Manitoba Hansard — 16 June 1982 (Sitting 77, 32nd Legislature, 1st Session)

32-1-77

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 16 June, 1982 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PAA YER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Ho n. J. Walding: Re ading and Rece iving Petitions . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Flin Flon. MR. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present the First Repor t of the Standing Comm ittee on Indus trial Relations. MR. ACTI NG CLERK, G. Mackintosh: Your Comm it tee met on Tu esday, June 15, 1982 and appointed Mr. Storie as Chairman.

Your Comm ittee agreed that a quo rum for all fut ure meetings of the Comm ittee should consist of six (6) members. The Comm ittee heard representations with respect to the following Bills: Bi ll (No. 29) -

An Act to amend The Civil Service Superannuation Act. Bill (No. 38) -

An Act to amend The Vacat ions with Pay Act. Bill (No. 39) -

An Act to amend The Department of Labour Act. Bill (No . 40) -

An Act to amend The Labour Rela tions Act. Bill (No . 41) -

An Act to amend The Em ployment Standards Act. Mr. Al Cerilli- Manitoba Federat ion of Labour & Ms. Darlene Dziewit spoke on Bills No. 29, 38, 39, 40, 41. Mr. Ha rold Dyck - Commun ist Pa rty of Manitoba spoke on Bills No. 40, 41. Ms June Ja mes - Cong ress of Black Women, Mani toba

Chapter spoke on Bills No. 38, 41. Mr. Sid ney Green - Manitoba Progressive Party spoke on Bill 40. Mr. Denis Sutton - Canadian Manuf acturers Asso ciation spoke on Bill No. 40. Mr. Ga ry Doer - Manitoba Government Employees Assoc iation spoke on Bill No. 29. Your Commit tee has considered: Bill (No. 29) -

An Act to amend The Civil Service Superannuation Act. Bill (No . 38) -

An Act to amend The Vacations with Pay Act. Bill (No. 39) -

An Act to amend The Department of Labour Act. Bill (No . 41) -

An Act to amend The Employment Standards Act. And has agreed to report the same without amendment. Your Comm ittee has also considered: Bill (No . 40) -

An Act to amend The Labou r Relations Act. And has agreed to report the same with certain amendments. Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Ho nourable Memb er for St. John s that the report of the Comm ittee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a statement to make and I have copies. I wish to inform the Ho use that the 1982-83 salary adjustment for senior managers in the Civil Service, who are excluded from the contract with the MG EA, will be 8 percent.

We believe that this is a fair increase, more than the percentage increase this year for Cabi net Ministers and the Leader of the Opposition, and approximately equivalent to the increase in annual salary, in dollar terms, for the most senior staff who are included in the MGE A agreement which was signed today. It reflects a principle which is inherent in the 1982-83 Ge neral Salary Adjustment , maximum help with inflation for those at lower wages. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for St. No rber t. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Minister for providing this informa tion to the Ho use. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Attorney-Ge neral. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to file the proceedings of the 63rd Ann ual Meeting of the Un i form Law Confer ence of Canada. MR. SPEA KER: Noti ces of Motion ... Introd uction of Bills ... INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Before we reach Oral Question period may I direct the attention of honourable mem bers to the gallery, where there are 25 students from Chur chill Ju nior High Scho ol, under the direction of Mr. Nath. This school is in the constituency of the Ho n ourable Minister of Economic Development.

On behalf of all of the mem bers, I welcome you here this afternoon. 3328 ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the First Minister. In view of the fact, Sir, that the Ho use has now been sitting ju st shy of four months; in view of the

Wednesday, 16 June, 1982 --------- --�-- ---- ---------- -------- ------------ fact that we have virtually completed the Estimates of Expenditur e, that is the review of them, all but for Supplementary Supply; in view of the fact that the government in recent days has been bringing into the Hous e at the last minute, so to speak, a numb er of serious and important bills which bear upon the future of freedom in Manitoba and Manitobans activities generally; in view of the fact, Sir, that there are pres ently some 25 bills at First Rea ding, some 13 at Report Stage, five that have not been introduc ed, that is the numb ers are blank on the Clerk's sheet and some 11 that have not even yet been distributed, can the First Minister advise what he has in mind for a more effi cient and orderly operation of the legislation in the Ho use and when we can expect to see the end of this torrent of social ist legislation which is being heaped on us now?

MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I think that we are doing relatively well compared to previous process. In fact, we haven't even seen it necessary yet to intro duce a Speed-up Motion which would have been normal, but it will no doub t be introdu ced soon in the Cham ber. We have the added situation this year of ha ving to proceed through the translation process and that indeed has held up the distribution of some bills, but satisfactory progress is being made. As I indicated, we haven't even yet seen fit to introduce the Speed-up Motion, but that will be done shortly.

HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, without accepti ng in any way the premise of the First Minister that the House's business is proceed ing in an orderly way, it's proceeding in qu ite a disorderly way compared to previous years I've experienced in the Shreyer Gov ernment and the previous government.

Can the First Minister give us some undertaking, Sir, that some of the bills, particul arly those such as the one tha t was passed around yesterday, The Agricultural Land Pro tection Act, which trenc hes upon individual freedom in a way that has not been seen in this Legislative Assemb ly since 1870; can he give us some assurance that bills of that nature will not be proceeded with at this Session but instead, Sir, will be passed to an I ntersessional Comm ittee or allowed better to rest on the Order Paper until the government has had a better opportunity to draft it in better terms with some reac tion to the value of individual freedom for citizens of Manitoba?

HON. H. PAWL EY: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition sometimes has a tendency to somewhat exaggerate. We re call, on this side of the Chamb er, some two years ago when large numbers of bills were withdrawn because it was clearly demonstrated in this Chamb er that those bi lls indeed were of a dictatorial nature. I refer to bills that were brought in by the former Minister of Mines, The Elections Act, and a numb er of others, during the final days of the Session. Mr. Speaker, we will be proceeding with our legisla tion and we are doing that in an orderly way.

I wou ld assum e that the mem bers in the Opposition wou ld wish at the same time to discuss same in an orderly way and we'll proceed as has been the case in the past, except I think probably with a little bit more orderli ness than in the past. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, given the examp les that the First Minister. with not that degree of precise accu racy that one would wish, has seemed to recall examp les of the previous adminis tration.

Will he fol low some of those good examp les then and take a look at some of the legislation that he and his Ministers are bringing in, which trench upon individual freedom particul arly, and make sure that those bills, there is no attempt to ram them through this Session with or without the Speed-up Motion, Sir ? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I say this with, I am sure, qu ite a strong degree of accu racy, that this gov ernment is much more mindful indeed of those aspects of freedom than was the case with the previous Con servative Government and there are many many examples of that.

I recall the particular embarrass ment in regard to the Energy Bill; how mem bers across the way indeed were extremely embarrassed when that bill was exposed in comm ittee. Mr. Speaker, we'll be proceeding to hear the public, to entertain debate in this Chamb er, and I would antic ipate that honou rable mem bers will make the points they wish to make in the normal fashion. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, given the fact that a number of the defi ciencies of my honourable friend's legislation have already been exposed and they have seen, for instance in the case of fi rst contract legisla tion, to do nothing except strengthen the adverse pie ces of it or adverse sections of it, can we have any guarantee that the usual cour tesies will be shown to this Ho use and that legislation not yet distributed to the Ho use will not be proceeded with, except in those cases where there is agreement between the Ho use Leaders? 3329 HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, possibly the Leader of the Opposition is not aware, but for instance in regard to the first contract legislation, it is my under standing that the public subm issions had been com pleted and it is my understanding indeed, as a result of one of the public subm issions, a change is being made to the legislation in order to meet the legitimate concern that has been expressed. So, Mr. Speaker, I think the process is being followed as it should be. What the Leader of the Opposition is conc erned about, ob viously, is that he's opposed in principle to some of the legislation that is being delivered.

He is hoping to cause the defeat of this legislation by way of proposing that it not be dealt with at all during this Session. That's really what the Leader of the Opposi tion is interested in doing, Mr. Speaker, and we, as a government, have to assume responsibility for our legislation. We proceed with that legislation in due process, and with the first contract legislation referred to, we have already heard public subm issions and as a result of some of the constructive com ments that were made by memb ers of the public, there have been already some changes that are being proposed. HON. S. LYON: Mr.

Speaker, the First Minister, unwit tingly, is putting his finger on precisely the point that I

Wednesday, 16 June, 1982 was attempting to make earlier in a general sense about the disorderly way in which legislation is being handled by this government. Is he aware of the fact, Sir, that the first contr act legislation was amended in Commit tee by the Minister, by a memb er of his own government, to make it even more unpalatable to a large

section of the co mmuni ty of Manitoba than was the case in the first place? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the remark s of the Leader of the Opposition. This government intends to be flexib le. We don't intend to proceed into a comm ittee, just to rubb er stamp. Th at may have indeed been the practice in earlier years, but we do n't intend to proceed into a comm ittee simply to rubber stamp our legislation. We intend to proceed into commit tee to listen to the public, and indeed we are responding to a brief of the Canadian Manufactur ers Assoc iation in making a constructive amendment.

Now, mem bers across the way may think that's some stange twist in democr acy. I think, Mr. Speaker, that is democracy in motion. Democ racy's about to be prac tised in this Chamb er; otherwise, what is the point of going into commit tee? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Pembi na. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My qu estion is for the Minister of Agricultur e.

Approxi mately two weeks ago, the Minister too k under advisement a request I made as to providing the Hous e with the names of those individuals who had received assistance under the Farm Interest Rate Relief Program and the amoun t of that assistance provided. Can the Minister provide myself and the Hous e with that information today? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Those questions were taken under advisement and the informa tion that the honour able member requested in terms of the specific s of the numb ers, but with respect to the names of individuals, I think the memb er knows my views. I did take them under advisement and we're still having that matter gone through legally just to see where we stand, but the specific information that he wants is being prepared and will be forwarded to him. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Do I interpret from the Minister's remarks that he is refusing to provide myself and the Legislature with the names of individuals who are receiving assistance, paid for I might add by the tax payers of Manito ba; that he is refusing to provide that information to the Ho use and the amount of assis tance that is being provided to those individuals by the tax payers of Manitoba? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I am not refusing to provide the honourable member with information as to the regions, the scope of farm ing operations and the nature of the operation, and as much financial information as we can provide the honourable mem ber without divulging specifically the names of the people who apply in all fairness to them in terms of their fi nancial situations, whether it be in business, whether it be in farm ing, or individuals. That information - I have not said that we will not provide it, I'm having that matter check ed out, but the basic information will be provided to the honourable member. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not satisfied with that answer and I hope the Minister endeavours to provide the information requested as soon as possible. My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is tha t I am not requesting fro m the Minister detailed financial information that was provided to the various depart ments in confiden ce; that is not the nature of my request. I am sim ply wanting to know, on behalf of the taxpayers of Manitoba, who is receiving assistance and in what amoun t, so that the tax payers in Manitoba and this Legislature may be availed of that kind of informa tion. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I will repeat the remarks that I made during Commit tee, that once that kind of adv ice is given, then one of cou rse can assume of the financial dif ficu lties that firm or that individual has been placed in and has come to the province for assistance. I've indicated to the honourable memb er that I am checkin g that matter out legally and if at all possible it can be provided, it will be done so, but I can not assure the honourable memb er that will be done.

The basic informa tion, as far as the amount of mo ney, we've given the honourable memb er that information but we will be even more specific in light of the questions that he raised in Comm ittee in terms of num bers, in terms of regions and that kind of infor mation that he raised in Comm ittee. MR. D. ORCHARD: Well, Mr. Speaker, will the Minis ter undertake to provide myself and the Ho use that informa tion prior to being asked to pass Supplemen tary Supply in the Hous e? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I can't give that undertak ing specifically, but I've asked staff to pre pare that informa tion and that it be provided to the honourable memb er. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Stur geon Creek. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Mr. Speaker, my qu estion is to the Minister of Economic Development and Tourism. Last year, the First Minister showed very great con cern when Beaver Lumb er moved its head office for Ca nada to Eastern Ca nada.

I wonder if the Minister of Econ omic Development has had the oppor tunity to have discussion with Beaver Lumb er regarding their decision to move their western offices to Ed monton. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Economic Development. 3330 HON. M. SMI TH: Mr. Speaker, in response to the qu estion of the memb er opposite, I haven't had con versations with the head people of Beaver Lumb er. I cannot at this point answer as to whether my depart ment has, but I will take that question under advisement.

MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, the First Minister showed deep concern that I hadn't had discussion with Beaver Lumb er. I sincerely hope he shows the same concern to his Minister. I would ask the Minister, Mr. Speaker, if she would also, while having discus sions with Beaver Lumb er, inform them and see if she can do anything to change their decision to close two stores in the Province of Manitoba. HON. M. SMIT H: Mr. Speaker, I certainly would looK at all questions relating to their decision. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker, on another subject, I wonder if the Minister of Economic Development could supply to the Hous e the number of loans made under the Interest Relief Program, who have they been made to, for the benefit of the knowledge of mem bers of the Hous e. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, that detailed informa tion, I can supply the general totals and num bers and undertake to do so, but the programs have not been set up with the expectation that the specific names of recipients would be made public. Mr.

Speaker, we consider that sort of relationship with private compan ies as confidential and I'm sure the memb er opposite will respect that relationship. MR. F. JOH NSTON: Mr. Speaker, last year I was asked by the Memb er for Brandon West, or in 1980 I was asked by the Memb er for Brandon East for a list of names, amou nts of money supplied under the Enter prise Development Program for expansion of busi ness and mo ney to start new businesses. T.he list of names, the amou nts of money, the numb er of job s were provided to this Ho use within two weeks.

Does the Minister believe that the new program information should not be supplied to this Legislature? MR. SPEA KER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My qu es tion is to the Ho nourable Minister of Government Ser vices.

I have previously asked the Minister of Agricul ture on several occas ions, I have asked the First Minister and now I am going to ask the Minister of Go vernment Services if he can provide the technical services to the Minister of Agricultur e so that the Min ister of Agriculture can provide me with the pres cribed price for the Beef Income Stabilization Pro gram for the last qua rter of last year, if the Minister could provide that assistance to the Minister of Agrticu lture? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Gov ernment Services. HON. S. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I know that the mem ber is somewhat facet ious with this request. I suggest to him that he put the qu estion to the Minister of Agricu lture. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could direct the question then to the Minister of Agriculture. MR. SPEAK ER: The Honour able Mi nis ter 16 June, 1982 of A9riculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I will have that. In fact, I had that information to him; I will endeavou r to get it. If I don't have it before the question period is over. I'll have it for him tom orrow. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, I direct the question to the Hon ourable Fi rst Minister. The other day, Mr. Speaker, a constituent of mine travelling on Provincial Road 421 - a somewhat isolated

section of the road I might add - was stopped by two gentlemen if I can describe them that way. She was somewhat intimidated about stop ping in the middle of a road on a cou ntry road. They convinced her that she had to stop, by standing in the middle of the road. They flashed some form of identi fication which proved to be that they were indeed taxation officers from the Department of Finance and were doing a purple gasoline check. Mr. Speaker, I'm not conc erned; we know that these checks have to be made, but I do express a conc ern about the manner and way in which it was made.

The wife proceeded home, the husband then came down the same road and was a little less intimidated and asked the officer's name. They refused to give them the name. I would ask the First Minister whether or not he would use his influence with taxation officers to review the manner and way in which they intrude in this manner on rural people. This is not the first instance. There have been other instances and it has happened under other adminis trations, I might add, but there seems to be an over zealousness here on the part of the carrying on of these duties. 3331 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister.

HON. H. PAW LEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Honour able Memb er for Lakeside for his question and I accept it indeed as a question that is certainly well intentioned in view of the circu mstances as outli ned to him. I would like to look into the circums tances, check practice now with previous practice and also check as to whether or not that practice warrants some change. Certai nly, identification should be indicated without qu estion by any officer perform ing any func tion relat ing to the Crown and that goes without saying. The rest of the question I'll accept as one of notice. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, as the First Minister under takes to review that situation, you know, I indicate to him again the officers were wearing civilian clothes, an unmark ed car; there was no physical means of identification that they were on any governmental duty. I have the licence numb ers of the vehicle involved. I will not divu lge it publicly, but I would undertake to either provide it to the First Minister privately or to the Minister of Finance. MR SPEAKE R: The Honour able Memb er for Portage la Prairie.

Wednesday, 16 June , 1982 -----·----- ·��- ------· ---- MR. L. HYDE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a ques tion to the Honour able Minister responsible for the Commun ity Services and Co rrections. To the Minis ter, since the Honour able Minister of Commun ity Ser vices has been reviewing the proposed construc tion of an indoor recreational co mplex at the Manitoba Sc hool for Retarda tes in Portage since last March of '82, will the Minister advise today if his long awaited review is now comple ted? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Com munity Services. HON. L. EVANS: Mr.

Speaker, we're not in a position to make a policy statement at this time. The answer is no. MR. L. HYDE: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister. Coul d he advise when that review will be comple ted? HON. L. EVANS: Well, Mr. Speaker, it involves a numb er of areas of policy rela ting to institutions for the mentally retarded as well as the matter that involves co mmuni ty facilities which I know the hon ourable memb er is concerned about. That is the pro vision of recreational facil ities for the Commun ity of Portage la Prairie; so it's not only a matter that involves one department.

It involves more than one department. I'd like to be more specific, but I would only assure the memb er that I share his concerns. I would like us to come up with a decision as soon as possible. MR. L. HYDE : A further question to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister then prepared to sit down with Mayor Greenslade in the Portage City Council to provide the city with the full details of all the chan ges that are proposed with the results of this review? HON. L. EVANS : Mr.

Speaker, I don't know to what extent I can commit myself to doing exactly what the honourable memb er proposes, but I do hope that sometime over the summer months I will be able to get out to the good City of Portage la Prairie, move off the by-pass into the city and review a numb er of facil ities there and perhaps take the opportunity to talk to the Mayor and other city offic ials. MR. L. HYDE: Thank s, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Minister, when he does take an approach to the City of Portage la Prairie, if he'll just take a good note of the condition of our Saskatchewan Avenue in Portage la Prairie. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I direct my question to the Minister in ch arge of Lotteries and wou ld ask him in light of the fact that it has been shown that certain Nevada ticke ts sold in the province are not che at proof, what steps he will be taking to ensure that the pub lic is protected when they are purchasing Nevada tick ets in the province? MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DE SJARDINS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, this is one of the reasons that we're bringing in this new Act, step No. 1.

The Je wers Commi ssion is another step and then beefing up the staff of inspectors as the next step. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, without accepting the fact that

an Act is needed, I would like to ask the Minister a question whether or not he, as the Minister, or Cabi net approved and when the approval was given for the 649 Co mputer Game which is a new lottery in Manitoba? HON. L. DES JARDINS : Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this qu estion. The information I had that had been approved by someb ody representing the former government, the former Minister, the memb er who just asked the question, and then I gave the approval. I haven't the date, but I can find the date for the memb er later on. MR. R. BANMAN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, just for the record, I just want to say that when I was Minister I was not aware of this game being entered into and it was not approved by the former Cabi net. Any new lottery games under the previous government would have to have been passed through Cabi net before they would have received approval. In light of the fact that this is a new lottery game and it's using the co mputers, could the Minister tell us where the prof its of these particular funds will be directed to?

In other words, will they be directed to any particu lar agency and who at the pres ent time owns the compu ters that are placed in the different shops in the province? Who owns the com puters that are now presently being used? HON. L. DE SJARDINS: For the present, Mr. Speaker, the funds will be placed in a special acc ount until a decision is made. As my honourable friend knows, we are looking at ways to maximi ze the profit to make sure that the nonprofit organizations or sports and cul ture and other groups will receive as much as pos si ble.

The division and the distribution of funds is certa inly not done in a fa ir and adequa te way at this time. This will be reviewed; so for the mo ment the fund will go into a speci al fund. Now as far as this computer type, that is owned by the Western Canada Lottery Founda tion who is pay ing for it at this time and of cour se, the Western Can ada Lottery Fou ndation is a creation of the fo ur west ern provi nces, so part of that is owned by the Province of Manitoba. 3332 MR. R.

BANMAN: In light of the fact that the Federal Government has announced they are possibly intend ing also to get into the co mputerized game field on a sports pool type of approach and in light of the fact that there are rumours there is a bill going to be intro duced in the federal Hou se of Com mo ns which will again layer on the already numerous lottery games in Canada, I wonder if the Minister could inform the Ho use whether or not he has had any conta ct with the Federal Minister of Sport with regard to their pro posed computerized game.

Wednesday, 16 Ju ne, 1982 HON. L. DESJARDINS : Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any direct con tact with Mr. Regan at this time; I have had con tact with the Provincial Minister responsible. I have requested that they should hold a meeting. I have been doing that for the last couple of months. It was slated. at least for the Western Canada Ministers. just about the time of the election in Sask atchewan, so that was postponed. I think that the memb er now knows the reason and it's part of the answer where I have confi rmed the permission or accepting the lnterprovincial Lottery that he mentio ned earlier.

One of the reasons is that if there are going to be those kinds of things I think that the provi nce might as well be on the ground floor instead of the feds. Now, I think we agree; we have agreed in the past on this, the two sides of the Ho use, that the field of lotteries rightly should be exc lusively through the provinces. We don't like that at all, but there's not much we can do if the Federal Govern ment deci des to go ahead. It is mo re than a rumour . There is

an Act, I am told. I don't think that they've passed it. It was introduced and the information I was given at the time is that was a way of showing they had something if they didn't get along with the provi nce. I have been told that there was some kind of negotiation by some body represent ing the province - I think there were two of them - and the Federal Government to try and make some kind of an arrangement as was done in the past.

It could be that a certain amount of money would go through sports on the federal level at the request of the Federal Go vernment, but that's all the inform ation I have at this time. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, another question to the Minister. In light of the fact that there is an agreement which has been signed between the provinces and the Federal Government. which I believe transfers a sum of an excess of $30 million now to the Federal Gove rnment from the dif ferent provi nces, will the Minister inform the Ho use whether or not th at agreement will be adhered to by the Provincial Govern ment?

In other words, if the Federal Govern ment tries to renege on that particular cont ract that both the funds, the $30 million which is now passing from the provi nces to the Federal Government plus the agreement will be ch allenged, and that the prov ince will uphold the original agreement signed with the Federal Gove rnment and then withhold the funds, in other words the $30 million which are flowi ng to them now. HON. L. DE SJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly something that should and it will be looked at; the suggestion was already made.

As long as we can get some kind of an arrangement with the Federal Govern ment, I don't think there should be any threats, but if they go ahead unilaterally to decide to set up this new lottery here and I think there's too many of them. I think then we certa inly will have to look at that becaus e in my view they would not be living up to the agreement, although they're stretch ing things by cer tainly not the intent anyway. Now they might be stretching this to say, well it's a different kind of a lottery; it's a Sports Toto kind of a lottery; it's betting on games; it's something else.

So that is more reason why the Provincial Minister should meet fai rly soon to be ready to meet the Federal Gov ernment if need be. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Some time ago, the Minister of Northern Affairs indicated that he had hoped to resume negotiations in late May or early Jun e with the Federal DREE Minister with the purpose of signing a new Northern Development Agreement. Can the Min ister advise the Ho use today when a new agreement will be signed? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Nor thern Affairs. HON. J.

COWAN: I can advise the mem ber, who has posed this question on several occas ions in the past. that I am expect ing a phone call from the Honour able Herb Gray this afternoon between 3:00 and 3:15, dur ing which time I am going to inquire as to why we have not been able to get together as we had anticipated being able to get together by this time. I hope tomor row to be able to prov ide to the memb ers more detail as to Mr. Gray's response to that inquiry. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Minis ter could inform the Hous e if he does in fact receive that phone call that he's been waiting on, will he also be discu ssing the possibility of signing a new Special ARD A Agreement at the same time? HON. J. COWAN: Both items are items which I would wish to discuss with Mr. Gray today. It is my under standing, as a result of a phone call to him this morn ing on this very subject, that he will be phoning back at that time, and I hope to be able to prov ide the detailed information in respect to those two que stions tomorrow. 3333 MR. D. GOU RLAY: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister what assurance he has received from the federal people with respect to retroactiv ity on the programs that the provinces have been supplying with 10 0 percent provincial input? HON. J. COWAN: We are not at the stage as of yet where we are discus sing retroactiv ity in respect to the Nor thlands Agreement, so I can not prov ide the memb er opposite with a detailed statement, except to say that of cou rse the provi nce will be putting forward the argument that these programs, if contin ued under a new agreement, should in fact have retroactive cla uses applied to them.

We will put that forward on behalf of the province, we will discus s it and I am certain that it will be a matter which we will discuss in some detai I. MR. D. GOURLAY: I have one further question to the Minister. I wonder if the Minister could advise us as to what is happening to applications for Special ARD A grants since the Is! of April. HON. J. COWAN: In respect to Special ARDA grants, it's my understanding that we have good cause to

Wednesday, 16 Ju ne, 1982 believe that the applications, which will have come forward since April 1 st and will be coming forward in the futur e, will be consid ered under a renewed agreement if and when that renewed agreement is signed. I would hope I'd be ab le to provide a very defin itive statement on that to the memb er in the very near futur e. I am optimistic on Special ARD A and the negotiations which have been ongoing, and I hope that I am able to share with the mem bers opposite good news in the near futur e. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Agricu lture. In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker. that the Minister of Agricu lture has indicated to the farm communi ty and to the Ho use that he is using the Cattle Producers Association to take recommendations from in the developm ent of his ill conceived Beef Cattle Program, does the Minister of Agricu lture plan to change the method in which the cattle produc ers' organization is fu nded, from the col lection of fees when the livestock are delivered, that if the producer s do not want to partic ipate can apply for those fu nds?

Does he, in fact, plan to change that system? MR. SP EAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI : Mr. Speaker, if and when a policy decis ion or any indication of tha t nature will be made, the mem ber will be advised. MR. J. DOW NEY: Jn other words, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is considering a change to that particular process. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister has indicated to the Ho use that he is talking to the farm com munity and the beef produ cers, when does he plan on meeting with the Southe ast Cattle Producers Assoc iation of which there is some 100 mem bers?

Several weeks ago, Mr. Speaker, he prom ised a meet ing with them and mem bers of his Cabi net, when will that meeting take place? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the member's comm ents about conside ration, I should mention to the honourable memb er that during one of many meetings that I've had with the MC PA, the mat ter of volu ntary contributi ons and payments was dis cussed with them, so we've had discussions on that topic. With respect to the specific s of the Southe ast Mani toba Cattle Producers' group, I want to tell the hon ourable memb er that I met with that group personally.

They supplied me, at the time of the meeting, broad terms of a program that they cou ld see themselves supporting. I indicated to them that I would be pleased to have further informa tion and a bit more expans ion of the broad detai ls that they presented to me; they have yet to present those. They've presented a bit more. I have suggested to them that those views also be taken into consideration by the Comm ittee that is dealing with this program, and those views will be considered along with other views of produ cers, who are work ing on this program. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, did the Minister at that last meeting with the Sout heast Cattle Prod ucers Assoc iation -(I nterjec tion) - approx imately two months ago, offer to have his Cabi net, a Cabi net of which he is a member of, meet with representatives from that Cattle Produc ers Associa tion? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, when I met with the group, I indicated to them that they should expand on their proposals and I will be prepared to set up a meeting. I have yet to have the expanded proposals in terms of -(I nterjection)- well, Mr. Speaker, the Honour able Memb er for Pem bina wants to chirp away about fault or not fault.

I have met with the group personally and certainly if they have specific propos als to make to us, I'll be pleased to receive them, and those proposals will be given consid eration along with many others that we will be receiving. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Tu rtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Natu ral Resou rces. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that a numb er of students have been hired by the Ga rrison Focus Office for the purpose of carrying the message of the Ga rrison concern into North Da kota.

I wonder if the Minister of Natu ral Resou rces could advise the House of the progress of that mission. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Na tural Resou rces. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question and it gives me an opportu nity to comment on the efforts in respect to further understanding for Manitobans and others about Manitoba's concern about Ga rrison. The honou rable memb er is correct; there are stu dents that have been employed and are com municat ing our concerns in teams.

So far as I know, there have been no teams go into the United States yet with material explaining our conc erns. They have been there to see the works and appreciate the on-site development that has taken place there, but to my kno wledge they haven't been involved in any displays or commun ication as yet. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minis ter could advise the Ho use what arrangements have been made in terms of contacts, for instance, in North Dakota for these stude nts to be able to put forward the message. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, I don't have the details of arrangements yet; they will be annou nced in due course. I haven't seen the

schedule of visitation yet, and I can inform mem bers of that later. 3334 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Tux edo. MR. G. FILM ON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my ques tion is for the Honour able Minister of Natural Resour-

Wednesday, 16 June, 1982 ces. Last week. believe Tuesday while he was in Washington. the Minister of the Environment took as notice a qu estion which I had asked and I wonder if he has yet the response to the qu estion which is, can he confirm that one Dirk Blevins of the Attorney-General's Department. our representative in Washington. will be returning to Manitoba as of June 3Qth? HON. A. MACKLING: Here again, Mr. Speaker, I haven't asked my staff to confirm timing of Mr. Blev ins' contin uance in Washington. It is not our intention to keep someone there 365 days of the year. It's appropriate for us to have Mr.

Blevins there to advise and consult at specific periods of time. I believe that both he and our counsel down there, through the law firm, did an exc ellent job in respect to co-or dinating the arrangements, the visits. Let me indicate that Congressmen had been briefed befo rehand as to our visits and were very knowledgeable about the reasons we were there. Excellent work was done by Mr. Blev ins and by Mr. Wegman. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The time for Oral Ques tions having expired, may I direct the attention of honourable mem bers to the gallery where there are 32 students of Gr ade 6 standing of the Winnipegosis Elementary School. These students are under the direction of Mr. Wetick and the school is in the consti tuency of the Honour able Memb er for Dauph in. On behalf of all of the mem bers, I welcome you here this afternoon. I can further report to the Assembly that the smell in the Chamb er when we arrived this af ternoon came from the caulking compound that the roofers were using on the roof above us.

The air came into the House by way of the ventilating fans, which have now been tu rned off, and the smell should dissipate. Order please, order please. Order please. PROCEDURAL STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: I have a short proced ural statement I would like to read to the honourable mem bers. On June the 14 th, the Honour able Attorney-General rose in his place to state that questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition had been of a repetitive nature, and he requested that the Speaker rule on the matter. I took the matter under advisement in order to review Ha nsard and Beauchesne.

A qu estion asked on a previous day is not necessarily out of order since circu mstances may change and the government may modif y its position. Beauchesne is quite clear on the topic, however. It says in

part in Citation 357, "A qu estion, oral or writ ten, must not (

c) multiply with slight variations a sim ilar qu estion on the same point; and (

d) repeat in substance a question already answered or to which an answer has been refused." On the general principles listed in Citation 359, Beauchesne says, "8. A question that has previously been answered ought not to be asked again." Since Beauchesne has been invoked in this matter, it is qu ite clear that the questions have been repetitive and it is equally clear that they are out of order, and I so rule. ��- -�� At the same qu estion period, there were two occa sions on which a memb er of the Opposition quo ted extensively from a written document before using it as the basis for a question.

While this practice was not objected to by any memb er and did not in itself cause any disruption of the Ho use, a widespread extension of this practice could seriously damage the integrity of the qu estion period. The principle, which is covered in Beachesne's Cit ation 362 reads, "Reading telegrams, letters, or extracts from newspapers as an opening to an oral qu estion is an abuse of the Ru les of the Ho use. It is not good parliamentary practice to co mmunic ate written alle gations to the House and then ask Ministers either to confirm or deny them.

It is the member's duty to ascer tain the truth of any statement before he brings it to the attention of Parliament." The reading of written material into the record as the basis for a qu estion is unparliamentary and should be avoided by mem bers. May I refer the attention of memb ers again to Citation 359(2) which says in part, "A

preamble need not exceed one carefully drawn sentence. A long preamb le on a long qu estion takes an unfair share of time and provokes the same sort of reply. A supplementary question should need no

preamble." ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SP EAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave to make a comment of a nonpartisan nature. MR. SPEAKER: Do es the mem ber have leave? (Agreed) 3335 NONPARTISAN STATEMENT MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure that Members of the Hous e would want to note and extend our congratulations to the Government of the United Kingdom on the successfu l outcome of the Falkland Islands encou nter and the surrender without fu rther bloodshed of the Argentine invasion force. The Ho use of Commons has seen fit to note this matter and I think it's fitting that we should in this Legislature while we are assembled as well.

I'm sure that the Ho use would also want to associate itself, the mem bers individually and collectively, with the motions of deepest sympathy to the fa milies of all of those who unfortunately lost their lives in this mil itary action which was unnecessarily precipitated by the Argentine Governm ent. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I thank indeed the Leader of the Opposition for raising this matter and on behalf of the Government, we certainly associate our selves with the words spoken.

I think really the lesson in regard to the Falklands crisis. the war, the loss of life

Wednesday, 16 Ju ne, 1982 that followed, and the final conclusion is that it is not safe for any aggressor to think that they can easily succeed in the grabbing of properties, the gr abbing of other areas that are in contention. Right now, I'm sure that Guatemala would be having second thoug hts in regard to annexation of Belize and the same with Venezuela of portions of Guyana. I think that the exa mple that Britain has followed, in pertaining to the Falklands, indeed was a clear and indicative message to the world as a whole. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Govern ment Ho use Leader. HON. R.

PENNER: Mr. Speaker, fi rst of all, I would like to announce the contin uation of the meeting of the Comm ittee on Statuatory Regulations and Orders for Monday, June 21 st, at 10 :00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., to fu rther consider the matters referred. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 21 - THE COMMUNITY CHILD DAY CARE STANDARDS ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Ho n ourable Minister of Commu nity Services, Bill No. 21, standing in the name of the Honour able Memb er for Robli n-R ussell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a few com ments I'd like to relate to Bill No. 21 and express some of the conc erns maybe of the rural volunteer day care groups who I'm sure no doub t, Mr. Speaker, will appear at the hearings and express their concerns and opinions more ably than I am able to do. Mr. Speaker, it has been espoused in the Ho use that this matter is another one of the election pledges of the government, the NOP Party.

I looked up today in the "Choic e for Manitoba ns" and I cer tainly don't see a pledge of the legislation of the type that we had before here because they said in their promises, child care would be made available on both a full-time and part-time basis to ensure equal access to day care. Sub sidies of low income payments will be made a part of the Day Care Program where a possible day care would be integrated, and so it says. Mr.

Speaker, I'm sure there are a lot of people that have been involved in the day care movement across the province and especially in rural Manitob a, who are today rather disappointed when they take a look and realize from this Bill No. 21 that there is basically nothing to explain or define the standards of day care that this government expects to impose when this legislation is passed. Mr.

Speaker, since the subject matter of day care came into the Legislature some years ago, many legislative changes have taken place, all in my opinion very beneficial to meeting the social and economic needs of those of our citizens who require or utilize day care services. I have fo und those debates very interesting and rewarding and I daresay today, Mr. Speaker. we have in this province, thanks to governments of the past and the former government, a day care service that has been pretty widely accepted and well received. Mr.

Speaker, in case that any of the mem bers oppo site or the government are concerned about my remarks, I fully support and our party fully supports the concept of fair standards for day care in our pro v;nce. Mr. Speaker, in reviewing the bill, it says that day care centres will be licensed by the province to meet unspecified health safety standards and pro grams that the government intends to implement through the form of regulations. The regulations will be drafted on some specific standards.

They're not actually spelled out the way I would like to see them spelled out after hearings are conduc ted, of cou rse, this summer across the province. 3336 I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the public and especially the people in rural Manitoba because I don't suppose there will be that many hearings held across the rural parts of the province are going to be any wiser after their hearings are over than I am, standing here as the Memb er for Roblin -R ussell today, as we try to resolve what kind of day care standards that the people in this province are going to enjoy.

I also wonder why the Minister has seen fit to take this initiative in this bill and devise the people of this province that he is, or somebody is, going to write this legislation or this law in some back room, maybe in his office, after the hearings are being held. I, for the life of me, can't understand why he didn't turn it around the other way and give the people of this province an advantage of his wisdom and jud gment and the government's position on this legislation as what we can actually expect.

I suppose he'll come back and answer when he responds to the bill and says, well, I'm going to listen to what the people say and then I'll pick out what I think is advantageous and that's what I will regulate. I hope that's not the case, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we are comm itting to this Ho use a set of standards with or without telling us the bill, or putting it in the bill, what these standards are going to be. May I ask how many present day care centres out in rural Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, are going to be phased out as a result of this legislation or the regulations that the Minister intends to implement? What's going to happen to the voluntary day care groups across rural Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, in these regulations? I hope that the Minister will answer or give us some information as to that as well. Mr.

Speaker, I believe the general values of our society in this province is one of, may I say, pluralism which suggests that the commun ities out there, espe cially maybe the rural parts of this province, are better suited to getting their needs met by a variety of inde pendent voluntary day care associations. I maybe should remind the Hous e, Mr. Speaker, that can only beco me possible if organizations, which includes the volu ntary day care boards, are left independent of the authority of government. Indeed when the converse, the opposite, happens, Mr.

Speaker, govern ment authorities, civil servants appointed by the state and accou ntable to the state, we have a sort of a one sided system which in some quarters is described as a total itarian sort of a structu re. I think the importance, Mr. Speaker, of understanding the relationship between a democr atic system and a bureaucratic system can't be underestimated in the specific issues that are

we,an,esc1av. 16 June, 1982 related to the enforcement of day care standards in our province. Mr. Speaker. I am sure everybody in this province believes in the provisions of The British Nor th Am er ica Act which very specifically defines education as a provin cial rather than a federal jur isdiction or con cern. That same subject or Act, Mr. Speaker, reinfor ces the design of commu nity elected school boards, the divisional boards, that see that the system is prop erly handled and implemented for the education of our children. I find it very easy, as I stand here this afternoon, Mr.

Speaker. lo sort of parallel my vision of the volunteer co mmuni ty boards extending and enfor cing the policie s of day care centres, rather than the enfor cer being a paid government employee which is described in the legislation as a co-ord inator. Also. Mr. Speaker, I cannot stress enough the necessity of kee ping the taxpayers' dollars in proper perspective with this legislation. I would like the Min ister to give us an idea of what kind of money he's talking about for the implementation of these stand ards, when we do find out what they will be.

I wonder how many co- ordi nators he intends to hire and how many would be needed to do the job that volunteer co-ord inators are doing in our province today. How many of the volunteer co-ord inators are you intending to replace with this legislation? Mr. Speaker, I don't think there's any time in my life and political career where the publi c reaction of too much government involvement with people is more evident than it is today. I listen to people on street corners and in public places talking about the people, like ou rselves, that are in public life today and we are not that overly popu lar, Mr. Speaker.

I sometimes wonder if the reason isn't too much government invol vement in the affa irs of people. This is what brings my attention in the case of the day care regulations which this government is - how far are we going to go in legislating the standards for our young children in these day care centres? Where are you going to start your standards and where are you going to stop? Because, Mr. Speaker, we don't have any of that type of information in the legislation. I just wonder as I stand here, Mr.

Speaker, and maybe the Minister can alleviate my concerns that hired government employees going around to enforce day care standards in the rural day care centres are going to spread a lot of concern amon gst the volun teer groups that are so well known across this prov ince and who have done such an excellent job . I cer tainly acknowledge, Mr.

Speaker, the need for standards and our caucus and party certainly wel come, but on the other hand, I acknowledge the tre mendous resource of concerned, skilled volunteer communi ty citizens who are out there and have handled the day care pretty well, in especially the rural areas. I am not that fa miliar with the urban co mmuni ties, Mr. Speaker, and I don't acknowledge the resource of only one person being the power or the one that's going to enforce standards. I don't think that there are a lot of the volunteers in the rural parts of the provi nce who don't welcome it either. So I hope, Mr.

Speaker, that the Minister will tread very carefully when he's considering alternates to the system, that we have had such good service with in the past and which the people of this province have enjoyed. I'll leave my remarks, Mr. Speaker, that the enforcement of standards with com munity boards, I think, would be much more acceptable in the rural parts of our province, rather than with government employees walking around in these day care centres and telling them what they can do and what they can't do. So with those few remarks, Mr.

Speaker, I am sure when we get to Comm ittee, we are going to gain the wisdom of many of the volunteer groups who have certainly played an extremely important role in the development of day care facilities in this province. I sincerely hope, when the regulations are written and we are back in this Hous e again, that the volunteer groups get every attention that they deserve and they gain full recognition under these proposed regulations. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for St. Johns. MR. D. MALI NOWSKI: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

As I stand up, I also would like to make an address concern ing Bill No. 21, which is before us. Mr. Speaker, a former President of the United States, Her bert Hoover, said "Childr en are our most valuable natural resource." In talking about day care centres, Mr. Speaker, it means we're talking about care of those precious to us which we, everywhere regardless where we are living, are taken care of. In many cases, we saw that when a child was in danger, a mother was ready to give up her life for him. So, Mr.

Speaker, whether we want to regard children as a natural resource or not, I think we are all in general agreement that children are indeed a precious part of our life, not only here. They are the most valuable part of every commun ity and every nation on the whole globe. Much of the happiness of married life is centred around the bringing up of children. Mr. Speaker, in the past, it was left to parents alone to cope with the problems and responsi bilities of rais ing children.

While most fa milies tried to do the best for their offspring, there were also many cases where the children suffered because of parental neglect or even cruelty. So, if this is the case, others have to take care and help them to raise those children. Samuel Butler, a British writer, said, "Parents are the last people on earth who ought to have children." In this bit of satire, th ere is some truth. Maybe, he's making fun of it, but he has a point. We know, Mr. Speaker, there are some irrespo nsible parents who not only neglect their children, but often resort to abusing them.

I would like to make a qu ota tion, Mr. Speaker, from the Bible conce rning our children. "Suf fer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not, for of such is the Kin gdom of God. Verily, I say unto you, whosoever shall not receive the Kin gdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein." So it means that from almost the very beginning, if not as societies, so then the church was taking care of our children. 3337 For us, Mr. Speaker, it is not only an obligation, but also we have a certain responsibil ity towards our children.

Ho w well parents can care for their children, to a very large extent also depends on the kind of country they live in and the kind of economic condi-

Wednesday, 16 Ju ne, 1982 lions that prevail. In the countries where much pov erty exists, a lot of children will suffer no matter how loving and considerate their parents may be. For something like that, we need cond itions; we need circumstances. Over the years, a vast improvement has been made in the general living standards. Attitudes towards the welfare of children has also changed. Today, the pub lic assumes a greater concern for the well-being of children.

We can't imagine debates taking place in the cou ncil cham bers of the nations in the 18 th or even in the 19 th Century about establishing child day care centres. It's been going on for ages. One declaration of the United Nations, concer ning children, reads, "Mankind owes to the child the best it has to give." That's our obligation. I think and I believe that, not because United Nations is making such a statement. They are telling us how we should act towards our chi ldren. This is not the poi nt. Our own duty should tell us we have certain responsibilities towards our chi ldren. Further, Mr.

Speaker, I am sure all of us on both sides of this Chamb er agree with this United Nations declaration. This declaration on the concern for children reflects the change in the world attitudes. Concern and responsibility for the welfare of children is no longer limited to the individual family, not any mo re. The concern is now shared by the co mmun ity, by the nation, and by the United Nations respresenting the whole world. If we can agree with the United Nations declaration that we owe to our chi ldren the best we have to give, can we also agree that in this rich and great coun try of ours, we have much to give?

Mr. Speaker, I am a strong supporter of child care centres. I believe well-run child care centres are a great blessing to the parents as well as to the children. Apart from the protection and care offered to the child, these child care centres also plays an important

part in the child's general development, which is very important. Furthermore. Mr. Spea ker, in cases where the youngster is the only child in the fam ily, it is par ticularly important the child should have the opportu nity to play with and be among other children for a good part of the day. The bill before us concerns only one aspect of the childrens' and the parents' needs.

It concerns the establishment of a place where parents can leave their children. assured in the knowledge that they will be well looked after while the parents are at work. or have a different thing to do, or must leave the children in the care of these centres for many other reasons. But, whenever a mother or father is leaving this child, they are sure that in this institution this child will be taken good care of. He doesn't have to. or she doesn't have to. worry about it.

Naturally, all child day care centres should be pleasant. comfortable places. well equ ipped with the proper facilities. to make them ideal places for childr en. Let them feel at home. There is the qu estion of how many more of these centres are needed, on what basis they should be established and how they should be fina nced? Some honourab le mem bers who have done much study and research have convinc ed me that we need many mo re of these centres to take care of all the needs.

In deter mining the financing of such centres. we must obviously consider what parents have the greatest need for such a centre and what are their abilities to pay, because not everybody can afford to send a child - maybe one child wouldn't be so bad, but if it hap pened that there might be three or fo ur children - it's very hard for such a parent to send children to the care centre. Mr. Speaker. the wealthy who can afford to hire maids are in no great need of child care centres, even though they could most readily afford to pay for them.

But I believe our greatest concern must be for working mothers. wido ws or single parents; they are in great need. They would like to support not only children. but also themselves. and they don't have opportuni ties. Ha ving such a day care centre. their problem is not completely but partially solved. We. on this side, certainly do not bel ieve that child day care centres are a field for life insurance compan ies. nor any other private profit corporations. These centres should be com munity-owned, established completely free from the evil situation which brings profit.

We should do something for our little ones. Mr. Speaker. while I support the general principle contained in the bill before us that child day care centres should be publ icly-financed co mmuni ty pro jects. I don't think we should rule out other types of self-supporting child care centres run as nonprofit establishments. About the care. I would like to quo te again fro m the Holy Gospel which says, "Whoever shall receive one of such children in my name receiveth me, and whoever shall receive me. receiveth me not but He that sent me," accor ding to St. Mark,

Chapter 9, Verse 37. In this quo tation of the Holy Bib le we're not talking about profits, we're talking about care, we're talking about humanity. That's what we're talking about and that's the message. Mr. Speaker, I know, for example. there are people in the Polish com munity, German commun ity, Uk rain ian. Je wish and other groups who feel very strongly about operating their own centres for their own ethnic communi ty. These are prepared to do their own financing. This is not only true of Winnipeg but also in areas outside of the city as well.

There are, for exam ple. large Mennonite commun ities in this province. These people I imagine want to look after their own needs with regard to child care centres for their com munities. As we know. these are very self-reliant and responsible people who as a general rule take good care of their children. 3338 Mr.

Speaker, when it come s to coal mines, steel mines, the oil industry, or even the banks, I support without hesitation public ownership, but in the matter of child day care centres, I believe we must allow for a great deal of flexibil ity, not only pushin g them in one direction, one way, one organization. As I said on the start of my speech: Child ren are the precious assets of their parents and many parents - if not most - have strong views as to what is best for them.

The important thing is that good, well-run child care centres should exist; that there should be enough of them to meet all reasonable needs and tha t they should be fina nced in a way that all who need them can readily afford them. But I wonder if at this stage we should aim to make this entirely a government func tion situation or program. Certainly in urban areas. where child care centres are most needed,

where no group in that com mun ity is prepared to estab lish them, it should be the duty of the govern ment to see to it that adeq uate facilities are available for those children and that they are within reach of those who need them. But as I said, there are other parents who prefer that such centres be associated with certain ethnic or religious groups in our Ca na dian mosaic. This is qu ite understandable consider ing the nature of our cou ntry. Therefore, I believe a great deal of flex ibility is needed in this particu lar matter.

The important point is that the children should be well cared for and that the parents and the govern ment should be satisfied with the services provided in these child care centres. Mr. Speaker, I will end by repeating the United Nations Declaration on children which I quo ted in the early part of my speech: "Mankin d owes the child the best it has to give." I would be happy and proud if we in Manitoba estab lished the best child care centres in the world. Mr. Speaker, I am not talking about rural children or southern children; I'm not talking about Progressive children, NOP children or Li beral children.

We are talking and I am talking, especially, about our Mani toba children - of them, we should take care. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mem ber for Roblin -R ussell, that debate be adjour ned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 23 - THE LEGAL AID SERVICES SOCIETY OF MANITOBA ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hon ourable Atto rney-General, Bill No. 23, the Ho nourable Minister of Communi ty Services has 20 minutes remaining. HON. L. EVANS: Mr. Speaker. thank you very much, I've concluded my remarks. MR.

SPEAKER: The bill is actually standing in the name of the Honour able Leader of the Opposition. HON. S. LYON: Thank you. Mr. Speaker. I wish to make a few com ments conc erning this amendment to The Legal Aid Society Act, in particular. the amend ment which relates to the broadening of the powers of the Board to conf er eligibility for legal aid upon groups for purposes of their appearing before admi nistrative boards. There are a numb er of matters, Mr. Speaker, a numb er of angles from which this extension of the Act can be approached.

Legal aid is certainly not new to this province; it was carried on for a good numb er of years in a volunt ary way by the Law Socie ty of Mani toba with some assistance from the taxpayers gradu ally coming in on the criminal side, and a then more structu red institutional ized program being brought in 19 69-1 970, which was the fore runner of the present Legal Aid Society which operates in the province. Memb ers on this side of the Hous e are not as some, or wont to say, opposed to legal aid at all.

In fact, some of the earlier Legal Aid provisions were dealt with by the Roblin Governm ent in its years and later by the Weir Government. The idea of providing legal aid for individuals who require it for serious criminal or civil matters is one that receives support on all sides of the Hous e.

In 19 77, as part of the Task Force on Gover nment Organization and Economy, the previous government caused all departments of government to be reviewed and in the course of their review, which I will not go into to any extent, the Task Force at that time fo und that the adminis tration of Legal Aid in the province had fallen into a numb er of ways which needed cor rection. There have been a numb er of apparent abuses of the process and large over-expenditures of budget.

It was pointed out at that time that some of the extensions or outreaches that the program and the society had permitted had contrib uted in some ways to the fact that the Society had not been able to remain within its budget. As I say, it's not my purpose at this time to go into any detail on that. except to note that those com ments are set forth in Vol ume II of the Task Force Report between pages 22 to 36.

Some mention was made of the fact that Legal Aid lawyers were being perm itted to appear before Law Amend ments Commit tees of this Hous e, on behalf of either individuals or groups, when there was no specific authority for that kind of action being taken. It's always difficult when you get into the que stion of this kind of lay advocacy or consumer advocacy to know where the line should be properly drawn without being too arbitrary, without indicating to people who have legitimate concerns that they, ju st because they lack the funds, shall not be heard. No one would support that.

On the other hand, one has to draw the line in such a way as to ensure that those among our society who - shall we say to be pol ite - are of a litigious nature do not receive the kind of open sesame that a bill of this nature is lia ble to provide, merely to permit them to vent their particular feelings or whims upon some legislative comm ittee, administrative board or tribu nal, or indeed even the courts of our province. 3339 So recognizing what those parameters are. Mr.

Speaker, and recognizing that one has to take accou nt of the changing requirements of society and all of the things that I'm sure the Atto rney-General has said or will say about the need for this amend ment, I still think that there are improvements that can be made to this bill, and there are certain bench marks or warning signs that he will want to point out to the Legal Aid Society or perhaps even incorporate in the bill as this bill reaches the commit tee stag e.

I'm going to deal with some matters in detail, although I know that at commit tee stage we can deal with them in terms of specific amendments that might be suggested there. My only reason for not suggesting specific amend ments here is that at Second Read ing we try to deal in principle with the substance of the bill. One concern I would think that any reasonable observer would have would be this: that in

Section 3. 1 (2) of the bill. one finds a defi nition of the group

Wednesday, 16 Ju ne, 1982 that is qual ified for legal aid. I read the section, "The society may furnish legal aid to a group under subsec tion (1) in any matter that, in the opinion of the soc iety, involves an objective or interest (

a) common to the mem bers of the group; and (

b) relating to an issue of public concern including, without restricting the gen erality of the foregoing, any consumer or environmen tal issue." I would point out I would think the rather obvious criticism, Mr. Speaker, that this

section is vastly in need of im provement because it does not state that the objectiv e or the interest of the group must be in the public interest. I can think of groups in our society today who could come before the Legal Aid Society, under this

section as presently drawn, and seek and perhaps get legal aid - the objects and the purposes of that group not being in the pu blic int erest.

There are many many examples that might come to mind but one can eas ily imagine a group for the greater dissemination of pornography being formed as a club and, of course, the mem bers of that group would have an interest that was common to all of them and the interest would be one relating to an issue of public concern, so they wou ld meet the two require ments that are set fort h in the action, the Legal Aid Society, seeing that they meet the statutory require ments, might not then concern themselves about whether or not this group was acting in the pub lic interest.

So I suggest that if we are to have this kind of class action which is a dubious starter in the first place, but if we are to have it, then let us have it in terms which are clear in the sense that the groups that are seeking subsidization by the taxpayers of Manitoba - because that's what we're talking about, Legal Aid, which is subsidization of legal services by the taxpayers of Manitoba - that these groups are gr oups which any reasonable man would say are acting in the public interest.

A simple amendment might cur e that and having cured that section, it might take away some of the offens iveness of the Act about which I'm speaking at the present time. Simila rly under eligibility of groups, should there not be some modifier in that eligibility rule, which we find in

Section 10 .1(2), which requires the Legal Aid Society to be satisfied that the existence of the group again is in the public interest? There are, in our society - to repeat myself - there are groups whose purposes and objects are not in the public interest. As a free soc iety, we permit those groups to exist within our society. There is nothing which says, however, that the taxpayers generally should be subsidizing in any way, shape or form.

So I think that kind of tighten ing of the eligibility, if we are indeed to have this form of class representation, is necessary in the pu blic interest because I can't imagine any government wanting to subsidize with taxpayers' money, people whose aims and objects are contrary to public policy. Mr. Speaker, it would seem that the intent of the government in bringing this Act forward was specifi cally directed at consumer groups or environmental grnups who were singled out in the one

section which I have read, as groups which might from time to time requir e legal aid in connection with their advocacy positions on topics of that nature. I wonder whether the drafters of the Act or whether the Minister who brings it forward have fa miliarized themselves with

Section 34 of The Public Utilities Board Act which already provides something of the same nature in respect to people appearing before the Public Utilities Board and I refer to

Section 34. 1 qu ote from

Section 34 of The Public Utilities Board Act, "The Ch airman may, with the sanction of the Attorney Gene ral, appoint a barrister or attorney to represent any class of persons interested in any matter concern ing public utility service within the jur isdiction of the Board for the purpose of instituting, or attending upon an application before the Board or any other tribuna l or authority, and the board may order by whom the fees and expenses of the person so appointed shall be paid." Now, I realize, Sir, tha t

section refers only to the Public Utilities Board and that the intent of the legisla tion is to provide this kind of group taxpayer subsidi zation for boards, perhaps other than the Public Utili ties Board, but it would seem to me, Sir, that something of the nature of the intent of the Act is already long since been in The Public Utilities Board Act. Accord ing to the footnote, it's been there since 1959.

I don't know on ho w many occas ions it's been used, but it would seem that the Chairman of the Public Utilities Board, along with the Attorney-Gener al of the day, might be in a sufficient position to make a ju dgment on this matter with respect to Public Utilities, and that in turn could result in a cutting down of the rather broad discretio nary powers which are conferred upon the Legal Aid Society Board by the amend ments that are sought in this Act.

So aside altogether from the fact that this is a dupli cation of a power already conferred upon the Chair man of the Public Utilities Board, I would ask the Atto rney-Gener al to look at that and to see whether or not with that

section in place there's really any need for this amendment that he brings forward. 3340 I know I need not remind him of the tradition that common law of a plaintiff being subjected to the risks of costs of his actio n. Our law, which has come to us over many hundreds of years of tradition and many hundreds of years of re flection of the com munity values which it attempts to reflect, has at its base some very fundamental rules which were erected a long time ago in order to prevent the law from becoming the plaything of rich people, poor people, class people of dif ferent classes, or whatever.

One of the traditions is, and we follow it with perhaps less integrity than we used to at one time but we still follow it rather closely in this cou ntry, is that plaintiffs without a case, plain tiffs who come forward to clutter up the cou rts with frivolous or vexatious actions can be so indicted by the court and cost can be fou nd against them when it is fo und that actions of this kind are being brought merely for purposes of spite or whatever.

I'm talking about the general tradition of the com mon law, of the plaintiff being subjected to the risks of costs of his action, because the proposed amend ment appears to give a right to a group, subject of cou rse to the discre tion of the Legal Aid Society, without any risk at all. If you formed a group, I use the example again. although others can be quic kly conjur ed to mind, a group for the better distribution of pornog raphy in Manitoba which you can lawfully do and then you find one of your mem bers who happens to be peddling

pornography is picked up by the police, theoretically under this amend ment, subject to the discretion of the Legal Aid Society, that person could be defended by Legal Aid. The tests we know with respect to funds, with respect to the ability of a person to pay, are pretty loose in this day and age.

I just don't think that the taxpayers' dollar, which is in very short supply these days - so short that our honourable friends opposite are having to raise another $13 0 million a year ju st to cover off the extra expenditures that they're makin g and still run a Budget deficit which is going to be in the area of about $350 million to $400 million in this fiscal year - I don't think that we should be even contemplating a situa tion where a board, once one step removed from the control of this Legislature, is given a statutory discre tion to confer this kind of subsidization upon groups which do not have aims and objects which are in the public interest and might well result in taxpayers' money being wasted, fi rst of all, on a defence that should not be undertaken by the taxpayers and secondly, wasted on a defence by a group whose aims and objects are inim ical to the public interest in this province.

So, Mr. Speaker, I think th at this bill, like some that we are seeing these days, should really go back to the drawing board because it seems to me tha t perhaps the Attorney- General, in his zest to broaden the Out reach Programs of Legal Aid and so on, has perhaps lost sight of some of the fund amentals of what makes our whole legal system tick and has certainly lost sight of what the public interest demands as a test for these discretionary powers when they are passed along to a Board. Mr.

Speaker, one can imagine and I'm not trying to go into any flights of fancy on this topic at all, but one can easily imagine that a board of the na ture of the Legal Aid Society, wrapped up as it is in carrying out the.func tions that are conferred on it in a statutory way and being sometimes less concerned or less able to see the overall pictu re of the public interest as we in this Hous e are perhaps better able to see it, one can imagine all sorts of actions being approved by the Legal Aid Society Board, all sorts of litigious groups being established and fu nded by Legal Aid on causes which, as I said before, may well be frivolous and vexatious.

As we're on that topic, of course, referring back to the Task Fo rce Report, we can see that even in crimi nal matters and I think it was crimi nal matters that were used as an example most often by the Task Force, examples of abuses being carried on by the Legal Aid Soci ety in 1977 and prior thereto- I am sure not all of them were corrected in our time - where really frivolous appeals were being allowed on crimi nal matters. Those are all docum ented in the report. It's not my purpose, as I speak today, to refer to that element of history, but mer ely to indicate to the Hous e, Mr.

Speaker, that tendency resides in such a Board to go overboard in terms of wanting to do good, if I may use that over-used expression, on behalf of the litigant and, in the cou rse of doing good, to lose sight of the fact that they are trustees of the public taxpay ers' mo ney and that they are very often acting in a way in fu rtherance of their do-goodism which is contrary to the publi c interest. Those abuses or examp les of 16 June, 1982 3341 those ab uses in matters before the cou rts were clearly poi nted out by the Task Force Report that I have referred to.

We don't want that tendency now to be transferred to this type of class action before adminis trative boards and commission s, where there could be a tremendous tendency on the part of such a Board to feel that they were really serving the public interest by funding, for instance, the homeowners of Du ffe rin Aven ue or the homeowners of Point Road in some dispute that they might legitimately have with the City of Winnipeg or whatever. In other words, what it leads to in the ultimate, Mr.

Speaker, is some further corrobor ation of the, by now, much ab used doctri ne of the state is really the - how should I put it? - that the state can be turned to in all respects for all sorts of aid and comfort. That is not the purpose of the state, Mr. Speaker, in a free parliamen tary democr acy and people in our society know and shou ldn't be misled by their governments from time to time that the state can cure all evils or that admin istra tive boards can cure all evils or ameliorate all condi tions in which man or woman happen to find himself or herself. That isn't the case.

I am afraid that this kind of an amendment tends toward that kind of sloppy thinking, that somehow or other the state through one of its agencies, the Legal Aid Socie ty, is going to bring a new tomo rrow or a new Je rusalem, so to speak, to the existance of people in this province because they can now enter into class actions and go before the Public Utilities Board at someb ody else's expense, there to engage in propa gating their ideas about what is right or wrong about a Utility Board increase or whatever. Mr. Speaker, we all know that consumer advocacy is, for better or for worse, part of socie ty today.

There are some good examples of it and there are some horrible examples of it. Consumer advocacy is an area in which everyone is an expert. It's very easy for a person with a cause, and we live in a society today, Mr. Speaker, where groups of people tend to spawn them selves into many multiplying groups which seem to have individual causes, it's not diffi cult to make a bare prima facia case which can satisfy a lay board .

I am sure that can be done by this advocacy or that advo cacy gr oup making out a prima facia case which, on the surface of it to a layman. would look to be - well, it would raise some question. But, Mr. Speaker. when we are laying out taxpayers' dollars to further that case, I suggest that we have to have something mor e than tha t kind of lay judg ment brought to bear upon whether or not the taxpayer should be asked to pay for this kind of intervention.

The utilities' matters with respect to the setting of. whether it's Hydro rates or telephone, rates and so on, I don't think are so complex as to be beyond the ken or the knowledge of the average intelligent layman in Manitoba, not at all . I do sugge st, Mr.

Speaker, that every time a person has a complaint with respect to the rate that he or she is being charged for gas or for power or for their telephones and so on, that should n't, as will almo st automatically be the case, enable that person to get together with a group with his or her neighbours and to go to Legal Aid and say, we are the conc erned citizens of White Street in Thompson about the increase in gas rates. We want to have the taxpayers of Manitoba subsidize us by hiring a lawyer,

so that we can express our conc ern about this increase in rates to the Publi c Utilities Board.

Some greater test has to be brought to bear than merely the concern of the people involved because we all know that, while these are complex matters and while on the surface it would appear wrong that somebody's rate is going to go up 10 or 12 percent, that if the utility - most of the utilities in Manitoba that are regulated by the Utilities Board are Crown utilities - has a case to make, that usually that case is being attacked just as vigorously by the cou nsel for the Utility Board, by the mem bers of the Utility Board itself. This is where you get into the other object ion that I have, Mr.

Speaker, to this kind of an amendment, because there is almost a presumption, when you get into consumer advocacy before admin istrative tribu nals and boards, that this is a confrontat ionist, adver sarial arrangement in which the poor citizen requires protect ion. If you don't think about that presumption very long, why of course you can qu ickly come to that point of view. Of cou rse, giving it any more than 30 seconds of thought, you will qu ickly come to the reali zation that there's something wrong with that point of view because the administrative boards and tribunals are appoint ed by whom?

They're appointed by the government of the day. Now, presumably the gov ernment of the day is appointing to those tribunals people who are going to be acting in the public inter est; people who are going to be acti ng on behalf of their fellow citizens in Manitoba; people who do not have any particular brief one way or the other for Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba Telephone System, Greater Winnipeg Gas, Inter-C ity Gas or the Waterworks Department of the Town of Morden that has to have its utility rates set and so on. In other words, because of this presumption, Mr.

Speaker, of the need for an adversarial contact, there almost grows the presumption that the citizen or the citizens' advocacy group has to have separate coun sel. That basically, Mr. Speaker, I suggest is a failing not only of the conc ept behind this Act, but it's a fai ling to some extent in the administration; not necessarily the conceptual development of Legal Aid, but it's sometimes in the administration of it.

I have been heard in this House before, when the present First Minister was Attorney-General, to remind him of how lawyers of my generation were trained when we were Crown attorneys and to remind him of the age old tradition which apparently isn't taught as well now. It shouldn 't have to be taught. If you have to teach ethics, then you've got a society that's in trou ble. But the age-old concept of the lawyer being, fi rst and forem ost when he is before a court, an officer of the court. He is there first as an officer of the cou rt.

He's not there ju st to pay heed only to the case of the client who brings him into that court, he is there as an officer of the court to see that substantial justice is done within that court. Simi larly, and without straining the example, Mr.

Speaker, the men and women who are appoi nted by this government, by previous governments and by future governments to the Public Utilities Board are there to serve the public interest and the suggestion that an advocacy group can't get a fair hearing before a Public Utilities Board without a subsidized Legal Aid lawyer, to me is off ensive, because it suggests that the quality of the people who have been or will be appointed to these Boards is something less than is desirable. So, Mr. Speaker, we come at it from - as I said at the outset, you can come at this from various angles.

II your presumptions are such that all government boards are to be mistrusted, then of cou rse you're making a mock ery out of the appointment process that my honourable friends in the Treasury Bench go through every Wednesday of every week of the year. They make appointment s to boards and commis sions. Does that mean that they have to double around immediately after they've appointed Mrs. X or Mr. Y and provide in The Legal Aid Act, now that we've appointed those unworthy creatures to this board, we are going to make darn sure that the citizens are pro tected from them.

That's in effect what this Act says, because if you've got a legitimate complaint, Mr. Speaker, about rates of utilities or anything of that sort, there's already a sec tion under The Utilities Board Act. You can go to the Ch airman, and on the reco mm endation of the Attorney-General, you can get counsel appoi nted. But I suggest that the test is going to be much tougher if the Chairman of the Public Utilities Board who is a publi c appoi ntee makes that determination rather than a board of a Legal Aid group which, by virtue of its very existence, is out to create mo re busi ness for itself.

I always remember the story that was told by a Minister of Welfare, I believe it was, in Mr. Manning's Government in Alberta. This was a numb er of years ago, and he had been out at a welfare conference and one of the Regional Di rectors of Social Assistance had come to him and said, Mr. Minister, I want you to know that our caseload last year was so and so and this year, it's so and so. We have achieved an increase of 25 percent and he was quite ebullient and proud of the fact that he was really getting on with his work; he'd increased his caseload.

This Minister, being a person of I would say rather prof ound common sense, said, for the amoun t of the caseload that you have increased, I should really fire you.

If you can come to me next year and tell me that you've decreased your caseload by 25 percent, I would like to give you a pro motion because your business should be getting people off welfare, not on welfare, and helping them in ways so that they can adjust their lives so that they don't have to be on welfare. 3342 Well, you can say that's an extraneous example, but I merely point out the tendency of boards of this na ture to feel tha t they are impressing the world at large by sa ying that their caseload has increased. Well, I can guarantee you, Mr.

Speaker, that if this amendment goes through with respect to class actions, the Legal Aid Soc iety is going to have no difficu lty whatsoever in increasing its caseload. It's going to have a caseload coming out of its ears because you're going to have every kind of group that isn't in exist ence right now but which will be formed for the pur pose of taking advantage of this

section of the Act which is there. People, who on whim, on caprice or whatever, can say, hey, here's an open sesame. We've got a way now, thanks to the Attorney-Gen eral of Manitoba and his

Wednesday, 16 June, 1982 colleagues, to have the taxpayers give us a day or a week or whatever in cou rt. We're sure going to show Manitoba Hydro; we're sure going to show Manitoba Telephone System or wh atever or the Waterworks System for the Town of Morden or for the City of Thomp son; we're sure going to show them tha t we're people of account.

Mind you. we can't afford to pay and we know that our case is mal odorous and we know that it's probably vexatious and it's largely fic tional. but we've got the right now in this day and age of rights that we hear so much about to put our hand in the tax payers' pocket to fund our whim and that's what we're going to do. No w, the Atto rney-Gener al can get up and say, that isn't going to happen and I hope it doesn't happen. But I suggest the amendm ent, as presently drawn, Mr.

Speaker, can lead to that tendency tak ing place in our province and that is a bad tendency and that is con trary to the public interest. Mr. Speaker, this is not the occas ion to point out all of the dangers that are inherent in the system of get ting into the whole subject of class actions. This amendment attem pts to confi ne class actions to administrative boards and tribu nals. I remind the Attorney-Gene ral of something that I am sure he's aware of, that

Section 25 of the Act permits the Legal Aid Services Soci ety of Manitoba to make regulations and to establish criteria re eligibility and that under regulations presently in existence those reg ulations do provide some eligibility on which it cou ld be inter preted that class actions might be taken. accord ing to my advice, in the Court of Qu een's Bench, the Federal Cour t of Canada, the Man itoba Cour t of Appeal, the Cou nty Court or the Su rrogate Court.

I realize that there are legitimate differences of opin ion as to whether class actions are good, in terms of serving the public interest and justice, or bad.

I realize, reverting to what I said at the beginning of my remarks, that one has to be careful in drawing this line so as not to prevent the appearance or the argument before a tribunal of any sort of a legitimate case or of a legitimate point that needs to be discussed and consi dered, but that one has to be fervent in the defence of the public interest and of the taxpayers' dollar to ensure that systems such as class actions do not beco me mere passports for the frivolous use of the taxpayers' dollar. That, I'm afraid, in the Act as pres ently drawn, is what we have before us. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that subject can be left for discussion at a later date. I must say that the Act, as presently drawn, would not enjoy our support on this side of the Ho use because of the defects that I pointed out today; because of the obvious need for it to be ame nded in Commit tee; perhaps even mo re so, Mr. Speaker, because of the need for a little bit more sober second thought to be given to this kind of legislation by the Treasury Bench of the government.

So, when I suggested today to the Fi rst Minister that there were Acts of this nature that perhaps would not suffer in the least from being reconsidered by the Treasury Bench, I was certainly consideri ng this Act as being not one of the most offe nsive, but one that might well fall into that category, because if the public of Manitoba does not have this Act in place for another six months, I do n't see the public interest suffering one whit.

Under the existing law and the regulations. �� it's my understanding that a group of citizens was funded last year to make appearances before one of the admin istrative tribunals of the government. So the power apparently resides there sufficiently to encour age the Legal Aid Soc iety Board of a year ago, at least, to exercise that power after due consideration of the merits of the case represented by this gr oup. I'm not sure if it was the Logan Avenue or what group it was.

Those are my brief comments on the bill and I would hope the Attorney -Gen eral wou ld take them in the spirit in which the y are offered as improvements to what, on the face of it, is not yet a good bill. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, J. Storie: The Honour able Memb er for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I should really be some what hesitant to follow the comme nts of my learned Leader, but nonetheless I will and on this bill.

I say, my learned Leader, because none can express more clearly and eloqu ently the kind of common sense that ought to be and should be applied to the practice of law than my Leader. Having said that, I am about to say something else that he might not be quite so happy about. It's because I really see my job in this Legislature as doing every thing I can to see that we, society as a whole, require less and less lawyers.

You know, that's one of the problems that we have done over a numb er of years and a multitude of regulations and massive amou nts of legislation is that we have complic ated our lives to that extent wher e lawyers in great abu ndance are attracted to the business of politics -(l nterjection) not in our party. We still have a fai r num ber; we can do with one. Mr. Speaker, the comme nts made by our Leader on this side are essentially the ones that have of cou rse attracted the concern of mem bers on this side of the House. It really underlines what I just finished saying.

We now seem to want to institutionalize that fact, that we already now presumed that our laws, our tribu nals, our admin istrative boards are going to be more and more complex; provide less and less easy access to by the ordinary citizen; that we have to pass legislation of this kind that will, in fact, now fund the various groups that want to appear before these boards and tribunals. Mr. Speaker, it goes without saying tha t, in most instances, the action directed against by various class action groups is against government and/or its agen cies.

We have seen the examples here in this province and, indeed, across the land. 3343 Mr. Speaker, my Leader has also referred to the fact that there is, as the particular section,

Section 3, is written, absolutely no clear guideline as to what an exec utive director or the board re sponsible for the admin istration of the Legal Aid Society deems to be in the public interest. In fact, it avoids that criteria as being part of the conditions necessary to receiving public monies for that action. The actual

section which refers to simply that the issue be a matter of com mon concern to that group of mem bers can lead one into wild imaginations as to the kind of groups that could possibly qual ify for public su pport, for Legal Aid, to represent their interests. Our Leader

mentioned just one particular group. Even though mem bers opposite may, at this time and in good faith, feel that, well, no Legal Aid Director or no Board of Di rectors on the Legal Aid Board would accept the application from a group that we may now deem to be unacceptable. Let us recognize that these things have a way of growing; that if legal aid is extended to this group, that often builds a justific ation for giving it to another group and another group.

Then, before you know it. you have built on that kind of precedent a board that feels honour bound to pretty well leave the door wide open as to who is granted the application. So, if you were to say that we formed a group of the Klu Klux Klan here in Manitoba and it was in their common interest to press forward certain matters, nobody in this Chamb er at this particular time cou ld see Legal Aid, taxpayers' money, going forward to aid that group, but you allow this kind of legislation to stand on the books, particularly in a free and an open and a democratic society.

We have tried; we have wrestled seriously, very dif ficultly, for instance, to control such things as hate literature. It's very diffi cult to do that in an open and a free society, I think, to the detriment of having far too much of that material available and with far too little prosecution of it. Why is it so difficult, even under our present laws? It's because of the numb er of precedents that have been set in the cou rts over the years as to what consti tutes crimin al action in these kind of judgmen tal moral qu estions. So, Mr.

Speaker, that's the immediate concern expressed much better by my Leader with respect to that particu lar

section which deletes, makes no refer ence that the interest has to have the pub lic in mind; that the criteria for qu alific ation is merely that it be common to the group that is making the application and that it be of public concern. Most of these matters are of publi c concern, but many of them may not indeed be in the pu blic interest. Mr. Speaker, the other matter that I raise, again it's been raised and it will be repeatedly raised by spo kesmen on this side of the House, is the qu estion that I do take it as an affront to some extent.

In my capacity as a legislator and in my capacity as a former Treasury Bencher of charging ourselves with the responsi bility of making our tribun als and our boards operate in such a fash ion that the ordina ry groups of peop le, the ordinary citizen, does have the access and the appropriate means of redress to supposed wrongs and appeals to various actions by government and/or its agencies, and we have, virtually in every field, taken the time to set up the various different tribunals to look after these things.

The Public Utilities Board, of course, comes very qu ickly to mind dealing with the many aspects, that it is responsible in the regulation of services in our com munity to our society. We have the Clean Envi ronment Comm issions; we have Land Value Appraisal Comm ission; we have Farmlands Protect ion Boards; Manitoba Marke ting Boards, to make sure that the public interest is being kept in mind when the individ ual comm odity marketing boards, the egg producers, the milk produc ers, the vegetable prod ucers, perhaps step out of line and forget the publi c interest or forget 16 Ju ne, 1982 the consumer interest.

So over the years a Manitoba Marketing Board was established to supervise that role and surely to which any consumer group without the aid of a lawyer, without the aid of a great deal of legal expenses, any group or individual, can make application to and have their cases heard. Mr. Speaker, if that is not the case then we ought to be doing something about it right here in lookin g at the legisla tion, looking at how these various comm issions and boards and tribu nals operate. 3344 So I say, Mr.

Speaker, we have virtually in every field of endeavour that over the years regulations, subse quent to legislation passed in either this Ho use or federal legislation in the Hous e of Parliament in Ottawa, there have been subsequent efforts made, and I think genuine efforts made to (

a) recognize, yes, there cou ld be a difficu lty in terms of how the deci sions of these various regulatory bodies are handed down; and (

b) can the groups of individ uals that are affected, or can any groups of individuals tha t feel they are being unfairly treated, treated with prejudic e, can they with ease find access to having their cases heard? I suggest to you that there is virtually not a regula tory body, not a comm ission, an organ of government operating at both the federal and provincial level that does not have built into it an appeal mechan ism. We decide that, and this of cou rse happens and is avail able very much so on the individual level.

We license drivers to drive their motor vehicles in this province; we pass laws and regulations that indicates when we will restrict their driving capabi lities and under what circu mstances, and the courts do tha t, and we do that by regulation, as a matter of fact.

They can be chal lenged in the first instance in the cou rts, but even prior to that, before that, we have such bodies as the Driv er's Licence Suspension Appeal Board where the individua l driver that feels he has been treated heavily or not fairly, can without the aid of a lawyer - I know many instances unfortunately our society is so bent and so far down on that litigious cou rse that my leader referred to, to some extent, is that we feel more com forta ble sometimes by tak ing a lawyer with us or hav ing a lawyer represent us. But I can assure you, Mr.

Speaker, that it is not necessary to appear with legal aid in most of those instances and I see you're in agreement with me on that, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier it should not be, and that's even more important, because if it is then our system is getting too complicated. Surely we ought to be able to organize our lives and run the affairs of our prov ince in such a way that everyday peop le can avail themselves to the appropriate tribu nal, have their cases understood, make themselves understandable.

We don't all have to be able to speak in the most fluent legal tongue to express our points of view, but I would think it's a sad day for dem ocracy, for demo cracy in Manitoba if we encou rage even the conno tation tha t the only way to get a sq uare deal out of City Hall, the only way to make the Provincial Gov ernment, or to make Manitoba Hydro get to hear you is you've got to hire a Legal Aid lawyer, you've got to have someb ody that is a lot smarter than you are to be able to speak for you. Mr. Speaker, I really think and I'm not suggesting for a moment that in any of the comm issions and boards

Wednesday, 16 Ju ne, 1982 --·-- ---------- and tribu nals that we can mention, and I have not made any attempt to totally research the num bers that there are, because there would be pages of them. We would be surprised at how many various boards and comm issions there are. I think we did that once three or four years ago just to find out how these had prolif erated and how they have grown, and they are there for good reason. most of them.

I think some of them are redundant and, as a matter of fact, I think in ou r four years we fo und out that since the Assiniboine River hadn't flooded for a long time there was no use having an Assiniboine River Flood Valley Protection Board still onstream after the floodway having been built and after the Portage Diversion having been built. So there is the obvious laxness on the part of government from time to time of going through the various boards and commis sions and seeing that they are still func tioning a role for which there is a need and doing the job.

That brings us to the very important point that bears watching. In many instances, these people are not highly paid people but, Sir, there is a structure, there is cost attached to that, and I would ask the government to seriously look at what the cost of having all these various appeal boards, all these appeal mechanisms in place that are there to do precisely what this amendment purports to do already and without addi tional cost to the taxpayers. This is the kind of sad thing that you see happening in government, you see this natural proliferation, this natur al growth.

On the one hand, we will convi nce ourselves, yes we need an appeal board.

In fact I think one of the last recom mendations that I heard during the debates on Aut opac is we should have an appeal board for Autopac so that people who are not totally satisfied with the arrangements that Au topac is mak ing with respect to the repair or the replacement of a damaged vehicle, the person involved should have an appeal board something like the Driver's Licence Suspension Appeal Board or all these other appeal boards to go to have his case reviewed not by the senior management or administration of Auto pac, but by ordi nary peop le, very often lay people, zone peers, people that he has faith and confidence in that were appoi nted by government, by people's representa tives to make sure that the heavy machi nery of bureaucracy doesn't injuriously roll over its citizens.

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't be surprised and qu ite frankly if this government wants to introduce it some time in the futu re I won't object. I see that mo re accep table than com ing in with a resolution or with an amendment to The Legal Aid Act that encou rages and acknowle dges that our laws are getting so complex, the busi ness of dealing with government is so diff icult that we better pass an amendment that will provide legal aid to the various groups that from time to time think they have a legitimate grievance against government.

It, as my Leader says, encourages that kind of concept and it is really an open-ended door that will fill up the caseload of Legal Aid like you wouldn't believe. Mr. Speaker, I don't think the government has really looked at the fact that you have in essence a vast array of groups, men and women, appoi nted by them now, by their governments to be the Om budsman, if you like, for the average citizen to take up the case of the aggrieved group that feels they are being acted unfairly with by any agency of government or indeed by anybody. Mr.

Speaker, there are virtually in every walk of life - if a mun icipality feels that a neighbouring mun icipal ity - and I can recite them, whether it's some of the annexation problems that we've had - Brandon feels that Cor nwallis wants too much of the real estate or something like that - and we've had these cases. What have we got? We've got a Mun icipal Board which sits down, you can come and you often do come with aid of legal cou nsel but not necessarily so.

Reeves, lawy ers, counc ilmen, ordinary citizens, businessmen will group together, appear before the Municipal Board and state their case and if it has become so diffi cult to state your case before one of these tribu nals, then as I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we should be looking at the makeup of the rules of the game, of the board and the kind of people that are serving on those boards. So, Mr. Speaker, I take no hesitation. In fact, I feel I can do that now even more so since my leader has left. I think what we should be doing is finding a way of creating less lawyers in this society of ours.

Much of our problems have been created because we have too many lawyers. I see this as a bit of a lawyer boondo g gle. Here we have the Attorney-General -(I nter jection)- No, Mr. Speaker, I'm not imputing any of those kind of motives to the Attorney -General, but the fact ol the matter is it's an open admission on the part of those of us who are freely elected to this Chamb er saying that our citizens can only deal with us through a legal mouthpiece, or at least suggesting that they have a better chance of com ing to us and getting their case heard through a legal mouthpiece.

I reject that as an individua l MLA. No group - no farmer s group, no consu mers group, no urban group or cou ntry group needs to come to me to speak to me about concerns about legi slation with the aid of a lawyer. -(I nterjection)- Well, I think that's very often the case. think the lawyers very often may have some vested interest in so complicating matters that it takes another ten of them to sort it out. 3345 Mr. Speaker, they are now going to have a Legal Aid Certifica te to do that and all the rest of us are going to have to dig into our pockets to pay for it. That isn't fair, Mr. Speaker.

It isn't necessary and I object to that clause in this bill and, as my Leader said, will not be supporting it. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. After that one I could n't help but reply. I don't know whether the member has read tod ay's Globe and Mail.

There's a libel trial going on in Ontario and the plain tiff's lawyer - the plaintiff happens to be a Federal Cabi net Minister - is quo ting Shylock; that is. the defendant is saying, "This man is so thick skinned that this story did n't hurt him at all," and the plaintiff's lawyer, Munro's lawyer is saying, from Shakespeare - Shylock - "but if I am pr;sked do I not bleed?" This makes me get up to speak. I have been at several Public Utilities Board Hear ings and maybe it's because of the lawyers, but I've been at hearings where the Greater Winnipeg Gas

Comp any has presented a hundred exhibits and more. presented many days of testimony, evidence with respect to rate of return, with respect to who should pay, argume nts about whether they would like a greater proportion of their payments to come from the consumer as opposed to other groups, business. greater proportions coming from different groups within the business com mu nity, manufacturing as opposed to other groups, and I say that in defence of the consu mer. there has to be someone speaking up.

I would suggest that if the Memb er for Lakeside showed up at one of those hearings he would have great difficulty wading thr ough those hundreds of exhibits without some -(Int erjection)- Certainly, the Mem bers of the Board are there hearing one side of the case from the compa ny. The lawyer for the company spends days presenting a case in order that we can pay more for our na tural gas. Who pays for the lawyer for the company? The Memb er for Lakeside and the taxpayers of this province. They pay for the lawyer for the gas company.

Certainly, the consu mers of gas who happen to be by and large the taxpayers of this province. -(I nterjection)- Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that most of them are one and the same peo ple. They recognize it. The people out there - there may be a few of them out there who have no constitu ents, who have natural gas. The same thing happens with Inter-City Gas, West ern Plains and all the others, the utilities that are throughout the province. They have no objec tion at all to the consu mer paying for the comp any's lawyer.

They seem to think that's perfectly fine because they have been in office for a numb er of years while that has happened. So the consu mer pays for the com pany's lawyer. They didn't say let's get rid of lawyers on that board. They could have done tha t. They could have tried fo r a less complic ated process. They didn't say we won't allow a lawyer's fee to be charged by the company as an expense of doing business in the pro vince. They didn't say that.

And so, here the Attorney General is coming along and saying well, in cases where there is a clear matter of public interest for a specific group being hit, then surely that group should also be represented. We have here a case where again they have no objection to the consu mer paying for this lawyer who puts all of the paper on the table; but onc e all those exhibits are on the table, once all the evi dence is in, they are saying: but the other side should n't be entitled to a lawyer paid for by the public.

Now if they were consistent they would at least surely say that on the other side of that adversary position the board represents the public. The board is neutral. They say the board represents the pub lic. The board has a responsibility to hear the case. The board has a further responsibility to investigate into the case and I think it does a very good job; I think, in general, in the past and now is doing a very good job. That doesn't mean that sometim es a public interest group isn't of some benefit to a large group of people out there in the public.

I think specifically of cases where an application is made by the Greater Winnipeg Gas Comp any, for instance, to increase percentage wise the costs on residential consu mers to a greater extent than on com mercial consu mers, on com mercial consu mers to a greater extent than on manufacturing consu mers. so that they're attempting to create dif ferences between the different groups of consu mers. At that point, surely the consu mer that is getting hit very hard should have the right to be represented there as a special interest group. I see nothing wrong with that. In fact. I think that's fair.

Now you could argue that the lawyer involved should be paid from the same pot that the other lawyer involved is paid for. because if their argument holds in terms of fai rness to the public, then it should also hold in terms of fai rness to the company. Surely that board is there to be fair to the company. If they're there to be fa ir to the company, then the company doesn't need a lawyer. If the company doesn't need a lawyer. why should the public or the consu mer pay for that lawyer. -(I nterjection )- Well, I was coming to the point where I might be agreeing with the Memb er for Lakeside. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. When we next reach this bill, the Honour able Minis ter will have 33 minutes remaining. The time being 4:30 p.m., it is now Private Members' Hour . IN SESSION PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: The first resolution is the proposed Reso lution by the Honour able Memb er for Rad isson. The Honour able Memb er for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to propose the following Resol ution, seconded by the Memb er for lnkster: WHERE AS the present global military expendit ures exceed $550 billion a year tying up valuable knowl edge, technology and resources; and 3346 WHERE AS a redirection of this knowledge, tech nology and resources towards the improvement of the human condition cou ld provide adequa te year-round food, water, education, em ployment, health care and housing for everyone on earth; and WHERE AS the deployment of nuclear weapons threatens the very existence of life on earth; and WHERE AS there are now more than 60,000 nuclear warheads in existence providing a global nuclear overkill factor of between 20 and 40 times; and WHERE AS the possibility of surviving a major nuclear exchange which would necessarily entail extensive damage to industry, transport, food, water, medical care as well as a fun damental change in the earth's biosphere is virtually nil; and WHERE AS the threat of a nuclear war is greatly increased by the possibi lity of accide nts resulting from mechanic al and human error and by the exten sion of nuclear capabilities to volatile political regimes; and WHERE AS the United Natio ns' Second Special Session on Disarmament schedu led for June 7 to July 9, 1982, seeks to conf ront the issue of world disarma ment and particularly nuclear disarmament; THEREFORE BE IT RE SOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba expressly declare its positive moral com mitment for world disarmament; and BE IT FURTHER RE SOLVED that the Legislative

Wednesday, 16 June, 1982 Assembly of Manitoba fu lly endorse the goals and the objectiv es of the United Nations' Second Special Ses sion on disarmament and actively attempt to deter mine the possible actions that it might take to hasten world disarmament on a global scale. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Memb er for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured to introduce in this Ho use a resolution dealing with nuclear disarmament because I have no doubt that it emb od ies the most important issues of our time.

Whether we as a Provincial Government or for that matter any other government succeed or fail in achiev ing any goal it sets for itself, none will have a greater impact than the success or failure of governments throughout the world, especially those who now manufactu re nuclear weapons or are on the verge of doing so, to ag ree to put a stop to their destructive arms buildup; for if we fail, manki nd's experiment in building a civilized world will end with a manma de act of comp lete self-destruction of every living creature on this planet. Yesterday, Mr.

Speaker, an emergency debate was called in this Ho use due to Alcan's decision to shelve for the time being the constructi on of an aluminum shelter in Manitoba. I for one believe that this govern ment and for that matter all governments of the world, should hold an emergency debate on the issue of nuclear disarmament. At least we can do something in this regard. I refer you to last Saturday's Today magazine. I have it here hoping that other memb ers will also look at the

article which is entitled "J ames Stark's Dream." His dream and his actions revolve around organizing a worldwide referendum on nuclear disarmament. Already some 32 -plus Canadian cities, and Winnipeg is one of those reconsidering its previous decision, have agreed to hold such a referendum this fa ll. A Ga llup poll, conduc ted a year ago, revealed that almost 70 percent of Canadians would favo ur such a move and almo st one-ha lf of the MPs in Ottawa representing all three political parties have endorsed the idea of a global referendum. Mr.

Speaker, there are those perhaps who think that the question of disarmament and defence spending belong to the privileged realm of federal decision making. On this I disagree vehemently. Many other federal issues of lesser consequence, such as trans portation, metric conversion, co mmunic ations and many others have been and will co

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-1-77
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 1st hansardpdf 77.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	c06d87d4d51ef7605e6f740a47134e0ef4896a0f

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