Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 70 (35th Legislature, 4th Session)

35-4-70

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8CJ.48 Third 5ess lon • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 42 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker , VOL. XLII No. 70 • 1:30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, MAY 26 ,1 993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRElT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHE EMA, Guizar CHOM IAK, Dave CUMMINGS, 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, Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FIN DLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis 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. ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacan t Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan 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 Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Ain Ron La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River Rossmere Rupertsland PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal 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

3401 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, May 26, 1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Louise Da cqu ay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, the Com mittee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the comm ittee be received. Motion agreed to. TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, with the permission of the House, I would like to table the letter ofthe Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to the Auditor requesting her review of the matter with respect to Shelter Corporation. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable First Minister. Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 1992 Annual Re port of the Nor th Portage Development Corporation and The Forks Renewal Corporation. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honour able memb ers to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today Mr. Claude Dub ou let, the Consul Gen eral of Swit zerland. On behalf of all honourable memb ers, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir. Also with us this afternoon from the Nelson Mcintyre Collegiate, we have twenty-nine Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Ray Gosselin. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Immigrant Investor Program Audits-Public Release Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon). Since 1989, we have been asking questions of the government dealing with the Immi grant Investor Fund. We have been raising concerns about Manitoba's reputation in other countries. We have been raising questions about the integrity of these investments in this province. We have been raising questions about the monitoring process that the government had conducted as far back as 1989. Mr.

Speaker, we are still awai ting the so-called final report of the provincial government. Can the Premier indicate today, almostfour years later, the status of the inquiry that it only began to conduct in August of 1992? Will he make clear today that all of the audits dealing with the five specific funds will be made public? * (1 335) Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, this is a question the Leader of the Opposition asked approximately a week ago-{interjection] Two weeks ago. At that time, I outlined that we had received four of the five audits.

We have just recently received the final audit. We are in the process of doing the internal review and analysis of that. As I have indicated to this House before, we will be making the appropriate public announcement after the review and analysis of all five audits. I expect that to be soon. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, increasingly, when we have been asking this question to the minister, he has been saying that we will be releasing our review and our analysis of these five specific funds, rather than the five specific audits.

We are becoming gravely concerned that the government is going to censor the information that is made available to the public of Manitoba. Unlike the decision to send it to the Provincial Auditor in August when allegations were raised and unlike the

3402 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 conditions that a Provincial Auditor works on, we have a pr ivate accountan t chosen by the Conservative Party. We have people who have donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Conservative Party who are in the audit that is being reviewed, Mr. Speaker, and we have a Conservative government that is now going to control the information we have in this House.

I would like to ask the government again to make it very clear that the five audits themselves will be released in an unce nsored form for the people of Manitoba and for the investors who are concerned about this program in the province of Manitoba. Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, this has absolutely nothing to do with censorship whatsoever, and I would give the Leader of the Opposition enough credi t to respect issues such as thir d-party confidentiality. I think they did it when they were in government, and if we have to do it in given situations in terms of information provided, we will do the same.

I have indicated before, we will make as much information available as possible, also respecting third-party confidentiality, and I hope he is not also suggesting that firms like Deloitte Touche here in Manitoba, a very reputable accounting firm, or Taylor McCaffrey, a very reputable legal firm, are not going to do the proper due diligence and professional job that would be expected of them in this instance and any job that they retain on behalf of any provincial government. I know they will and I have the confidence they will.

I would hope that he is not in any way suggesting that they will be influenced by anything beyond doing their professional job, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Doer: When the Provincial Auditor deals with various funds-in fact, when they dealt with the minister's own Vision Capital Fund, Mr. Speaker, they named companies that were on the board of di rectors, because they have a sovereign responsibility to report these issues to the Chamber and the people of Manitoba.

I want to ask the minister: In his definition of third-party interest-w hich is not the definition that lawyers we have talked to have used-does that mean that the funds themse lves-[interjection] Well, if the Premier (Mr. Rlmon) wants to answer the question about how he is dealing with his friends, why does he not stand up? Mr. Speaker, the audits are dealing with the five funds themselves. Those audits are the specific reviews of the specific transactions dealing with those five funds.

Why will the min ister today not assu re Manitobans that the public interest will be the preeminent consideration of the government, and why will he not say today that those will be released fully to the public for their perusal and review? Mr. Stefanson: I will assure the Leader of the Opposition that the public interest is of preeminence to this government, and it has been throughout the whole process. We are the government that undertook a review that they could have done back in 1986 when the program came into place i1 they had put in the proper rules, procedures and guidelines.

We undertook the review in August of 1992. We froze funds in Manitoba so that no funds are curren tly being approved while these reviews are ongoing, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure him that this is the preemin ent position of this government, the protection of the best interests of Manitobans and potential Manitobans and Canadians. I have outlined to him that there might be third-party confidentiality. When we release the information, we will make as much information as can legally be done available, Mr. Speaker, and we intend to provide as much information as possible on this very important issue .

Education System Extracun'lcular Activities Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon, perhaps thousands of students will gather on the steps of the Legislature to protest this governmen t's cuts to the public education system and the potential loss of extracurricular activities at schools in Manitoba. Under this government, Mr. Speaker, we have seen misplaced priorities which place Zambonis for St. John' s-Ravenscourt ahead of band programs and drama programs at Garden City Collegiate.

As this chaos in Mani toba edu cation develops, responsibility mu st be accepted by this Minister of Education and a strategy developed. I ask the Minister of Education what strategy she and her government have developed to deal with this growing crisis in the public education system. * (1 340)

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 3403 Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I certainly reject the member's pream ble. I also reject the details that he has put forward about the purpose of the students coming to the Legislature this afternoon because last week, I did have an opportunity to meet with the students who would be coming.

The students made it clear that they would be attending in a rally, and one of the main and under lying purposes would be to ask those people responsible for education to continue to discuss and to talk and to problem solve, not necessarily to point the finger at this single government. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, this minister seems to be indicating she can shunt this off to the local level, to the school boards and trustees. 1 want to ask this minister: Can the minister tell this House how she has responded to River East students when they wrote to her and said, and I quote: Do you realize that with the loss of extra curricu lar activities, dropouts will increase at incredible rates? Where will the money come from to support these stude nts without jobs? Students have nothing to do with their time, so the amount of drug and alcohol use will increase and along with that, vandalism and crime.

I want to ask the minister, how is she responding to those-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, the member has asked about government funding. I have said before in this House that education has not been singled out and teachers have not been singled out, but that Manitobans must work together to look at our economic and fiscal situation and the fiscal realities of this province.

We have also said that in the past, education, health and family services have been areas where there has been protection, but this year, we have now asked that those particular areas, as well, must share in the recovery of this province, and that is exactly what we have asked teachers to do. Teachers have not been singled out. Teachers have been asked to share. We believe that teachers are professional and they will be able to come to a resolution around sharing and reconsider any kind of job action. Education System Extracurricular Activities Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, let there be no mistake.

The crisis comes as a direct result of this governme nt's actions, and the Premier knows that. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier, since the students from River East wrote to him on May 13 , and they said and I quote: The threat of losing extracurricular activities will mean a drastic change to our lives. The responsibility and leadership skills that you learn from these activities build character in our generation and generations to follow. They go on to say: How will anyone achieve athletic scholarships without high school sports? Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Mr.

Plohman: I want to ask the Premier: How is he responding to these River East students who are concerned about their future? * (1 345) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Well, Mr. Speaker, rather than just simply play politics on this issue the way the member for Dauphin does, who is also a member of the teachers' union and wants to foment this kind of discontent in an irresponsible manner- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, on a point of order, I could find a couple of areas in which the Pr emier is violating Beauchesne, particularly in terms of responding to a question that was asked in terms of high school students and their concerns. If he is not going to answ er the questions, he should not also break our rules in Beauchesne in terms of attributing motive. The memb er for Dauphin is speaking out on behalf of the students, many high school students across the province-- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.

The honourable First Minister, to finish his response. *** Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, the memb ers opposite speak on behalf of their own narrow self-interest as

3404 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA May 26, 19 93 always. We know exactly where they stand and so do the people of Manitoba. The fact of the matter is it is not this government that has put the students in this position. We offered a solution that would not require any loss of contact with the students. We offered a solution whereby those em ployed in the field of education, like everybody else in society, would have to face up to the realities all of us do. There are people in society today in all [inte�ection] The memb ers opposite just want to tax and spend, tax and spend and drive up the deficit.

We know where they stand. They can afford to be irresponsible, but I can tell you that their colleagues who are in government in Saskatchewan , in British Colum bia and Ontari o, can not afford to be irresponsible. They are taking the right route, Mr. Speaker, which is to ensure they can live within their means. They do not have an irresponsible lot of people over there like we do here, opposite. The fact of the matter is everybody has to co-operate in order to ensure that we can make ends meet.

We have offered a vari ety of alternatives, alternatives that are being pursued by responsible people in school boards in this province. If teachers indeed want to help students, withdrawing their services and threatening not to participate in their activities is no way to help the students of this province. That is not the way to do it. That may be the way that the New Democrats want to. They are the irresponsible people. We do not accept that, Mr. Speaker. Education System Reform Government Strategy Mr. Kevin Lamoureux {Inkster): Mr.

Speaker, the quality of education has been deteriorating since this government has taken office. We have some very serious concerns with this government's inability to deal with the whole question of reforming our educational institutions, our school divisions and so forth. Later today, we are going to have students coming to the Manitoba Legislature to protest which, in all likelihood, will be the first time where we have seen elem entary and high school students in protest. We have had uni ve rsity stu den ts, post- secondary students protesting.

My question to the Minister of Education is: What is this government, in particular this minister, doing -she ma kes reference to wanting to solve problem s-to solve some of the problems in education? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey {Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, this government has put forward more educational reforms in the past three years than has been seen in the history of education. I point to the introduction of a bill for Francophone governance, reform of The Public Schools Act, review of the uni ver sities and mo ving our commu nity colleges to governance. School Divisions Boundary Review Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux {Inkster): Mr. Speaker, she talks about reform of The Public Schools Amend ment Act, the Francophone governance legislation, the impact that this is going to have. In some cases, school divisions are not going to become efficient. They are not going to be able to survive. My question to the minister is: When is this minister going to deal with the issue of school divisions and restructuring of the number of school divisions we have in the province of Manitoba? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey {Minister of Education and Training): As I said when I made the announcement to defer school boundaries a year ago, it was still an issue which this government had said that it was interested in pursuing, and I hope to make an announcemen t on that shortly. National Council on Education Government Participation Mr. Kevin Lamoureux {Inkster): Mr. Speaker, Canada is one of the few countries without a federal department of education. Such a department could address the growing complaints concerning quality of education and may be a mechanism to save money in the provincial educ ation budgets.

A national council on education will be established by a business-- Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Mr. Lamoureux: My question is for the Minister of Education. Will she support the participation of a Council of Ministers of Education in a national council on education to deal with these concerns? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey {Minister of Education and Training): As the member may know, ministers across this country do operate as a Council of

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3405 Ministers of Education, and we do meet and we have the opportunity to discuss issues whic h we have in common and issues of concern across Canada. We also have the opportunity to discuss any initiatives which the federal governmen t may also want to put forward , and as ministers, we will take the opportunity to discuss it and come forward with the position. New Careers Program Affirmative Action Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, on May 13 , I asked the minister in Question Period how many aboriginal em ployees she had fired from New Careers.

She refused to tell the House and said she would answer in Estimates. In Estimates with her staff present, when asked about affirmative action in her department, she chose to table a document that was two months out of date and which took no account of the employees cut from New Careers. With some persistent questioning, the minister admitted that out of eight aboriginal staff in New Careers, five had lost their jobs in the minister's reorganization. Would she tell the House today again about her extensive comm itment to aboriginal affirmative action in her department? • (1 350) Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Yes, yesterday, I had to bring outthe Hansard to show the member that, in fact, the question was one which should be considered in Estimates and which would be, and one that we did speak about last evening. When we spoke about the positions in New Careers, I did let the member know, and we discussed affirmative action. I let her know all of the initiatives that we have regarding affirmative action.

But one point that she has had a lot of trouble dealing with is the fact that under the collective agreement, the collective agreement does not allow for affirmative action in the area of reductions. That member seems to want us to break the collective agreement and deal with affirmative action under that heading. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, when the government makes the difficult choices of building better private golf courses and cutting the New Careers Program , that is exactly what happens.

I want to ask the minister what message of hope does the Minister of Education believe has been conveyed to aboriginal people in training in New Careers prog rams and elsewhere when her department cuts more than $1 million from a successful program and now simply disposes of more than 60 percent of the aboriginal staff in that program ? Mrs. Vodrey: As I said yesterday, it is clear from the budget line that this government has maintained a commitment to the type of program ming which is offered by New Careers.

In addition, I have also explained to the member how through the restructuring of the Advanced Educ ation and Skills Training portion of my department, we look to provide a full range of progr amming and opportunity for access for Manitobans. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister has considered the program impact of the loss of those five staff in the New Careers Program, so could she tell us today what the program impacts will be for a department, for a program, in particular, whose success depended upon culturally sensitive programming and counselling? Mrs. Vodrey: Mr.

Speaker, last evening, I did bring some up- to-date figures to say that the aboriginal staff in that program were seven, and that there was still a sensitivity to the area of cultural sensitivity. In addition, we spoke about how that program operates. It operates with people also participating in work within their commun ities, where they also rece ive com mu nity support and also, in some cases, cultural support where that is a part of their work experience program . Aboriginal Justice Inquiry Report Government Action Plan Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday, the First Minister (Mr. Filmon) kindly took notice of questions raised by the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) with respect to the Aboriginal Jus tice Inquiry and initiatives our government is taking. Our government is working directly with aboriginal commu nities, Mr. Speaker, to make the justice

3406 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 system more sensitive and responsive to the needs and concerns of aboriginal Manitobans. For the second year in a row, our government has established a special $1 -million Aboriginal Justice Initiatives Fund. This money is used for a variety of projects directly in aboriginal communi ties; for example, $1 00,000 over two years for the St.

Theresa Point Youth Court, $60,000 for the Hollow Water Commu nity Holistic Healing Circle, $28,000 for the Island Lake Family Violence Program , $17 1 ,500 for the expansion of our Video Bail Program throughout northern Manitoba, another $1 0,000 for the Southeast Tribal Council Workshop on Family Violence, not to mention our support for the DOTC Police and Probation Programs. On the other ques tion regarding aboriginal policing, I met just last week with the Honourable Doug Lewis, federal Solicitor General, to discuss the tripartite policing negotiations.

I am pleased to report that negotiations are progressing with the federal government, and we re main comm itted to in creasi ng aboriginal participation in our police forces and the expansion of aboriginal police forces on reserves. * (1 355) Environmental Legislation Enforcement Ms. MarlanneCerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the Manitoba Department of Environment collected a mer e $9 ,600 last year from penalties of environm ental infractions. This is pathetic when compar ed to other provinces which had raised more than am ill ion dollars from environmental infractions. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Allow the honourable member to put her question. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Environment is: Why is Manitoba and our Department of Environment so far behind in enforcing penalties on environmental infractions? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I presume she is also in favour of quotas for RCMP officers on traffic tickets. Mr.

Speaker, I find it absolutely galling when a member of the opposition which num bers among its benches a number of members who condone the amount of cost that the taxpayers of this province are now paying to clean up the Manfor site-and they talk about the lack of ability to collect fines. We are paying up to $13 million to clean up the mess they left behind. Ms. Cerllll: I will give the minister another chance to answer the question. What are other provinces doing that Manitoba is not doing, so that they are penalizing polluters and collecting the fines that are mandated in the law?

What are they doing differently than we are doing in Manitoba? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, again, it appears that the member would like us to assign quotas to our environment officers and tell them that they can go out as bounty hu nters and collect under The Environment Act. Mr. Speaker, the member would imply that there are polluters out there who are not being brought to task, and I suggest she had better give examples. Ms. Cerllll: Mr.

Speake r, the State of the Environment Repor t admits this is a pathetic performance and that the governmen t is now working on an enforcement policy to increase its enforcement and penalties collected. What is the new policy going to do differently so that our generation of money is going to enforce the law in Manitoba? Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I did not anticipate that the enforcement of environmental regulation was going to be a revenue stream, but I think that is what she is suggesting. Mr. Speaker, the fact is we have been increasing the number of environment officers in this province.

Once we go into Estimates, I hope tomorrow, we will be able to show where the number of environment officers on the ground is increasing. I would point out that of the provinces across western Canada, we are now one of two which is about to have a fully operational hazardous waste corporation in place to be able to take the waste she is so concerned about. Seniors Programs Funding Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Seniors. The minister issued a press release last week proclaiming the month of June to be Seniors Month.

The proclamation was issued in recognition of past and present contributions of seniors.

May 26, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3407 At the same time as the governm ent is recognizing the contributions seniors have made to Manitoba, it has cut back funding to the Seniors Directorate by 14 percent. The Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) own budget figures show that this is the second largest cut in percentage terms to any government department. The government has increased the deductible for Pharmacare and has deindexed the 55 Plus program. How can he justify saying that seniors are important to his government when its own spending priorities show they are not? Hon.

Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Speaker, the Liberal caucus already requested the funds that were spent last year. Under the Freedom of Information, we will be providing them with that information shortly. However, we did consult with senior groups throughoutthe province, and the four events that are held, and the ones held before, have been very well received. We will continue to support seniors and have them come to the Legislature. A lot of them, it is the only few days they have to come to the Leg, and, also, the events throughout the province are very well received.

If he wants to point out, for instance, the day at the Leg last year, I think we spent in the vicinity of $9,000 for 1 ,500 seniors, so figure it out per capita, and it is money well spent for our seniors throughout Manitoba. •

(1400) Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of fitness and sport (Mr. Stefanson). At the same time as it has increased the budget allocation to fitness and sport by 2.1 percent, this government has decided to eliminate its grant in support of the Manitoba seniors 55-plus games. How much of the increased funding for his department will be directed towards seniors' sporting activities? Mr. Ducharme: Yes, Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was all consolidated under the Minister responsible for Seniors as of last year.

We consulted with MSOS who sponsored the games, and through their revenue and their surplus of $250,000 they have in the bank, they have decided this year they will carry on with the MSOS games without funding from the government. Manitoba Public Insurance Corp. Seniors Discount Mr. Nell Gaudry (SL Boniface): Mr. Speaker, under the no-fault legislation, seniors will no longer be eligible for income replacement after age 68, yet I suspect they will be paying full rates nonetheless.

Considering cuts to the Seniors Directorate and the elimination of the Pensioner's School Tax Assistance from the property tax bill, is the Minister responsible for MPIC going to give seniors a cut in Autopac rates so that they are not paying for coverage they are not even eligible for? Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the ad ministra tion of The Ma nit oba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I would have to suggest that the member is incorrect in his assertion that seniors are not eligible for benefits under the legislation that is presently before the House.

The fact is if there is an income loss, it will be replaced. Additionally, all other services that would be available to anyone are available to seniors without restriction. All health care, all rehabilitation, all out-of-pocket expenses will be replaced. Where there is a loss of income, that will be replaced. Private Money Lenders Regulations Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the invisible Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Mclntosh)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I remind the honourable member for Elmwood that we refer to ministers as "the honourable minister of" and his responsibility.

We also respond to members as "the honourable member for " in relating to his constituency. I would ask the honourable member to comply with said rule. Point of Order Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): On a point of order, I am sure that the member opposite would not want to make comments with respect to the minister if he were aware of the fact that she suffered a bad fall and has been instructed to be confined to bed by her doctor, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourable First Minister did not have a point of order.

3408 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA May 26, 19 93 We appreciate the information. *** Mr. Maloway: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to ask the Minister of Consumer Affairs this question for two weeks now. Perhaps I will direct my question to the acting minister. Mr. Speaker, consumers of this province have paid fees and never received funds from loan brokers in this province. Given that the firm has now left the province, having bilked hundreds of Manitobans of their money, when is this minister, when is this this government going to take some steps to regulate private lenders in this province?

They have known about it for a month and a half now, and they have done nothing. Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the

preamble of the question as being accurate, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the minister. Consumer Alert Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, since the minister knew about this situation now for six weeks, why did the minister not issue a consumer alert when she first got complaints over a month and a half ago and before the Better Business Bureau got 160 complaints on this matter? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, again, without accepting any of the

preamble as being accurate, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the minister. Private Money Lenders Investigations Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Speaker, since this government is not prepared to act on this matter, my supplementary is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

Could he tell the House what involvement, including meetings, he has had with FYB Management Services, Western Rnancial Services Ltd. and Premier Canadian Financial Services Ltd. and whether these groups have been investigated as part of his long-awaited investigation into the Immigrant Investor Program operated in this province? Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I have had no meetings with any of those three organizations, certainly in the last period of time or that I can recall under those particular names.

In terms of their involvement or potential involvement with the Immigrant Investor Program, we will await the conclusion of the five audits I have received that I referred to earlier. To the best of my knowledge, again, there is no relationship of those three firms. We will wait and see what the information shows, Mr. Speaker. Grain Transportation Method of Payment Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week, I tabled a copy of a report of the NTA on the western grain transportation efficiencies.

Since the report indicates that if these changes are implemented, farmers' costs will increase by $500 million over eight crop years, I want to ask the minister whether he has had a chance to look at this rep ort, and if he has, does he still support implementing the changes and changes to the method of payment which will further increase farm costs and do nothing to improve the farm gate prices? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has now finally recognized we have some troubles at the farm gate in terms of costs. I would like to remind her of costs I gave her before.

Maybe she will get around to looking at them. At the farm gate, we have seen costs for terminal activities, the elevators going for $3.77 in 1980 to $6.58 today, lake transportation from $14 to $18, storage costs from $4 to $1.83 , the freight and elevation costs going from about $9 up to $21. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member recognizes we have cost increases that have been passed on to the farmer.

We are trying, through the process of evaluating the overall system, to find ways and means to create efficiencies in the system that decrease overall costs, and particularly costs that accrue at the farm gate because, at the same time, the member is well aware that the value of the commodity we are producing in terms of the dollars per bushel for wheat and barley has gone down at the farm gate to about half. I am glad she now recognizes that problem.

May 26, 19 93 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3409 Minister's Position Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, l thank the minister for that information, but I already knew about all the costs farmers are paying. I want to ask the minister: He says he supports efficiencies and he says he supports improving the farm gate price. What does he say about this paper that says farmers' prices are going to go up by $500 million and railway profits are going to go up to a billion dollars, increasing by $500 million? What is this doing for farmers? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

Speaker, the issue is very involved, very complex, and that is why in 1989, we formed the Ministers' Advisory Council to look at the overall issues of grain transportation, the ability of grain farmers to survive with an international grain trade war and increasing costs. That process has been ongoing. Many studies have been put out. This is one of many, many studies that have been done.

The committee which is broadly represented by all rural Manitobans is analyzing the issue and making constant recommendations to me as to how we proceed in the future for farmers to have the ability to grow those crops and make a profit exporting it to the world. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, this is the National Transportation Agency reviewing the system that says farmers are going to pay more money, and this minister will not- Mr. Speaker: Question, please. Ms.

Wowchuk: Will the minister tell us whether he has read this paper and when he is going to stand up for farmers and oppose all of these things that are going to cost farmers more money and not do a thing to improve the farm gate price? Mr. Findlay: Well, I guess, Mr. Speaker, that is the luxury of opposition. She can oppose anything. She just wants to oppose everything. She has no solutions. We have gone through Estimates, went through the Estimates discussion. She had no solutions. She opposed this, she opposed that, but she has no solutions. I am one who consults with the industry broadly.

I have done that religiously for five years, and I continue to do it working with the stakeholders to try to find solutions. An Honourable Member: Close your eyes and the world will not change. Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr. Speaker, to quote the Premier (Mr. Filmon), close your eyes and the world will not change- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Grow Bonds Program Review Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): The same is true, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Rural Development, who has had his eyes closed with respect to the Grow Bonds Program since its inception.

Yesterday, I indicated that in my discussions with chambers of commerce and Regional Development Corporation managers and others involved in economic development in the province, the Grow Bonds Program was not operating as it should. My que stion is to the Mini ster of Rural Development. Will he now, after the president of the Manitoba Chamber has indicated that this program is a failure, is failing the Manitoba communities, undertake the kind of review that is going to be required to streamline this program and get it back on track? *

(1410) Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the member opposite that the Grow Bonds Program was implemented in this province so that rural Manitobans could invest in opportunities that might be coming to their areas and so that they would have a vehicle whereby they could invest in those kinds of opportunities. I can indicate to the member that to date we have several very successful projects underway and several more that are in the works.

I can refer the member to the Rimer-Aico project, which, indeed, has been a tremendous success in terms of the Grow Bonds initiative that was implemented. I can refer the member to the Teulon experience, where the Grow Bonds were sold out in a matter of a week and a half. These are examples of success stories. However, we have to understand that this was not a quick fix for rural Manitoba, that, indeed, communities would have to generate the projects and that the vehicle of Grow Bonds was made available to all of them. The program is an excellent one and it is working.

3410 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we understand that the vehicle has merit, but, unfortunately, this vehicle is stalled, this vehicle will not start, this vehicle needs a boost. That is what the chamber of commerce says. That is what people in rural Manitoba said. My question to the Minister of Rural Development: Will he now acknowledge that there are some legitimate problems in this program, problems that stem partly from the variety of levels that are involv&d in the approval process, and will he attempt to streamline it with the groups involved in rural Manitoba? Mr.

Derkach: The member is dead wrong. As a matter of fact, it is up to the communities, and it is up to the individual proponents to come forward with ideas. As soon as those ideas have been developed, the process moves along very quickly. No one intended that we would simply throw money at rural communities and the problems would go away. That is the NDP fix. It is not the way we are approaching the problem. Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, obviously the government is not going to be interested in solving the problem until they acknowledge there is one. There is a problem. The chamber of commerce has told the minister.

My question is: Will he now work with the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce , with the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and the UMM to establish a group to review this program to find out why it is not doing what the people in rural Manitoba and northern Manitoba expected it to do, and, that is create jobs? Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what we are doing. We are working not only with the municipal groups, the UMM, MAUM; we are also working with the chambers. As a matter of fact, I have met personally with the president of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce.

What we have discussed is the programs that are available under Rural Economic Development. The president of the chamber of commerce for Manitoba indicated the programs that have been implemented in this province for rural development are, indeed, beyond all others in other provinces in this country. Mr. Speaker, just last week, we announced a new program with regard to assisting rural Manitobans to invest in projects, and we will continue to work with chambers and municipalities to ensure that rural Manitobans have every opportunity of investment in our province. Housing Northern Manitoba Mr.

Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing. The housing conditions and concerns in remote northern communities are significant. There are poor housing conditions, lack of repairs, and now there are concerns in many northern communities about the changeover in programming with the assumption of responsibility by CMHC, which is leading to people going from fixed rents to increased rents based on income, and people who had the opportunity to own their own home now in the position of being renters.

I would like to ask the Minister of Housing what his position is in terms of the shifts that are taking place and what his government is doing to deal with the many concerns being expressed by people in remote northern communities about these changes. Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the member for Thompson's questions are quite broad, and it would be better served, I think, in terms of a discussion once we get into the Estimates of the Department of Housing.

I can say, though, that a number of, particularly native groups in this province about a year and a half ago approached CMHC and asked that all of the native housing programs that were being provided formerly by Manitoba Housing be returned to CMHC for delivery by them. They in turn sublet the delivery of that program to the Manitoba Metis Federation which is presently delivering the program. Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, I had a specific question in terms of the imp act it is having in terms of rental payments. Many people are faced with increased rental payments and continuing problems with maintenance.

What is the position of the minister and this government in dealing with the very significant concerns being expressed by northern residents about housing conditions and rents? Mr. Ernst: The question of rents, maintenance and so on, Mr. Speaker, falls under the purview of CMHC. I suggest that he contact the local manager here, Mr. Roy Nichol, to ask him those questions.

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA 341 1 Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would ask firstly if you could seek leave of the House to waive private members' hour. Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied. Mr. Praznlk: Mr. Speaker, I would ask then if you could call for second reading Bill 37.

I believe that is the bill dealing with the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, then if you could call for continuation of debate on second reading in this order, Bills 23, 19, 16 and 22. SECOND READINGS Bill 37- The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with the ad ministrat ion of The Ma nitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Ministe r of Highways and Transportation (Mr.

Driedger), that Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corpo ratio n Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d'assurance publique du Mani tob a et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Bill 37. This bill calls for the introduction of a no-fault injury compensation plan for Manitoba.lt will provide accident victims with fair compensation for their injuries and, at the same time, help stabilize Autopac rates over the long run.

The new plan will replace the right to sue, a provision which often results in some people being paid too much for their injuries and others too little, with guaranteed compensation for all accident victims based on their real economic losses. This compensation is greatly enhanced over that which is available today. This bill takes restitution for injury claims out of the realm of litigation and into that of compensation.

The government re cognizes that Bill 37 represents a major departure from the status quo, but let me assure everyone in this House that such a dramatic action is what may well be preferable to the alternative, and that alternative may be continuing massive increases in injury-claim costs resulting in a doubling of Autopac premiums by the turn of the century. Mr. Speaker, those costs are being driven primarily by claims for relatively minor, temporary injuries. These become a major burden on the insurance system.

Last year, in fact, these types of injuries, such as whiplash, made up 80 percent of all injury claims reported. Clearly, Manitobans are concerned. My friends, no doubt, have heard that the implementation of no-fault will result in some considerable saving, but let me remind everyone that that saving will ultimately accrue to the motorists of this province. With these changes, very simply, Manitobans will no longer face the unacceptably high premium costs that they experienced last year. Mr. Speaker, I think the acoustical system in the other side of the House is not working well.

When we announced that legislation would be introduced, Mr. Speaker, we emphasized four key principles to ensure that Manitobans are fairly compensated for real economic losses due to auto accidents. I repeat that we wish to ensure that Manitobans are fairly com pensated for real economic losses due to auto accidents.

The four key principles are these: coverage for all Manitobans injured anywhere in Canada or the United States as a result of an automobile accident; indexing of benefits to ensure compensation is not eroded by inflation; compensation for actual financial losses, including coverage for medical rehabilitation and other expenses; guaranteed compensation for all injured people regardless of who was at fault for the accident. I would like to touch on a few of the highlights of this bill that I believe will reinforce the four principles that I just mentioned.

By now, most Manitobans probably have a good idea of the general coverages that are available under the no-fault plan. Many of them have likely seen the brochures that have been delivered to their homes.

34 12 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 Income replacement, medical rehabilitation costs, personal care expenses, death benefits and funeral expenses, child care expenses, compensation for students unable to complete a school year or term and payments for people who suffer permanent injuries are all essential components of the package. Many of these coverages are not capped or limited, for as long as the person legitimately requires coverage, they will receive it. *

(1420) That is an important reference point, when we look at some of the other forms of no-fault compensation that are being tried in other juris dictions across this country and across the United States, there are very few of the benefits within this compensation package that will be capped. There are certain points which speak to concerns about the benefits that have been expressed by some members of the public. Income replacement provisions apply to anyone who looses income as a result of an accident.

If wages are lost, or salary from a full or a part-time job, there will be compensation, and that compensation will be up to the level that covers the vast majority of Manitobans. Homemakers, students, seniors and self employed are assured of comprehensive protection against financial loss. In some cases, even where there was no wage income in place, income replac emen t is provided. For example, the homemaker who is injured and disabled for six months or more will receive income replacement even though he or she did not work for wages outside of the home.

As well, all other applicable coverages will be paid to homemakers such as compensatio n for medical and rehabilitation expenses. Mr. Speaker, seniors have asked questions about income, and what would occur should they be injured. Those who depend on private or public pension income will not be affected because this income remains in place even if a person is injured. At the same time, they will be eligible for benefits such as medical expense, payments to ensure that they suffer no economic loss as a result of an accident. In addition to this, they will be eligible for all other benefits.

Working seniors will also receive an income replacement indemnity even if they are also receiving pension income at the same time. Mr. Speaker, as we all too well know, economic circumstances can change from one year to the next. As they do, they can have a profound impact on people with fixed incomes. People receiving no-fault benefits will not be placed in this unfortunate situation. These benefits will be adjusted to assure that people whose lives have been affected by injuries as a result of automobile accidents do not fall behind. Also, I would like to draw attention to the appeal mechanism.

It is a strong appeal and review mechanism designed to protect accident victims who disagree with decisions that have been made about their claims. This appeal process will be available to all claimants. Firstly, the review will be conducted by a corporation representative who is not involved in the original claim decision. If this is not satisfactory, an appeal can be made to the independent automobile injury compensation appeal commission.

This body will be made up of a chief commissioner and other commissioners, and it will be appointed on merit, with regard to their expertise and their broad base of experience in helping them deal with situations that they may be faced with. It will seek appropriate appointees who will bring their skill and good judgment to bear on the decisions that they render. The commission will have adequate powers to conduct through reviews and, if necessary, through investigation.

It will provide a yearly accounting of its decisions and the reasons for those decisions in a report to be tabled annually in this House through the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh). Let me assure members that the provisions of Bill 37 do not mean that the concept of fault in terms of responsibility for accidents will go by the wayside. People who cause accidents will continue to be held accountable for their accidents through the current accident surcharge and demerit point system. Mr.

Speaker, the changes proposed by this government and as outlined in Bill 37 represent another progressive step to reinforce confidence in Manitoba's automobile insurance system. No-fault compensation, I believe, is a humane, fair and equitable solution to rising injury claim costs and one that I believe is supported by the majority of Manitobans. I would anticipate supported, if not unanimously, by a wide margin in this House.

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA 3413 Mr. Speaker, as I said a moment ago, there is a rather unique situation in this province where we have a monopoly Crown that offers a minimum amount of insurance that is required to put a vehicle on a road in this province. That in itself has caused a lot of controversy. Many members of this House historically go back to the early days of that debate, if not the very first days, and that debate is an ongoing one.

In these amendments and through this bill, we are bringing a further dimension to how people will be reimbursed for their injuries as part of that automobile insurance plan. People may well choose to buy additional insurance, as they do today. But we believe thatthe basic requirements and the basic coverages that are needed for protection of the driving public and of the passengers and automobiles in this province are included in the amendments that are before you today in conjunction with the previously accepted bills for automobile insurance in this province. I commend this bill to the House.

I would expect that there will be some hardy debate in committee. We will be endeavouring to make available to the committee, as much as we can, details regarding what regulations may be attached to this bill to provide further clarity as to how it will be seen, or how it will be received as it is being implemented. I look forward to that debate. Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS BIII 23-The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendm ent, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les jours feries dans le commerce de detail, Ia

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et Ia

Loi sur le paiement des salaires, standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter may remain standing? [agreed] Also standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) who has 20 minutes remaining. Is there leave that this matter may remain standing? [agreed] Point of Order Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I look to my colleague the opposition House leader as to whether or not there was need to have this bill remain standing in anyone's name today.

I understand there are members who want to speak on it, perhaps conclude debate. I look to him for his comment. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Yes, Mr. Speaker, those that are listed have indicated that they do not wish to debate. Perhaps you might want to ask if there is leave again. I believe there probably is not leave, and we can proceed with other speakers. Mr. Speaker: Maybe I misunderstood, we will ask one more time. *** Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Stefanson), Bill 23, standing in the name of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak). Is there leave that this matter remain standing? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied. Also, standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) who has 20 minutes remaining. Mr. Speaker: Stand? An Honourable Member: No. Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied. Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): Mr.

Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to put a few words on the record concerning Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Holida y Closin g Amendm ent, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act, also known as the Sunday shopping legislation. It is important for me to rise to put a few comments on the record concerning this piece of legislation, bearing in mind the fact that I

3414 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 am from a constituency adjacent to the city of Winnipeg, representing a community that will, unfortunately, suffer a negative impact because of wide-open Sunday shopping in this province. The legislation has created a great deal of controversy in rural Manitoba. Mr. Speaker, many of the members opposite who represent constituencies from rural Manitoba were elected from rural Manitoba. Now they have betrayed the very individuals who elected them.

They were elected here to defend the interests of their constitue nts, of those who work In the small businesses within their community and in small businesses themselves and ultimately the viability of those communities, all of those issues will be threatened by the passing of this legislation. *

(1430) Mr. Speaker, needless to say, the legislation is still opposed by the vast majority of individuals in rural Manitoba, the vast majority of rural businesses. The Manitoba Chamber of Commerce in a vote last May voted 30 to two against any expansion of Sunday shopping in the province here in Manitoba. Again, the vast majorities of elected officials in the province of Manitoba in rural Manitoba voted against it. It was passed in the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce in a Resolution 13 , and I will just read: Therefore

be it resolved that the Union of Manitoba Municipalities oppose the implication of Sunday shopping. This was from the R.M. of Shoal Lake which I believe is represented by a member from the opposite side of the Chamber. This is a knee-jerk reaction on behalf of this government to a desperate situation here in the province, that it is really obvious that their economic policies have failed and failed miserably to all of us in Manitoba. Their policies have failed so their only alternative is to, well, let us allow wide-open Sunday shopping. They figure this will revive the economy.

This will make everything better for all Manitobans. Well, unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this will not. This will hurt the rural economy, and as someone who represents a constituency in rural Manitoba such as, as I was mentioning before, Selkirk, which is very close to the city of Winnipeg, we are going to be seeing a negative impact upon businesses and communities such as Selkirk. Stonewall, Gimli, Morris, Beausejour, all these communities will see their businesses suffer.

Selkirk already has had a number of economic blows over the past years brought on by the government opposite: the closing of the school of nursing. There was significant job loss. There was a significant amount of students who left the community and took with them their purchasing power. The government closed the training plant within the Selkirk community, the Human Resources Opportunity Center, again, withdrawing from our community much-needed disposable income which would help the small businesses in that community.

The municipal leaders in our particular community were opposed to the whole issue of Sunday shopping, and now they are opposed to the way this government is dealing with this issue in this particular piece of legislation, because now they have to make the decision. They were unhappy with the whole issue of Sunday shopping before and now they are very unhappy with having to bring forward the resolution to their own council and debate it and having to decide the issue themselves. They feel that it is a passing of the buck by the government, Mr.

Speaker, and it is something that will not be forgotten by those of us who live in rural Manitoba. We have also called for the government to hold public hearings outside of the city, outside of this building. We have asked them to hold public hearings in communities such as Steinbach, Gimli, Brandon, Dauphin, Selkirk. When they first introduced Sunday shopping they mentioned that it was brought on as a trial basis, and they were going to conduct during that time an objective analysis of the shopping patterns of individuals on Sundays.

That of course brings the question of has there been any objective analysis, and the answer unfortunately is no. It was suggested by the member for Flin Ron (Mr. Storie) that the Rural Development Institute in Brandon look into the whole issue of Sunday shopping in rural Manitoba and look into the effects that this would have upon the small operations that exist outside of the city of Winnipeg. But the government here is ignoring its roots. Again, it is ignoring the individuals that elected them to this particular Chamber.

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 341 5 It is going to mean job losses in rural Manitoba. It is going to mean fewer small businesses in rural Manitoba. I know that now. There has been at least a dozen small businesses that have closed in my own community. You can drive up and down the streets of Selkirk, you can walk through the malls in the community, and you can see the glaring examples of this government's failures in terms of economic policies-for sale signs, for lease signs.

There have been many businesses that have already closed in the community , and this unfortunately will not at all help them deal with the whole issue of economic difficulties that they are facing. This of course will even compound the issue, because if you live in a community such as Selkirk, adjacent to the city of Winnipeg, you would be more tempted unfortunately to travel to Winnipeg to do your shopping as opposed to spending your money within the community itself. This again has been one of the major criticisms of this whole issue.

One of the stronger opponents of Sunday shopping is an individual who actually has a business in the Selkirk community, Mr. Jim Gaynor. He is the president of Gaynor Foods in Selkirk and the past president of the Selkirk and District Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Gaynor has bee n very vocal in his opposition to the government's position in terms of Sunday shopping. He owns, I guess, the largest Independent grocery store within the community of Selkirk.

Up to now he remained closed on Sundays, and he was very satisfied with the existing legislation prior to the introduction of this particular bill and the bill that followed it. Now he finds himself in the awkward position of having to open on Sundays to compete with the larger food and retail stores within the community. He feels that his particular business is based upon the loyalty that he has developed and secured with his customers over the years, and I would agree that he has done an excellent job.

His concern is that if he did not open on Sunday, as his main competitors are doing, that he would lose that particular business that he has built up over the last number of years. So this is why he is in strong opposition to it, and I understand it is his case. I know that my sister works at his particular store, and she is now required to give up her Sundays on a regular basis to go into work, Mr. Speaker. She has a young family. She misses the opportunity now to spend time with her children and with her family. As Mr.

Gaynor was stating, he makes a number of points in his opposition to Sunday shopping, and I would just like to quote from some of the statements that he has made in a recent publication of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, Manitoba Focus. He quotes as No. 1 : It will be very damaging to small business in our province, the sector which is well recognized as being our major employer.

No one can deny that small business in our province Is the major generator of jobs, and I believe it was a quote from another source which states that large employers like SuperValu create about one hour of employee time for every $500 worth of sales. You compare that to small independent grocers who create one hour of employment for every $50 in sales, Mr. Speaker, so there is no denying the value of small business within our province. There is also, unfortunately, no denying that wide-open Sunday shopping will have a negative impact upon these very important job generators within our community.

He makes another point: It will be very damaging to the commercial life of rural communities at a time when our government is spending large amounts of money to move jobs to these communities in an effort to strengthen them. He speaks, of course, about the government's decentralization strategies.

Here we have the government moving jobs into rural Manitoba, a worthy enough endeavour, but unfortunately while they are moving jobs into rural Manitoba they will be weakening the economic structure of rural Manitoba communities by the introduction of this legislation which is going to be hurting the economic viability of certain businesses within those communities. I speak of Selkirk, Stonewall, Morris, Beausejour perhaps, communities that are adjacent to the city of Winnipeg, communities that are represented by members opposite.

Many of these communities are represented by members opposite, who are betraying their rural constituents by their support of this particular piece of legislation. * (1 440) I was reading in the Hansard the speech given by the former member for Rossmere, and I quote: I have one great concern, Mr. Speaker, and that is that stores in outlying areas to Winnipeg will suffer if they do not open on Sunday. They may suffer in any event because there are more shopping areas available to them in the city of Winnipeg than there are in the town of Morris, the town of Stonewall, the

341 6 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANIT OBA May 26, 19 93 town of Selkirk, the town of Beausejour, for that matter. The availability in itself will cause people to come into Winnipeg to shop if they are unable to shop on Sundays. Maybe this is one of the reasons why the former membe r for Ro ssmere quit, because the governm ent opposite are unintere sted, Mr. Speaker, in any of his concerns. Obviously he raised the concern about this government running up the largest deficit in the history of the province of Manitoba, $86 2 millio n.

Basically what the government opposite has done with that particular deficit, they have spent my child's future and they have deferred taxes until a new generation of Manitobans. When they ran up a deficit of $862 million last year they set a record, and it will be something that I know Manitobans will never forgive them for. So, anyway, as I was mentioning, the member for Rossmere in one of his quotes, he understood that communities in outlying areas to the city of Winnipeg will unfortunately suffer because of the availability of shopping in the city of Winnipeg.

It is unfortunate that more of his colleagues in the government do not listen to him. They obviously did not listen to him in this issue and they did not listen to him on a number of other issues as well. Of course, he took the only avenue that he could in that he resigned his seat, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gaynor goes on to say: The only businesses positioned to benefit from this change are a few large corporations, many of whom have a questionable commitment to our province as they have recently moved their head offices to other provinces, Mr. Speaker. (Mrs.

Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Again, he is very accurate in that assessment of the current situation in our province. He goes on to state: The case has been made by some large corporations that businesses expand as a result of full-scale Sunday shopping. This is absolutely wrong. The reality is that business shifts from rural communities in small centre cities to large corporations, most of whom are headquartered in distant cities or foreign lands.

Sunday shopping will not benefit rural Manitoba, will not benefit the community of Selkirk, or the community of Swan River, or the community of Riverton. It will only benefit a few large corporations, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will not help rural Manitoba. We are disappointed with the fact that the government will not go out to rural Manitoba to hold hearings. They are betraying their roots. They are ignoring those individuals who live in rural Manitoba by failing to go out to listen to their concerns on this issue.

The government definitely will pay for their ignorance, their arrogance, in this particular piece of legislation. Madam Deputy Speaker, I realize that there are other members in my party wishing to speak on this legislation today. I just wanted to voice a few concerns in opposition to this legislation. I have enjoyed the opportunity to speak to it, and I will not be supporting this legislation. Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, the members opposite are a little overanxious on this bill.

It is a pleasure to speak on a bill that is this important in the Chamber and affects as many people and lives in the province of Manitoba. I want to start my comments with the comments of the member for Pembina (Mr.

Orch ard), comments that were made in 1987 in this Chamber dealing with the Sunday shopping laws that were changed in 1987. 1 remember because I was a new member of this Legislature, and I remember the kind of co-operation that was put in play to get a made-in-Manitoba solution to a problem that was developed in the courts arising out of a legal technicality dealing with the 1979 law that was passed by the former Conservative government dealing with Sunday shopping.

I remember when the courts overruled the made-in-Manit oba compromise, we all got toget her-the Li berals, the NDP and the Conservatives-a nd passed the Sunday shopping law that maintained the Manitoba compact, that maintained the Manitoba compromise, that maintained the compromise between rural Manitoba and urban Manitoba. I thought we had a pretty good solution in this Chamber in 1987, and I want to quote the member for Pembina in responding to-a nd the member for Pembina could never be accused of supporting the NDP legislation on a whim.

He supported it, of co urse, because it was consistent with the legislation that he had been involved in passing in 1979.

May 26, 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3417 The member for Pembina said in 1987, quote: I have not changed my position from when we passed this legislation some eight years ago, and I approach this legislation from maybe a different perspective representing rural Manitoba, because there is no question the major chains would next get their market share from rural shoppers. The major chains would get their shoppers from rural Manitoba. He goes on to say: And I have to tell you that rural Manitoba cannot stand to lose one more job, one more business for future investment in the community.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the minister says and the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) states: I cannot support wide-open Sunday shopping, shopping because of its impact on my constituency, jobs in my constituency and the people I am elected to represent and protect here as much as possible.

Madam Deputy Speaker, these are the words of the member for Pembina when he talks about the Sunday shopping law that was passed in '87, because that Sunday shopping law, by definition, was almost the same Sunday shopping law that Sterling Lyon brought to this House in 1979, which was a compromise between rural Manitoba and urban Manitoba.

Madam De puty Speaker, I am absolutely shocked when I listen to members of the community from rural Manitoba that there are not more members opposite saying the same things that the member for Pembina stated in 1987 in this Chamber and standing up for their constituents and standing against the bill being proposed by the former deputy mayor, the now-Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.

Stefanson), in this Chamber, a bill that clearly gives an advantage to Winnipeg--and I represent a Winnipeg constituency-is clearly a bill that is supported by the Winnipeg business community, is clearly a bill that will have as its advantages for large retail chains in the city of Winnipeg. The member opposite, the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson), grimaces at my comments. I shop at some of the same stores the member opposite does . I shop in some of the same community stores as the member opposite does.

She and I have seen the petitions from stores in our collective northeast quadrant of the city of Winnipeg, hundreds of names on petitions from Penner Foods stores, for example, that we have tabled in this House. She has talked to those people. They are not card-carrying members of the New Democratic Party. I think quite opposite. They just believe that the existing system, even though if a change may represent some marginal increase in their profit margin, is not worth the sacrifices to family and is not worth the sacrifices that will have to be made by rural Manitoba businesses. *

(1450) Madam Deputy Speaker, we have had a situation with Bill 4 that the government tabled in November and December of 1992. I am sure they told the members opposite in their own caucus, oh, this is only a trial period; we will have a trial; and we will have a five-month trial; and we will let the people speak; and we will study the situation. That is what they said when they brought the bill in, in November of 1992. Let us look at the minister's original press release-a trial.

Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of legislation, a trial surely means, (1) there is an independent judge; and (2) for legislation, there is public input. Now did we have an independent judge on this trial period? We suggested that the Rural Institute do that independent study-maybe a better idea. Government did not come back with one.

We did not want to have a few bureaucrats with the former deputy mayor from the City of Winnipeg just meeting with the city of Winnipeg businesses and having that trial being conducted behind closed doors in the bureaucracy of the minister's department, so we did not have an independent study of this issue. We do not know whether Don Orchard was right in 1987 of whether this will impact more on rural jobs and rural businesses, because we did not get the fairness involved in a trial period. The second thing, Madam Deputy Speaker, is public hearings.

We do not pass very many bills to second hearing quickly very often. In fact, members opposite would normally accuse us, as opposition, of debating bills too long. Perhaps the odd time that is correct. Perhaps the odd time we have not debated them long enough. But we passed this bill within 1 0 days in December of 1992 at second reading so the public would have a chance to speak at public hearings. All of us make speeches about, you know, politics has changed , we have to have greater

3418 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANI TOBA May 26, 19 93 empowerment, we should listen to the people, and we have to have communities. The Speech from the Throne after the 1990 Meech Lake issue said, we have to stop elite accommodation. We have to stop accommodation of just a few people in back rooms. The Canadian public has had enough of it. The Manitoba public has had enough of it. So when we get a chance to have public hearings and have the public speak on the so-called trial period, what happens? January goes by, February goes by, and we are back in the House in March in 1993. Okay, maybe the government was busy.

Maybe they were over in Switzerland and other places. Maybe they were busy. Maybe they were too busy to hear from their own constituents and from their own communities. The chamber of commerce in rural Manitoba had said this is bad for rural Manitoba business. Many businesses in Manitoba, in rural Manitoba, had said it was bad. Communities like Brandon, Steinbach, Dauphin, Swan River had said this is not good for them-Selkirk, Beausejour. Maybe they were too busy at that point. So we asked the question on the first day we returned in March of 1993: Are we going to have public hearings?

And the minister said to us, yes, we are going to public hearings, and we are going to have them shortly. First week goes by. Second week goes by. I do not know whether it was raised in the Conservative caucus. Third week goes by and, lo and behold, without any public hearings we see a second bill, Bill 23, on the Order Paper that suspends the trial period for Sunday shopping, suspends the five-month period of time we were going to evaluate it, cancels it out fully with the stroke of a minister's pen and a stroke of a cabinet's fiat, and says we are going to go to a new system of Sunday shopping.

We are going to go to a new system, Madam Deputy Speaker, and where they develop this system, I do not know, but we are going to delegate the decision now to the communities in Manitoba. How does that solve the problem between rural communities that say this is bad for them, and the urban community of Winnipeg which says this is good for them?

How does that solve the problem when the government has now chosen to take the hot potato, provide no moral leadership, no economic leadership, no compromise in terms of fairness for Manitoba, and is just going to toss the hot potato to rural and urban communities, which by definition is unfair to rural communities outside of the city of Winnipeg. It is absolutely, patently unfair. Where did we develop this? Where did this come from?

The last time a Premier of a province came up with a ridiculous idea of delegating it to the communities was a person named David Peterson who was thrown out of office because of his arrogance and his cavalier behavior and his lack of ability to have a compromise and consensus on some of these tough issues.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I say to the membe rs opposite: How have you let the Conservative Party in your own caucus be so totally dominated by two ex-deputy mayors across the way who had the portfolio of Industry, Trade and Tourism and a number of members opposite who had tremendous clout in the former City Council and are now running the City of Winnipeg's agenda as part of the provincial Conservative government agenda? That is a very important point because there is no other conclusion to be drawn. There is no other conclusion to be drawn.

Don Orchard said in 1987 that the people that will benefit are retail chains. Now, I have gone out and talked to rural businesses, and I have gone out and talked to businesses in Winnipeg. Small businesses in Winnipeg have lost business. It has gone to big business like SuperValu. We have talked to rural communities. They have told us clearly that SuperValu has gained and their stores have lost. Now are we listening to different people than members opposite? Are we listening to different people in Beausejour than the minister? Are we listening to different people in Steinbach than members opposite?

Are we listening to different people in Selkirk than they are listening to? [interjection) Well, there is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik). SuperValu was not open and Costco was not open before the government changed. Now let me explain it to you. When you have a huge retail chain that is now open on the seventh day, that impacts on the stores that were formerly opened the four employees or less.

I want to explain this to you because, if you have those stores open and taking hundreds of dollars of purchasing power away from the small store in Beausejour or Selkirk or Steinbach or Portage Ia Prairie, you are eventually going to slow down their

May 26, 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3419 volume, slow down their profit margins. So Don Orchard was right. He was right in 19 87. · You are in effect decreasing the activity of the smaller stores and the rural stores and increasing the volume in the large retail chains in the city of Winnipeg. There is no question about it. That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, the government cannot table a study. It cannot table a study because they did not want to have an independent study. They did not want to have an independent study. So this issue is a compromise. I mean, there are things that are open on Sundays.

There were in 1979 under the Conservatives. There were in 1987 under the NDP, and there are obviously today. This is also a compromise between small business and big business. So we have a compromise between rural Manitoba and urban Manitoba, and we also have a compromise between small business and big business. This gives some of the smaller operations an opportunity to have a greater market share and greater share in the economy. Now the government opposite says, oh, members opposite are only concerned about the unions. That is an allegation they make. Well, let us look at it.

Are small retail operations "unionized"? [interjection] Okay, well some memb ers-the Premier (Mr. Film on) said that to us. [interjection] Okay, well, that is fair enough. The member says no. I know that when we asked the question about eight weeks ago, and I will show the member the Hansard, the Premier says, oh, you are only representing "unions." Well, quite frankly, SuperValu is unionized and many of these small operations are nonunion. This crosses across "union lines" and let me throw that argument out right away. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) says he has not raised it. I respect that.

The member for Emerson also says he has not raised it, and I respect that as well. Not the member for Emerson, sorry. (interjection] Pardon. No. *

(1500) Let me say that this is a compromise again between small business and large business. The other compromise this is, Madam Deputy Speaker, is on the whole issue of families who want to get as much time together as possible. It seems to me that again we have a compromise here in Manitoba that makes sense. It is a made-in-Manitoba consensus. It is a made-in-Manitoba compact. There are those who believe that everything should be closed down on Sundays and believe strongly religiously that everything should be closed down on Sundays and nothing should be available.

There are those who believe that everything should be open in an unfettered way on Sundays, because that is the right of the individual to make those decisions. It seems to us that this, again, a Sunday shopping law which is again a compromise. The retail shopping law is a compromise.

It allows for the maximum amount of people to have time with their families, and it still allows for some of those things to be available for families in terms of entertainment and in terms of other activity that will allow them to enjoy some of the qualities of life when they have their time with their families, again, a compromise. Now, you cannot argue this bill on the basis of one extreme or another, because in 1987 there W3S a compromise. In 1 979, there was a compromise.

The only time the compromise has been broken is in the proposed legislation from the Conservative Party and the former deputy mayor of the city of Winnipeg who I still think is acting on behalf of the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce and not acting on behalf of businesses and people all across Manitoba. We have, unfortunately, got a perimeter vision in the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism's office and that is reflected in the bill that is before us in the Chamber today.

Madam Deputy Speaker, we believe that Bill 4 was a bad bill, but we did believe that it should go to public hearings early, and we did believe that we should propose creative and crucial ways of improving Bill 4. We proposed that the study be conducted by a body independent of the government, the Rural Institute. The government chose to ignore that. We proposed that the public hearings take place in the January and February period of time so that the public could speak out. We believe that Manitobans do not want extreme policies on Sunday shopping.

They do not want everything closed up and they do not want unfettered Sunday shopping as proposed by the Conservative government. We believe that the compromise with limited employees for limited Sunday shopping in limited areas is the intelligent compromise for those with strong religious beliefs, for those with strong respect for small businesses and particularly for those people who want to keep rural businesses alive and well.

3420 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 I ask members opposite to look at the comments made by their colleague in 19 87. Think about the fact of who is running this bill through this Chamber, who is denying them the opportunities to have public hearings in the so-called trial period. Vote for a Manitoba compromise. Vote for a Manitoba compact. Do not vote for the extreme position that is being only articulated and proposed by a few interest groups inside the Perimeter Highway. Stand up for a compromise for all of Manitoba. Stand up for your constituents.

Vote against Bill 23, and vote to keep the compromise that is alive and well in Manitoba unless this Bill 23, which Is the son of Bill 4, is passed. I would therefore urge all members to vote against this delegated bill to the municipalities of Manitoba. It is not moral leadership. It is not a proper way to deal with retail Sunday shopping, and it is not an intelligent way for Manitoba to go.

Let us learn from the mistakes of Ontario, and let us not repeat them with passing Bill 23 which is very unfair to lots of people outside of the city of Winnipeg and very unfair to delegate this decision to municipalities because the government did not have the will, did not have the integrity, and did not have the interests of all Manitobans at heart. Thank you very, very much. Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on this bill despite the nattering from the Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) with respect to the question.

I am speaking on this bill because I think that it is a decision on the part of a witless, gutless government. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mrs. Carstalrs: Well, let me tell you, when this bill was introduced on Bill4, I would have supported the piece of legislation. I would have supported the piece of legislation because I honestly believed that the majority of people in my constituency were in favour of Sunday shopping. I said that, and I would have supported it. The caucus took the position that everybody should have a free vote on this particular piece of legislation, and the caucus was very divided.

I wanted us to have public hearings, wide public hearings. We voted for, as a caucus, this bill to go into committee, as did this whole House in December, so that this could happen. What has happened now, in my opinion, is an example of a government who, because its own caucus was very divided on this issue, simply absented themselves from decision making and have determined that they would back out of any moral authority that they should have had on this particular piece of legislation.

So the Liberal caucus will vote against this bill, and we will vote against this bill not on the basis of whether Sunday shopping Is good or bad, but on one basis alone, and that is that when a government is given the legal authority to make a decision, then that government has a moral authority to make that decis ion. This government, by offloading to municipalities a decision which should be made by the Province of Manitoba, is opting out, I would suggest to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, of their legal right to govern in the province of Manitoba.

I am deeply disturbed that in a province where 60 percent of the population lives in the city of Winnipeg that a government would decide that the rural municipalities did not have a valid position to take, but that that position would be in no small way affected by a decision made in Winnipeg. You are now asking City of Winnipeg councillors to make a decision when their legal authority only allows them to make a decision for the citizens they represent, and they are being asked to take into consid eration the needs, the problems, the dilemmas that are faced by rural municipalities. That is not fair.

That is opting out of our responsibilities as legislators in this particular Legislature. If we want a bill on Sunday shopping and we want that bill changed, then let us have the courage to do it in this Chamber, not to make the decision that the City of Winnipeg, who by law, by moral authority should not take into consideration the needs of those outside because that is not what their mandate is all about. We have that mandate. We represent rural and urban citizens living in the province of Manitoba. We have a mandate to make legislation, and we should be accepting that mandate. *

(1510) This government has opted out. It is bad legislation. It is an extremely bad precedent. It is bad for Manitoba, and the Liberal Party will be voting against it. Madam Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 3421 second reading of Bill 23. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed. All those in favor, 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. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Yeas and Nays, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the memb ers. Mr.

Speaker: The question before the House is second reading of Bill 23, The Retail Businesses Hol iday Closi ng Am endment, Emplo ymen t Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les jours feries dans le comm erce de detail, Ia

Loi sur les normes d'emploi et Ia

Loi sur le paiement des salaires. All those in favour of the motion will please rise. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: Yeas Cum mings, Dac qua y, De rkach , Downe y, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Lamoureux, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, Mitchelson, Pallister, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey. Nays Ashton, Barrett, Carstairs, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards, Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hick es, Lath lin, Ma loway, Mar tindale, Plohman, Reid, San tos, Storie, Wasylycia-Le is, Wowc huk.

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 27, Nays 22. Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried. House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on House business, I would like to announce that the Standing Comm ittee on Economic Development will consider Bill 23, (The Retail Businesses Holiday Closing Amendment, Employment Standards Amendment and Payment of Wages Amendment Act), the bill we just passed at 8 p.m., Wednesday, and if necessary, Thursday morning at ten o'clock. That is next week. I do not specifically have the dates, Room 255.

Furthermore, I would like to make announcement that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will sit on Monday, May 31 , Monday coming at 10 a.m. to consider The Freedom of Information Act review. That will also be held in Room 255. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable government House leader (Mr. Manness). BIII 19- The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bi1119 , The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Cour du Bane de Ia Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honour able memb er for Wellington. Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, yes, I am going to be our party's single speaker on this piece of legislation, and then we would be prepared to send it to committee. Bill 19 is The Cour t of Queen' s Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act and basically changes the legislation in two areas, both of which we support.

It allows for the payment of post- judgment interest at the same rate as the pre-judgment interest rate and gives the court the ability to make a judgment for damages from personal injury claim or death as a periodic rather than a lump-sum payment. Mr. Speaker, we su pport this legislation, of course, with the caveat that in public hearings, should there be concerns raised by members of the public, we would certainly pay attention to those concerns. Basically we support this piece of legislation because it sim plifies the process.

It basically states that if you have a payment due you through the court system, the court, upon the request of one of the parties, can make the judgment in periodic terms rather than a lump-sum payment which provides for a greater degree of flexibility and

3422 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 also allows the court to establish the interest rate and those other costs at a regular time frame rather than at one particular point in time. Also, Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that Manitoba will be the first province to enact this enabling legislation which was recommended by the Manit oba Law Reform Comm ission and the Supreme Court of Canada. So while we are in a mad rush to the bottom in several other areas in legislation in this province, in this particular area, we are in a positive position.

As stated, under the current legislation, the court could make periodic payments for awards, but it would have to be with the consent of both parties in the lawsuit. As we know, in the justice system, in the court system, when you get people into a civil lawsuit, you often do not have agreement on anything, certainly not on the manner in which payments will be paid to one of the parties in the litigation. So this current awarding of periodic payments was difficult, at best, to enact.

Under the amendments, the court can make a periodic damage award when application is made by one of the parties to the litigation and, secondarily, when the court feels that this is appropriate. So it creates a much greater degree of flexibil ity in awarding of payme nts and also continues to give the court the ultimate decision as to the payment

schedule for the award. It is not universal, Mr. Speaker. It does deal with only damages arising out of a personal injury claim or death. So it does not include all kinds of litigation, but it is one of the areas that has been the most problem to the court system and to people in Manitoba. * (1 600) What currently happens with the lump -sum awards is that the award now has to take into account the future earning potential or future losses that the litigant who has been the recipient of the award would have.

So it forces the court, in effect, to look into the future and to make a judgment based on what the court's best estimation is of either the potential losses or the potential earnings of that individual would be. The periodic payment system means that the court will reduce the size of the awards potentially because it does not have to take into account in one sense only but can wait till the actuality occurs of the compensation for future losses. The high awards also are seen by many to be as a result of the management fees and the gross-ups for future taxation as part of the lump sum.

So it allows the court to be more realistic in its awarding of the payment and also to provide, in effect, more of the payment going to the payee and less going to potential fees or taxes. So on all of those levels, Mr. Speaker, we feel this is basically a very good piece of legislation. As I stated earlier, it is interesting that in this particular piece of legislation Manitoba is prepared to be the only province to implement it. The argum ent that has been made In this House by the Premier (Mr. Filmo

n) that we cannot afford student social allo wances because no other province has them does not appear to be across the board with this government. So in a case like the Court of Queen's Bench amendments, the province is more than willing to be first off the mark. We find that a bit disconcerting, to say the least, that the government chooses this one particular area to take a leadership role-n ot an unim portant area, but an area that probably will not affect large numbers of Manitobans.

We hope it does not affect large numbers of Manitobans, because we hope that people are not involved in accidents and other events that would lead them to the court system to an ultimate determination of this kind of payment. However, we do know from history that there are thousands of Manitobans who are going to be affected by the government's making a decision that they are not going to be first, they are not going to retain a leadership role in another very important area, that is, in the area of student social allowance. So, Mr.

Speaker, while on the one hand we are very pleased with this piece of legislation with, as I hav� stated earlier, the caveat that should there be presentations at the public hearings that have some concerns of a more specific nature, we would be certainly open to those concerns and would hope that the government would act on any legitimate concerns that are raised at the public hearing process. We are, on the other hand, certainly in favour of this bill in principle and would like to see it get to the public hearing process so that we can see if there are any other issues that need to be raised in this matter.

So with those few comments, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to send this leg islation to the public hearing process.

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3423 Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 1 9, The Court of Queen's Bench Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; loi modifiant Ia

loi sur Ia Cour du Bane de Ia Reine et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois. Is it the pleasure of the Hpuse to adopt the motion? An Honourable Member: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? That is agreed and so ordered. 8111 16- The Public Schools Amendment Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey), Bill 16 , The Public Schools Amendment Act; loi modifiant Ia

loi sur les ecoles publiques, standing in the name of the honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dew ar). An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand. Is there leave that this matter remain standing? (agreed] Bill 22-The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compensation Management Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), Bill 22, The Public Sector Reduced Work Week and Compens ation Ma nagemen t Act;

loi sur Ia reduction de Ia semaine de travail et Ia gestion des salaires dans le secteur public, standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Stand? Is there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed] And also standing in the name of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. lat hlin), who has 32 minutes remaining. An Honourable Member: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand? Okay. Is there leave that that matter remain standing? leave . (agreed] Mr. Jerry Storie (FUn Flon): I am pleased to be able to join this debate at this time.

I guess when I reviewed this particular piece of legislation it struck me that one of the things that keeps a government in power is good will, that the electorate on balance must feel that the government is acting in the best interests, collectively, of the province. They have to feel that they can trust the government to do what is fair. Mr. Speaker, there are students outside this Chamber who do not feel the government is being fair. We have seen more demonstrations in the last couple of years against government actions than in the history of this province.

The reason is because the government is operating in an autocratic, authoritarian, heavy-handed style. When I read this legislation, I said, is there a clause in this leg islation whic h sums up the governmen t's attitude, in particular to public sector employees but I think probably more broadly, an attitude toward employees in general? The answer is yes. Mr. Speaker, for those who are following the hymn book, it is Bill 22, it is page 6, it is

Section 7 and it says, we are no bargaining agent. I want to read this into the record because I think it is instructive and not all memb ers in the Chamber may have had a chance to read this legislation, but it says: "In the case of any em ployee not covered by a collective agreement, a direction that days or portions of days are to be taken by that employee as leave without pay under this

Part is effective on such a direction being given to the em ployee by the employer, and, without further notice, such direction and any arrangements with respect to its implemen tation are deemed to be part of the em ployment contract or arran gem ent between the emp loyer and that em ployee." I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to indicate that this means something other, that the employer can do whatever the "H" he or she or it requires. Whatever they want, that is what it means. Mr. Speaker, there is no respect in this legislation. There is no respect for the needs of individual employees.

There is no respect for the collective needs of em ployees. There is no respect for the negotiated agreemen ts with em ployees. There is no respect. • (1610 ) This clause says it all. This clause says that the employer simply tells the employee what they are going to be doing and under what circums tances they are going to be doing it and that is it. That is a heavy-handed, a dictatorial and, I think for a lot of Manitobans, an un acceptable approach to managing the public affairs of the Province of Manitoba.

3424 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 The scope of this legislation is extremely broad and, as my colleague from Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) said the other day, it is carefully crafted. We acknowledge that many of the concerns that could have been raised, would have been raised under the Charter of Rights, under the Human Rights Act, the Human Rights Code under employment standards, have been carefully and shrewdly covered under this legislation to make it impossible for people who object to this kind of authoritarian, dictatorial attitude to overtake us in the workplaces across the province. Mr.

Speaker, who are we talking about? Who is impacted by this legislation? Again, the list is long. It affects, of course, provincial Crown corporations. It affects the employees of the provincial government itself. It affects hospitals, personal care homes, Child and Family Services agencies, municipalities, school boards, universities, colleges. It affects, in addition to that, any group that the governme nt con sider s publicly funded. The government may in this legislation designate who in fact is a public sector employee.

The long arm of this government reaches out and touches many of those agencies which have not heretofore considered themselves under the purview of the provincial government. I would advise and I would encourage members opposite to read

Section 7 if they want to understand the full intent of this legislation, because it speaks to a conservatism which is far to the right of what I think even the most moderate members on that side believe to be the core of their value. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) Madam Deputy Speaker, it is draconian to say the least.

Having noted that the government has painted an extremely broad brush when it comes to the ramifications of this bill, and when it comes to the sheer number of people, employees that this bill is going to affect, you have to ask yourself, what else is the government going to do? This is where I see some quite contradictory, I guess, argument s coming from the government. We hear on a regular basis the Rrst Minister stand in his place, the Premier stand in his place and telling the people of Manitoba that this government does not increase taxes.

Well, anybody that has watched the last six budgets knows that there have been tax increases on several fronts, some of them well disguised but taxes none the less. The last budget, of course, was not nearly as well disguised. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) in his more candid moments acknowledged that, yes, there was going to be what he described as a decrease in disposable income. It was not really taxes. It was just some sort of, you know, amorphous kind of decrease, just somethi ng that happ ens to someone's disposable income.

The government imposed some $435 worth of additional taxes on the average Manitoban as a result of the budget. What many Manitobans, particularly those who are not affected by this legislation, will not have understood nearly as well is that this legislation is also a form of taxation. Madam Deputy Speaker, if I may refer to you and your constituents in a suburban part of the city of Winnipeg, when you talk to them or when one of your colleagues on the front bench should be talking to constituents in your area, I want them to explain to your constituency how this is not a tax.

For the average public servant in the province of Manitoba, this is a tax increase of between $1 ,400 and $1 ,600. That is what it is. It is a tax grab of between $1 ,400 and $1 ,600. That is the net impact of this reduction in the disposable income of public servants. So let the government not say that it is not taxing somehow the middle class. The fact of the matter is, the middle class is bearing the brunt of this legislation.

In particular, it is the middle class that forms the vast majority of public servants in our province, those people who provide hospital care and education and all of those other services that are vital to our society. Madam Deputy Speaker, I think, if you frame this bill in those terms, it is a tax increase. That is what it is. In the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Manness) words, it is a reduction in disposable income. It is a tax increase of $1 ,400 to $1 ,600 for every single public servant in the province of Manitoba. It is a tax increase. It is no different than Brian Mulroney's GST.

It is no different than if they had hiked the personal income tax some 20 percent. If you consider that for a teacher in St. Vital School Division or a teacher in the Midland School Division or a teacher in St. Boniface School Division this bill is a personal income tax increase of 20 percent, I think you would have a revolt on your hands. Madam Deputy Speaker, when the Rrst Minister (Mr. Filmon) stands up and says, well, the only reason that teachers are protesting and that other

May 26, 19 93 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 3425 civil servants are is that they are not willing to share. They are not just sharing the pain. They are paying for the governmen t's failure, economic failure, fiscal failure. That is what they are paying for. [interjection] The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) wants to say I know better. The Minister of Finance knows better than anyone in this Chamber who has had the highest deficit in the history of the province of Manitoba.

It is that Minister of Finance who has the dubious distinction of having the highest deficit in the history of the province of Manitoba. The Minister of Finance says it does not bother me. It does bother me. What bothers me even more is that this Minister of Finance has chosen to take out his failings on the backs of public servants. This is a tax increase to public sector em ployees, to those who serve the people of Manitoba, of approximately 20 percent if we are going to translate it into personal income tax, 20 percent. [interjection] Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr.

Manness) had better share all those thousands of letters because I will certainly share with him the hundreds that I am getting that are opposing. So this is a tax increase. What is wrong with this government's approach to taxation is that it is dishonest. What is wrong with this governmen t's approach to taxation is that it is not fair. It is not up -front wi th the people of Manitoba. The government has disguised what it is actually doing in the rhetoric of reduced work week, if somehow magically that does not translate into reduced income. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not forthright. It is a hidden tax.

It is a hidden tax primarily on the middle-income groups in our province. It is not fair. Now what is not fair about this legislation? Well, what is not fair is that the pain is shared equally, and of course there is the tyranny of equality, I guess. An Honourable Member: Tyranny of equality? I have heard of tyranny of the majority, the tyranny of the minority, but I have never heard of the tyranny of equality. Mr. Storie: Well, there is also the tyranny of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) . He has not heard that one yet.

Madam Deputy Speaker, there is a certain logic to saying, well, everyone is going to lose 10 days pay. The difficulty of course is-and the Minister of Finance may have acknowledged this when he introduced the legislation, I do not recall it. The fact of the matter is that there is some inherent fairness in that approach, because what he is doing is taking the same 1 0 days pay from someone who earns $20,000 or $1 6,000 and someone who earns $1 00,000. [interjection] Absolutely, the same 10 days pay is being taken from those people.

The problem is that the amount of disposable income that someone that earns $20,000 has to lose is marginal. I mean, we all recognize, and maybe even the Minister of Rnance will recognize, that anyone that is involved as a single income earner in a family of four and earning $20,000 is living below the poverty line. So there is some inherent unfairness in this. It is not com pletely forthright. It is a tax increase, and it is unfair. Now if those are not three legitimate and justifiable reasons for voting against this legislation, then I would like to hear some rationale for voting for it.

The fact of the matter is that this legislation deserves to be defeated. I am not trying to belittle or understate the difficulty the government of Manitoba faces. The Minister of Finance says-and I do not know whether he was being facetious-but he says, I have been losing sleep over the fact that our deficit is so high. I know the Minister of Finance is concerned, as he well should be. But what the province of Manitoba demands and what people demand is fairness. What they want to feel is that they are being treated fairly. * (1 620) This issue reminds me ofthe way the government has dealt with Sunday shopping.

It reminds me of the way the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), who represe nts rural Manitoba, has forgotten where he comes from . It remi nds me that the government has forgotten that it is supposed to be standing up for rural Manitoba. Madam Deputy Speaker, this legislation is not standing up for the people who serve the province of Manitoba, and it is not fair. The government has displayed a degree of cowardice in this legislation which is also similar to Sunday shopping.

When the government first introduced the Sunday shopping legisla tion back in Dece mber unilaterally decided that we were going to have Sunday shopping-the government said that this was the wave of the future, that the government was doing this as a test and that they were firmly

3426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 26, 19 93 convinced that this was what was needed to spur Manitoba's economy. Well, only five months later, the government deci ded to back away from its suppo sed comm itment to wide-open Sunday shopping, and ins tead passed the buc k. That is what the government has done in this legislation. Instead of the government imposing what it sounds like it thinks is the solution to our economic problems, it once again passes responsibility. We see that more clearly perhaps in the education field than any other, because what has the province done with this legislation?

Well, it does not require school divisions or hospitals or any other outside agency to do (

a) or (

b) to meet certain requirem ents. It simply says that you may and you can and that if you wish you may-you will, but what it has done is create a patchwork of implementation. So that what we have in the case of school divisions is some school divisions not requiring their teachers to take any reduction in pay. We have some school divisions that are requiring a certain number of reduced workdays in the year, other school divisions requiring a different number. So we are shown absolutely no leadership.

Madam Deputy Speaker, if the government really believes that the only way to solve its problems--if they really believe that and I hope that is not the case, but if they do-then the government should have the courage to act. The same should be said of Sunday shopping. If the government believes that wide-open Sunday shopping represents a net economic benefit to the province of Manitoba, then it should act. It shou ld not absolve itself of responsibility. It should not pass the buck to another level of responsibility. It should simply act.

So the government's legislation fails on another count because it is not clear that the legislation is going to do what the government thinks it is going to do. Other governments who believe that it was important to reduce the cost of providing services have used other methods. That is one that we would counsel. One of the other things that is wrong with this legislation is that it does not respect something that virtually every other government in the history of Manitoba has respected, and that is the collective bargaining process.

The government of Manitoba has continued to bargain with its em ployee groups, as have other agencies, outside agencies, school boards and hospitals, in good faith, bargain in good faith, and the government has now decided to abandon that. The government has decided notwiths tanding collective agreements that were reached that this legislation is going to override those agreemen ts and is then going to im po se this tax on wage-earner s in the province of Manitoba. The collective bargaining system can be used in a more positive and pro-active way.

I remind the government that in years past, the wage increases have been kept at zero, but years have gone by and agreemen ts have been struck where there has been no increase to the base salary cost of the Province of Manitoba. There are examples of private sector collec tive agreemen ts and other government's negotiated agreeme nts which actu ally saw a reduction in the base salary. I would argue that those kinds of negotiated agreeme nts are going to be in the long run much more successful than this one-time effort at intrusion into the collective bargaining system .

Madam Deputy Speaker, the governmen t knows, or it should know, that even if it succeeds in imposing its will through this bill, 811122, that it is not going to reduce its base salary costs. What the government is going to enjoy is a one-time saving. What school divisions and hospitals are going to enjoy is a one-time saving. If you want to reduce the base costs for a longer period of time, you actually have to reduce the base.

If, instead of, as is the case in this particular instance of having a negotiated increase rolled back, because the negotiated increase is going to form part of the base in subsequent years, in other words, the costs of the negotiated increases are going to show up as increased costs in future years. The only way to reduce your long-term costs is to establish a zero increase on the base, and if you achieve that, then you net real savings. Obviously it also is true that if you achieve a reduction in base, you also incur some benefit over the long term as a result of that.

But this particular legislation imposes the will of the government in a very unfair and autocratic way, in a way that is unfair to low income em ployees of provincial governments and provincial Crowns and provincial agencies. It does it without regard to already established collective agreemen ts freely negotiated, so, Madam Deputy Speaker, this

May 26, 19 93 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3427 legislation is a failure from many perspectives. It is not going to achieve in the long run what the government hopes it is going to achieve. So Madam Deputy Speaker, the legislation, in my opinion, although it is cleverly drafted, is not going to serve the interests of Manitoba.

It may serve the interests of this government for this budget year, but I warn the government that the dem onstrations they have seen, the anger they have seen amongst their own employees, amongst em ployees of school divisions, is not going to go away , and it is not going to go away because this was not a negotiated settlement. The Rrst Minister stood in his seat today and tried to place the blame for the demonstration that is going on in front of this building on the school teachers in the province of Manitoba. Well, I can tell you that the First Minister never sat down and talked to the school teachers.

He never sat down, neither did his Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey) or his Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) sit down and look and see if there were alternatives, to find out what alternatives there were. Instead they chose to arbitrarily introduce this legislation, to pass on the responsibility of doing the dirty work, if you will, to school boards. At the same time, what were they doing?

They were reducing the funding that was available to school divisions by $16 million, and they were telling school divisions that they could raise no more than 2 percent through the special levy, that they could not raise local taxes to cover the shortfall to continue the program . • (1 630) So what happens, Madam Deputy Speaker? Well, some divisions have decided to reduce the work we ek for teachers and taken away the professional development days-a gain, in my opinion, a short-sighted solution.

The professional developm ent is as imp ortant to parents and students as it is to teachers. [interjection] Here we have the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) who was not here when I said what he has done, in effect then, if he will just be a little bit logical, is impose a $1 ,400 to $1 ,600 tax on these people because that is what it is, a $1 ,400 to $1 ,600 in costs, disposable income. The bottom line is that the responsibility for this should not rest with the school divisions, because it is the government's responsibility.

If they had taken it, in some straightforward and honest way, then you could have some respect for what they are trying to do. But they are now trying to lay the blame on someone else. Madam Deputy Speaker

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-4-70
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 4th hansardpdf 70.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	baf254c80a76277910a867e8b9e20d7f14d2b9f5

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