Manitoba Hansard — 3 June 1992 (Sitting 78, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-78

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS {HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLI No. 78 ·1 :30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, JUNE 3, 1992 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAM MER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

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

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

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

4160 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 3, 1992 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Joyce T. Pavlin, Florence Burdeny, Deborah Porath and others urging the government consider establishing an Office of the Children's Advocate independent of cabinet and reporting directly to this Legislative Assembly. Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Sandra Friesen, Ryan Vermette, Jess Gair and others requesting the government consider restoring the former full funding of $700,000 to fight Dutch elm disease. Ms. Becky Barrett (Welli ngton): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Neta Bourlas, Yair Bourlas, Magali Klass and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign. Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of John T.

James, Darlene Littlejohn, Melvin Chaskey and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to abor iginal self-go vernment by considering reversing its position on the AJI Report by supporting the recom mendations within this jurisdiction and implementing a separate and parallel justice system. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS the Manitoba Heritage Federation has received and processed nearly 1, 200 grant applications and awarded and monitored almost 700 grants; and WHER EAS 300 different organizations in 98 different communities representing every region of the province have received grants through the efforts of the Manitoba Heritage Federation; and WHER EAS the government has taken away the granting authority of the Manitoba He ritage Federation and now plans to control the distribution of heritage grants; and WHER EAS this action appears to represent the politicization of the heritage granting process; and WHERE AS it is unclear as to wh at the governme nt's real commitment is to funding heritage in the province; and WHER EAS the Board of the Heritage Federation is composed of urban and rural members which represents a wealth of heritage experience from all over the province; and WHERE AS this move will have a critical impact on the heritage community throughout the province WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba strongly urge the provincial government to reconsider its decision and return the Manitoba Heritage Federation's granting authority. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.

Reid), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the bail review provisions in the Criminal Code of Canada currently set out that accused offenders, including those suspected of conjugal or family violence, be released unless it can be proven that the individual is a danger to society at large or it is likely that the accused person will not reappear in court; and The problem of conjugal and family violence is a matter of grave concern for all Canadians and

4161 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 requires a multifaceted approach to ensure that those at risk, particularly women and children, be protected from further harm. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the Minister of Justice (Mr.

McCrae) call upon the Parliament of Canada to amend the Criminal Code of Canada to permit the courts to prevent the release of individuals where it is shown that there is a substantial likelihood of fur ther con juga l or fam ily viole nce being perpetrated. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). Is itthewillofthe House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS the Dutch elm disease control program is of primary importance to the protection of the city's many elm trees; and WHERE AS the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) himseH stated that, "It is vital that we continue our active fight against Dutch elm disease in Manitoba; and WHERE AS, despite that verbal commitment, the government of Manitoba has cut its funding to the city's OED control program by half of the 19 90 level, a move that will jeopardize the survival of Winnipeg's elm trees.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the government of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) to consider restoring the full funding of the Dutch elm disease control program to the previous level of 19 90. As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Dac qu ay (C hair person of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Comm ittee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), thatthe report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. * (1 335) Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Fifth Report of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Com mittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Fifth Report.

Your committee met on Tuesday, May 26, and on Tuesday, June 2, 19 92, at 10 a.m., in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro- Electric Board for the year ended March 31 , 19 91 . At the June 2, 19 92 meeting, your committee elected Mr. Laurendeau as its Chairperson. Mr. John McCal lum, Chairperson, Mr. Bob Brennan, President and Chief Executive Officer and Mr. Ralph Lambert, Executive Vice-President, provided such information as was requested with respect to the Annual Report and business of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board.

Your comm ittee has considered the Annual Report of the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Board for the year ended March 31 , 19 91 , and has adopted the same as presented. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, 19 92-19 93, Departmental Expenditure Estimates for both the Department of Labour and the Manitoba Civil Service Commission. Hon.

Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Report on the Administration of the Rent Regulation Program for the fiscal year ended March 31 , 19 91 . Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today the Fourth Annual Report of the Victims Assistance Committee. The report is for April 1, 19 90 to March 31 , 19 91 .

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4162 Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister responsible for the administration of The Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountabil ity Act): Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the Crown Corporations Council 3rd Annual Report for the year ending December 31 , 19 91 . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 96-The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cummings), that Bill 96, The Special Operating Agencies Financing Authority Act {Loi sur I'Office de financementdes organismes de service special), be introduced and that the same now be received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieut enant-Governor, having been advised of the content s of th is bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table his message. Motion agreed to. * (1 340) Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the St.

Gerard School thirteen Grade 5 students, and they are under the direction of Mrs. Unryn. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). Also this afternoon, from the Canadian Forces Base Winnipeg, we have ten visitors from The Language School under the direction of Mrs. Bonnie Dahmer. The base is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). Also this afternoon, from the Bernie Wolfe School and Parkdale School, we have eighty Grade 5 and Grade 6 students. They are under the direction of Stara Gooljarsingh and Barb Aores.

These schools are located in the constituencies of the honourable members for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) and Ain Flon (Mr. Storie). Also this afternoon, we have ten Grade 12 students from the Elmwood High School, and ten Grade 12 students with the Voyageur '92 Program from Lac Saint Louis, Quebec. They are under the direction of Mr. Jim Patterson. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you all here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Conawapa Dam Project Power Projections Mr.

Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, during the Public Utilities Board's presentation and pursuant to the signing of the Conawapa power sale to Ontario, the government indicated that Manitoba would need the power for the year 2001 . That prediction, Mr. Speaker, was revised after the election, based on Hydro numbers, to be 2009 last year, then up to 201 1 in December of 19 91 . In committee this last week, it was revised again to the year 2012 . Hydro has just recalculated the demand in domestic load growth predictions for the future of that utility and the Manitoba Hydro operation.

Management now has the load growth predictions. Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister responsible for Hydro can advise us whether he has in fact the new predictions and projections for Hydro, and whether those will in fact push back again the domestic use projections that were originally presented to the Public Utilities Board in Manitoba. Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the New Democratic Party was not at committee yesterday to ask those questions.

It would have been an appropriate time with the chairman of the board and also the president and chief executive officer. As it relates to the specifics of the question, I will take it as notice, Mr. Speaker. Sustainable Development Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a further question to the same minister, the Deputy Premier. Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is now attending a conference on sustainable development in Rio de Janeiro with a couple of senior members of the Premier's staff, sponsored by the taxpayers of Manitoba. The alleged intention is to deal with sustainable development, Mr.

Speaker. Sustainable

4163 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 development, as defined by the Premier in the Premier's own round table, in the document that was circulated to the public last year, defined sustainable development under the Premier's name, saying that there is a strong connection between the health of people, our environment and the strength of our economy. The more we reduce the separation among environme ntal, health and econom ic decision making, the more successful we will be in implementing sustainable development. Yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, the Deputy Premier indicated that they did not want to revisit the original economic decisions and would be opposed to revisiting the original economic decisions in the environmental assessment. Would the Deputy Premier please change the position of the government and act in a way that is consistent with the Premier's own signature and a way that is defined by the Premier in terms of sustainable development, where indeed economic decisions are dealt with with environmental decisions? Hon. James Downey (Minister responsible for The ManHoba Hydro Act): Mr.

Speaker, I did not say that I did not want to revisit the figures that were prepared and presented to the Public Utilities Board. What I believe I indicated was that I did not believe it was necessary that there was in fact a full and thorough review of the proposed sale of Manitoba Hydro product to Ontario Hydro.

That had been covered to some extent, a great extent, by the Public Utilities Board, all forms and different scenarios as it relates to demand-side management, as it relates to costs of project variances, a whole range which, if the member is prepared to, he would find in the Public Utilities Board report which is available to everyone, Mr. Speaker. • (1 345) Mr. Doer: I have read the Public Utilities Board report. It does not deal with these sensitive environmental issues.

It forwards those to the environmental assessment, and it does not deal adequately with the economic issues because it is based on a 2001 assu·mption, a date which is becoming eroded every time we get a new load growth prediction and projection from Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Speaker. So my question to the Deputy Premier is: Will he make it abundantly clear to Hydro that reports to him-which has already produced a memo with a very, very narrow scoping- that they will welcome the review of the economic and environmental impacts as part of the environmental process that is going on now, consistent with the Premier's (Mr.

Almon) own signature on sustainable development, the Premier's own signature that represents the genesis of his visit to Rio de Janeiro at the World Economic Summit that is starting today? Let us practise in Manitoba what we are preaching in Rio de Janeiro today. Mr. Downey : Mr.

Speaker, speaking about practising what you preach, what hypocrisy are we hearing from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that built how many generating stations in the North, strung how many power lines in the North, a part of a New Democratic government that not once either had the economics of the project looked at by anyone, let alone the third-party Public Utilities Board, and for sure, did not have an open environmental review process to the extent that this government is going under. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, and what about when he says we should be doing something different?

We are doing a complete and total review of the total project. Trucking Industry Employment Protection Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, the trucking industry has been warning this government for some time of the effects of deregulation and free trade upon this particular industry. I want to give a quote, Mr. Speaker, from Gerald Reimer, the outgoing president of Reimer Transport in this province: The trucking industry has experienced three direct blows in recent times. The recession, deregulation and free trade have had a major impact upon the industry .

I want to ask the Minister of Hi ghways and Transportation when this government will end its blind support for deregulation and free trade so that we can protect the rapidly decreasing trucking jobs in the province of Manitoba. Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, the gall of this member to raise that kind of a question in this House here is just mind boggling, because it was that member sitting over there, the then Minister of Hig hways and Transportation, who signed the

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA 4164 Memor andum of Under standing in terms of deregulation. I cannot believe it. I mean, if he wants that question answered on that basis, let him ask that member over there. Employment Creation Strategy Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same minister.

Since we have learned today that Reimer Transport is cutting another 20 jobs on top of the other industries like Imperial Roadways where we lost 300 jobs and other trucking industries in this province where we have lost jobs, what plans, policies or prog rams does this Minister of Transportation's department have in place to reverse the serious decline in trucking jobs, as we have witnessed in this province of Manitoba? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, this province, as well as the previous administration, indicated at that time that deregulation should take place over five years. It was this province that brought that forward, and it was legislated that way. Deregulation is going to be completed by the end of this year. I will tell you something. We have raised these concerns and have asked for the further review and another year's extension in terms of allowing us to getthe information forward, so we can bring forward the impact that it will have on the trucking industry in Manitoba. * (1 350) Trucking Industry All-Party Task Force Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Deputy Premier. In the interests of preserving the jobs in Manitoba in the transportation sector and in other sectors of the economy, will the Deputy Premier commit his government to ending their stand-aside policy and to striking an all-party task force comprised of business, labour and government to deal with the decline in the transportation jobs in our economy in the province of Manitoba? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier) : Mr.

Speaker, like the Minister of Hi ghways and Transportation has indicated, he is standing here criticizing a government which was no part of signing the deregulation initiative which was brought forward by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), the former Minister of Highways and Transportation. I can assure him that this government is, No. 1 , concerned aboutthe maintenance and increasing of jobs, our No. 1 priority, as well as the maintenance of the essential services of Health, Education and Family Services, Mr. Speaker. We have our priorities, and we will work to that end.

Constitutional Proposal Notwithstanding Clause Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the support we received yesterday, qualified and tentative though it was, for a Manitoba referendum on the Constitution. The Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) indicated that he had not ruled it out, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) said it was a good idea, although he thinks that there needs to be spending limits, and I welcome his concrete proposals and a friendly amendment to the bill on that basis.

The Leader of the Opposition has obviously come to a new understanding that the amending process which he thought was excellent on May 5 is not serving the nation well in terms of preserving a strong central government. Well, Mr. Speaker, my question is very specific today, and it has to do with the notwithstanding clause. We are wat ching the nego tiators apparently giving approval to the extension of

Section 33, the power to override fundamental freedo ms, when Mani toba's task force recommended a review of rights under the Charter with an eye to outright removal of

Section 33, a move favoured by many Manitobans. Will the minister representing us at that constitutional table tell us why the Rrst Minister's (Mr. Filmon) representatives seem to be in on an agreement of the extension to the notwithstanding clause? Hon. James McCrae (Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): I think the key to the question are the words, there seems to be an agreement. Mr. Speaker, I, in making my reports to this House and at every opportunity before the media, make the point that there is no agreement to anything until there is a tentative consensus respecting a whole

4165 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 package. So the honourable member ought not to be misled by anyone, certainly not by me, because I have been very clear very, very many times that we are working during this part of the process with our best efforts to narrow issues and, if possible, to arrive at some kind of consensus that we can put before First Ministers, but to this point, there is no agreement on anything. With respect to the question related to the notwithstanding clause, Mr.

Speaker, I believe all parties in this House-although the Liberal position respecting the notwithstanding clause is quite clear that the discussion of Charter issues was something that was for another round, as I recall, are discussions which form part of our task force deliber at ions. I th ink any change in the notwithstanding clause or any other charter issues that the honourable member might want to identify that would change fundamentally or alter the rights would be for a subsequent constitutional discussion. Mrs.

Carstalrs: The minister is quite correct that the task force report talked about the discussions of the notwithstanding clause some time in the future, but the reality is, the notwithstanding clause is being discussed right now. It is being discussed at the table, and instead of pulling it back from the Premiers and the use of the Legislatures and the House of Commons, we are suggesting we should extend it to the aboriginal people. I would like to know clearly: What is the position of the Province of Manitoba?

Are they in favour of extending it further, or are they in favour of pulling back on it, as they were so clearly in 19 88 when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicated that he was at first in favour of Meech, but then he was opposed to Meech because of Quebec's use of the notwithstanding clause? * (1 355) Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the issue of the notwithstanding clause arises because of the discussions respecting aboriginal issues in this round of discussions.

It is the position of the Province of Manitoba, as reflected in our task force, that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ought to apply to every single person in this country, and that remains Manitoba's position. That is not necessarily, however, the position of the Assembly of First Nations as it approaches the table for discussions. Grand Chief Mercredi has made it very clear that he is concerned about the conflict that might arise with a charter of rights with respect to individual rights and collective rights. Manitoba's position, however, on the Charter is clear.

By virtue of the factthat Grand Chief Mercredi has indicated his concerns about the Charter, it seems clea r tha t his wish to have the notwithsta nding claus e apply to aborig inal governments, it seems to me, that there is a signal there that such a clause might be used quite often and perhaps in the case of all aboriginal legislation, which gives us concern, Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Carstalrs: Mr.

Speaker, it is very clear that the aboriginal people, if they are to be recognized as we believe they should, as having the right to self determine and to self-government, are going to want to have exactly the sam e powers that are recognized by the other two levels of government. If the federal government and the provincial governments continue to have access to the notwithstanding clause, it can be well argued and logically argued that the aboriginal people should have them as well.

The only way you can prevent it from being extended to the aboriginal people is to voluntarily withdraw it from the Premiers and the provinces, as well as the federal government. Can the Minister of Justice tell this House if that is under debate at the table, that they are also prepared, instead of going the way of extension, to go the way of retrenchment and remove the use of the notwithstanding clause from the two levels of government that presently have it? Mr. McCrae: I remind the honourable member that the Province of Manitoba has never used the notwithstanding clause.

The notwithstanding clause-{interjection] The honourable Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is saying something from his seat, but he is the one who suggested we use it to protect Bill 3. We did not use the notwithstanding clause in that case, and we have not used it in any case, so I want the honourable member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) to understand that. The Province of Quebec, not a signatory to the 19 82 arrangements under a PO government, routinely used the notwithstanding clause, and in the case of Bill 17 8, the Liberal government of Quebec used it in that case.

There was quite a reaction to that particular use of the notwithstanding clause. It was the use of it and not the fact of its existence that was the problem in that case. I am very mindful of the honourable

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4166 member's concerns with respec t to the notwithstanding clause. The Liberal Party of Manitoba is clear on the position it takes in that respect, but it is pretty hard for me, sitting at the constitutional table, to agree to a routine use by aboriginal governments of the notwithstanding clause. Fisheries Branch • Brandon Closure Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. MGE A statistics on its membership in the Westman Region of this province show a decline in the number of civil servants since November of 19 88.

Now Westman appears to be about to lose more jobs. It is possible that three, perhaps four, positions in the Department of Natural Resources would be transferred out of this region. I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources: Can he confirm that his fisheries office is being closed in Brandon and that the staff are being transferred to other parts of the province? Hon. Har ry Enn s (M ini ster of Natural Resources): Mr.

Speaker, what I can confirm for the honourable member is that under a fairly substantial reorganization with the department, a new regional director has just recently been appointed by my government who will be stationed in Brandon to look after the southwestern region. This is in conjunction with the directorships that will be stationed in The Pas, in Lac du Bonnet, and in Gimli, but I will undertake that question as notice and provide the honourable member with specifics of that kind. * (1 400) Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for taking it as notice. We are worried ourselves that they are about to move.

I would like to ask the minister a follow-up question. With this move, is it possible therefore that the aeration program and other fish conservation programs in the area will no longer be possible and that Pelican Lake, Rock Lake, Bower Lake and Oak Lake will be at risk, and they could lose most of their fish because of the removal of this technical staff? [interjection) The member from Virden should be very concerned about it. Mr.

Enns: I can say with some pleasure that with the recently completed diversion of some waters from the Pembina into Pelican Lake, my office has been receiving a number of calls expressing their appreciation as to improvements that this is making to the water which will ensure the future success of aeration programs and fish stocking programs in those lakes. Now, it is my hope that I can count on at least the honourable member for Brandon East's (Mr.

Leonard Evans) support when we make similar improvements to Rock Lake which have been long in waiting, some 10 , 12 years, and indeed look at the trilakes as honourable members are aware of in that area, that are of deep concern to the honourable members. Little Saskatchewan River Habitat Enhancement Program Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Well, I am afraid that conservation is not people interested in fishing, and Westman does not share the minister's confidence because the aeration program is being threatened. My supplementary question, Mr.

Speaker is: What will be the fate of the Little Saskatchewan River habitat enhancement project, now that the technical staff will no longer be available in the Westman area to work on this? Are we witnessing a downgrading of habitat enhancement in the Westman area? Hon. Harry Enns (Min ister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, whatthe Westman area is witnessing is an exciting $30-million commitment on the part of habitat improvement carried out by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan with officers stationed in Virden, in Shoal Lake, in Killarney.

It is one of the most exciting programs we are targeting, a half-a-million acres of private acreage. It is a coming together of a host of organizations involving the federal government, the provincial government, Canadian Wildlife Service, Canadian Hab itat Wildlife, Ducks Unlimited, that famous organization-{interjection], with staffings of 7 or 12 new people in each of these offices. Mr. Speaker, it is one of the most exciting programs that is happening with respect to habitat rehabilitation in the province, and one that I look forward to debating with the honourable member during the course of my Estimates.

4167 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 Grand Rapids Forebay Environmental Monitoring Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed today to the Minister of Environment.

Grand Rapids fishermen were relieved yesterday that after over three months of requests from them and their leadership and questions in this Chamber, this governm ent agreed to compensate the fishermen co-op for some $1 00,000 for damages caused to their nets, which is a complete reversal for the Minister of Environment who consistently claimed that environmental damages were going to be minimal at best and that we had nothing to worry about. Mr.

Speaker, can I ask the Minis ter of Environment to tell this House today what program he is putting in place to monitor the full impact of the pollution in the river system at Grand Rapids and also into the lake system? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the member had appreciated the answers that I gave previously or not. Apparently, he misunderstood my comment in terms of whether or not Manitoba Hydro would be looking at compensation for the result of the use of the previously unused spillway.

The fact is, in recognizing that damage, there were also a number of local residents who were employed. The concerns that I was addressing prior to that were in connection with the oil spill. That was contained and was separate and apart from the garbage that got washed into the water, and Manitoba Hydro has always undertaken to make sure that they have not caused undue hardship as a result of having to spill that water. Mr. Lathlln: Mr.

Speaker, my second question to the same minister is to ask him whether he can tell the House exactly what the situation is today with respect to safe drinking water at Grand Rapids, and what plans he has to remedy any adverse impact that this fore bay water may have caused to the wells in that community. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, that concern was raised and has been dealt with on an ongoing basis to make sure that no contaminated water would be inadvertently allowed to be consumed by residents of the area.

The original approach was to immediately contact and work with the local people regarding any potential problems and continue to monitor the situation. If the member has any advice or concerns that flow from information he has been given, I would be more than welcome to receive that information. It is my understanding that there has not been any difficulties found, and I would welcome any information if he has that. Grand Rapids Generating Station Stability Mr. Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): My final question is to the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

Can the minister tell the House when he expects the cleanup to be completed, and what the cost of the cleanup might be? Finally, I would like to ask the minister whether that structure or that facility at Grand Rapids is structurally sound, because people are concerned that it might just wash down the river one of these days. Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, certainly, the second part of the member's question, I will defer to the authorities of Manitoba Hydro.

Certainly, having raised the question, I can assure him that the Minister of Hydro will ask that question of his responsible engineers. The fact is, there are two aspects to what occurred, the initial breaking loose of one of the generators which caused a considerable problem in terms of potential release of oil into the river. That was adequately and properly contained, and demonstrated that proper planning, having been put in place because of the nature of the oil, very much reduced the risk that was associated with that.

The second aspect where large volumes of water had to be released because of the inability of the plant to handle the water, I do not think that myself or anyone else can give an accurate time frame in terms of that cleanup. It will have to be done on an as-needed basis and as a result of problems that are associated with that. There is no doubt that some concerns will be raised about netting. There are other possibilities in the future that additional spillage could occur.

Those things will all be dealt with on an ongoing basis, and it is certainly my intention-and I would encourage the member to work with us-to make sure information is provided to the local people on an ongoing basis.

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4168 Crime Prevention Program Funding Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. A year and a half ago, in November of 19 90, the minister said that crime prevention programs and volu nteers are helping us all to keep our neighbourhoods as crime free and as safe as possible. This past March, the minister added to those comments by saying that this government intended to continue to work with community groups and to continue to foster their activities as being the basis of successful crime prevention programs.

Yesterday, however, we learned in this House, in the Department of Justice Estimates, that the minister confirmed that crime prevention funding would be cut by 50 percent this year, from $200,000 to $1 00,000. Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister: He told us that these cuts yesterday were because of tough econom ic times. Can he explain why Executive Support to his office received an 11. 5 percent increase in the past year, one of the largest increases in the department, while crime prevention funding was cut by 50 percent? * (14 1 0} Hon.

James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am sure even the honourable member can agree that adequate policing in our communities is a very important component of crime prevention. If the budget of my office is up, I suggest it will have a lot to do with the significant increase in travel that was associated with this province's participation in the successful conclusion of a new 20-year historic RCMP contract which will guarantee that we have policing for the next 20 years.

An important component of the work of the RCMP, the work of the Winnipeg city police, the Brandon city police and other police authorities is crime prevention. So the honourable member ought not to conclude that $200,000 or $1 00,000 is the sum total of this government's commitment to crime prevention. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, proof that good policing is not sufficient in terms of crime prevention initiatives is that crime prevention has its own line in the Estimates, and it is there for a reason.

Can the minister explain why administrative support to his office, as well as administrative support in every appropriation in his department except two, 28 out of 30 administrative support lines, went up this year by a departmental total of $965,000, and yet he cannot find $1 00,000 to put some credibility to his words about crime prevention in this province? Mr. McCrae: This is an Estimates question, but the honourable member is, I suppose, quite welcome to ask it here, too.

That line in the Estimates is designed, certainly by this government, for special projects that come along that might not otherwise find a place in the budget; projects like the Citizens for Crime Awareness that we have supported in the past through that particular appropriation; projects like buying, for the Brandon city police, a telephone dialing machine that allows them to contact thousands of people in neighbourhoods in the city of Brandon at short notice to bring them together for Block Parents meetings or Neighbourhood Watch meetings.

That line in the budget is used to buy things like the computer link that the city of Winnipeg police now have in their automobiles so they can quickly gather information about a driving record or the reg istration records on vehicles driven by suspended drivers. That line is used to support things like the John Howard Society in southwestern Manitoba, which is teaching children in schools about vandalism and shoplifting. Those are all very good uses for the dollars.

We have found that $1 00,000 was about sufficient last year, and therefore it was felt to be about sufficient this year for those kinds of special projects that come along. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the crime rates continue to climb in this province. My final question for the minister is: Why are the appropriations to parts of the department that deal with after the cr ime has occurred goin g up-Corrections up by 7.4 percent, Prosecutions up by 6 percent, Correctional Youth Centres up by 5 percent, Courts up by 3 percent. Whatever happened to the minister's statement that a crime prevented is a victim safe?

Whatever happened to that statement? Whatever- Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

4169 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 Mr. McCrae: Of all the members in this House, the honourable member for St. James, in his approach, has to be the most inconsistent in this whole place, Mr. Speaker. If we were not increasing by such significant amounts the budgets of the various parts of my department, who do you think would be the first person to scream? The honourable member for St. James would be screaming for more, more, more.

So we are spending more, more, more, trying to do something about aboriginal justice, trying to do something about domestic violence and crime prevention and all the areas of justice. We do spend more this year, and so the honourable member is screaming about that in one question and screaming about a little bit less on a particular line for crime prevention on the other. The honourable member has no credibility. Undenvlew Residence Funding Hon. Harold Glll eshamrner (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, I took as notice a question dealing with the funding relationship between government and the Salvation Army Lindenview Residence. We are currently working with the Lindenview Residence on a funding formula. I would like to just provide the House with a little bit of history on this issue. During the 19 80s, there was no grant to Lindenview; instead there was a per diem. During the course of our relationship, the per diem was always volume sensitive and did create a deficit at Lindenview Residence, and there would be deficit support to write that off.

We have changed that formula now to a grant plus a per diem which stabilizes the funding. We did this in conjunction with the Lindenview people and the Salvation Army. This stabilization has been well received. There are still some aspects of the funding that have to be addressed. The current per diem for 19 92-93 has not yet been finalized. At-Risk Pregnancies Prevention Programs Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): That is an incredible response from the Minister of Family Services (Mr.

Gilleshammer) following the release of a report by the Minister of Health, the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, documenting quite clearly that the incidence of low birth weight babies is serious and growing among poor, urban, unmarried young women. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Health how he is responding to his own report-which he has had now, I bel ieve, sinc e Novem ber 19 91-which recommends that. this government redirect resources towards prevention programs for at-risk mothers, which could in turn end up saving taxpayers up to $1 .3 million. Hon.

Donald Orchard (Minis ter of Health) : Naturally, Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend would not exactly

preamble the question either fully or necessarily accurately, Sir. Mr. Speaker, maybe my honourable friend, the critic, might perchance recognize that the incidence of low birth weight babies amongst rural mothers is probably at the minimum achievable under any kind of intervention, individually or personally. In other words, we are doing the best we can do according to the experts. Surely, that would deserve some mention, Sir. Now, Mr.

Speaker, as we suspected, there are high-risk groups, young, single mothers, core-area mothers, who are on low income, who are still susceptible but not at the kind of increased rates my honourable friend says, but are still susceptible. There is an opportunity to lower that low incidence birth weight babies. This repor t allo ws us, Sir, to foc us our intervention, our prevention strategies on those risk groups, because young mothers outside the city of Winnipeg are atthe best achievable level of low birth weight babies according to the experts. Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: Mr.

Speaker, this report makes a very serious recommendation about the high incidence of low birth weight babies among urban, poor women. I want to ask the Minister of Health: What steps has he taken, since receiving this report, to address the recommendation for prevention programs for at-risk mothers which could in fact, and in turn, save this government up to $1 .3 million? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, that is exactly why the issue was put to the Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, to establish across the province where we might be able to make reallocation of scarce resources to focus on target groups of young mothers who are susceptible to higher rates of low birth weight babies.

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4170 Mr. Speaker, within the ministry, in the area of Healthy Public Policy, of which the Women's Directorate is part, we are proceeding to implement strategies to target from a nutritional standpoint, from an additional counselling standpoint, to reinforce and to enhance a level of programming which has been in place, and we believe now we can accurately refocus program and resources within the department to target a high-need group. • (1 420) Llndenvlew Residence Funding Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St.

Johns): Would the Minister of Health not agree that it would be important to restore the per diems for young, poor, unmarried teenage mothers and their babies at Lindenview Residence in order to meet the recommendations and the findings of this report, showing the highest risk of low birth weight among poor, urban, young, unmarried women. Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the objective of this report is to allow the department to guide its intervention programs, which is underway, Sir.

The larger agenda and the larger issue that challenges government and was referred to in the health reform document is in terms of the determinants of health status, one of the indicators being low birth weight babies. That is a growing economy which provides to those young mothers an economic opportunity which has been denied to them by governments in the past that have decided on deficit finance, borrow this province and tax this province into poverty. Manitoba Blue Cross Percentage Increase Mr.

Conrad Santos (Broadway): My first two questions are directed to the Minister of Finance, and my final question is to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard). This government, Mr. Speaker, said: Read my political lips; no new taxes for Manitobans. Yet what this government would not do directly, it has been doing indirectly. It has discontinued income tax services for low-income Manitobans. It has raised Pharmacare deductible above the rate of inflation. It has scuttled the funding for the Seniors Directorate by almost 13 percent.

Can the Minister of Finance confirm to this House and to Manitobans that he is now imposing a new 2 percent tax on the Manitoba Blue Cross? Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Well, l do not have to confirm it now. I said so in the budget which was duly passed by the people's representatives who were elected to this House. So I do not have to reconfirm anything. Anybody who was here when I read the Budget Address will see exactly that this was the intention of this government. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. Nonpolitical Statement Mr.

Gerry McAlpine (Sturgeon Creek): Do I have leave, Mr . Speaker, to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed) [interjection] No, I am not going to ride my bicycle today. Mr. Speaker, in March, approximately 4,500 to 5, 000 Grade 6 students wrote the Canadian Mathematics League exam set by the University of Windsor. Bannatyne School's- a school in my constituency-scores were outstanding. Their school team consisting of Danielle Betteridge, Donavon Le Nabat, Paula Mcleod, Phillip Pawluk, Ken Phillips, Kelly Temple and Jodi Lee Tighe placed second in Manitoba and fourth in Canada.

Out standing individual placemen ts were achieved by: Paula Mcleod, second in Manitoba, third in Canada; Kelly Temple, fourth in Manitoba, 15 th in Canada; Danielle Betteridge, sixth in Manitoba, 22nd in Canada; Donavan Le Nabat, 7th in Manitoba; Phillip Pawluk, 9th in Manitoba. Credit is given, Mr. Speaker, to Mme. Greban of St. Germain for offering this academic challenge to the Grade 6 students of Bannatyne School and also to all the teachers and students for participating in this opportunity. Also, Mr.

Speaker, on the 24th of April of this year, five students from Silver Heights Collegiate-Geoff King, Robert Dick, John Clark, Rick Moore and John Pattie-wrote the Canadian Association of Physics prize examination for high schools in Manitoba. Two hundred and sixty students wrote this exam, and all five Silver Heights students finished in the superior effort category with the following results: Geoff King and Rick Moore tied for fourth place; John Clark and John Pattie tied for 29th place and Robert Moore placed 59th. The students were honoured at the University of Winnipeg on Friday,

4171 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 May 29, 19 92, where Geoff King and Rick Moore received awards. Compliments, Mr. Speaker, are extended to these students. Mr. George Daniels, their physics teacher, should also be recognized for his effort in working with these students and for his continuous encouragement of their search for excellence at Silver Heights Collegiate, also in the constituency of Sturgeon Creek. Thank you. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Agriculture be amended as follows: the member for lakeside (Mr . Enns) for the memb er for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey); the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) for the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) ; the memb er for St. Norbert (Mr. laurendeau) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). [Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.

McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on law Amendments be amended as follows: the member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the member for lakeside (Mr. Enns); the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh) for the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae); the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render) for the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). [Agreed] Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on law Amendments be amended as fol lows: St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) for Kildonan (Mr.

Chomiak); Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Thursday, June 4, 19 92, for 10 a.m. [Agreed] I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowch uk), that the com position of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Ain Flon (Mr. Storie) for Tuesday, June 9, 19 92, 1 0 a.m. [Agreed) Mr. Kevin Lam our eux (In kster) : I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Agriculture be amended as follows: St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) for River Heights (Mrs.

Carstairs). [Agreed) Also, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on law Amendments be amended as follows: The Maples (Mr. Cheema) for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). [Agreed] ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there is a desire to waive private members' hour. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? Is it agreed? No. There is no agreement. Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speaker, would you call bills in the following order: first of all, Second Readings, Bills 92, 93, 86, 87 and then 84, and then adjourned Debate on Second Readings, Bills 20, 21 , 47, 76, 82, 34, 64, 70. SECOND READINGS Bill 92-The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance) : I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 92, The Provincial Auditor's Amendment Act (loi modifiant Ia

loi sur le verificateur provincial) be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Manness: My comments with respect to this bill are going to be short. The Provincial Auditor in his capacity as a servant of the Legislature is asking for basically two changes to The Provincial Auditor's Act. First of all, he is asking that the present

section that deals with the lieutenant-Governor-in-Council shall appoint a Provincial Auditor for the Province of Manitoba. There is a change sought which will amend this

section to read, and I quote: and on appointment, the Pro vincial Auditor shall be an officer of the legislature. Mr. Speaker, end of quote. This amendment is by way of clarification and conforms with the general understanding of the office. We are introducing a new

section which will read as follows, and I quote: No action or other proceeding may be brought against the Provincial Auditor and the Assistant Provincial Auditor or any

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4172 person employed under the Provincial Auditor for anything done or admitted in good faith in the exercise or intended exercise of a power or in the performance and intended performance of a duty or function under this or any other act or regulation, or for any neglect or default in the exercise or performance in good faith of such power, duty or function. End of quote. Mr. Speaker, this

section provides immunity to the Provincial Auditor against court action for activities carried on in the performance of prescribed duties. In the interests of the Legislative Assembly, the Provincial Auditor is requested to undertake and report on special audits.

These audits are wide-ranging in scope and require comment on matters involving possibly conflict of interest, imprudence, inappropriate management practices, fraudulent activities and bad judgment. * (1 430) Legislators have come to expect the opinion of the Provincial Auditor in such matters in that the Provincial Auditor and his staff are acting to obtain information on behalf of the Legislature. Legal counsel is advised that it would be prudent to afford the Provincial Auditor and his staff similar immunity to that provided to members of the Asse mbly, Manitoba's Ombudsman and other legislative auditors.

Similar protection is provided in the audit acts for the provinces of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan. B.C. is in the process of making similar changes to its audit legislation. The provincial institutes of chartered accountants in Canada have adopted mandatory public liability insurance. The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Manitoba has recently passed by-laws which will require practising offices to maintain public liability insurance unless there are circumstances which negate this need. Immunity through legislation is considered such a circumstance. Mr.

Speaker, I commend these changes to The Provincial Auditor's Act. I commend them for the consideration of the members of the House, and, hopefully, they will move expeditiously in the consideration of this bill. Thank you. Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 93- The Mental Health Amendment Act Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that Bill 93, The Mental Health Amendment Act; Lol modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia sante mentale, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the amendments in this bill result from two recent events. About one year ago , as the House may re mem ber, the Supreme Cour t ru led unconstitutional the Criminal Code provisions that allo wed the Li eutenan t- Governor to order indeterminate detentions in jails.

As a result, Parliament has amended the Criminal Code to remove the Lieutenant-Governor's warrants, to strengthen the role of provincial review boards, and to require detention of persons found not criminally responsible in a hospital setting instead of a jail. Because of these changes to the Criminal Code, we have to change The Mental Health Act to make our legislation consistent. The changes in this bill cover the requirements both of Manitoba Health respecting forensic services and of Manitoba Justice concerning review boards.

In addition, this legislation is intended to be retroactive to February 4, 199 2, so that its effect coincides with that of the changes to the Criminal Code. Generally speaking, the amendments consist of substantive changes to The Mental Health Act arising from the Criminal Code amendments plus a few protective conseq uential changes recommended by our legal advisors. One new provision concerning the detention of mentally disordered offenders prescribes the creation and operation of an additional review board. The former Board of Review in Manitoba Justice remains under the name of the Criminal Code Review Board.

In addition, there will be a Mental Health Review Board covering The Mental Health Act, and both are defined in this bill. Provisions concerning the involuntary admission of mentally disordered offenders to a hospital have been changed to ensure a consistency with the new Criminal Code provisions, which no longer include reference to Lieutenant-Governor -in-Council

4173 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 warrants. The new provisions permit treatment for these offenders. Atthe same time, Sir, they prevent them from appealing to the Mental Health Review Board for a change in status and from being discharged without authorization of the Criminal Code Review Board. In order to protect both the offenders and the public, the bill provides for reassessment of offenders when their term of hospital detention is about to expire. This procedure will determine if an offender should continue to be detained under The Mental Health Act. Earlier, Mr.

Speaker, I mentioned the retroactive nature of this bill. In addition to this, all decisions taken by the Mental Health Review Board up to the passage of this bill will be deemed to be valid under The Mental Health Act. We have had to amend our men tal health legislation because of the Supreme Court decision and the need for consistency with federal legislation. Through this bill, we are fulfilling our obligation to public safety and to mentally disordered persons, and we are doing our part to ensure consistency in the laws for handling mentally disordered offenders.

However, we have some cause to regret that our efforts have not received more support from the federal government, particularly with respect to the care of these offenders. Until recently our planning for a long-term forensic facility at Selkirk was proceeding on the basis of federal cost-sharing for both construction and operating costs. We now have confirmation and fairly solid indication from the federal government that such support will not be forthcoming.

We regret the change in the federal position since the necessary facilities and services are extremely costly for a province of our size to construct and to operate. We hope, however, that we will be able to implement our original plans, but we will proceed with the facilities in the programming that are within our means. Sir, with those brief comments I commend Bill 93 to the House for rapid passage since we are required to make these amendments because of Supreme Court decisions which have made current legislative capability inappropriate and subject to further challenges. Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santo s), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. 8111 8� The Provincial Pollee Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General) : Mr. Speaker, I mo ve, seconde d by the honour able Min ister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 86, The Provincial Police Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia SOrete du Manitoba et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the amendments to The Provincial Police Act is to enhance government's response to policing issues at the levels of both appeals and investigation on the one hand and administrative matters on the other. With these amendments the Manitoba Police Commission will be discontinued as a separate body and its responsibilities transferred elsewhere.

The Minister of Justice will assume direct responsibility for promoting crime prevention, ensuring efficiency of policing services and compliance with proper standards, and promoting good police-community relations. These matters will be administered by the Law Enforcement Services Branch of Manitoba Justice. The responsibility for hearing appeals from decisions of the Commissioner of the Law Enforcement Review Agency will be vested in provincial court judges. In other words, the judicial functions of the commission will be placed with the judges and the administrative side with Law Enforcement Services.

We believe that we will achieve more administrative efficiency as a result of these legislative changes as well as service that is better suited to our available resources. The expertise and experience of the Law Enforcement Services staff as well as their accessibility to police and public will ensure better service to both the general community and the policing community. As with companion legislation covering the Law Enforcement Review Agency, we believe, as well, that it makes more sense to have a Provincial Court judge, experienced in the law and

June 3,1 992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4174 adjudication, handling judicial issues raised by the appeals now heard by the Police Commission. Appeals from the judge's decisions will be filed with the Court of Queen's Bench. Just before I conclude, I would like to thank those members of the Manitoba Police Commission, who, with such distinction over the years, have served the people of this province, served them well with respect to law enforcement issues. Mr.

Speaker, this bill and its companion bill will enable my department to reorganize our law enforcement resources to make more effective use of skills and experience and improve our response to community policing needs in Manitoba. With these brief com ments I com mend the bill' s consideration by this House. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. 8111 87-The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, I move , seconded by the honourable member for the Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 87, The Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les enquetes relatives a !'application de Ia loi, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. * (1 440) Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, together with its companion bill on policing, the Law Enforcement Review Amendment Act is intended to reorganize our resources to make more effective use of available skills and experience in the justice and policing communities. In this bill we are also introducing some procedural changes to the process of review and appeals concerning police conduct.

Up to now, the Law Enforcement Review Agency has had both investigative and appeal responsibility. In this bill we are retaining LER A's respo nsibili ty for investigating complaints against police conduct. However, if an investigation proceeds to a formal hearing, a Provincial Court judge will hear and adjudicate the case. Appeals can go to Court of Queen's Bench if filed within 30 days of the judge's decision. Provincial Court judges will also hear appeals from decisions of the LERA Commissioner instead of the Manitoba Police Commission.

We believe it makes more sense to have matters of law raised in or through the Law Enforcement Review process handled by judges. Our judges are trained not just in the law but in the impartial adjudication of disputes. Changes will produce sound decisions and enhance service to the public. I will briefly outline the other changes contained in the bill. The application of the act will be expanded to include all police forces over which Manitoba has jurisdiction. Any police officer who is a respondent in a complaint can be compelled to appear as a witness at a hearing.

This will increase police accountability to the public. At hearings the onus will be changed from the present "beyond a reasonable doubr to a balance of probabilities. Since the hearing does not affect the liberty of the respondent police officer and is not criminal in nature, the onus should be based on civil law standards. This will ensure a more positive public perception of the review system. Where Provincial Court judges hold formal or disposition hearings, they will be able to impose any penalty available under the act. This will enable them to impose a disposition they believe warranted by the facts.

The bill will remove grounds for disputing whether or not police officers' notes can be inspected during a LERA investigation. (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) It will give a judge the right to decide whether or not a respondent officer can be named. Finally, it will enable a judge to impose restitution as a disposition and give complainants the right to enforce a judge's order through the Court of Queen's Bench. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) With this brief outline, Mr. Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr.

Dewar) that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

417 5 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3, 1 992 Bill 84- The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Linda Mcintosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I move, seconded by the Attorney General, the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae ), that Bill 84, The Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (2), loi no 2 modifiant Ia

loi sur Ia location a l'usage d'habitation, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mrs. Mcintos h: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [interjection] Thanks, as well, to the member for lakeside (Mr. Enns). (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) I wish to put just a few comments on the record, Mr. Acting Speaker, regarding this amendment. I believe this amendment is necessary prior to the proclamation of the act in that the full intent of the act can be mor e properly carried out upon proclamation. The intent of this particular

section is, at the end of a tenancy, when it is time for the tenant to reclaim the security deposit, to ensure that the money for that deposit is there for returning purposes. The way the act is currently worded, it insists that this money be held in trust, in a trust account or with the Director of Residential Tenancies. There are two problems with the way the wording is put down in the current act, Mr. Acting Speaker. One is that there is nothing in there that will guarantee thatthe monies will be there for the tenant at the end of the tenancy.

There is nothing to prevent the landlord from simply drawing the money out of the trust account and going to places unknown. While the money must be held in trust, it can be withdrawn and not necessarily a guarantee that it will return to the tenant. The majority of our disputes on security deposits, Mr. Acting Speaker, arise over which individual should have the money returned to them, the landlord or the tenant.

In terms of having the monies available, it is felt, at the end of a tenancy, it is felt that new wording that is outlined in the Bill 84 amendment would enable more security in terms of a guarantee to be in place. We are proposing that in addition to a trust account, that the landlord provide to the director a bond, a financial instrument or other security for the payment of security deposits' interests in a form and amount and under such terms and conditions as could be prescribed by regulation, that all of this would be under the control of the director.

The other concern we had with this particular wording, the wording in the original bill, in the bill soon to be proclaimed, is that. for as far as the landlords' perspective is concerned, putting the money in a trust account does not necessarily recoup for the landlord, for example, the amount of interest that he might be required to· pay out to a tenant. The interest required to be paid out by a tenant, of course, is set by the minister and is equivalent to what could be raised in a savings account.

This amendment, it is felt, would be more fair to landlords, providing them more flexibility as well in that they will have a variety of options in which to hold the money, and can hold the money without losing interest, that, at the same time, it will guarantee that the money will be in place for the tenant in a stronger way than simply putting it into an account, which the landlord can draw from at his liking, will do. I have, in the preparation of this amendment, discussed this particular topic with a wide variety of people.

I have talked to individual tenants, those known to me in my constituency, those known to friends of mine from other constituencies. I have talked to young tenants who are just starting out living on their own. I have talked to senior citizens who are tenants completing-and I even talked to the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) after I had talked to all the tenants and landlords. As well, I have spoken to a tenant advocacy organization that had originally approached me some months back asking to be kept abreast of any changes we might be bringing in.

I have talked as well to individual landlords and to at least one landlord organization or one property managers' organization. They have expressed, from their perspective, the concerns that they felt, they did not have the flexibility to move in how they retained this money for their tenants. • (1 450) In

summary, Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe that it is necessary to make this slight amendment to the act to better reflect its intent, because in all cases in consulting with people I asked, what did you believe the intent of this to be when it was originally passed?

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4176 I believe that the intent will be more properly met. In deed , without this am endmen t prior to proclamation I believe that it would be difficult to meet the intent. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) As well, we would have a

section of the act which would be cumbersome and awkward for the landlord component of the marketplace. The amendment creates flexibility and provides the same or better protection tor tenants' deposits by providing a guarantee for the deposits in either the form of a bond or other financial instruments. I look forward to seeing this debated and passed to committee for further input, and look forward to and ask for the support of all members so that we can continue our movement towards proclamation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Doug Martindale (Bur rows): I mo ve, seconded by the honourable member tor Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. House Business Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, for debate on second reading, the government House leader has asked me to make one small change. I believe he called as the fourth bill tor debate on second reading, Bill 76. His intention was to call Bill 7 4, so if the change could be made in your order for the fourth bill on debate for second reading. Mr.

Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deputy go vernme nt House leader for tha t information. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 20-The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'evaluation municipale, standing in the name of the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. Is there leave? Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): I am adjourning it for the member for Selkirk, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Okay. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I rise today to make a few brief comments on Bill 20; it is a municipal assessment bill. We feel on this side of the House it is a very small bill, but it is an important one to rural Manitoba and to the rural economy.

It is an important bill to the residents of my constituency. It was a bill brought in to correct flaws in Bill 79, which was passed in this Chamber in 19 89. Obviously, there were some flaws in the original bill, so they brought in Bill 20. We see some problems with this one as well. Two major ones are: delaying the assessment from 19 93 to 19 94 is one of the problems; the other one is the inability of rural Manitobans and farmers to appeal their assessment based on current market prices. The current assessment is based on 19 85 1evels, which is now eight years ago. Things have changed since then.

We are seeing this throughout rural Manitoba, and we are basing on 19 85 levels an assessment which we feel now should be redone. The government promised in Bill 79 to do an assessment this next year. Now we are finding they are delaying us; what they are doing is delaying a bad system. They have the opportunity to correct it, but no, they decided to just perpetuate the errors and wait for another year. Rural Manitobans and farmers, unfortunately, have to put up with this government's delay. An Honourable Member: No reason to do it either. Mr. Dewar: That is right, there is no reason.

We realize the assessment is a complicated procedure in this province but delaying it will only make the matter far worse. As we were stating, we had hoped that this government would have, instead of delaying the assessment from '93 to '94, acted on it now. We could have the assessment next year and a lot of inequities in the system could have been dealt with, then corrected. We know tha t the Keystone Agricultural Producers are one of the many groups that have expressed directly to th e Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) their concerns dealing with Bill 20.

They stat ed, in some of the correspondence to them, their concerns about the

417 7 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 delay and the right of homeowners in rural Manitoba to appeal. They know that agricultural producers are facing low-commodity prices now and this has not declined the number of their-their property values have declined because of external factors. External factors I said, low-commodity prices, free trade, rail line abandonment, chemical spills perhaps, water cont ami nation in my own constituency. There are very real concerns about land values with the contamination by the Bristol Aerospace plant near Stony Mountain, West St. Paul area.

We are finding that those individuals there have real concerns. They feel that their value is worth zero. Property or any commodity is only worth what people are willing to pay. They are concerned that their property is worth zero. Here is a chance, of course, for the government to do a reassessment to determine the actual value of such properties. Another concern , of course, is comm ercial properties. We have seen that in Selkirk so often now. We have had at least a dozen businesses close there in the past number of years mostly due to the government's economic policies.

We are finding tha t we have abandoned buildings throughout the area, and the assessments of these commercial properties are based upon '85 rates, values. (Mrs. Louise Daoquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Now they are abandoned, they are empty buildings. Now, if the government could do a reassessment of their value, probably, perhaps, taxes would be lowered and who knows, someone may be interested in picking up these buildings, and we can have a few more jobs in Selkirk directly related to a lot of the Conservative economic policies in Selkirk.

They closed the School of Nursing, they closed the training plant in Selkirk, and now we have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) trying to take some 25 highway jobs from Selkirk to Beausejour, only further going to hurt the local economy-Bill 70. I remember in the debate on Bill 70, I mentioned to the Minister of Rnance (Mr. Manness) how Bill 70 was going impact upon Selkirk. We are seeing that with businesses closing, individuals leaving the community.

Who knows, this could be an opportunity for the government to maybe turn some of the events around there, if they would have taken this back, maybe accept a few amendments to the legislation which would allow an assessment of the property next year, instead of waiting and putting it off until 19 94. Aga in, one of the concerns we have is commercial property; the other concern, of course, is farms, agricultural land. There are a number of external factors, which they do not take into consideration in their assessment. They cannot appeal their assessment based on external factors.

They are allowed on physical changes but not on external factors. We are seeing a number of those in the local area as the rural economy deteriorates. So we feel that there should be an amendment perhaps that would allow that. * (1 500) So, as we were saying, the postponement of the assessment will once again just continue the unfair burden on farmers, on our rural economy, will add again to the inability of farmers or producers to appeal on current market prices. That appeal now is based on Its assessed value-the problem that is going to create for a number of comm ercial properties in the rural economy.

So we are obviously very disappointed with this particular piece of legislation. I know that several of our rural members have spoken on it. I know that the member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) is anxious to speak on it as well. He has prepared a very detailed and informative discussion for this afternoon. So, with those few comments, I would like to pass the floor on to the member for the Interlake, and I am sure he will enlighten us this afternoon. Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): I would just like to open by thanking my colleague for that tremendous introduction and opening, the straight-man here.

An Honourable Member: You are pleased to be here today- Mr. Cllf Evans: I am pleased to be here. My colleague, the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), has indicated that I have prepared myself at length to speak on The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would like to put some co mmen ts on recor d regar ding the amendment act, Bill 20. Madam Deputy Speaker, some years ago, when Bill 79 was introduced and passed here in the

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4178 Legislature, I was, of course, not a part of the process at that time. An Honourable Member: The good old days, Clif. Mr. Cllf Evans: The good old days; they might have been. But Madam Deputy Speaker, I had a chance, being within a municipal government at that time, as mayor, to attend meetings and to have the government at that time indicate the changes and what Bill79 was going to be bringing in to the people of Manitoba under the reassessment. Madam Deputy Speaker, Bill 79 has been in the works for many, many years, as we are all aware.

At that time, when we were listening to the then Minister of Rural Development and his staff as to the implications and implementation of Bill 79, we were concerned. There was some concern even though we all felt that it was a time to go and reassess the whole act and make things more on an equal basis. But we had reservations to it. We had our reservations in council at that time, and speaking with reeves and councilmen from within my area there were certain concerns as to how Bill 79 was going to affect the tax basis of the farmers, the residents and of the small business people within rural Manitoba.

Now we see, after meetings and discussions, that again there is something wrong within Bill 79. We were told back in 19 89-1 990, Madam Deputy Speaker, that this Bill 79 was going to be the bill. There was not going to be any other and further process to change things. These were the promises of the government at the time. We were going to leave Bill 79 intact. We were going to begin assessment in 19 90, and every three years after. Well, now here we go, lo and behold, the now Minister of Rural Development (Mr.

Derkach) has decided that there are some flaws and that he has to make amendments to Bill 79 to, as he puts it, help the people of Manitoba understand the system. Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not know whom he is talking about that does not understand the system in place. The system has been put and worked on for over many, many years before the act was introduced, and I thought that the bill was rather clear to the people of Manitoba, to the municipal people, to the mayors and to the reeves and to the administrators who were, in fact, preparing themselves for this new assessment.

An Honourable Member: Clif, I do not think you have done your homework on this one. Mr. Cllf Evans: The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) says, I have not done my homework. I have done more than my homework, Madam Deputy Speaker; I have been involved right from the implementation of Bill 79. So the Minister of Northern Affairs sits there and-listen. Listen for a change. Listen to the people of Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, getting back to the bill. We were told that Bi1179 was not going to be altered. We were told that in 19 93 the reassessment would be put in place.

We were told at that time, even though ther e wer e concerns within the municipalities, within rural Manitoba, and I am sure throughout the province, that assessment on 19 85 values were going to create a problem within the communities and create a problem within the farm communities, small business communities, and, of course, some residential areas within the small communities. Well, lo and behold, we see that Bill 79 had in fact brought in some policies as bringing the residential rates down somewhat, which I am sure was accepted by many of the people throughout the province.

We see that farmland was taken off for education tax levy. That was accepted, and it had been lobbied for for many, many years. However, on the agriculture side, on the base side, farmers were told in this province that they were going to be assessed on their homes on their property-not the land values, but on the homes, the homes that they live in. Again, what do we see after the act has been passed and reassessment has been in place? We see that farmers are being taxed on buildings within their property, buildings that have no value or use of an income, of a strategy of any kind, but they are being taxed. Why?

Through a special levy. I was part of that process at the time, seeing first-hand what was going on, and felt, in my discussions with my constituents and my local village people and surrounding farmers, that there was something within this bill that was going to create a hazard, a problem for the farmers of Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, we know that over the process of bringing in Bill 79 and now in bringing in Bill 20, there has been a fair amount of concern within the municipalities from certain organizations that have appealed to the Minister of Rural

4179 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 Development (Mr. Derkach) to look at certain situations. We talk about the assessment on a 19 85 value; 19 85 compared to 19 90, the values were much different. The values in 19 85 compared to 19 90 were much higher. Land value was higher, property was higher, residences were higher, small community businesses were higher. There was influx of economic build in 19 85.

You have to pick a number and 198 5 was chosen, but between 19 85 and 19 90 when the assessment was implemented, throughout rural Manitoba, in most rural Manitoba areas, values had decreased for one reason or another. External factors-not physical-external factors. So now we say the present government is going to push back the assessment from 19 93, as they had so promised and adamantly said that that would be the way it was going to work, to 19 94.

Now we have people paying a 19 85 assessment on their property in 19 93 and 19 94. *( 15 10 ) Madam Deputy Speaker, it is going to put a burden on many small businesses and on many farmers within the province of Manitoba. We cannot expect the tax burden on the people of Manitoba and rural Manitoba to continue on a basis of a value that eight years and seven years ago perhaps had some merit to it. But 1990 , 19 93 lf eel that it does not. We on this side say, why? What is this government doing besides the fact that they feel that this is a bill,

an act that will make people more aware of how legislation on your property tax assessment is going to work. I notice in reading Hansard that the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) has tried, to members of the House, to make it perfectly clear, as clear as muddied water, clear that it will allow people who own these types of properties to actually understand the reassessment act much more clearly, enhance the understanding amongst these ratepayers as to why their tax bills are changing, again, to get a firm understanding of each of these very important and very complex issues.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, this minister seems to think that the process that was put in place with an all-party co-operation and all the work that was done with previous administrations leading up to this act, Bill 79, that you would think that the government in place would have everything perfectly clear to the people of Manitoba. Now he is saying things are not perfectly clear to the people of Manitoba. We have to re-educate the people of Manitoba and municipalities. Madam Deputy Speaker, who is this government kidding as far as re-educating? Perhaps there is more of a reason, a hidden rea$on.

Well, we are not, at any time, implying that there may be some behind-the scenes attitude as to the change of Bill 79 with Bill 20. We are not implying that there are other reasons that this government in place is trying to change the format of the reassessment of the tax system. No, we are saying, why is this government, after making all those promises for years, now saying we have to change it? We cannot do it in 19 93. Nobody understands it. Everybody is absolutely and totally unaware of what is going on. We have to do it in 19 94. Then we hear from the Minister of Rural Development (Mr.

Derkach), well, we are changing the education funding formula. We have to use that as an excuse, too. I think that some of the reasoning and rationale of this minister and this government is beyond comprehension. I would like to wonder why all of a sudden we have these reasons of the education formula, people do not understand the system, we have to be teachers and educators in making them realize just what the problem is.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that 1 993, farmers, business people, small business owners, residences, from 19 85 especially and 19 90 when the first assessment was put through, we are saying, well, 199 3 is not going to be so bad if it is done in 19 93. I know that if I am perhaps not taxed too much or the assessment was not right, I can appeal. Certain parties can appeal, not everyone and not in every case and in every situation and not for any particular reason. There are reasons as in the act. There are reasons how you can appeal and certain levels which you can go to appeal.

Well, lo and behold, we have Bill 20 and now we are saying, we wantto say, well, you can and you cannot. You can appeal on this and you cannot appeal on that. Farmers who in 19 85 were perhaps making a decent living are now being taxed not only on their homes as I mentioned earlier, but on buildings. The buildings that are on farm property have nothing to do with an income for the farmer. Now this amendment will make it more difficult for the farmers

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4180 in Manitoba to appeal on certain conditions and on certain tax assessments on their property. As mentioned earlier, nobody, when Bill 79 was brought in, had any question as to the factthat taxing the homeowner, the home of the farmer for education purposes. No one was against that, but in the back door and after the act was brought in, here they go, they slide in this extra little tax.

Reading through Hansard, the minister calls it the special levy; Yes, special levy, and we on this side know, and some of us through our participation in council know, that the special levy was introduced on the farmers, on the small business people, and on certain homeowners because the assessment had been changed so much that thEire was no funding available for the municipalities. There were no tax dollars brought in. They had to get the tax dollars somehow in. There was no funding for the education programs, so they slip in the special levy.

We realize, of course, that the money had to come from somewhere, so we had to, in fact, introduce and implement a special levy on certain properties, farmers and small business people. That with the current amendment is going to create even a greater problem. Now we have farm ers paying on a 19 85 assessment value, 19 93, 19 94, 19 95; they are going to be paying, and continuing to be paying special levies, special and extra taxes on a value that has dropped drastically-! see that we woke up the Minister of Natural Resources, Madam Deputy Speaker, on that one.

Here we have an assessment base from 19 85 that is going to create a tax burden on the farmers and the businessmen who are paying. Now we are going 1 993, 19 94. In the years past there was much debate on the fact that the assessment had to be changed, that the year of the assessment had to be changed because 19 75 at that time again was as different as 19 85. That may be true. Now this government is working towards the same idea. On one hand, they are saying, well, we have waited too long on the values; here we go, we are regressing.

We are going back to 19 94, and who knows whether or not they decide 19 94- they promised in 19 90 that there were going to be no changes. How do we know next Legislature that this minister or this government has not found another so-called flaw, or has found somebody within the woodwork of the province of Manitoba who does not understand the tax assessment package? We will just keep going and going and going, just keep putting the taxes more and more and more on these people. • (1 520) Madam Deputy Speaker, the right of appeal. Now we all know, as I mentioned earlier, that homeowner s and others may appeal.

Small businesses and homeowners may appeal their tax assessment based on certain factors. According to the Municipal Board and the Manitoba Court of Appeal, this was confirmed just lately that certain homeowners and certain business people, small business people, would be able to appeal, but not farmers. Within Bill 79 and within the amendment act 20, the 19 85 market value-now there is not really anything mentioned about market value, but value. Market value 19 90, 19 93, compared to 19 85, there is a tremendous difference, a tremendous inequity of the tax burden on property owners in those years.

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must say the factors that are being brought in that are going to affect the farmers and all taxpayers within the system, the external factors--not physical-but the external factors have since 19 85 caused a great deal of difficulty within the system and within the province of Manitoba. Free trade-we can call, on one hand, the GST; we can call it on the other hand. Now we say-Madam Deputy Speaker, as usual, they are not listening. We say that 19 85 values should not come in to play now. They should be changed and the assessment should be done as promised by the government in 19 93.

Market values on properties are affected by many factors, external and physical. To give you an example and give this House certain examples, within certain areas we have the loss due to, in some ways, the Free Trade Agreement, but the loss of rail line, loss of elevators. All that has got some factor on the market value of the properties within communities. I can give you two good examples, Madam Deputy Speaker, within my constituency that the effect of the loss of the grain elevator and the loss of rail line to their communities has greatly affected the true market value and the value that their property is at.

Ten years ago, 8 years ago, when communities had rail lines coming getting grain, we had elevators, businesses were flourishing, farmers were getting value for their dollar. Now what do we

4181 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 get? We get a loss in actual value. We do not have that value that they had in 19 85. The value has been lost, and yet this government wants to say we must continue to tax at the 198 5 level, and we must continue to leave in place what is so greatly affecting the well-being of the people of Manitoba in the small communities. Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had the opportunity to meet with certain groups and individuals on this. I myself have met with some of my reeves, mayors, council members and farmers within the area. Their question to me is, why?

Why did the government go back on its word for the reassessment being from 19 93 to 19 94? Why? It is going to hurt each individual farmer out there, each individual small businessman. It is going to hurt the communities. They want their assessment now as was promised so they can re-evaluate their situations, so that they can re-evaluate the idea of where and how they are going to proceed. [inte�ection] That is right, Madam Deputy Speaker, as the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.

Plohman) states, nothing more is going to make them aware of the fact that the people need the assessment, had been promised the assessment and require the assessment to get on with their lives and to either continue to farm as such, or to continue to be in small business, or to continue to live in the small community.

Some of these factors that have been put into place, external factors that have come into being since 19 85 and since 19 90 have brought values down that people, Madam Deputy Speaker, who perhaps have to, for some reason, leave the area of the community or cannot continue to farm anymore, are never going to get the value, the real true value when they ask a certain price for their building or for their business. Potential buyers are going to look at the assessment of the tax base, the taxes that are being patd on this property.

They are going to say, well, there is no way that we are going to be able to afford the taxes that you are paying on this business that has devalued so greatly, or this farm land and property that has devalued so greatly in the last couple of years, Madam Deputy Speaker. The chance and the opportunity to be able to resell, to improve your situation, to improve your conditions are gone. I would just like to finish up my comments and say that we here are very, very disappointed.

As a past municipal official who sat at meetings, who was listening to the government at the time that the tax assessment was going to be put through and was going to be kept, I am disappointed. We are disappointed, very disappointed with the indication of the government having something that, I guess, they are hiding, and we do not want to see that, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We want to see the government be up-front with the people of Manitoba as far as the tax assessment and as far as the taxes in this province, and to work with the communities and to work with organizations in assessing the proper values of this province and assisting them in encouraging the economic growth within the province of Manitoba. We are looking at this amendment with great anticipation as to really what is the hidden agenda of this government when it comes to tax assessment. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I mentioned, I will be the last speaker of our party on this bill. I want to thank you for the opportunity.

Madam Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable- Some Honourable Members: No. Pass it on. Madam Deputy Speaker: No? Okay. Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 20. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Deputy Speaker: On division? Some Honourable Members: No. Madam Deputy Speaker: No. All those in favour, please say yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Madam Deputy Speaker : All those opposed, please say nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay.

Madam Deputy Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4182 *** (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 20, The Mun icipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'evaluation municipale. All those in favour of the motion will please rise. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas Cumm ings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downe y, Driedger, Ducharm e, Enns, Ernst, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, Mcintosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Sveinson, Vodrey.

Nays Alcock, Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar (Selkirk), Doer (Concordia), Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Hickes, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Plohman, Reid, Santos, Storie, Wasylycia-Leis, Wowchuk. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 26, Nays 23. Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried. Bill 21-The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) , Bill 21 , The Pro vincial Park Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les pares provinciaux, standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied. Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to be able to debate Bill 21 , The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act. We have, since the minister introduced the bill, had an opportunity to meet with many, many cottage owners, received much correspondence from cottage owners across the province.

I personally had the opportunity to meet with presidents of different associations regarding the different complications that this bill has brought in for the cottage owners across Manitoba. The cottage owners have a great many concerns as to Bill 21 that has been introduced. We have, and I have, as I mentioned, spoken with many memb ers of the cottage associations throughout Manitoba, Whiteshell and Clearwater and others. We have correspondence relating to Bill21 that find the minister's actions with this bill are ones that the people and the cottage owners have a great amount of concern about. Mr.

Speaker, we had the owners and cottage association people displaying their dissatisfaction with the way the government has handled the bill, the way this government has introduced the bill. The concern of the cottage owners, and from my consultations with them and the letters that I have received there is no real concern to the fact that there is going to be a levy or tax or fee put on them. Nobody is saying within the associations or the owners themselves that there is going to be any problems with that. It is how the minister did it. Mr.

Speaker, I was made aware, in consultations with the people, of the fact that this bill was going to be introduced in the mid-80s and, along with the government at present, the associations had met with the minister at the time and had been putting together a proposal, consultation. They were all prepared to sign and all prepared to dot the i's and cross the t's. Howe ver, it was set aside in 19 88 with the change of government. They had indicated to me and to members of this side of the House that they were displeased with the way the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns) was going about introducing this bill and saying that the province needs revenues. * (1 630) Mr. Speaker, I do have other comments to make on it, but I would allow other bills to be discussed today so that we may continue with remarks another day, perhaps even tomorrow. So I move, seconded by the member for Ain Ron (Mr. Storie), that debate be adjourned and continue with Bill 21 at a later date. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the member was seeking to adjourn debate and continue his comments another time so we can deal with some other bills that I know members wish to deal with today. I realize it is somewhat of an unusual situation. If it requires leave, I think there may be leave required, and all we would ask is that the member have it remain

4183 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 standing in his name and be able to complete his remarks at another sitting. Mr. Speaker: The honour able memb er for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) has 35 minutes remaining. Is there leave of the House to allow this bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake? [Agreed) Bill 47-The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill4 7, The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur !'intrusion, standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan. Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise as our party spokesperson on Bill 47, The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act. We reviewed this act and had an opportunity to review it, and I can indicate for members of the House that I will be the only speaker from our side dealing with this particular matter. At the conclusion of my remarks, this matter can go to committee.

I believe it can go to committee, because I believe that the Liberal Party spokesperson on matters of this kind has already spoken on this matter, by leave, and indicated that the Liberal Party was not opposed to the matter going to committee as well, though the Liberal Party spokesperson indicated their party would be querying the minister on several aspects of this bill, and I can also serve notice to the minister that we, too, will be asking some questions at committee with respect to this bill.

As I understand it, the bill seeks basically to do two things, to allow a person who occupies land and who is a "religious organ ization," with the individuals involved in that organization, to have authority to ask someone who is trespassing upon that land to leave the property. The salient point and the salient issue with respect to that particular aspect, Mr.

Speaker, and I recognize that we can deal with specifics of the bill as the designated individual, as I understand it from the bill, must be someone who has been designated via the articles of incorporation or via the formal processes adopted by that particular religious organization. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) The second aspect of the bill, as pointed out by the minister in his introductory remarks, deals with the issue of an individual to, in effect, make a private arrest of someone who is trespassing on the property.

Now, as I understand it, this has been allowed in the past and as it turns out, this is simply to expand and clarify the particular aspects of The Petty Trespasses Act. There are a number of court cases in litigation, and it is well documented. Members of this House are well aware of situations that have occurred in the past with respect to Hutterite colonies, which, I suspect, is the genesis of this bill, to deal with difficulties that have been incurred by individuals resident at Hutterite colonies, which prompted this amendment.

Certainly the present Petty Trespasses Act, as it is worded, as I understand it, does not allow for those organizations to take advantage of the law as perhaps other organizations and other individuals in our society can do. So this amendmentto the rather short bill-but this rather lengthy amendment, Mr. Acti ng Speak er, which expands the bill considerably, seeks to expand the authority for those in authority on Hutterite colonies to have the right to expel and to take advantages of The Petty Trespasses Act as it applies to that particular colony.

We, in the New Democratic Party, in principle, when we had an opportunity to review this bill and to study sections of it, certainly questions were raised whenever one deals with rights of individuals and organizations, and those rights that can be infringed and can be imposed and the subsequent liabilities when one deals with matters of that kind. Certainly, careful scrutiny must be paid and careful attention must be paid to those aspects that are being dealt with.

There are a couple of aspects of this particular act that bear scrutiny and that bear some review, but notwithstanding that, in general, we are not opposed to this bill going to committee and allowing the public, at committee, and those who are most affected and those who are most concerned by the implications of this bill to make their cases known and to provide input as to the merits or nonmerits of extending the powers under The Petty Trespasses Act to include those religious organizations. Mr. Acting Speaker, it is difficult to deal with some of the concerns-not some of the concerns so much.

Rather I should state, it is difficult to deal with some of the questions that we have with respect to the bill

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4184 without getting to the specifics, and I am precluded from doing that. But certainly the question as to who the bill will apply to, that is, those religious communities that the bill will apply to, is of paramount importance in determining who has the authority to take action under The Petty Trespasses Act, and certainly that would be one of our questions.

Although, from my reading of the bill and the discussions that ensued, it certainly appears that is probably taken care of because of the wording of the bill that deals with providing the authority to those individuals who define the by-laws and who have the actual legal authority.

So it seems to me that at least an initial glance over the bill-and again noting that we should not deal with specific sections-it appears to me that concern may be taken care of, but I think we may want to query the minister with respect to the strict application as to who the bill woould apply to and the various instances when it might apply, and what specifically the government is considering by-laws, which by-laws, which incorporations, which com munities and what individuals will be empowered with the authority as a result of this bnl to deal with matters of trespass under The Petty Trespasses Amendment Act. • (1 640) The other interesting point, Mr.

Acting Speaker, is, of course, something which was raised by the memberfor St.James(Mr. Edwards) and something I am also curious about in terms of the actual genesis of this bill and the genesis of this particular amendment. I would be interested to see from whom and from what direction the input came which resulted in this particular amendment being brought forward. Generally, as I indicated at the onset, I will be the only speaker from our party on this bill and consequently those will conclude, in general, my opening remarks. As I indicated earlier, I will be-roy opening and, in fact, Mr.

Acting Speaker, my closing remarks. As I indicated, this matter will be passed on to committee with no further speakers from our side. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the second reading of Bill 4 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed] 8111 74-The Law Society Amendment Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 74, (The Law Society Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe du Barreau), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson) : Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to indicate initially that I will be speaking on this particular bill and our Justice critic (Mr. Chomiak) will be as well. It is a fairly brief bill. It deals with the Law Society and in particular it deals with a number of items related to the Law Society's role as a disciplinary body. In particular, it deals with the whole q uestion of meetings, whether they should be held in camera or should be held in a form where there can be public scrutiny.

I know it is unfortunate that we need to be dealing with matters such as this, but the legal profession is not any different, Mr. Acting Speaker, than any profession. While the vast majority of lawyers never do run into potential situations where they are called before the Law Society, there are, of course, and have been a number of cases in recent years where that unfortunately has occurred. It has occurred because of a number of problems often related to misuse of trust accounts, trust funds, et cetera.

There is a real need in dealing with disciplinary actions to ensure that not only is the right thing done, Mr. Acting Speaker, that justice is done, but justice is seen to be done. I know this is an ongoing conflict within any organization, within any profession. I think that is one matter that needs to be dealt with. There are a number of sections of the bill which deal with that and also deal with contravention of the act and the fines that are involved. As I said, it is a fairly brief bill, but it does touch on some very important issues.

We will be speaking, our Justice critics will have some more detailed comm ents. We will look forward to any presentations that may be made on committee, Mr. Acting Speaker, and would anticipate that it will be passing later on today. The AcUng Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is Second Reading of Biii- Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Yes, as indicated by the member for Thompson, I will be concluding

4185 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 3,1992 remarks by our party with respect to this particular bill, that is Bill 74, the Law Society Amendment Act. We will indicate that we will be passing the bill through to committee in order to allow for public discussion of some of the ramifications of this particular bill. Mr. Acting Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party always welcome the opening up of closed society and closed shops for public scrutiny, for public input and for public discussion. That is why we will be allowing this bill to proceed to committee for public hearings.

It is, I suppose, one might term it, self-serving and perhaps a little bit difficult for me as a member of the Law Society to comment-or as someone who is called to the bar-to comment on this particular bill, but I have long advocated personally the opening up of the process, one that is shrouded in secrecy and then what is too often a mystical to the public. We have long called for the opening of that to the public and to that end we welcome this particular amendment which has been brought forward. That is not to say, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this amendment entirely meets with our approval.

Like so much legislation there are some provisions which frankly, we think, are weak and perhaps should be improved. I could probably spend the balance of the day and indeed take considerable time to discuss some of the weaknesses of the particular bill. I should indicate that I am not going to do that in the interests of passage, to allow the matter to go to public discussion and also because the member for Flin Aon (Mr.

Storie) had an opportunity to outline to this House some of the concerns that, I dare say, the lay public may have with this particular bill, and I guess the issues that, if I could capitulate the comments of the member for Flin Aon: basically the bill does not go far enough. That is, in fact, the difficulty, the inquiries can still be held in camera. The final decision is made by the Law Society. Frankly-and I can advise you of this-almost any topic or subject can be deemed to be subject to solicitor-client privilege which would preclude the opening up of a hearing. Those are weaknesses in the bill that we see.

In addition, although it does not necessarily deal with this aspect of the Law Society, we would certainly welcome the expansion of the Law Society to include more lay people. Certainly, I think that we have evolved far beyond simply a situation where these organizations and groups are totally controlled by only those members of the profession, and certainly would like to see it more open to laypeople, if I could term it that, with respect to the Law Society. But, in general, we certainly, in the New Democratic Party, welcome the.opening up of the process.

We welcome it, it should perhaps go further, but certainly we welcome this step and look forward to public discussion at committee where the public will have an opportunity to provide their input and to provide any suggestions they may have with respect to this particular bill. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) With those comments, Mr. Speaker, I will close discussion of Bill ? 4. I can indicate that there will be no more speakers from this side of the House, and I presume, given the comments of the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that the matter can now go to committee. Thank you. Mr.

Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 7 4, The Law Society Amendment Act; loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe du Barreau. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed) *** Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I think I inadvertently had youca11 Bill 76. Thatwasmy error. la m wondering, has that been changed? Mr. Speaker: Yes, that has already been changed. Mr. Man ness: Okay . I had not realized it had been changed. Thank you. 8111 82-The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 82 , The Farm Prac tices Pr otection and Consequ ential Amendments Act;

Loi sur Ia protection des pratiques agricoles et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Swan River. Ms. Rosann Wowc huk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act is something that

June 3,1992 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4186 farmers have been talking about for a long time, legislation that would protect them in their farm practices. I think they had been talking more along the lines of a right-to-farm bill. There are protection act bills in other provinces, and it has been something that some groups of farmers have been calling for in the province for some time. The minister tells us that there has been discussion on this for some time and there has been a lot of input. It has been circulated amongst municipalities and farm groups, and there seems to be approval.

Farmers have wanted to get protection. As things change within the rural community, we sometimes get different patterns of population, and farmers who have been practising for many years end up having people who might be moving into the area or an increase in population. • (1 650) Although we have seen very little increase in population in the rural community lately, there are situations that may arise within the farming community where one person might not agree with what the farmer is doing and how he is carrying on this practice. There can be complaints that can arise over odours or noise, dust.

One of the complaints that we have had over the last number of years near the city of-Winnipeg is smoke. Farmers have taken on the practice of burning stubble, and this has caused serious problems for many people. These are some of the things that can be dealt with under The Farm Practices Protection Act. The bill says that farmers can carry on their practices in a normal manner. I guess the one question we have about the bill is, what is normal farm practice?

What is normal farm practice for one farmer may be okay because he or she have been doing it for many years, but for other people may not be considered normal. Again, we go back to burning of stubble. There are many farmers that used to have that practice many years ago, but they realize now that it is not the best practice you can have as far as conserving soil and nutrients in the soil. So you have to look at what is normal, a normal practice and how it can continue. Another practice that has changed, and there was discussion about this in Estimates, is summer fallow.

Continuous summe r fallow, when we have dry weather conditions, can cause lots of dust problems for neighbors down the road, particularly if they are close to a town. Again, this will cause a problem. We have to look at, is summer fallowing a normal practice, or is it something that can be challenged to a farmer under this legislation? How can a farmer be protected from those kinds of practices? Government departments have, over the years, worked to encourage farmers to change their practices, particularly in summer fallow.

We have had farmers moving towards zero tillage and other practices which conserve the soil much better from wind erosion and from water erosion. Those are beneficial to the farmers. So we have to really consider carefully what we do mean by normal practices, and that, above all, farmers, although they are being protected by this legislation, carry on with normal practices. I think that we have to also look that farmers protect the land. The land is a natural resource that is here for us to use, for farmers to use, but we also wantthat resource protected for the next generation.

We know that continual summer fallowing causes erosion. We know that burning of stubble depletes the soil. We know that soil can be damaged by many farmers who are not using proper practices. By this normal practice, does it mean that if a farmer chooses to put on tonnes and tonnes of fertilizer and other chemicals to hurt the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-78
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 78.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	b705af3dbc08cadcff76c3544bd66e74a8659266

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