correct, that we do not expect very many companies being impacted by this. As a result, the impact on revenue is so minimal that we did not provide an estimate even in the budget document because it is expected to be so small that no estimate was provided. Mr. Leonard Evans: We are dealing up to Clause 4, which includes this one. Well, I have some other questions on Clause 5, so I wondered if- Mr. Chairperson: Shall the clauses pass? Pass. Clause 5.

Mr. Leonard Evans: As I understand it, here we terminate the Payroll Tax Refund Program for employee training effective April 3 of this year, and, apparently by eliminating this refund, according to the information the minister supplied previously, this will increase the payroll tax net revenue by about $4 million annually, and it is in the 1996 budget. My question is, why did the government decide now to terminate this program? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, I believe, as the member for Brandon East knows, it was part of the overall review of Workforce 2000, and, as part of the same review, the grant aspect ofWorkforce 2000 was also eliminated. So this is the payroll tax refund side for companies that have payrolls over $750,000. Really, it was a matter that this program had served Manitoba well during a period of recession and some difficulties, so the training initiatives were very worthwhile and helped to create additional opportunities for Manitobans, particularly young people.

But, now that the recession is basically behind us and we are seeing some better job numbers in Manitoba and, indeed, nationally to a certain extent, it was determined that this is a program that could be done away with. It

47 12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 served its purpose, it helped when it was required, but it does not have to be there ongoing forever and a day. Mr. Leonard Evans: I wonder if the minister could indicate just how many employees were trained. Does he have some estimates of the impact of this particular Payroll Tax Refund Program? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I do not have that information with me here today. I will certainly under take to provide the member with as much information as I can related to that question. Mr.

Leonard Evans: Okay, the minister said he would provide as much information as he can. So, if he could give us an idea of not only the number of employees trained under the program, but also some sort of a breakdown by the type of industry, which should make the figures more meaningful, and I guess over whatever period oftime-I have forgotten whether it has been going for two years or three years, I am not sure-if he could break it down by year, that would be great. Mr. Stefanson: I just reiterate, Mr.

Chairman, as much information as I can make available to the member for Brandon East that is available and can be released obviously, I always caution- without any third-party confidentiality. But the member is not asking for that; he is asking for numbers of employees and breakdowns by sectors, so I will certainly undertake to provide as much information relating to those questions as I can. Mr. Leonard Evans: That is fine. I am not interested in the names of companies or individuals, strictly the statistical summaries so we can get some idea of the impact of the program.

I have no further questions on that area, unless the member for Crescentwood (Mr. Sale) has. No? Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 5(1) and 5(2}-pas s; Clauses 6 and 7- pass; Subclauses 8(1) through 8(3). Mr. Leonard Evans: Clause 8 touches upon personal care homes and the whole question of property tax credits and I guess cost-of-living tax credits for residents of these institutions. This bill attempts to presumably clarify how these credits will be calculated, but we are concerned about the impact on the residents.

It is still not clear from the explanatory notes that we have seen just what will happen to the residents. * (1 530) I am fearful that this particular amendment will cause a reduction in the property tax credits and the cost -of living tax credits for those individuals. I just want to make the point, as I did earlier in this House, that many residents of personal care homes have been very badly hurt by escalating rates that have been charged; so much so that those- I recall at least two years ago-who were on the basic old age pension had practically nothing left to purchase personal items.

In the organization of personal care homes, in the rules of personal care homes, normally the resident has to pay for his or her personal effects, clothing, toothpaste, hearing aids, candy for grandchildren or great grand children or whatever; and the rates were raised to such an extent there was only one or two dollars left per day for those people. What I discovered was that they had so little money that they could actually qualify for provincial welf are.

I contacted many, in fact I wrote to every resident in a nursing home in my riding, and lo and behold, some did qualify, and I know some did receive provincial welfare assistance. It seems to me rather ridiculous

whereas on one hand a government department raises rates to such an extent that the people are qualified for supplementary welfare and on the other hand you have the Department of Family Services paying those monies out. It just seems to be a very inefficient way of operating. At any rate, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to get some assurance from the minister as to what will happen? What will be the impact of this particular amendment with regard to those two credits? Mr.

Stefanson: I am starting on the assumption we all recognize that the per diems do cover a culmination of accommodation and food and in some cases maybe some other costs, but certainly those would be the two major aspects of the per diem. They would be a blend or they would be covering both accommodation and food. So this amendment is meant to address that fundamental issue. -

November 4, 1996 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 13 But I guess what is most important to point out to the member for Brandon East is for individuals who claim one-half of their per diem charges against the property tax credit, even at the lowest per diem, they will automatically get the maximum. They will qualifY for the maximum property tax credit.

So, by claiming half of their per diem against the property tax credit, they are still receiving the maximum property tax credit that would be available to them, so beyond that this is meant to acknowledge that the rest of it goes for, obviously, other services or benefits they are receiving as a result of the per diem that they are paying. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.

Chairman, I was not sure whether I heard everything that the minister stated because of certain interruptions, but I gather that we are getting the minister's assurance that the senior citizens, the handicapped people and anyone who lives in a nursing home, a personal care home in Manitoba, will not see his or her tax credits, property tax credit and cost-of living tax credit reduced because of this particular amendment. Is he giving us his solemn assurance to this effect? Mr. Stefanson: I think it is important to make this clear for the member for Brandon East.

For an individual who is in a personal care home for a year, for a full year, if they choose to allocate the one-half of their per diem and claim it against their property tax credits, they will receive the maximum property tax credit. If, for whatever reason, they choose to allocate it differently-I am not sure why they would want to because I would think the most tax advantageous would be to apply it against, to qualify for the Manitoba property tax credit, but obviously there is some discretion here, if they choose to apply it in a different fashion.

The other part of what this was meant to get at, besides the fact that the per diem covers both accommodation and food and so on, is that we had individuals who were claiming the full amount twice. They were claiming the full amount as a medical expense, and they were claiming the full amount against cost of living. That just is not right. It is not fair, and it is a principle that you should not be allowed to claim the same item twice in two different areas that affect your tax return. So this was meant to address that.

In terms of the fairness the member is looking for, if those individuals make the allocation of claiming half of their per diem against their property tax credit, they will qualify for the maximum Now, I cannot give an absolute assurance of how people will file their tax returns; it is obviously up to them at the end of the day. But, if they file it on that basis, which I assume they would, they will qualifY for the maximum. Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that explanation.

I gather, then, that people have been claiming--do I understand properly?-the medical expenses against their income for income tax, like as a deduction to reduce the amount of income on which they are taxed. On the other hand, what we are talking about here are credits, and that is another

section of the income tax form that people fill out to qualifY for a credit. That is related to the definition of income, I guess. Mr. Stefanson: Again, Mr. Chairman, the member is partly right, but what you are doing is you are taking the same payment and under one situation, if you claim it all for medical, you are treating it as attendant care or medical expenses, and then under another definition you are claiming it all as rent. That is just not right. It is either one or the other.

It is not both, and what this has meant to do is to address that split but to obviously still give the taxpayer some discretion in terms of how they want to allocate it based on how their tax situation is. Mr. Leonard Evans: Unless others have questions on this particular item, I think - Mr. Chairperson: The honourable member for Crescentwood. Mr. Sale: Two short questions, Mr. Chairperson, first of all, are the tax credits, if received, deemed to be income for the calculation of the nursing home fee structure? Mr. Stefanson: No, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Sale: The other question is, I had a number of constituents ask me for guidance around the income tax question that the minister raises, which is, what proportion should govermnent recognize as a medical expense and what proportion is room and board because, as the minister knows, there have been people claiming anywhere from very little to all as a medical expense, and clearly neither are probably correct?

4714 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 19 96 Does the minister think it might be wise for either government to require or for government to at least encourage personal care homes to provide their residents with some guidance as to what the breakdown really is, because I am sure that given the modem administration at personal care homes, they know what that number is? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, that is precisely what this is.

This is an attempt, for the first time, to provide some guidance because the member is correct that there have been extremes in terms of how these have been claimed bef ore, and there have been instances where they are being claimed twice for the full amount for medical and the full amount for occupancy, which I think we would all agree is not right This is the first attempt to do that. We will certainly undertake to be sure that people in personal care homes are made aware of this and these provisions, and obviously I think this will work well, but we will have a chance to assess if there are any problems.

This is the first attempt to do precisely what the member is looking for. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, the problem that people who have talked to me about this have is that if there is no guidance about what is a reasonab le medical claim, people might well make claims that might turn out to be excessive, maybe 80-20, for example, and then after the fact have Revenue Canada at some point come back and say, wait a minute, folks, you made claims for your deceased mother for five yea rs; we do not think those are reasona ble. So, in the absence of guidance, people are at risk.

Maybe they are sometimes at risk from their own greed; maybe they are sometimes at risk because they do not claim enough because they are afraid to claim what they think might be reason able. It seems to me that government could assist by requiring nursing homes to provide a form which says, in the declaration of income, you should claim 75 percent or 66 or 52, or whatever it is, but a real number so that people are not at risk of after the fact finding they have a tax liability. * (1 540) Mr. Stefanson: Well, Mr.

Chairman, without dragging this on or being repetitive, as I indicated to the member, this is the first attempt to do that, but I think he raises a point that is worth pursuing. I will work with our department in terms of whether of not there is anything else we can be doing at personal care homes in terms of providing either some additional information or even examples of how it might apply. I think nowadays many people have their tax returns done and I know there are different organizations that go into many of our personal care homes .

I know the Institute of Chartered Accountants do that and so on, and so there are the services available from a professional, but that does not mean that everybody always takes advantage of those or gets the best advice . I think what we will undertake is to see if there is some useful information that we can be providing that will assist people in the homes with this issue. Mr. Sale: Mr. Chairperson, I thank the minister very much for that undertaking; it would help a number of my constituents fee l a lot more confident that they were doing the right thing.

I would just note for the record that this is the only area that I can think of where there is a blend of two kinds of services being provided for one bill. Every other medical rece ipt, Pharmacare, dental , glasses, it is all very clear that this is a single item and theref ore it is eligible. This is the one that I am aware of that is not clear, and so I very much appreciate the minister's response and I have no further questions . Mr. Chairperson: Shall subclauses 8(1) through 8(3) be passed? Mr.

Leonard Evans: On 8(3), that is the next item, with regard to Manitoba's learning tax credit, this subsection (3) adds a clause to the act, and I was wondering if the minister could explain now, what is the purpose of this particular amendment and what will the impact be? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, this was an issue that was announced in our 19 96 budget, the introduction of the Manitoba learning tax credit, I believe the first of its kind in Canada.

Basically, how it works is that qualifying students will receive a credit, a refund of 10 percent of the tuition that they pay to a post-secondary qualifying institution. If the students do not need to claim it, they can transfer it to a supporting spouse or parent. It really is a way for helping to make post secondary education much more affordable, and it goes a - -

November 4, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 15 long way to enhancing accessibility and affordability for Manitoba students. In our 19 96 budget document we did indicate the estimated annualized cost of the learning tax credit, which is some $12 million to the government, so it is a si gnificant cost, but we see it as being obviously a worthwhile cost that will continue to ensure that post secondary education is accessible and affordable in Manitoba. Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that information. He answered one of my questions, that it is going to cost about $12 million to the Treasury.

I wonder if the minister could indicate how many students have taken advantage of this or have used this credit, and does he have a breakdown by universities, the three universities? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, the first year that it is applicable is the 1996 taxation year. So individuals, when they are filing their 19 96 personal income tax return come March and April of 19 97, will be able to qualify for this, and subsequent to that, we should be in a position to provide some of the general information. Mr. Leonard Evans: First year of this program. Mr. Stefanson: This will be the first year of the program.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I guess we will ask this question next year. Mr. Chairperson: Subclauses 8(1) through 8(3)-pass; subclauses 8(4) and 8(5)- pass. Subclauses 8(6) and 8(7) and Clause 9- Mr. Leonard Evans: On Clause 9, we are dealing with the allocation of tax revenues to municipalities, and I wonder if the minister could elaborate, how does this diff er from what exists today? How is this different from the existing situation? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Chairman, there is a fairly technical explanation, and at the outset, I will undertake to provide-! have had this question by municipalities, and I have written some letters, so I will certainly undertake to provide copies of the letters to the member for Brandon East and his colleagues. Really what it is is, under primarily, I guess, mutual fund corporations, corporations that deal in mutual funds, there is a situation where they get a capital gains refund through their corporate tax when the amounts are allocated to individuals, but it does not show up on the corporate tax return.

So the net effect is that as a result of not factoring that in, our corporate taxes are inflated in terms of what is calculated originally for the provincial municipal tax sharing formula. Again, that is not right. We have to refund those taxes as a result of the allocation to individuals, and then, of course, they are taxed to individuals. So we then pick it up on the personal side, which is factored in. So what was happening is, municipalities were getting the benefit of those taxes twice, once through the corporations and once as individuals. This allows for the deduction from the corporate tax side.

Our view is, what we are doing is treating municipalities fairly and flowing them what they should be entitled to based on what we receive on a net basis from corporate income taxes. I will certainly provide a copy of the letter which goes into a little more dt!tail than I just have, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that offer and will look forward to getting a copy. Does the minister have any idea of what the revenue implications are on this particular amendment? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, to date this has not been all that significant an amount.

I will undertake to provide as precise numbers as I can to the member for Brandon East in terms of what has occurred to date. It is as much a preventative issue, that as more and more individuals are investing in mutual funds, I guess, probably even more so now that interest rates are down at 30-year lows that it really, as I have already said, factors in the fact that we should not be refunding taxes or providing a share of taxes to municipalities on corporate and then again on personal, when we have to refund the corporate capital gains when they flow through to individuals.

So as more and more individuals invest in mutual funds, this potentially becomes a more significant issue, but it is as much a fairness issue as anything else, and I will undertake to provide whatever I can in terms of the estimates over the last couple of years.

4716 LEGISLATIVE ASS EMBLY OF MANITOBA November 4, 1996 Mr. Chairperson: Subclauses 8(6) and 8(7) and clause- Mr. Leonard Evans: What

section was the minister referring to, is it 7(4. 1)? Mr. Stefanson: Yes, Mr. Chainnan. * (1 550 ) Mr. Chairperson: Are we ready to proceed? Subclauses 8(6) and 8(7) and Clause 9-pass. Clause 10 and subclause 11 (1). Mr. Leonard Evans:

Section 10 ref ers to the manufucturing investment tax, and I gather it extends the credit by one year. What has been the impact of this credit? We have had one year's experience with it, I believe, two. Maybe the minister could enli ghten us on when the credit became effective, how much money was involved in this, and then what has been the impact in terms of manuf acturing investment? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, this mitiative was introduced actually in the 1992 budget, and the estimated impact on revenue for 1996-97 is $6. 5 million.

But, I think, as the member for Brandon East has probably seen from the economic stats, Manitoba continues to perform amongst the best in the manuf acturing sectors in Canada. I will certainly willingly provide him with the stats on man ufacturing jobs, on manuf acturing investment, on manufilcturing shipmen ts, where Manitoba is performing very well. We are seeing it in the whole range of our manuf acturing businesses.

So when we speak to the businesses, to the business community, business organizations and individual businesses, they do point to this program as being part and parcel for their level of investment and so on in our province. So it is and has been a very successful program. I believe other provinces have looked at it. Some have introduced a similar program. I believe the province of Saskatchewan is one that has introduced a fairly similar program to what we have here. So it has served us well, and I think the econo mic indicators attest to that. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr.

Chairman, it takes a great deal of technical analyses to determine whether such a tax credit indeed is respons ible for the increase in manufucturing shipments in the province. I am aware of many of those statistics that the minister refers to, the value of manuf acturing shipments, the value of manuf acturing investment, the number of people employed in manuf acturing and so on. There has been some expansion, but the question to be answered is whether the tax credit can take responsibility for that particular expansion I do not know whether the minister is really suggesting that. It could be a factor.

It is probably a positive factor, but just how much of an impact it has made is a debatable question, because I would submit that a great deal of what has been happening in manuf acturing is a result of what has been happening to the North American economy . Manufacturing has expanded throughout Cana da. That is one industry that has been growing, and we know that we have benefited from a very cheap Canadian dollar. The cheap Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the American dollar has made it possible for us to expand our exports to the United States, including manuf acturing exports.

Generally, there are a number of factors that impact on the manufacturing industry. I would think that this would be a relatively minor impact. That would be my judgment, that the tax was probably looked upon by the manuf acturer very positively, and why not, because you are giving the manufacturer a gift in a way. The question that always arises is whether the manuf acturer would have invested the money anyway without this particular credit or whether it be a direct loan, say a forgivable loan.

We have examples of companies in this province who have stated that Manitoba is a great place to be in, and they are going to develop and they are going to provide jobs, then we tum around and see that we have given them a forgivable loan. The question then arises, really, was that loan necessary; and the question then arises, are these tax credits really necessary? I raise the question, because we find so many other areas of government spending have been cut back, and we know there are a lot of poor people in this province who are being deprived.

We certainly know that a lot of people in education and the health care sector feel that they are being deprived as well. So the question is whether we are really getting value for our money . I guess that is what it boils down to. -

November 4, 19 96 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 17 Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think I indicated that this is one of several factors. I do not think anybody would suggest it is the only factor for our success in the manufacturing sector, but I think most would acknow ledge that it is one factor contributing to our success. Certainly, from the discussions we have had, it has been an important factor or issue when businesses have looked to expand their existing operations in Manitoba or even when they are looking at a relocation in terms of provinces to relocate or establish new facilities in.

So it is serving our province well, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leonard Evans: This is a debate that can go on for a long time, and it is not peculiar or particular to the province of Manitoba, any jurisdiction, I mean, whether it be a tax credit on one hand or a grant or a forgivable loan . I have had the experience in government where we have given direct financial assistance to business. We had to ask the same question then and it was a good question-you know, whether that grant or that forgivable loan or credit really was significant, and would we have gotten those jobs anyway.

I mean, that is always the question being asked. It is a question asked of any jurisdiction or any governmental administration. Certainly, you will always get a positive feedback from those who get the credits, and saying that these are significant. I really am a Doubting Thomas in this area, because I feel that a lot of so-called developments would have taken place regardle ss, because there are other fundamental factors in the equation, one of which, of course, is the demand for your output.

If there is no demand for your output, if you do not have the market and you cannot supply the market efficiently at a competitive price, then it does not matter what kind of a tax credit setup we have. Anyway, I do not want to delay this because we would like to get on to the other report

section dealing with the so-called Quebec shuffie. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) is right. I will not take the bait. We could debate this at length, but I think we should move on. Mr. Chairperson: Clauses 10 and 11 (1) -pass; Clauses 11 (2)-11( 3)-pass. Clause 12. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment. I should point out-I cannot recall if I said it in my opening remarks-that I have about four or five amendments.

I know that there was not an awful lot of advance notice, but I did undertake to provide the member for Brandon East with copies of them just earlier today. This is the first one that we will be dealing with. Mr. Chairman, with that, I move, in both official languag es, That the proposed

section 53 .1 of The Income Tax Act, as set out in

section 12 of the Bill, be amended by striking out "19 88" and substituting "May 23, 19 96". [French version] n est propose que I'

article 53 .1 de la Loi de l'impot sur le revenu, enonce a !'article 12 du projet de loi, soit amende, par substitution, a "1988"' de "le 23 mai 19 96". Motion presented. * (1 600) Mr. Stefanson: In explanation and as well I have provided some copies of some brief expl anatory notes to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), but

Section 53 .1 of The Income Tax Act, as proposed in

Section 12 ofBill 63 as amended, incorporates federal, general anti-avoidance rules into the act for provincial purposes. The bill proposed that this provision be retroactive to 19 89, its date of introduction for federal purposes, but after consultations with tax professionals on adverse impacts of this measure on investor confidence, the measure will be made effective in respect to events or transactions after May 23, 19 96, the date of first reading of Bill 63.

It was deemed that-as we get into it over these next few sections, we will be discussing the issue of the so-called Quebec shuffie-that this provision was not required to deal with the Quebec shuffie, and, in·effect, could have broader implicatio ns. Therefore, we determined that it was not necessary to make it retroactive, but it is to the benefit of Manitobans to put it into effect and have it progress and move for

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	36-2-75
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	36th 2nd hansardpdf 75.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ac537eb9ef7e2b03d73e6033a104b817c06b26eb

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