Second Session - Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis c. Rocan Speaker VOL XL No. 87 ·1:30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, JULY 17,1991 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature LIB-Liberal; ND- New Democrat; PC- Progressive Conservative NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, Becky CARR, James CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim, Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

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

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

Johns Swan River PARTY LIB ND ND LIB LIB ND LIB ND PC PC PC PC ND ND PC PC PC LIB PC PC ND ND PC PC ND LIB PC ND PC ND LIB ND PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC PC PC ND PC ND PC PC ND ND

4788 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, July 17,1991 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS MATTER OF PRIVILEGE Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. Mr. Speaker, upon reviewing page 4598 of Hansard from Monday last, two days ago, which I received for the first time this morning, I real ized for the first time the full extent of the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) attack on my professional reputation given on Monday.

While, as I referenced yesterday, I was aware of and heard the personal insult which the Premier levied against me, I had not heard the full comment at that time and waited until Hansard was printed to see the exact words the Premier had used. The Premier made comments which included a conclusion drawn by the Premier in these words: "I can understand why he cannot make a living as a lawyer.8 Mr. Speaker, this comment is far more than simply fac tually incorrect.

It, I believe, qualifies as an intentional attack on the dignity and privilege I, as a member of this House, and indeed all mem bers are afforded under the time-honoured rules of Parliament. Mr. Speaker, Beauchesne at page 19 , Citation No. 62, states that statements, in order to qualify as contemptuous, must •not only be erroneous or incorrect, but, rather, should be purposely untrue and improper and import a ring of deceit." Mr. Speaker, that the statements of the Premier were patently and purposely untrue and improper, I would submit, is ob vious.

In order to determine whether or not they also qualify as deceitfu l, I draw to your attention the dictionary definition of dec eitful, found on page 329 of Webster's Ninth Edition, where deceitful is defined as being not honest, deceptive and misleading. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier's comm ents were jus t that and attacked my professional reputation in, as this Premier has attacked both myself and others in the past in this House, a sanctionable fashion. I have no recourse against these comme nts in a court of la w, Mr.

Speaker, because as the Premier fully knows, he is protected by the immuni ty afforded while speaking on the floor of this Chamber. My only recourse is to the House itseH, and in this, I draw your attention to Beauchesne's page 12 at No. 28, which indic ates that: "Parliament is a court with respect to its own privileges and dignity and the privileges of its Members.

The question arises whether the House, In the exercise of its judicial functions with respect to the conduct of any of its Members, should deprive such Member of any of the safeguards and privileges which every man enjoys in any court of the land." Mr. Speaker, I also remind you at page 22, Citation No. 77 of Beauchesne's that: "Freedom of speech does not mean that Memb ers have an unlim ited or unrestrained right to speak on every issue. The rules of the House impose limits on the participation of Members and it is the duty of the Speaker to restrain those who abuse the rules." * (1 335) Mr.

Speaker, surely commen ts which are made in a highly public fashion by none other than the Premier himself, intending to besmirch one's professional integrity and made without factual subs tantiation, mus t bring with them some conseq uences. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, many members from all parties have come to this House to do public ser vic e , accep ting a cost to profe ssional deve lopment, financial security and family time in the past, in the present and we hope in the future.

We come as lawyers, as farmers, as engineers, as cattl emen, as teachers and doctors from all walks of life to serve our constitu ents. We come at great cost. We col lectively have a right not to suffer, not just insult but slander on the floor of this Chamber. I appeal to you, Sir, to defend that right in this, a most obvious and serious case, I would suggest. I therefore move , seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), thatthis matter be referred

4789 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 to the next sitting of the Standing Comm ittee on Elec tions, Privileges and Pro ce du res for examination and appropriate sanction against the Premier of this province. Mr. Steve Ashton (OpposHion House Leader) : Yesterday, I rose on a simila r matter, and today, Mr. Speaker, I can indicate on behalf of our caucus that we will be taking a consis tent position on this matter in our advice to you, Sir, and that is, that while yesterday the issue at hand on the matter of privilege was comm ents made by the member for St. James (Mr.

Edwar ds), today they are comments by the Premier involving the member for St. James. While the member for St. James' comment s were unacceptable, in an equal way the Premier 's comments are unaccepta ble in the context of this matter. I want to note, Mr. Speaker, that one of the more unfortuna te aspects I have found about this Legislature has been one of two things really over the last num ber of years; first of all is the prob lems with the quor um. I am not just talking about exchange back and forth in terms of debate.

I do believe we have reached the level where many members of the public, I think quite rightfully, are watching the process, and are wondering what is going on. Even worse than that, Mr. Speaker, is the nature of the comments. As I said, the parliamen tary system has a long tradition of free and open exchanges, but one thing that has never been a part of the parliament ary tradition has been the kind of personal comments and attacks that we have seen on an increasing basis in this Legislatu re. We have very clearly in our rules, very clearly, the indic ation that all mem bers are honour able mem bers.

That is not just a matter of courtesy. It is vital to the parliam entary process. That is at the root of the very democr atic nature of this institution, that we respect other mem bers whether they share our political views as individuals and as representatives of the people whom they represent. I find the comments made by the Premier (Mr. Almon) to be totally in contravention of that spirit. They were personal commen ts involving a member of this Chamber, not in his capacity as a member, but in his professional capaci ty.

They are not the first comments of that type that have been made either by the Premier or other mem bers. I think at this point in time on this matter of privilege, we have the opportunity to deal not only with this specific incidence, which to my mind does contravene our parliame ntary traditions, but the increasing personal nature of comments in this House. I know there are memb ers who have been in this House longer than I have. I look to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and the member for Brandon East (Mr.

Leonard Evans), because I am told in discussions with them that it was not always this way, Mr. Speaker, that there was a far greater respect between memb ers of different political persuasions, and it was considered absolutely and fundamen tally Inappropria te for mem bers, in particular, to be engaging in personal comments or attacks on other members. Mr. Speaker, that has since deteriorated.

I have seen in the 1 0 years that I have been here that it has deteri orated to the point where personal attacks on members in regard to their private capacity, their professions or other activities are increasi ngly a part of this House. I say it is particularly important on this matter, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this matter of privilege because this is the Premier of the province. If anyone should be showing leadership in this regard in terms of decoru m, it should be the Premier.

I say in this particular case, given the serious nature of the comme nts, which I bel ieve totally contravene our whole tradition in this House and all parliaments of not making those types of personal attacks, I would say that the Premier should stand in his place to deal with this matter now, to show some leadership, to apologize for the comments that were made and to make a commitmen t on his part and a commit ment that hope fully will be respected by other members of this House not to engage in those kinds of personal attacks in the future. • (1 340) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I rise in my place today to respond to the legitimate comments having been made by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) and the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). I might say that the member for Thompson has echoed some of the thoughts that I have expressed to a good degree in recent months about the decoru m, about the tendency toward personal insults, demeaning commen ts being made. I might

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4790 say that this session, many memb ers on this side, myseH included, might have been up on exactly the same point at issue on numerous occa sions, and we have not, becaus e I think perhaps we have developed a thick skin and grown accustomed to it. About a couple of weeks ago, when I was speaking at the 25th anniversary dinner honouring the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns), I made comment about the difference in the House, because we had Sid Green and Sam Uskiw, two form er memb er s of another party, Doug las Campbell, honouring this minister for his 25 years of service and doing so in a very nonpartisan way and with a sense of camaraderie that I think has been lacking for some time in this House. I did lament the fact that we do not have those kinds of relationships any longer, and we indeed have fallen into a tendency, I think, to become much t oo partisan, much too sharp and much too acrimonious in our comments in debate in the House. Mr.

Speaker, if I can begin the process of attempting to change that by virtue of what I have to say today, I would willingly and gladly do that by giving a complete and unconditional, large and liberal apology to the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) for having maligned him personally in my comments the other day. I know it is not enough to suggest that I am cranky these days, that the session has gone on too long, I think, perhaps for most of us, but it is true. It is true that I am cranky. I know the member for Wellingt on (Ms.

Barrett) would suggest that I am always cranky, but I can assure her that from time to time I am not. I would hope that can be changed. Mr. Speaker, I do indeed repeat that I give my complete and unconditional apology to the memb er for St. James for the comments that I made. I withdraw them completely. Indeed, I hope that in speaking this way I can set a tone for the remainder of this session and beyond that will be better than the one that we have had. Mr. Spe aker: I would like to thank all honourable memb ers for their suggestions on this matte r.

Personally, I would like to thank the honourable First Minister for his complete withdrawal of that. I believe that does settle the matter. PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Doug MarUndale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Otto Both, D. Lavallee, Beatrice Kot and others requesting the provincial gove rnment to withdraw provincial funding for The Pines project. • (1 345) READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: To the honourable memb er for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member.

The petition conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is It the will of the House to have the petition read? Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citi zens, of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth: THAT the Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines," in its current locat ion, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport.

THAT to risk the jobs of the hundreds of people who are employed at the airport is not in the best interests of the communi ty. THAT "The Pines" project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public. THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pines" project will give a foothold to commercial development which is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighbourhood. WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respect the wishes of the neighbour hood by requesting the provincial gove rnment to withdraw provincial funding of "The Pines" project.

AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. ••• Mr. Speak er: I have re viewed the petition of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), and it complies with the rules and the privileges and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Mr. Clerk: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citizens, of the prov ince of Manitoba, humbly sheweth:

4791 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17, 1991 THAT the Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines,w in its current location, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport. THAT to risk the jobs of the hundreds of people who are empl oyed at the airport is not in the best interests of the communi ty. THAT "The Pinesw project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public.

THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pinesw project will give a foothold to commercial development which is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighbourhood. WHEREF ORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respect the wishes of the neighbour hood by requesting the provincial government to withdraw provincial funding of "The Pinesw project. AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. *** Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.

Hicke s), and it conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Mr. Clerk: To the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba The petition of the undersigned citizens, of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth: THA Tt he Winnipeg International Airport is vital to the economic health of the city of Winnipeg, and the project known as "The Pines, w in its current location, will jeopardize the future of Winnipeg International Airport.

THAT to risk the jobs of the hundreds of people who are emplo yed at the airport is not in the best interests of the community. THAT "The Pinesw project will inhibit riverbank access to the general public. THAT the strip mall portion of "The Pinesw project will give a foothold to commercial deve lopment which is incompatible with the residential nature of the neighbourhood. WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to respect the wishes of the neighbour hood by requesting the provincial government to withdraw provincial funding of "The Pinesw project.

AND as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Jack Reimer (Chairman of the Standing Committee on Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report on the Committ ee on Agriculture . Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Agriculture presents the following as its First Report: Your committee met on Tuesday, July 16 , 1991 , at 10 a.m. in Room 254 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. At that meeting, your comm ittee elected Mr. Reimer as Chairperson.

Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 20-- The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'elevage Mr. Randy Eros. Manitoba Sheep Association Reeve Ed Peltz - Unio n of Ma ni toba Municipalities Mr. James Be zan - Manitoba Cattle Producers Association Your committee has considered: Bill 20-- The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'e levage and has agreed to report the same with the following amendment: MOTION: THAT

section 6 of the Bill be struck out and the following substituted: Sections 35 to 38 repealed and substituted. 6 Sections 35 to 38 are repealed and the following is substituted: Investigation and report of valuer 35(1) At the request of an owner whose animals or poultry are killed or injured by a dog, or at the request of an insurer of the owner, the minister may appoint a valuer who shall

a) within 48 hour s of being appoint ed, investigate the matter; and

b) within a further 10 days

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4792 (

I) report to the minister respecti ng the amount and extent of the owner's loss , and (ii) provide a copy of the report to the owner and to the insurer. Notice to minister of loss 35(2) A request cannot be made under subsection (1 ) unless the owner notifies the minister of the loss within 24 hours after the owner discovers the animals or poultry that have been killed or injured. Your comm ittee has also considered : Bill 53- The Natural Prod uc ts Marketing Amendment Act ; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur al commercialisation des produits naturals and has agreed to report the same with the following amendment: MOnON: THAT subclause 29(o)(ii), as set in

section 2 of the Bill, be amendment by striking out "production in quality" and substituting "production , qualityn. All of which is respectf ully submitted. Mr.Relrner: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodr ey), that the report of the committee be received . Motion agreed to. ORAL QUESnON PERIOD Immigration ConsuHants Michael Bessey Involvement Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, yesterday we raised a numb er of questions pertaining to documents that the RCMP had filed dealing with matters related to alleged imm igration scandals and people who were related to questions that we had raised in Question Period on previous occas ions. We raised the question of one of the most senior cabinet appointments in government, Mr. Bessey, a cabinet appointment after the government took office in 19 88-a person who worked with the Conservatives prior to that-in terms of the meetings that he was holding with people who are under investigation for allegations dealing with immi gration scandal .

Clearly, the RCMP had reasonable and probable grounds to include in their documents meetings that Mr. Bessey attended , and the Premier has since stated that he was on the business of the Province of Manitoba. My question to the Premier: Given that Mr. Bessey reports directly to the Premier as head of Treasury Board-Mr. Bessey is the secretary to that Treasury Board-was Mr. Bessey attending those meetings as articu lated yesterday in Question Period on the authority and direction of the Premier himself? • (1 350) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I will quote from Mr.

Bessey's own response to that matter as he is quoted In the Winnipeg Sun of today. "Bessey said he has no involvement with the province's approval of the imm igrant investor program which allows potential imm igrants to buy Canadian companies or shares in appr oved developm ent funds. "When they needed someone political to give the economic rah rah about why they should invest here-why we're holding taxes down , that sort of thing-they talked to me." Mr. Speaker, he was not there under my directi on.

He was there represe nting the provi nce's interests to attempt to -(inte�ection)- He was asked to attend presumably by these people who were bringing investors to Manitoba and giving them as much information as he can about why It is a good place in which to invest. He attended, as the documents indicate , two of 62 contacts between the individuals who were raised In the RCMP depositions, and I also say that the RCMP say, in their response, that Treasury Board Secretary Mike Bessey is not a target in the investigation, despite his name appearing on a search warrant for Beirnes' downtown apartment.

I leave that with the member as a full and com plete explanation of the matter. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any of us can miss the irony of the Premier now quoting the Winnipeg Sun after all the allegations the Premier made in this House. I think the Premier owes a number of journalists a very big apology. Mr. Speaker, I have a further question to the Premier. Citizenship in this pro vince, in this country, is one of the most fundamental rights we ha ve . We ha ve always been oppo sed to citizenships for Canada for sale in our country.

At the heart of this issue is also the problem and issue of friends in high places, friends in high places to the Premier, people who were involved in investment companies and investment consultants that all

4793 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 worked on the Premier's own leadership. I first of all find it strange that the Premier has not answered to the ministerial responsibility, and Mr. Bessey reports directly to him, but yet he attends these meetings allegedly as a free agent. I would ask the Premier: Is it government policy to have the most senior gove rnment official that reports directly to the Premier acti ng as a free agent and meeting with a company called the Asian Manitoba Investment firm listed in the documents, which the RCMP allege is a company that is to facil itate the imm igrations of persons into Canada who would not normally be allowed into Canada contrary to

Section 465 1 (

a) of the Criminal Code? Is that the policy of the Premier in dealing with this senior most official in the Treasury Board of cabinet? * (1 355) Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that it is the case that there are many, many civil servants who attend meetings as part of their responsibilities in their office without asking the permission of the minister to do so. I would think that, for instance, in the Department of Indus try, Trade and Tourism all of the various tourism officials meet with people in the tourist industry time and time again. They might have lunch with them. They might have dinner with them.

They might attend at meetings with them without phoning or writing to the minister to ask whether or not they can attend a meeting of somebody who is in the tourist industry. That is par t of their responsi bility. In this particular case , Mr. Bessey has been involved , as I know mem bers opposite are well aware, with meetings to take a look at investments and putting together things such as the Repap deal.

Manitoba Data Services is currently involved in various ways in matters such as the Abitibi-Price takeover and all of those things where his expertise and his knowledge of the economic conditions and circu mstances in this province are being sought as comme ntary on the matter. Mr. Speaker, with respect to any matter that has to do with illegal imm igration matters, that is what the RCMP investigation is there for. I think now the memb er opp osite ou ght to issue an acknowledgement, at least, that this RCMP investigation is working. It is the basis from which he is getting these questions these days.

It is the basis of information, hard information, information that will lead perhaps, has already led, to a number of matters that may come under char ges. That is the way in which this should be done. We are absolut ely comm itted to ensure that all information poss ible is shared with the RCMP so that their investigation can be as complete and thorough as possible. Independent Inquiry Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting. The Premier Is aware of Mr.

Bessey meeting with the princip als of Abitibi-Price, but yet the Premier pretends to have no awareness of three people at a meeting, all of whom wer e in volved in the Prem ier's leader ship-Mr. Paqueo, Mr. Gajadharsingh and Mr. Warraich who are meeting with a fired civil servant involved in the same imm igration scand al. He is not aware of that situation, as chair of the Treasury Board of the Province of Manitoba. I would ask the Premier: We have always been satisfied, and we have said so in this House on numer ous occasions, that the RCMP would be investigating the criminal matters and crimin al allegations.

We have always asked the questions: Who is investigating the issues of senior people in the government, senior people who worked on the Premi er's leadership and their Influenc e in imm igration and imm igration policy In the Province of Manitoba? Who is investigating the friends in high places to the Premier and the influence in this immigr ation- Yr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Clearly , the RCMP, because influence peddling is an offence, and anything to do with immigration matters that is illegal is an offence under the Imm igration Act.

Clearly, if there is any information that the member has that has not been investigated, he ought to bring it forward, but if he is suggesting that Mr. Bessey was involved in any breach of the Immigr ation Act or in influence peddling, he had better tell that to the RCMP, because, according to Ser geant Stinson who is in cha rge of the investigation, Bessey is not a target of the investigation. If he has information, an allegation to put forward, let him do so, but, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to him that he is doing the very thing that his House Leader (Mr.

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4794 Ashton) and the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) talked about, only now we are doing it in terms of people who cannot be here to defend themselves. I can take the allegati ons, yoo know, the untrue statements made by members opposite, but if he has an allegation to make against this individual, make it. Do not just suggest by some association that this person is guilty of something or is involved with something that is illegal, Mr. Speaker. Civil Service Appointments Investigation Status Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): My question is very simple.

Who was dealing with and investigating the political imp li cations and the political influence that flows from the Premier's Office? Mr. Speaker, on a number of occ asions in this Chamber, the Premier has stated that in dealing with the Civil Service issues related to the investigation, that the Civil Service Commiss ion is investigating those matters. Mr. Speaker, I, on the urging of the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, phoned the Civil Service Com mis sioner this morning.

He informed me that there is only one investigation going on now in the public service, and that is the investigation initiated by Roxy Freedman; that there is, indeed, no investigation going on in terms of Mr. Warraich, as the Premier has stated on previous occa sions in the House, in Hansard , and no investigations dealing with staff of the Premier's Office. In fact, these people have been hired under

Section 32 by cabinet and cannot normally be investigated by the Civil Service Commission. I would ask the Premier: Will he, as the employing authority under

Section 32 of The Civil Service Act, be initiating any investigations as we were led to belie ve in previous questions we have raised in this House? •

(1400) Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, there are a number of matters here. Investigations have to have an allegation that they are investigating. Who are these individuals whom the Leader of the Opposition wants investigated? With respect to Mr. Warraich, the allegation that has been made is that his hiring and the hiring of members of his family have been done by virtue of the influence of Mr. Gajadharsingh.

That matter was referred to the Civil Service Commission as part of their review, and they are reviewing that to see whether or not the hirings of those six people who were named in the Winnipeg Sun and by mem bers opposite as being done under political influence or influence of Mr. Gajadharsingh, whether or not, indeed, that was the case. That has been reviewed and there has been an interview done, as I understand it, to attempt to establish whether there is any veracity to that allegation. Immigration Consultants Independent Inquiry Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, we have asked questions about the hiring of Mr. Warraich pursuant to the Premier's influence and his involvement with the Premier's leadership, not with Mr. Gajadharsingh. We have asked questions about Mr. Bessey yesterday. We have asked questions about the whole issue of imm igration consu ltants, people who worked on the Premier's leadership and their political influence in our Manitoba communities. There is no one investigating those issues. There is the RCMP investigating the narrow criminal issues as they are competent and credible to do so.

There is the Civil Service Commission investigating the narrow issue only of Mr. Gajadharsingh and the referral by the deputy minister that we asked for in Question Period six or seven weeks ago. There is no one investigating the broader political issues that we have been raising in the House. I would ask today, Mr.

Speaker, again: In light of all these issues that have been raised publicly, will the Premier please agree to an Independent inquiry into these allegati ons, so the public will know that there has been no political influence from the Premier's Office with immigration consultants in dealing with the citizens of Manitoba and potenti ally new citizens and imm igrants to this province? Hon. Gary Fllrnon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, all of those matt ers , with respect to imm igr ation consultants, are part of the RCMP investigation. It is illegal for anyone to breach the Immigration Act.

It is illegal for them to be influence pedd lers, and they come under the net of that investigation.

4795 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 With respect to the influence on hiring, we have already indicated that the Civil Service Commission has looked into the allegation as to whether or not Mr. Gajadhar singh was the person behind influencing the hiring of those six individuals that the Sun story linked together. We brought forth the information which said the dates on which four of those six individuals were hired were prior to our taking office .

The fifth was hir ed un der a competition and that was stated, and the sixth, the one individual whom I have acknowledged from Day One, was hired on the basis of a combination of affirmative action and an agreement to take a decentralized position . Mr. Speaker, that is all on the record , so if they want to accuse us of influence in that, under the circums tances in which it was ackno wledged, by virtue of the circum stances in which that hiring was made, affirmative action and agreement to take a decentralized position-that was one of the six.

Now, what further allegation does the member want us to have investigated? Mr. Speaker: Order, please . I can see where this is all leading, and I would caution the honourable memb er to exer cise gr eat care in making statements about persons who are outside the House and who are unable to reply. Mr. Doer: Again, Mr. Speaker, that is why we need an external, independent investigation, because the Issues that are being raised in the media and In the public deal with three fundamental issues.

One, they deal with the criminal allegations that are part of the RCMP investigation; two, they deal with the conflict-of-interest guidelines that we have raised in this House and that are investigated narrowly for one individual in the Civil Service Commission; and three, it is all the allegations that have been raised and all the points that have been raised about the imm igration policy of the provincial gove rnment, that it is tied to firms that are dealing with imm igration that are tied to consultants who are tied to people who are tied to the Premier's Office. We ask, what is the gove rnment covering up?

Why will it not have an independent inquiry so we can put these questions to rest, and we can have the public know that we have a complete system of integrity dealing with immigration in this province? Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recog nizing the honourable First Minister, the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAl pine) and the honourable mem ber for The Maples (Mr. Cheema), if you want to carry on that discussion, you can do so outside the Chamber. Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, we have just been asked for a higher standard of behaviour in this Chamber, and now we have seen what the members opposite are doing in this particular Chamber, taking and moving from documented allegations, which are being investigated by the relevant authorities, to political innuendo and saying someh ow- Yr. Spe aker: Order, please. Point of Order Mr. Doer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Ted Hughes Inquiry is not political innuendo. It is an independent public inquiry. That is what we are calling for with this Premier, not political innuendo. Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable Leader does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why this Attorney General (Mr. McCrae) called that inquiry, because there was documen ted evidence on the record by virtue of the Reynolds report that talked about breach of normal practices in the justice system-docu mented evidence. We have nothing but political innuendo from the Leader of the Opposition in this particular case.

Have an allegation brought forward, and we will have the relevant authority investigate it, but so far, there is no allegation that has been brought forward that has not already been looked at by the RCMP, that has not already been reviewed by the RCMP and the Civil Service Commission. We ask, instead of going on day after day after day with all this innuendo, put forward something substantive that we can get on with, because we would like to be able to do anything possible to assure the memb ers opposite on the matter. Michael Bessey Staff Affiliation Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, to put the minds of the opposition at rest, all the Premier has to do in this prov ince is to call an independent inquiry, but instead, he has taken the attitude of the four d's. He ducks, he dodges, he denies and he deflects.

July 17, 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4796 Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask him a very particular question. My question is to the Premier as chairperson of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, as chairperson of the Treasury Board, he indicated that Mr. Bessey was not part of his staff when, in fact, Mr. Bessey is secretary to the Treasury Board. Why did the First Minister dodge the truth yesterday when qu estioned by repor ters about the connections between himself and the secretary of the Treasury Board? Hon. Gary Fllrnon (Premier) : Mr.

Speaker, I said very clearly to the media in serum, in an open discussion, that the question that was placed to me by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) asked whether any memb er of my staff was involved with these meetings. We Identified at that time that my principal secreta ry, Greg Lyle, was. If the memb ers opposite are saying that every single member of Treasury Board is also my personal staff, that is not what we think about in government.

We think about Executive Council as being the Premier's staff, so it never occurred to me to ask every mem ber of Treasury Board whether or not they were involved with it. I think that this is a -(i nterjecti on)- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Fllmon: I guess that there is a difficulty in the sense that I am the only Premier in the country who does chair Treasury Board. I do not look upon them as being my direct personal staff as I do Executive Co un cil, and I th ink that is a very natural circumstance .

If the member feels that she has been slighted or her privileges have in some way been breached, I apologize to her for it. The next time I will try and be more thorough in my analysis of the situation. Again, I go back to the fact that even despite the fact that Mr. Bessey was involved in two of the 62 contacts , I repeat for her comfort , RCMP Sergeant Jim Stinson said Treasury Board Secretary Mike Bessey is not a target in the investigation, despite his name appearing on a search warrant for Beimes' downtown apartment.

If she has anything more that she wants to bring to the table on this issue, I would be glad to try and address it. •

(1410) Seech Gajadharslngh Government Capacity Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the secretary of the Treasury Board attended at least two meetings with Mr. Paqueo, Mr. Gajadharsingh and Mr. Beirnes, and I accept the Premier 's position as to why he was at this meeting. Can the First Minister tell the House today whether Mr. Gajadharsingh was attending these meetings in his capacity as an employee of the Department of Family Services ? Hon. Gary Fllrnon (Premier) : I could not tell you that because l -(interjec tion)- Mr.

Speaker, there are 18,000 employees in the Manitoba public service- Some Honourable Members : Oh, oh. Mr. Speak er: Order, please . The honourable First Minister, to finish his response . Mr. Fllmon: I could not tell the member what capacity he was attending the meeting in, and I am sure that question , if she wants it put, can be put as part of the Civil Service investigation into Mr. Gajadharsingh, as to why he was involved in those meetings. Conflict of Interest Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second OpposHion): Th er e is a very serious conflict-of-interest question involved in this. If Mr.

Gajadharsingh was at this meeting as a civil servant, then it would appear to us that Mr. Bessey should have reported to the Premier that a member of the Civil Service was attending a meeting outside his area of responsibility and that a potential conflict of interest existed. Can the Premier tell the House today if Mr. Bessey reported the meeting to the Premier, and if he, at that point, said to the Premier that he had concerns about a potential conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Gajadharsingh? Hon. Gary Fllrnon (Premier) : Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge , he did not.

Social Assistance Employment/Training Programs Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Family Services. The number of mu nicipal welfare recipients in Winnipeg has climbed by 33 percent in June of this

4797 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 year over June of last year, likely an all-time high, Mr. Speaker. This dramatic increase obviously reflects a sharp rise in unemployment in Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg in particular. In view of the seriousness of the situation, the director of social ser vices in Winn ip eg ha s calle d for the imp lemen tation of a job creation and training program involving the three levels of gove rnment.

Would the Minister of Family Services be willing to examine this proposal of the director with the view to establishing an emergency emplo yment and training program and reduce the number of people on welfare? Hon. Harold Gllleshamrner (Minister of Family Services) : I would point out to the member that we increased the budget for the social allowances considerably in the past budget, and the provincial social allowance roles have also risen about 4 percent. We have budgeted for that amount, and we do have programs in place for job access, the Gateway Program and others.

I can tell the member, recently at the graduation of South Winnipeg Technical school there were a number of graduates of this program who have moved into the work force. We have about a 70 percent success rate from the intake in those programs and the further training that they are able to get and their ability to access jobs. As well, we have in place-and I know the member is familiar with the prog rams, with the human resource opportunity centres around the province. We have talked about the one in Brandon and others before.

These are con tinuing and are providing some training and some education for a number of recipients , and we are able to move them into the work force from time to time as their training is comple ted. I am aware of the concerns raised by the officials of the City of Winnipeg and the city councillors. We would be pleased to continue any dialogues we already have with the staff from the city to address those probl ems. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that there are certain ongoing programs dealing with chronic cases of social allo wances in the province.

The fact is we have thousands more on municipal welfare which the province pays about 80 percent or 85 percent of today com pared with last year. A third of these are under 25 years of age. I would ask the minister: Would he undertake to meet, himself person ally, with representatives of the City Council and any staff required to explore the possibility to see if something could be done to alleviate unemp loyment In Winnipeg, Brandon, other centre s, and therefore reduce the number on municipal welfare? Mr.GII Ieshammer: Mr.

Speaker, we do meet from time to time with councill ors and mayors from various muni cipal corporations. Recently I attended the MAUM meeting in Portage Ia Prairie where mayors and counci llo rs from across the province raised a number of issues. There were other MLAs there to participate in that discussion . As well , we have a working relatio nship with the UMM to discuss issues that are brought before the municipal corporations from time to time. I can assure you this is an issue that is often on the agenda.

Further to the memb er's question, there are officials from my department who meet with officials from the City of Winnip eg social al lowance department who are exchanging information and working on job creation prog rams. I am sure I would certainly encourage them to con tinue looking at long-term solutions so the individuals who have to access social allowances will have the opportunity to find employment. If the member is asking for short-t erm , make-work projects, that is not a direction that our gove rnment would choose to go.

I think we have seen the debt that was created by some of those short-term programs in the past, and they were not success ful. The cost of those are still being borne by government today. Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the minister that one of the so-called make-work progr ams, as he refers to, is CareerStart which the government is funding. I would reject the term •make-work" because all of those jobs, all of those training and em ployment programs did provide useful work involving the private sector essential ly.

I would ask the minister: In view of the fact that the director of social services in Winnipeg and indeed some of the city councillors had described this as an emergency situation, an all-time high number of people on welfare, would the minister not undertake, at least commit to sit down to have at least a meeting with the elected representatives of the Ci ty of Win nipeg, and in deed othe r

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4798 municipalities, if necessary , to see if something can be done because this is an emergency situation? Mr.GII Ieshammer: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we are able to conti nue with the CareerStart Program. That is not the program I was referring to, and I think the member is aware of that. The Car eer Start Program provides em ploym en t opportu nities basically for university and high school students, and that program is cont inuing on this year.

The make-work prog rams that we talked about were ones that were funded by the previous gove rnment where a good deal of money was spent and a good deal of debt creat ed, and no long-term jobs were the result of that. I have indic ated that officials from my department would meet with officials from the city on the social allowances. If the political leaders from the city wish to meet at that level, I am sure that they would see fit to make a request. I am impressed that the member is concerned and aware of some of the comments reported in the paper.

H city politicians want to meet on that, we will be happy to do so. Port of Churchill Grain Export Commitment Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, recent reports released by the Prairie Pools have indica ted a position that would see the grain dependent status removed from the bayline route to Churchill.

Considering that Thunder Bay has already received this shipping season some 62 million metric tonnes of grain for exp ort and the well-documented fact that it costs more for farmers to ship their grain via the seaway, I ask the Minister of Hi ghwa ys and Trans porta tion what commun ications this minister has had in the past week with the federal minister responsible for the Wheat Board to secure grain export commitments for the Port of Churchill. I ask him what success he can tell us in the House here today. * (1 420) Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to indicate to the members of the Legislature here that we conti nue to press very hard on the federal minister, as well as the Wheat Board, as well as the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, for a commitment to have grain moved through the Port of Churchill. Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that on July 10 I sent a three-page letter to the federal minister, and it is the strongest letter that I have ever put my signature to in terms of expressing the concerns and views of this governmen t and people in Manitoba in terms of what is not happening at the Port of Churchill.

Rail Line Protecuon Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in seeing that letter. I ask the minister to table a copy of that for our information. Considering that the WGTA and their negative position on the Manitoba port and the position of the Prairie Pools towards the status of the rail line to Churchill, I ask this minister what commu nication he has had with his federal counterparts to have Manitoba's north rail line declared in the national interest? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and TransportaUon): Mr.

Speaker, that position was put forward by myseH over two years ago for the federal government already. Mr. Speaker, I have a copy of the letter. I am prepared to table the letter that I sent to the federal minister. In this letter also, I had Indic ated to the federal mi nister the fact that there had been excessively good sales made to Russia.

The fact that the Canada gove rnment is financing part of that sale to some degree, I feel in my opinion and this gove rnment's opinion that Canada and the Wheat Board should have some authority in terms of where they pick up the grain from, because we are doing part of the financing. I have registered that concern with the federal minister as well. Mr. Reid: Mr.

Speaker, I am sure the residents of Churchill and the port perso nnel themselves would be interested in having this declared in the national interest, this particu lar rail line, and thatthey are also awa iting an announcemen t by the federal government that grain will be exported through this port. All-Party Committee Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): My question is for the same minister, Mr. Speaker.

Considering the Minis ter of Hi ghways and Transportation has indicated a will ingness to discuss ways to bring pressure to bear on the federal minister for the Wheat Board, including having an all-party comm ittee go to Ottawa, I ask

4799 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 this minister now to give a committed date for striking an all- party delegation to travel to Ottawa in an effort to have grain shipped through Churchill now. Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I think the mem ber is errone ous when he indicates that I made a commitment to have an all- party committee go to Ottawa. I indic ated that I am prepared to work with members of this House to try and con tinue to put pressure on the federal minister, as well as the Wheat Board. We are conti nuing to do that. Mr.

Speaker, indica tions are-and I am still hop efu l that we will be able to ha ve an announcem ent. Time is running at the Port of Churchill. We know the limi ted time that we have for grain to move through Churchill. Without having that firm commitment from the Wheat Board, indications are that there should be some kind of an announcement coming soon. Immigration Consuhants Michael Bessey Involvement Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the gove rnment directory clearly indicates that the staff of Treasury Board has the Premier (Mr. Film on) as the chair, Mr.

Bessey as the secretary and one other staffperson . When we asked the Deputy Premier on May 28 about meetings between staff of the Premier and Mr. Paqueo and Mr. Gajadharsingh, we were told in essence that staff of the Premier could do anything they wanted to do in their spare time. We have su bsequently learned, of course, that these meetings were on government time and on gove rnment business. Can the Deputy Premier tell us when he first learned that Mr. Bessey had been in attendance at this meeting? Why did he not correct the record in this House? Hon. James Downey (Depu ty Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I will take under advisement the question and review it more thor oughly. Some of the accusations made by the Leader of the Liberal Party have been far from accurate many times. Maple Leaf Fund Michael Bessey Involvement Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell the House today if Mr. Bessey, in his capacity as secretary of the Treasury Board, ever had meetings with the Canada Maple Leaf Fund and particularly with respect to the MHRC lease? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier) : Mr.

Speaker, I will take that qu estion as notice and bring the information back to the House. Immigration Consultants Independent Inquiry Mrs. Sharon carstalrs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this imm igration scandal is hurting very vul nerable people. It is hurting people even, indeed, in the Premier's own staff, which is the reason we have been calling consistently for an independent inquiry.

I have had a numb er of calls from mem bers of the visible minority community who feel that they are particularly under attack at the present time, par ticularly the Filipino com mu nity, the Sikh communi ty and the Hindu community. Will the Premier today, just for those particu lar peop le, not do the right thin g and call an independent inquiry so that communities can be freed from this spectre which seems to be haunting them? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, the right thing is to have a complete and thorough investigation done by the relevant authorities.

That includes the RCMP to do the complete investigation of any and all allegations of criminal wrongdoing, including any matters under the Imm igration Act or any matters that involve allegations of influence peddling. Those matters are the ones that ought to be investigated by that. The right thing is to have the Civil Service Commission review all of the allegations of improper procedures in hiring, influence in hiring, whatever. That is being done by the Civil Service Commission under the alle gations ma de agai nst Mr. Gajadharsingh and also as they involve the Warraich families and those allegations. Mr.

Speaker, what is hurting, of course, are the kinds of political innuendo that are being put to this House day after day after day, innuendo without substantiation, with no allegation of wrongdoing on either of those matters, just simply innuendo. That is what is hurting the visible minor ity commu nity. They, too, are talking to me about it, and they feel very sick about the kind of political football that the

July 17 , 199 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4800 Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Carstairs) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) are trying to create for their own personal political gains. They feel terrible about it, and they have said time and time again, why are they doing . it? Why are they doing it, they are asking, because they know that the RCMP will do all of the matters that come under legal author ity and tha t the Ci vil Service Commission has total power to review the hiring practices- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Anti-Racism Programs Government Initiatives Ms.

Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, there is an escalation of racist incidents and attack on immi gration and mu lticulturalism in Manitoba and across the country that is shocking to many peopl e. The way that this government is handling the situations is not helping any. We have had the Spicer commission. We have had the Reform Party stand on multicultur alism. We have had cuts to imm igration and settlement services such as ESL at a time when the federal government is prom ising to open the doors. Adding all of these things together during a recession is bound to cause prob lems.

We need a government that can respond and that can lead and propose an alternative to the negative events. My question is for the Minister responsible for Multicultur al ism. Why has this government not issued any kin d of a state ment about the advantages and benefits of imm igration? Why have they continued their policy of inaction and not put forward any alternative message of tolerance, acceptance and understanding for the people of Manitoba? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, all of the

preamble from the NDP mu lticultural critic was criticism of the federal government. I am glad that she realizes and recogn izes that this government has increased funding to ESL training for adults in the province of Manitoba. I am glad that she recognizes that we have a multicultural policy , the first ever policy in Manitoba. We have as a result of that established a Multicultural Secretariat that is working very closely with the communi ty.

I hope she does realize and recognize, too, that the Manitoba Intercu ltu ral Council and the government have an ongoing good working relationship that is going to benefit the whole community. I hope she realizes and recognizes, too, that we have in consultation and co-ope ration with the Manitoba Federation of Labou r developed eigh t antiracism mo dules that will be used throughout the commu nity. We have done much, and we will con tinue to work on behalf of the multicultural co mmuni ty here in the province of Manitoba. Ms. Cerllll: Mr.

Speaker, one staffperson in the entire Civil Service dealing with racism is not enough. Meeting Request Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): I have a second question to the same minister. There is an increasing number of people who feel tha t the gove rnm ent's response has been inadequate, and these people are forming a coal ition. Will the minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) meet with these concerned peopl e, listen to their suggestions and their concerns in dealing with racism ? Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship) : Mr.

Speaker, I am quite willing at any time to meet with any member of the commu nity who wants to better the relationships between all Manitobans. I have no hesitation in meeting with anyone. I have in the past and will continue to do so. Mr. Speaker : The time for Oral Questions has expired . ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, I would ask If you could call for Report Stage Bills 40, 41 , 42, 46, 48, 49, 57, 58. I would ask if you could then call for Second Readings in this order: Bills 65, 59, 35, 68.

I would also like to announce committees for 7 p.m. this evening, Law Amendments Comm ittee to hear Bill 50, Bill 4, Bill 51 , Bill 69 and, I bel ieve, Bill 73, as well the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs to hear Bill 35. I would also like to announce for tomorrow at 10 a.m. the following comm ittees. The Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs to continue to hear Bill 35 as well as Bill 68; the Standing Committee on Indu strial Rela tions to hear Bill 59; and the

4801 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections to receive the report on judges' salaries. I would also ask, Mr. Speaker, if you could canvass the House to see if there is leave to waive private memb ers' hour today . Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private memb ers' hour? Yes? It is agreed? Agreed . • (1 430) Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll}: Mr. Speaker,! move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition on the Stand ing Commi ttee on Law Amendments be amended as follo ws: Fort Garry (Mrs.

Vodrey) for Asslniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh). This was for Tuesday, July 16 , 7 p.m . I move, seconded by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) , that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as fol lows: River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) ; Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey); Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld). I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for Arthur-Virden (Mr.

Down ey); Roblin-Russell (Mr. Derkach) for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) for Emerson (Mr. Penner); Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). I move, seconded by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) , that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows: Gimli (Mr. Helw�

r) for Morris (Mr. Manness); St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Connery). I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs- this is for Wednesday, July 18 , 10 a.m. sitting-be amended as follows: Emerson (Mr. Penner) for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay). Mr. Speaker : Agreed? Agreed. Mr. Geo rge Hlckes (Point Douglas}: I move, by leave, in the Comm ittee on Law Amendmen ts at 7:30, July 16 , 19 91 : Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen). I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendm ents be amended as fo llo ws: St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis) for Transcona (Mr. Reid); Concordia (Mr. Doer) for Rin Ron (Mr. Storie) for Wednesday, July 17 , 19 91 , for 7p .m . I move, seconded by the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Affairs be amended as fo llows : Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Wednesday, July 17 , 19 91 , for 7 p.m . I move, seconded by the memb er for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett), that the com position of the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections be amended as follows : Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen); Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Broadway (Mr. Santos), for Thursday, July 18 , 19 91 , for 10 a.m . Mr. Speak er: Agreed ? Agreed and so order ed. REPORT STAGE 8111 40--The EducaUon AdmlnlstraUon Amendment Act Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training}: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of High ways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Bill40, The Education Admin istration Am en dmen t Act; Loi mo di fiant Ia

Loi sur !'adminis tration scolaire, as reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendmen ts, be concurred ln. Motion agreed to. 8111 41- The Public Schools Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training}: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. McCra e), tha t Bill 41 , The Public Schools Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques, as amended and reported from the Stand ing Commi ttee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon}: Mr. Speaker, I know that this bill has been through comm ittee- Yr. Speak er: Order, please. The question before the House was that Bill 41 , The Public Schools Amendmen t Act (2); Loi no 2

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4802 mo difiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques, as am ended and repor ted from the Sta nding Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 42- The Public Schools Finance Board Amendment Act Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Mi nis ter of Northe rn Affairs and Rural Development (Mr. Downey) , that Bill 42, The Public Schools Finance Board Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur a Commi ssion des finances des ecoles publiques, as amended and reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. House Business Hon. Darren Praznlk (Deputy Government House Leader) : Mr. Speaker, if I may indulge the House for a moment on House business. There were two changes in my list, and I would ask for the appropriate leave to make them. In one case, we ask that in order of bills, Bill 35 be called before Bill 68, and I would like to have those reversed with leave of the House. Mr.

Speaker, I would also like to announce for the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendmen ts that will meet at seven tonight, that not Bill 73 be brought before it, but Bill 75. It was an error on my part. Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deput y gove rnmen t House leader for tha t info rmation. The honourable deputy government House leader does not need leave to alter the sequence. As a matter of courtesy, we thank the honourable mi nister. *** * (1 440) Blll 46- The Highway Traffic Amendment Act Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey) ,· that Bill 46, The Hig hway Traffic Amendment Act ; Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route, as amended and reported from the Standing Commi ttee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in. Motion agraed to. Bill 48- The Highway Traffic Amendment Act

(2) Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speak er, I have thr ee amendmen ts that I would like to put on record here. I want to indicate that these are the amendments that all groups concurred in at the comm ittee level. Becaus e we had some diffi culty doing the translations immedi ately, it was decided , to expedite time, that I would do the amendments at third reading. I want to just indic ate that the polic e representatives as well the owners of General Scrap and Metal have all met, and everybody is agreeable to the amendmen ts. I move, THAT Bill 48 (The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de Ia route) be amended by striking out

section 11 and substituting the fo llowing: Subsection 20(8) repeal ed and substHuted 11 Subsection 20(8) is repealed and the following is substituted : Wrecker selling vehicle 20(8) No wrecker shall sell or offer for sale an entire motor vehicle.

Scrapper selling vehicle or parts 20(8.1) No scrapper shall sell or offe r for sale an entire motor vehicle or a part of a motor vehicle except to a wrecker or another scrapper. (French version) Remplacement du paragraphe 20(8) 11 Le paragraphe 20 (8) est remplace par ce qui suit: Vente de vehlcules par des ferrallleurs 20(8) II est interdit aux ferr ailleurs de vendre ou d'offrir de vendre des vehicules automobiles entiers.

Vente de vehlcules par des casseurs de voHures 20(8.1) II est interdit aux casseurs de voitures de vendre ou d'offrir de vendre des vehicules automobiles entiers ou des pieces de vehicules automobiles si ce n'est aux ferr ailleurs ou a d'autres casseurs. Seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey) . Motion agreed to.

4803 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill48 (The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de Ia route) be amended by striking out

Section 14 and substituting the foll owing: Subsection 21 (3) repealed and substituted 14 Subsection 21 (3) is repealed and the following is substituted: Delay In wrecking motor vehicles 21

(3) No wrecker shall (

a) wreck a motor vehicle other than a motor vehicle purchased from the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation; or (

b) dispose of a second-hand motor vehicle part or accessory; for a period of 1 0 days afte r acquiring it. Seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Downey) . (French version) II est propose que le projet de loi 48 soit amende par substitution, a !'article 14 , de ce qui suit: A emplacement du paragraph• 21 (3) 14 Le paragraphe 21 (3) est remplace par ce qui suit: D61al 21

(3) II est interdit aux ferra illeurs, pour une periode de 1 0 jours apres !'acquisition d'un vehicule automobile:

a) soit de demoir le vehicule automobile, a moins que celui-ci n'ait ate achete a Ia Societe d'assurance publique du Manitoba;

b) soit d'aliener des pieces ou des accessoires usages du vehicule automobile. Motion agreed to. Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, the final amendment. I mo ve, seconded by the Mini ster of Rural Development (Mr. Downey) , THAT Bill 48 (The Highway Traffi c Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de Ia route) be amended by adding "and shall not dispose of the motor vehicle for a period of 10 days after acquiring it,w after "recognizable," in proposed subsection 21 (4) of The Highway Traffic Act as set out in

section 15 of the bill. (French version) II est propose que le projet de loi 48 soit amende par adjoncti on, apres "reconnaissable", de "et ne peuvent disposer duv ehicule automobile pendant une periode de 1 0 jours suivant son acquisition." au paragraphe 21( 4) du Code de Ia route enonce a !'article 15 du projet de loi. Motion agreed to. Mr. Driedger: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Education (Mr.

Derkach), that 8111 48, The High way Traffic Amendment Act (2); (Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de Ia route), as amended and reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 49--The Colleges and Consequential Amendments Act Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Education and Training): I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that 8111 49, The Colleges and Consequential Amendmen ts Act;

Loi sur les colleges et modi fiant di verses disp ositions legislatives, as amended and reported from the Standing Commi ttee on Law Amendmen ts, be concurred in. Motion presented. Mr. Speaker: Agreed? An Honourable Member: No. Withdraw. No. Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is that Bill 49, The Colleges and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur les colleges et modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives, as ame nded and reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments, be concurred in. Agreed? All those in fa vour of the motion will please say Yea. Some Honourable Members: Yea. Mr. Spe aker: All those opposed, please say Nay. Some Honourable Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader) : Yeas and Nays, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: Call in the memb ers. *** The House took recess at 2:49 p.m .. After Recess The House resumed at 3:06 p.m .

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4804 Mr. Speaker: The question before the House is that Bill 49, The Colleges and Consequential Amendments Act;

Loi sur les colleges et modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives, as amended and reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendmen ts, be concurred in. All those in fa vour of the motion will please rise. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as fo llows: Yeas Connery, Cummin gs, Dacq uay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Almon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurend eau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae, Mcintosh, Mitchelson, Neufeld, Orchard, Penner, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose, Sveinson, Vod rey.

Nays Ashton, Barrett, Carr, Carstairs, Cerilli, Cheema, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edw ards, Evans (Brandon East) , Friesen, Gaudry, Har per, Hi ckes, Lamour eux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martin dale, Plohman, Reid, Santos, Storie, Wasylycia-Leis, Wowchuk. Mr. Clerk (William Remnant): Yeas 27, Nays 25. Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried. * (1 51 0) Bill 57-The Horse Racing Commission Amendment Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indu stry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefans on) , I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr.

Cum mi ngs), that Bill 57, The Horse Racing Commiss ion Amendmen t Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Comm ission hippique), reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in. Motion agreed to. Bill 58- The Development Corporation Amendment Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Indus try, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefans on), I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummin gs), that Bill 58, The Developmen t Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe de developpem ent), reported from the Standing Comm ittee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources, be concurred in. Thank you. Motion agreed to. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bill 65- The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1991 Mr. Speak er: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill65, The Statute Law Amendmen t Act, 199 1 ; Loi de 19 91 mo difiant diverses dispositions legisla tives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Ain Flon (Mr. Storie). Stand ? No? Leave is denied. Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader) : Yes, Mr.

Speaker, the member for Ain Ron (Mr. Storie) had stood the bill and as he indicat ed, he did not wish to have it stand further. We are prepared to pass this through to commi ttee stage. I do, however, want to indicate to the government House leader (Mr. Manness) and to the Attorney General (Mr. McCrae), we are reviewing the bill currently and there may be some concerns that we have. We will be raising those at comm ittee stage, which I antici pate will not be imm edi ate. So we are prepared to pass this through second reading. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader) : Mr.

Speaker, not wanting to prevent the bill from going into comm ittee, we will address the bill once it goes into comm ittee at that time. Thank you. Mr. Speak er: The question before the House is that Bill65, The Statute Law Amendm ent Act, 199 1 ; Loi de 19 91 modifiant diverses dis positions legislatives, be now read a second time. Agreed? Some Honourable Members : Agreed. Mr. Spe aker: Agreed and so ordered. Bill 59- The Workers Compensation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker : On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister responsible for The Workers Compen sation Act (Mr.

Praznik) , Bill 59, The Worke rs Com pe nsation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur les accidents du travail et diverses

4805 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 dispositions legislatives, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in deba te on 8111 59, The Workers Compe nsation Amendment and Consequential Amendm ents Act. I want to begin, Mr.

Speaker, by expressing my concern about the nature of this bill, my concern about the importance of the issues this bill is dealing with, and my hope that through these comments and the com ments of other opposition me mbers and comments from the stake-holder groups, in this case managem ent groups and labour groups, and perhaps most imp ortantly, in terms of the commen ts and views of Injured workers, that this bill will be dealt with appropriately-a very complex bill, a complete rew riting of the act.

I will be suggesting that following that process, this government take the time to review some very, very significant changes that are being proposed as part of this bill, changes which I feel are not in the best Interests of Workers Compens ation in Manitoba. I want to indicate , Mr. Speaker, first of all there are a few changes in this bill that can be supported. They are consistent with the Legislative Review Committee. They are consistent with what we have been saying in this House.

I have said that ever since my appointment as Workers Compensation critic, I have supported a number of the changes, and they are really nothing more than an attempt to bring us in line with other provinces. I want to note that those changes are first of all the statutory indexing benefits, and second of all the increase in the maximum allowed earnings that is part of this bill. I want to address the first one, Mr.

Speaker, by saying that we have, I think, all realized in the House that Workers Com pensation claimants should not have to rely on the good will and good spirit and gener osity of members at the Legislature in periodically passing bills that will index benefits. We did that recently in this session. Other governments have done it in the past. We believe there should be a statutory entitlemen t to indexation of benefits, and I want to ind icate that we support the principle of that which is contained in this bill. I do, however, want to add that we have concerns about the form ula that is being used in this bill.

We are particularly concerned about the fact that this indexation has caps on it, has limi ts, and will not be full indexati on. I want to ind icate that at committee stage, we may indeed be looking at amendm ents that would ensure the indexation that this bill boasts, In terms of the basic principle, is to be a complete indexati on, because we do not feel that injured workers and their families should be in the situation of having anything other than fu ll protection of their benef its .

Everyone, I think, is aware of how difficult it is for people on Workers Compe nsation and their fam ilies, and we do not believe that this bill goes far enough in recognizing the need for full indexation. In terms of the max imum benefits , I want to indicate again that indeed is imp ortant, and we support the principle. In this particular case, we are really catching up to other jurisdictions in many cases. It is not out of lin e with those other jurisdictions. I have said in this House repeatedly the last number of years that we need that catch-up.

In my constituency, for example, many injured workers found they had a significantly reduced standard of living because of the fact the maxi mum allowed benefits came nowhere near recognizing what they were making in the way of income before they were injured. So we support that and note that it is really bringing us in line with other provinces. Those two are indeed the gems in this bill. I will say, howeve r, that there are many other changes in this bill that led us to have concern. Mr.

Speaker, I say to you, we have many concerns about this particular bill, and our primary concern-- and I raised this in Estimates the other day-is we believe this is a bill that is driven by the actuarial experts. It is being driven by those who indeed have costed this out. It is being driven by those who are seeking to deal with the unfunded liability of the Workers Compensation Board , and I hate to say this, but at the expense in many cases of reduced benefits either for existing workers or, in many cases, for future Workers Compensation claimants.

I raised that in the House the other day, and I know the mi nister has indica ted he will provide me information with the bottom-line effect of the various changes. I note in my review of this bill and the various clause�nd it is a very complex bill- there are many sections to my mind that are clearly aimed at red ucing the payout of benefits to worke rs, either currently on Workers Compensation or those future claimants, and I want to address that.

July 17 , 19 91 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4806 * (1 520) The mi nister in his opening comments indic ated that the current shift in terms of calculation of benefits, the current shift that he is looking at, the gross net change that he has raised , is aimed at dealing with the anomaly that some compensation claim ants in fact, because of various tax im plications or because of topping up of benefits, may receive a higher amount on compensation than they would without compensation in their previous employment. That indeed is an anomaly that does exist. I know it exists.

I have seen that in a number of cases, Mr. Speaker, and I recognize the intent of the government, presumably, was to eliminate that type of situation. Let us not forget what is happening. This government is not just going to reduce excess benefits. It is going to effectively reduce benefits for many, many injured workers. Virtually all single workers will receive Jess under the new form ula. All single workers, regard less of what claim level they are at, will receive less under this schedule.

The minister, I think, could do well to provide an analysis of that, because I know others have conducted such an analysis, particularly in the labour movement, and that ilr-1 know the mini ster will look at that analysis. He will see single workers will suffer. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but many married workers will suffer and, depending on the number of dependants they have, depending on the number of claimants, I can say the bottom line is that even at the fairly modest income level of $24,000 a year, under this schedule, the new form ula adopted by the mi nister, they also will have reduced benefits.

Let us put in perspective the amount of the reduced benefits. The amount of the reduced benefits in the case of some injured workers as compared to the previous form ula will be upwards of $3,000. That is a significant cost to those injured workers who have already gone through the physical and the mental and the psychological and the emotional and often the marital adj ustments that result from being on compensation. These are the same workers who have to deal with the delays, Mr.

Speaker, that were recently confirmed by a study conducted by the Manitoba Federation of Labour of claimants, and can be confirmed by anyone in this Chamber. I continuously receive concerns about workers compensation delays, people waiting weeks and months for cheques, people caught in a complicated system whereby they often are unable to receive benefits for a significant period of time. I have seen people driven onto welfare . I have seen people driven to bankruptcy because of those delays.

I said before , the other day, and I will say it again, that I recog niz e the efforts of Worker s Compensation Board staff in trying to deal with that situation. I will support and have supported any changes that will provide faster, quicker service to injured work ers. That is not in doubt. I am concerned that this government is now going to be reducing benefits to many people because of the shift in the calculation of earnings.

That comes as little consolation to individuals who mi ght find themselves eligible for greater benefits because the increase in the ceiling would then find the mi nister taking away as much as $3 ,000 from injured workers and their families. The minister knows that there are people who will be affected to that degree. When I am talking about people, I am talking about people on relatively mo dest incomes, $25,000, $30,000 and up, in the case of married individuals. In the case of single Individuals, virtually all single individuals will have reduced benefits as a result to the change in the form ula.

That is a bottom-line argument; it is a bottom-line decision . We will asking, and the mi nister will be providing for a complete accounting of the impact of this on the bottom line. I want to say again, Mr. Speaker, we are concerned about the bottom-line mental ity of this bill, and this is probably the most obvious case. There are other concerns as well that I wish to deal with, other concerns-a restrictive definition of occupational diseases put in the act. I do not wish to get into a lengthy discussion. It Is a fairl y complex area.

It has certainly been identified as a concern by those who deal with workers compensation. I would look to the minister for amendments in this area, because I do not feel that this restrictive definition is in keeping with the trend in terms of occupational health, whereby in fact occupational diseases have increasingly been recognized for their imp act on workers, for their negative imp act on the health of workers. We have a whole new body of information, Mr. Speaker, that is dealing with that. There is no reason in my min d for this more restrictive definiti on. In fact the definition may have to be more

4807 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 comprehensive to recognize all occupational diseases. There are restrictions in this bill on the definition of an accident. I think that again is not appropriate. I believe it will create difficulties in cases where people should be eligible for workers compensation. I note that because that is of significant concern to us. This bill, in numerous sections, moves us more and more towards experience rating, in fact, the mo st experience rated system of worke rs com pe nsa tion in the cou ntry .

When the government brought in that change, we opposed it in the New Democratic Party, because we feel the experience rating system puts a great deal of pressure on employers to red uce the number of accidents not through accident prevention but by encouraging em ployees not to report accidents. I have said to the mini ster, and I will say again, that happens on a regular basis.

I remember the former mini ster Harry Harapiak, fo rmer critic of Workers Compe nsation, told this House in the 19 50s about the time when he had a broken leg. lnco called him into work and encouraged him not to report it, because at that time they were concerned about their safety record. That has happened. I know it has happened in other cases. It happened to my brother a few years ago when he worked with lnco. The same thing happened . He was injured and the pressure was put on him not to report the injury, which is ironic because he was a medical student at the time. He later became a doctor.

He knew of the medical difficulties of being back at work at a supposed light-duty job and the risk of further injury, yet he was pressured to come in. When he did not, he was told later by a supervisor, we know your kind, you will not get a job here. Indeed, coincidentally next summer when he applied for a job, he did not get a job. Whether that was because of that directly or not, I leave that to your conclusion. That was only a few years ago here in Manitoba in my own constituency, a member of my own family, my brother. So the pressure is there. The pressure was there before experience rating.

It is going to be exacerbated significantly because of experience rating. I am concerned, in parti cular, about other changes that remove the pre-existing condition sections and also establish the concept of dom inant cause in this bill. Mr. Speaker, that is not consistent with the laws of this province. That is not consistent with hundreds of years of tort law, which this bill, this concept of workers compensation, replaced in most jurisdictions and in Manitoba in the early part of this century. I want to deal with that because that was the trade-off.

Workers would theoretically be able to receive benefits on a more guaranteed basis, on a more expedited basis, and in return gave up their right to sue in the courts, to take tort action, civil action. I believe in many ways this has become the em ployer protection fund. It has become an insurance fund as much for employers as it is for the benefit of employees.

I disagree with the mini ster when he stated the other night that many Workers Compe nsation claimants would not be able to receive benefits under the courts of law, because I point to the fact that many would be able to receive significantly higher benefits, especially given the trend in liability claims in the last 1 0 or 15 years as a result of changes in the court system . I want to say to the min ister what concerns me about what this government is doing on Workers Compensation now is that it is moving away from concepts that I feel were well established in tort law.

The thin skull doctr ine, whether being criminal or tort law, which stated, to put in a very blunt sort of example, when someone got into a fight with someone, even if that person would have died the next day from a pre-existing situation -(i nterjection)­ The mi nister says that is unclear. The court would not accept as an excuse if that person was assaulted the day bef ore, he migh t otherwise have died. The person would have died anyway. • (1 530) That may come as some surprise to the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard).

That may have come as some surprise, but I think in all fairness, the mi nister shou ld acknowledge the key importance of pre-existing conditions and the workplace influence. I have seen many claima nts, Worker s Compensation claim ants, who have fou ghtfor many years to establish their cases, who indeed had a pre-existing condition but where the workplace was a contributing factor to their being unable to work. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4808 What I am concerned about is this government has had a bias against those individuals since it came into office in 19 88 because of misconceptions by em ployers. To my mi nd, Madam Deputy Speaker, if someone is injured or suffering from a disease and the workplace has been a contributing fact or, this government should not through this bill be trying to limit their ability to achieve Workers Compensation because, Madam Deputy Speaker, I stress again that this is essentially a no-fault structure.

People do not have the ability to go to court, and it is unfair for this government to be dealing with that. I have raised the case of firefight ers, for example, and I will be raising it again in com mittee, the need to have the specific circums tance s faci ng firefighters recognized as it was in regulation for 20 years before it was struck down by Justice Lyon just a few years ago. The response to that has been similar to their response in this whole area for existing condi tions, et cetera, that, oh well, some of these people who had heart attacks or had other difficulties had other contributing factors.

Indeed, but the medical evidence shows increasingly that the hazards of being a firefighter have contributed significantly to people dying and that those other factors cannot be dealt with. A woman I have come to know quite well, I see her as I travel back and forth to Thompson, she works with Canadian Airline&-her husband passed away about a year and a half ago, 42 years old, in the prime of life, very fit, did not smoke, watched his diet, died a number of years ago. She believes that it is related to the fact that he was a firefighter and particularly to some specific fires he was involved in.

She has taken the time to look at the medical evidence on the risks to firefighters and indeed their fam ilies because their families are also at greater risk. I note with disappointment that not only does this bill not deal with that, Madam Deputy Speaker, it goes further and will move away from the progress, I belie ve, that took place in the 19 80s that established greater recognition In the case of heart conditions and other condit ions, the fact that there were contributing occupational factors that needed to be recognized. This government is moving backwards.

This is going to have im pact on a number of other areas. Ir onic ally, this opens up Workers Compensation for legal action in a fairly lim ited way and in essence does not give claimants much consolation for some of the shifts that are taking place. I want to note that as a concern. I want to deal also with other concerns, the various sections in the act involving wage loss benefits and impairment.

I want to indic ate that impairment awards, the PPDs as they are known with people who work with it, are going to be significantly reduced, the pensions, significantly decreased while the wage loss component provides less benefits and more interfe rence from the board. The structure that has been established is going to lead to a significant reduction In those pensions that will not be compensated by other changes. I point to that as a major concern of people who work with Workers Compensation claim ants.

There are many other concerns as well that I want to identify, the sections regarding fri volous appeals, requests for medical review panels. I am always concerned about very subjective decisio ns. It is like relevancy, Madam Deputy Speaker. What is relevant in debate in this House is rather in the eye or, should I say, ear of the listener, the same way that frivolous appeals are. What may be seen as frivolous by the board may be very im portant to the individual involved.

I have seen many people who have fought for years and have been essentially told by the Workers Com pensation Board that they had frivolous appeals and eventually were successful in their claims because of additional evidence, because of changes in recognition of the type of occupational hazards they were faced with. I am very concerned about the sections that deal with this, because I do not believe when we are dealing with what essentially is a quasi-judicial system that we should be imp eding people from their right to appeal.

I am concerned about the introduction of this concept of frivolous appeals, because "frivolous" in whose eyes? I want to deal with some other concerns that I know have been expressed by employee groups. In particular is the em ployers' access to medical informa tion, Madam Deputy Speaker. We had an extensive debate when we moved for access by claimants to their own medical information, which I feel is quite justified. I belie ve that

section introd uces a further degree for potential adv ersarial relationships between employers and employees in the Workers Compensation context.

4809 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 I feel that this system is essentially a no- fault system, that the only assessment that the Workers Compensation Board should essentially be doing is whether it is work related or not in terms of the injury or the occupational illness and the degree to which individuals should be compensated . I have great concerns when we further expand the role of em ployers in this area, because especially with the experience rating, individual employers now have a stake in ensuring that the claims are rejected.

I believe that they should not have the ability to frustrate the claim process to any greater degree than exists currently. I have concerns in another area, and I have expressed this previously and will ind icate again the concerns about the contracting out, the privatizing of the board's authority in a number of areas, particularly in terms of adjudi cation. I look to the min ister for an amendment in this regard , because I have concerns that we are going to be seeing emp loyer s dealin g with cases. I think it is incumbent on the min ister to limit that.

Employers should certainly not be dealing with cases that are contested, since they in many ways are party to that case. I think it is very important to deal with that, because it is a significant concern. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, those are some specific concerns. I want to deal more generally with the principles of this bill and what is in this bill in a general sense and what is not in this bill. As I said, what is in this bill is a vision of Workers Compen sation that is driven by the actuarial consider ations, the bottom line.

I find it interesting, ironic, that the min ister now gets up and talks about unfunded liabilities. I remember a few years ago when a previous mi ni ste r for Workers Compens ation was pillo ried-and I use that word-for not calling it a- An Honourable Member: Unfunded liability. Mr. Ashton: He called it unfunded liability at the time and the opposition objected strenuously to that and said it should be called a debt or a deficit. I notice now that the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation (Mr.

Praznik), whether it is in regard to pensions or Workers Compensation, describes it for what it is, an unfunded liability. Both he and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) have suddenly found that term is the accurate term . I am concerned about the approach they are fol lowing, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have seen since they came to office their No. 1 concern is the bottom line, and that they are willing to achieve their goals in two ways. One is to keep rates down for employers. The second is to reduce benefits paid in an overall sense to claimants.

That, by the way, is the policy that they followed between 19 77 and 19 81 . It is one of the reasons the previous admin istration, the New Democratic admini stration, had difficulties on the financial side. The claims were not increasing overall. It was because of the fact that rates had been frozen and also additional recognition was given to certain areas. Additional recognition was given, for example, to the need for rehabil itation services and also recognition of pre-existing conditions, et cetera.

We have seen it before and we are seeing it again, that this government is more concerned about the rates and the bottom line than other fact ors. I want to point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, that in the overall context of Canada, our rates are competitive, our Workers Compensation rates are competitive. I want to go further and say that our rates are quite reasonable if one considers the fact we are essentially dealing with liability insurance.

Given the explosion of rates in terms of liability insurance-and we saw that with MPIC and we have seen that with claims-and particularly given the fact that this is a nontort system , we do not have the kind of situa tion avai lable in Workers Compens ation that we have seen from certain individuals with Autopac, 10 claims, one indi vidual, in a 1 0-year period claiming total disability in eight and receiving out of court settlements in a number of them . * (1 540) You cannot do that on Workers Compensation. There are no out of court settlements, there are no court settleme nts.

There can be no out of court settlements that are brought in to deal with situations like that. I point to the comments made by the member for Elmw ood (Mr. Malowa y), who has suggested that we migh t wish cases of Autopac to be moving toward a more genuine no-f ault system. That is why I am saying, in the context of liability insur ance and liabili ty claims, Workers Compe nsation rates have been reasonable. The increases have been in line with that, after a period of artificial depression of rates when the last Conservative majority government was in place. It

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 481 0 was an increase, a controlled amount, indeed upwards of 20 percent in some years. That is what was happening in terms of insurance and in many ways it was a catch-up to what it would have taken previously. I recognize the concerns of em ployers im pacted by payroll deduction increases fe derally, im pacted by the GST and other taxes.

I am not saying those concerns should not be recognized but I would say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the primary goal in terms of Workers Compe nsation should be to ensure fair treatment for injured workers and their families, not an artificial level of ra tes. The rates should reflect the need to compensate people fairly, as indeed do insurance rates for the same types of liabilities. I want to say that there has been another approach of this government and that has been to reduce benefits.

The underlying principle of this bill is to reduce certain types of benefits, restrict certain types of claims to reduce the bottom line, to reduce the unfunded liability, if they like. It will be at the expense, in some cases, of injured workers currently and in many cases of future injured worke rs. Let no one be misled by the one or two principles in this bill that are positive. That is the icing on the cake, if you like, that is what the min ister would like this Legislature to see and see only, but this is an intricate bill. It is like a spider's we b-a very intricately woven structure.

What is going to happen is this spider's web is going to catch ma ny injured workers, often unsuspectingly, a lot of whom do not even know of the im plications of this bill. They will be caught in this web that is being created by the minister for actuarial reasons. I find it unfortunate. I want to stress this again, in terms of the process we are dealing with, tha t in some ways controversies over other bills have di stracted from the significance of this bill. Bill 70, for example, a very significant bill, affects working people, affects collective bargaining.

This bill will have an equal significance , in fact perhaps a greater significance in the long run, because it is going to have permanence. It is going to be statutory. It will be legislation in this province. I say on the process that, indeed, we look forward to presentations from commi ttee, and I say to the mi nister we look forward to some signi ficant amendments. I am willing to meet with the mi nister fo llowing presentations to work with the mini ster in areas where there is a possibili ty of getting significant amendments.

I want to say again in terms of our way of approaching such significant bills, Madam Deputy Speaker-a very complex bill- that what we need increasingly is to recognize the need not to be driven by artificial deadlines as we were with Bill 70, where the government decided that it was going to finish the hearings within a week and did so at the expense of our demo cratic traditi ons. The same applies in other complex bills such as Bill 59.

Bill 59 should appropriately be sent to comm ittee but should be sent to a committee that is not going to be constrained, directly or indirectly, by other factors including the session itself. This is the kind of bill that should appropriately be sent to an intersessional commi ttee that will allow for full and complete input from memb ers of the public and will allow for a great deal of discussion about potential amendments. I say that because that was the process that was followed to the Legislative Review Committee. It held significant hearings throughout this province.

This bill, I believe, reflects some ofthose findings, although ignores many others, and changes the implemen tation of a significant number of those recommendations.

If we had consultation before, and if the mi nister is claiming in any way, shape, or form that this bill is a response to the Legislative Review Comm ittee's recommen dations, the logical thing is to go back to the people again, as did the Legislative Review Commi ttee, by holding hearings not just in Winnipeg and other areas, by talking not just to organizations, but talking to injured workers themselves about their concerns, and talking in an open-minded way about potential changes to this act, dealing with om issions, amendm ents that could deal with omissions, dealing with significant problems in this bill.

That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say to the min ister that we are quite prepared to go to comm ittee on this, expressing our objections to the underlying bottom line with this bill, because we want to hear from the people. I say to the minister that the appropriate thing for this minister to do would be to indicate publicly that there is no dea dline for the passa ge of this bill, which indeed there is not, that he is willing to consider it

481 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 intersessionally and that he is willing to recognize, given its significance, its long-term impact on injured workers, that he is willing to deal with this either at an upcoming part of this session, because the session could adjo urn, or at a subsequent session. This bill is too significant to be dealt with by a fast-track process. It is too significant to be dealt with by one or two comm ittee hearings. This bill deserves full and complete public input and not in the way-not the travesty that we saw with Bill 70, not that type of public input.

We need the kind of public input we saw from the beginning with the Legislative Review Committee. We need to have comm ittee hearings throughout this province. Given that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to indicate our strong concerns and objections, after having read through this bill, to many of the provisions, and I want to put on record that we will not support the passage of this legislation on a fast-track basis. We will vote against it if necessary.

We may introduce a motion on third readi ng, I give the min ister notice, for a six-month hoist of the bill which will essentially allow the mi nister to table that for the remainder of this session and come back to it in six months. The only reason we are not moving that now is because we do want to hear from the public. We want the minister to hear not just from our caucus that there are se rious concerns about the implications of this bill, and I believe if we cannot convince the minis ter in this debate, certainly moving a motion at him will I am sure in this case not convince the mini ster.

Even a vote on this bill will not convince the mini ster. This governmen t has the majority; we recognize that.

They are going to have to be accountable in a general political sense, and I say we will be wat ching the degree to which they will be accountable in the upcoming days in terms of commi ttee hearings, but the mini ster should anticipa te that we will not allow this bill to pass through without his having to consider the advisability of dealing with such a complex matter. * (1 550) I believe this bill can be dealt with effective ly through the process I have indi cated , and I believe there are areas where we could have a co-operative approach.

Not entirely- we do not agree with the governmen t's bottom line mentality, but there are areas where I believe it is in the interests of injured workers and their em ployers to impr ove the functioning of the system, to take a system that does need updating and indeed take some of the recommendations, on many of which the Legislative Review Com mi ttee were unanimous.

In fact, one of the key individuals is now a member of the min ister's own staff in the Department of Labour, a for mer constituent of mine, Tom Farrell, who did a great deal of work, and he, as an employer rep, agreed with many of the recomme ndations. That is what I find disappointing about this bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, how selectively some have been adopte d, selectively other changes have been introduced, selectively changes that were recommended have been changed in terms of form and content, so we end up where this bill is barely recognizable from the context of the Legislative Review Committee.

That does not surprise me. It reflects the approach of the Conservative government that we saw before , that we saw in opposition when their only real concerns were about the bottom line. We are seeing again, now that they have a majority, in the same way. We have already seen the changes that were made in that regard . I note, and I have been critical of the previous minis ter-it has been no secret that we had many a de bate on workers compensation issues-but I look forward also for his input, because I believe there are sections that he indeed will identify as having fault, the memb er for Portage (Mr.

Connery), because I know he did take the time to familia rize himself with the act. While there are many areas we would disagree on, I believe even the member for Porta ge , a former mini ster, having had the opportunity to peruse some of the impl ications of this bill, will perhaps work with us to persuade the government to deal with this matter in a fairer way, because I am sure he recognizes, as a form er min ister, the impl ications of this bill. I want to say in concluding that this is a very significant bill.

It will not attract perhaps the six hundred or seven hundred presenters we saw on Bill 70, because it is not as immediate. The symbolism of Bill 70, the importance of the loss of collective bargaining, that explains the kind of public attention. This is far more complicated . From those who deal with workers compensation on a daily basis, they know, we know and the min ister should know,

July 17 , 19 91 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4812 this bill is going to have very serious potential im plications for working people in the future, and they are not of a positive nature. With those com men ts I want to ind icate our serious concerns about the direction this bill is follo wing. The only reason, Madam Deputy Speaker, we will not be voting against this bill at this stage is to allow it to go to committ ee, the only reason. I put on notice that in future proceedings on this com mittee, we may indeed be voting against this bill if the minis ter tries to push it through.

We may indeed be mo ving a six-month hoist. We will be fighting for a fair process that will hopefully result in a far fairer bill than this very seriously flawed , very complicated and, in my view, in many ways, a very unfair piece of legislation. Thank you. Committee Changes Madam Dep uty Speaker: The honourable memb er for Gimli with committ ee changes. Does the honourable member have leave to make committee changes? Some Honourable Members : Leave. Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave. Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I move, seconded by the membe r for Fort Garry (Mrs.

Vodr ey), that the change I made to the Municipal Affai rs committee, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for Thursday, be rescinded . I move, seconded by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-this is fo r Thursday at 10 a.m. sitting-be amended as follows : Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay). I move, seconded by the member for Fort Garry (Mrs.

Vodrey), that the composition of the Standin g Comm ittee on Indu strial Relations for Thursday a t 10 a.m sitting be ame nded as follows: Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Prazn ik) for Seine River (Mrs . Dacquay); Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummin gs) for Morris (Mr. Manness); and Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Connery) for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodr ey). Madam Deputy Spe aker: Agreed ? An Honourable Member: Agreed . Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have leave to make comm ittee changes? Leave. Mr. Kevi n Lamoureux (Inkster) : Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Crescentwood (Mr.

Carr), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Municipal Aff airs be amended as follows: St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) for River Heigh ts (Mrs. Carstairs) for Wednesday, July 17 at 7 p.m. I mo ve, sec onded by the me mber for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections be amended as fol lows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) for Thursday, July 18 at 10 a.m . I mo ve, sec onded by the memb er for Crescentwood (Mr. Carr), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendmen ts be amended as fol lows: The Maples (Mr.

Cheema) for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) for Wednesday , July 17a t7 p.m. Madam Deputy Speaker : Agreed? Agreed and so ordered . ** * Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam Deputy Speaker, it gives me pleasure to stand and speak on this quite momen tous, quite significant piece of legislation that comes before the House in the form of Bill 59. As the mini ster's press release indic ated , this has been a bill which has been some time in the preparation stages. It is the result of ongoing efforts of a committee as well as many, many others.

Let me say at the outset that I think all memb ers appreciate the work do ne by so many in the com munity, both from the labour side and from the management side, in attempting to do what they can to have the Workers Com pensation scheme better serve its objects. Let me be clear at the outset what my view of its objects are. We spoke in the Estimates process just a few days ago about the Workers Compensation Board scheme, and I put some comments on the record which I want to repeat briefl y, which are that the Workers Compensation scheme was born of a deal that was struck between workers and their employers.

The problem was the needs of workers and the needs of employers, and it is important to recognize that both were not happy with the system , wer e to be better acc ommo dated in an

481 3 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 17 , 19 91 admin istrative scheme rather than litigation through the courts. What was happening was that workers were increasingly frustrated with courts that analyzed to the nth degree their responsibility for their own injuries on the job and then apportioned things accordingly. It took time and money on their part to try and get some remedy in the courts. They obviously were most ofte n not in a position to push forward those cases. An emp loyer with much larger resources could stall or kill the action.

When they did get to the judge, more often than not they felt aggrieved in that they were found wanting in their own performance of their duties. So that was a problem, and it was a reasonable one. In modem society, we do not want to leave on the scrap heap of life those who, even through carelessness on the job, suffer injury. They still have families to support and bills to pay and it is a very, very rare injury indeed that is intentionally caused. That may be some justification for not compensating, if someone intentionally injures hims elf.

Most ofte n, it is perhaps partly the responsibility of the em ployer, not sufficient safety precautions, not sufficient training. Sometimes it is the em ployee not sufficiently monitoring their work or doing it properly but, whatever the cause, the result is the same; a worker is without income. Madam Deputy Speaker, the employer on its side wanted some stability of cost and also wanted , I think, a work force that was willing to see its em ployer as fair-minded and interested in the well-being of the workers.

It was generally good for labour relations and the employer received from the deal the guarantee that these matters would not be pursued in the courts. The thing about the courts is, the problem with the courts from an employer's point of view is, if you lose, you do not know how much you lose. There is no predictability. H some employee goes and you are found wanting, the court could award very large sums indeed, and that may throw a serious wrench into the financial stability of an empl oyer, in particular a small employer. What the employer got from the deal, the bargain, was stability of costs.

They pay a certain assessment each year to the Workers Compensation scheme and in retum for that they are covered as is the employee if and when an injury occurs. So that is the deal. * (1 600) It is from that premise that we have to start when we are discus sing Workers Com pensation. Workers Compe nsation is often cast, I find, erroneously by em ployers and employer groups as a gift to em ployees, a benevolent thing that employers do out of the good will of their hearts: They did not have to do it, but they are doing it. That is an erroneous view.

Emplo yers gain and continue to gain under the Workers Compensation scheme. It is to their benefit as it was then to have a Workers Compensation scheme in place that guarantees the expenses they will face to cover injured work ers. They do not have any risk remaining, especially since the Supreme Court decision just a few months ago guaranteeing there cannot be a claim launched in court against them as a result of an injury on the job. That does not mean they still may not face a charge under The Workplace Health and Safety Act if their procedures or equipment is criminally unsafe; that can still occur.

In terms of the injury to the worke r, they will not have to be paying mi llions of dollars to take care of long-term injuries. So it was win-win from both sides of the equation. It is im portant to start with that premise. Secondly, the Workers Compensation scheme has, it is imp ortantto know, been the subject of much derision across this country, in this province, from people in this House, from employers and, as we all know as memb er s serving thousa nds of constituents, the claimants. There has been massive unhappiness in Manitoba with the Workers Compensation scheme.

I must say at the outset that I have some hope for the board's operations going into future years because if I compare 19 88 to 19 91 , there are less complaints. I was convinced in 198 8 that in that year-and the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) says they are still made from his office. I agree, there are many which still come to my office. I am telling him, if he spoke to the form er member for Transcona, he would see that in 19 88 I do not think I had a constituent who had anything to do with Workers Compensation who had not come to me because they were absol utely frustrated with the process.

They were at their wit's end. They were out of money and had been cut off and were saying to me: Do I go on welfare ? My doctor says to me I am injured, I cannot go back to work. If I do go back to work, I will be more injured. That

July 17 , 19 91 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 4814 is what my doctor is saying; their doctor is saying I am fit to go back to work to my old job. What do I do? Do I go back and go against my doctor's advi ce, injure myself further, risk that? Or do I wait for this six-month appeal to go through its process and In the meantime maybe end up broke, depressed?-because wage earners, they lose their abili ty to earn income, anybody. It is a depressi ng thing, especially if one doctor is telling you you are fit. You wonder if there is something wrong with you. There was a psychological aspect.

It has had incred ible, stressful effects on families. They were legitima tely going on weHare. Now remember, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) says: They call their MLA. Well, let me tell you that is what they did in incredibly large numbers. In 19 88, 19 89, I must say I have only been in since '88, but those two years we had calls. The phone was ringing off the wall and there were enormous problems. I must say, even though it is certainly nowhere near where it should be, It is better now than it was then.

I have canvassed that with other-and I do not say there are not still grievous problems with Workers Compensation. There are. What I am saying is if I compare then to now, there are some im provements. If nothing else, I think it has become at least a bit more user friendly. Used to be at the Workers Compensation in 19 88-89 when you would call up-1 remember one call in particular. I called up one time in particular. I just called up on behalf of a constituent and said I want to speak about this. The person who I was supposed to speak to, the answer I got was, he is not taking calls today.

I said, well, okay, he is not taking calls now. I can understand that. When is he taking calls? I will call back or he can call me. I asked if he, in fact, was there. Yes, he was there. He was in an office , not taking calls. So that was the kind-and, of course, I had to keep going up the ladder, finally spoke to a board member who did get the worker to speak to me that day. We as MLAs go to that task with some confidence that we are able to put our cases forward and are sometimes able to pull rank and go above people's heads and do that. What a shame we have to do that.

What a shame the people in the first place have to come to us, that they were being bounced from department to departm ent, person to person, five , six times, never getting a straight answer, never getting any indication of when they might hear as to when their appeal was going to be heard and ofte ntimes feeling that they had been rudely treated and callously treated. So they tum to us for assistance as their MLAs; that is no good. They should not have to tum to us as MLAs. They should be dealt with in a fair and equitable manner.

I think there has been som e improvement, and I must say that in all candidness, I think there has been some imp rovement. I know, and I still hear these horror stories and there is a long way to go, but I do not think that the last years have not been without some Improvement. In any event, I have spoken to the mi nister about my view that there should be some bridging mechanism. I think if you appeal, there should be some way that you can stay on compensation. Appeals would have to be in a reasonable period of time obviously, and that would be an incentive for the board.

H you were to stay on your benefits until the appeal was heard, there would be a lot