Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 22A (32nd Legislature, 3rd Session)

32-3-22a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 22A - 2:00 p.m., TUESDAY, 15 MAY, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Quee ns Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTET� Hon. Andy ASHTON, Sieve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CARROLL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Q.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Russell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene KOVNATS,Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROED ER,Hon. �c SCOTT , Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW. Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. James Constituency Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Verendrye Minn edosa Rhin eland Gimli Brandon West Ellice Churchill St. Bon iface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concord la Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Charleswood St. James St. Johns Mo rris Roblin- Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP INO NDP NDP NDP NDP INO NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP PC PC NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP NDP NDP NDP NDP PC NDP NDP NDP PC NDP PC NDP NDP NDP NDP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, 15 May, 1984. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRA YER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon . J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . MINISTERI AL STATEMENTS AN D TABLING OF REPORTS MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Employment Services. HON. L. EVANS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement.

As another indication of this government's support of job creation for our young people, I am pleased to announce that the Provincial Government will be providing $659,900 for the Northern Youth Corps Program this year, an increase of $100,000 over 1983. The Department of Employment Services and Economic Security will provide $459,900 for this program and an additional $200,000 will be made available from the Manitoba Jobs Fund.

The Northern Youth Corps Program provides grants to Northern Manitoba communities, Indian Bands and non-profit organizations who can develop community improvement projects to employ students, unemployed youth and their supervisors for up to seven weeks this summer. The new funding level of $659,900 will provide an estimated 520 job opportunities for 440 young people and 80 supervisors on about 90 local projects. The program is similar to the Northern Youth Corps Programs of past years. In 1983, 72 local northern projects were approved, providing jobs for 381 young people and 50 supervisors.

The Northern Youth Corps Program affords a special opport unity, Mr. Speak er, for youth in Northern Manitoba to obtain summer jobs and gain work experience while involving themselves in important projects for the betterment of their communities. The young people will work on community projects such as special programs to assist the elderly or handicapped, community clean-ups and repair and maintenance of public facilities. The provincial grants will provide them with a wage of $4 per hour and $6 per hour for their supervisors. Employee benefits of up to 11.5 percent of the wage assistance will also be provided.

The Northern Youth Corps Program will come into effect on July 3, 1984 and will operate until August 17th of this year allowing for approximately seven weeks of employment opportunities for young people in the northern part of our province. Thank you. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for I'm sure the members of the opposition will be looking at it more closely in the days to come and will be asking several questions about it during Estimates, particularly on the Estimates of the Jobs Fund.

I am disappointed to see that the jobs the Minister lists are mainly short-term jobs which will not really, in the long term, help the severe unemployment problem in the North. As I recall, one of the thrusts of the Throne Speech and the Budget were that there was going to be emphasis on long -term jobs and so that is one disappointment. Another is that it won't come into effect till July when in the interim in these months and weeks ahead there are many many students and others who are desperately looking for work and this will not help them a great deal.

As I say we'll be looking at this during Estimates of the Careerstart Program and of the Jobs Fund and we'll be looking for more information on this in the days to come. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased to table the Annual Report of the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation for the year ending March 31, 1983. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills ...

Before Oral Questions, I can inform the House there has been a slight delay with Hansard. lt's a technical problem having to do with some of the equipment and is being repaired soon and the Hansard supply will happen as soon as possible. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: If I can direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, there are 35 students of Grade 5 standing from the St. Pierre Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Shewchuk. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Emerson.

There are 35 students of Grade 11 standing from the Princess Elizabeth School under the direction of Mr. Blackwill. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Minnedosa. There are 115 students of Grade 9 standing from the Stonewall Collegiate. These students are under the direction of Mr. Metcalfe and the school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Lakeside. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Gladstone. Dauphin water supply - Edwards Lake MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to thank the Minister for this statement this afternoon. 809 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 MR. G. FILMON: Th3nk you, Mr. Spea ker. My question is for the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. lt follows on an annoucement by the Federal Parks Canada that they will not be renewing the agreement for the use of Edwards Lake for the domestic water supply for the Town of Dauphin, a source of domestic water which the town has enjoyed for 73 years. I wonder if the Minister will be protesting this move to the Federal Minister responsible for Parks Canada. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, there have been some ongoing dis cussions related to the water supply for the Town of Dauphin and as those discussions materialize and develop and appropriate announcements can be made with regard to ensuring of proper supply for the Town of Dauphin, I will be advising the House. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker , in view of the fact that the town has enjoyed the opportunity to have its water supply from Edwards Lake since 191 1, and in view of the fact that there are no environmental considerations that would prohibit them from using it, that rather it appears as though it's merely a matter of conforming to new policy of the Federal Parks Canada, would the Minister not consider intervening on behalf of the town and approaching Parks Canada in an effo rt to try and have them change this policy that doesn 't seem to have any rationale behind it? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, perhaps I didn't make it fully clear in my first answer. The Minister of Natural Resources has been directly involved in the discussion regarding the reservoir at Edwards Lake and I have been kept informed of those discussions. The Minister has taken every action necessary to date to ensure that the water supply of the Town of Dauphin will be protected. Our government has made a commitment to the town and the Federal Government and the Federal Parks Branch is fully aware of our commitment to ensure that the Town of Dauphin has a safe water supply maintained. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that Dauphin Town Council appears to be very upset with this move, and in view of the fact that they are not confident of an alternate source of water supply , can the Minister indicate if the water supply that is in discussion is from Edwards Lake? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report all the details of the discussions between the Minister of Natural Resources and his federal counterparts, but I will certainly take that question and any further details the member requires, as notice, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resou rces. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speak er, in view of the fact that the Minister of Natural Resources, himself, has been pursuing policies of preserving lakes in their natural states in provincial parks, is the Minister indicating to us that he's not willing to intervene and that, in fact, the Provincial Government is going to abide by the federal decision? 810 HON. A. ANSTETT: I don't know what I have to say to the Honourable Leader of the Opposition to reiterate that the Mi nister of Natural Resources has already intervened. The supposition in his

preamble that the Minister of Natural Resources has taken an aggressive posture of environmental protection is subsumed in the

preamble to an earlier question, Mr. Speak er, in which the Honourable Leader of the Opposition said there were no environmental considerations. The Minister of Natural Resources is operating on that assumption; he agrees with the Leader of the Opposition that this is not an environmental question, but rather a question of guaranteeing an adequate, safe water supply for the Town of Dauphin, both from Edwards Lake and Ve rmillion Lake, and we're committed to seeing that happen and the Minister of Natural Resources is pursuing that agressively. Brandon General Hospital - waiting period MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speak er, a few days ago or last week sometime, the Member for Turtle Mountain asked me a question re the waiting list for the elective surgery in the Brandon Hospital. There is a real problem. The waiting time for elective surgery in the Brandon General Hospital is about four to six months,

whereas two or three years ago the waiting time was minimal. The staff at Brand on, as well as the staff at the Manitoba Health Services Commission are aware of that; they're trying to solve the problem. Presently , long- and short-term solutions are being consi dered and further to this, the Manitoba Health Services Commission has been considering a review of all urban operations and complexes. The terms of reference are not developed as yet, but such things as slating, staffing, categorizing of cases certainly will be consi dered and that commit tee should start functioning very soon.

Health Sciences Centre re personnel MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speak er, my question is to the Honourable Minis ter of Health. I would ask him whether the pending departure of Dr. John Tyson, head of Obstetrics and Gynecolo gy, both at the Health Sciences Centre and the University of Manitoba, Is linked in any way to the administrative difficulties that have been the su bject of considerable public examination and discussion at the Health Sciences Centre of recent months? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, this would be a guess on my part.

No doubt, when you lose a valuable member of the medical staff, you will always miss him, but I think the problem is probably larger than that MR. L. SHERMAN: Wel l, Mr. Speak er, just so that I under stand the Minister's answer, do I conclude from his answer that he thinks that he suggests or he believes that the adminis trative difficulties at the Health Sciences

Tuesday. 15 May, 1984 Centre are part of the reasons for Dr. Tyson's departure, but that there are other reasons over and above them? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I think the point that I was trying to make is, no matter what is going on when you lose a valuable member of the medical profession or your medical staff in any hospital, the hospital will suffer. But I think the problems that I believe the member is talking about, I think that is a wider range than the loss of Dr. Tyson. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, a few days ago in an exchange of questions and an swers between the Min ister and myself, we di scussed the question of whether his office or the Health Services Commission had been asked to evaluate and review and examine the position at the Health Sciences Centre with a view to helping the board and the administration get a handle on the problems there. Has there been any such approach from the Board of the Health Sciences Centre or any such ini tiatives suggested to the Mini ster by the Health Services Commission in recent days? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The evaluation, Mr.

Speaker, of the report was done by the members of the board themselves who recognized some of the problems that they've had where they could improve the situation. They presented those thoughts to me at a meeting that we had I think on the day that I was being questioned in the Hous e. Following that they held a meeting of the full board because this was the officers of the board. They had a full board meeting where they made their presentation and, from my understan ding, it was supported by the medical profession as such.

Also, they proposed certain changes and I think that they had a press release to that effect and both the commission and myself feel that they're on the right track. They're trying and we intend to co-operate with them, but at this time they're just keeping us informed. They feel that they could bring these necessary changes by themselves. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary.

Manitobans are aware of some difficulty in recent years at the Health Sciences Centre in maintaining a capability in cardiology and cardiac surgery, both adult and pediatric, and I would ask the Min ister whether he is aware of any other impending departures of expertise, professional expertise, heads of departments like Dr. Tyson or like any of those who experienced difficulties in cardiology in recent years? Does the Min ister know of any other impending departures of the stature of experts such as Dr. John Tyson at the Health Sciences Centre? HON. L. DESJARDINS: The departure of Dr.

Tyson has been known for quite awhile now by the members of the board and in fact certainly by myself and our department. I don't think there's anything sinis ter in him, having so many years, deciding that he wanted to move on. Now, no, I haven't heard of any. That doesn't mean that there would be anymore. That's something that I don't know. People are coming and going all the time. Now if we're looking for a reason why they're being chased out of here or whatever; or 811 if they don't like the condition, I haven't heard anymore on that. Adoption Moratorium MR. SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for St. Norbert.

MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Community Services. Fu rther to my recent ques tions to her regard ing a decision of the Interim Board in Winnipeg Children's Aid Society to block the adoption of a three and-a-ha lf year old girl who has lived with them since she was nine days old, Mr. Speaker, can the Mi nister confirm that at the time the decision was made by the Interim Board that of the five members Addie Penner was absent; Dr. Robert Adie, the chairman, did not vote; that Mr.

Frank Pearson abstained because of a lack of information; and only two people voted, Kathleen Mallet! and Jacqueline Lavallee? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite knows, that particular case is before the court, so I prefer to make rather brief comments on it. The board is wrestling with a very profound value conflict between people who perceive child welfare with one view and th ose who see it from another perspective.

My understanding is that the board has not yet ratified its decision, but that what they are facing is a case where the di fferent points of view that people on both sides are intending to go to court whichever way the decision goes. it is a case where the board must wrestle with the value issues, we as a department must and I guess we as a community must. The courts probably will be the place where the clarification and the final decision will be made and then of course there'll be the question of whether legislation is as good as it should be.

But that's the current status of the case as fully as I feel free really to comment on it. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, can the Mi nister confirm that she has received a copy of a letter dated May 10, 19 84 from Dr. Adie, the Chairman of the Interim Board to Mr.

Robert Daniels of the Anishinabe Child and Family Services Inc., in which the Chairman states in the third paragraph: "Because of the way the game was played that day, the Interim Board of CAS Winnipeg was given the information from one side in the Issue but was not allowed to receive information from the other side. it is difficult to believe that we, the Interim Board of Children's Aid Society, heard the Anishinabe side of the case, but we're not allowed to hear our own side. This, however, Is what happened ." -d id she receive that letter? HON. M. SMITH: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, I did receive that letter, but on receiving it I did reflect on how a board functions and how it has the authority to set its decision makin g process and det ermin e how it han dles information, decisions and that the board has the capacity to review its procedu res and to determine as a board how best to proceed. So I think the remedies to the prob lem lie within the boar d's capacity . Remember, they have not been wrestling with this

TuMdaY, 15 May, 1984 particular case for vary long, that they are wrestling with the complexities of the issue and I trust that they will come up with the best resolution they possibly can. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by Dr. Adie in the concluding paragraph of his letter in which he says: "To conclude, Robert, I do not believe in bulldozing these things. I try hard to keep myself from it and resent those who insist on it.

In this case, and still speaking only for myself, I feel bulldo zed by the decision and your plans for Jerrilin increased the fee ling"; - in view of the statements in this letter, a copy of which has been sent to the member, in view of the fact that only two people voted at this meet ing, in view of the fact that the Minister and this government have intervened in Children's Aid Society before by firing the whole board and replaciAg them with this Interim Board, would she not intervene in this case?

Surely decisions are required on the basis of the full information and the full information was not presented to the board. Will she not intervene in the best inte rests of this child? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker , it is my devout wish that Children's Aid Societies will, in a process of negotiation, work out the procedures and not leave individual children in a tug-of-war position.

Up until now, most of the issues that have come before the board which raised the very difficult problem of these youngsters who are caught between times, as it were, when decisions were made to place almost all Native children in white homes, working towards the time when we can incr easingly make culturally appropriate placements, there are many children who are caught in an interim situation. My responsibility for that board is to see that it knows what its authority and responsibility is, and that was my reply to Mr.

Adie, that I devoutly hoped that they could work out a way of negotiating with the other agency and that they could address the problem of how they made decisions within that board, how information was to be brought forward, when a vote was appropriate and when it was not, that they had the power internally to work that out, and that I urged them to address those procedural problems and come to the very best resolution they could.

There is the probability in this particular case that a court decision will be the result no matter which way the decision goes unless there is some negotiated position that I, for one, am not aware of. In previous cases, we have often found that after a little difficulty the agencies have sat down again and shared information a little more openly and have arrived at a reasonable solution. I devoutly hope that they will be able to do so in this case, but I think it's inevitable as we go through a transitional period that we are going to come across some cases which will be resolved by the court process.

Adoptions MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a que stion to the Minister of Community Services and ask her whether she can confirm that it takes the Children's Aid Society in some instances up to four and-a-half years to complete an adoption request where some private operators are meeting them within six weeks. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker , the member's question is, I think, refer ring to an item that was in some background material which I had undertaken to provide him with yesterd ay, and which I did provide him with; that is background on the current law and on the procedures in place and on the fact that the group that had placed that ad in the newspaper are being watched. To date, there is no proof that they have gone outside the law. In terms of the timing, regrettably, I think the history of permanency planning in the child welfare system has not been a completely satisfactory one.

There have been some cases in the past that have taken that long. We are working towards providing all the resources to the agency so that permanency planning can take place in a much shorter time frame, but that's the outside range that was identified in the ps.per. I presume that the promis e the refore of a very quick and speedy adoption process which really is not backed up by the legal steps that have to be gone through is alluring to people, but it is a dangerous path and a very unsure path for people to take. MR. R. DOE RN: Mr.

Speaker, can the Minister confirm that it is in fact illegal for a private citizen or intermedia ry to offer financial assistance to a pregnant woman and, if so, how does the Minister explain that this same advertisement, which was called a "Mother's Day Ad" in the Free Press on Saturday follows these lines, quote, "that the couple that you choose will become your extended family. They can help you with some of your stress emotionally and financially." Is it illegal to make a statement of that kind? 812 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The question asks for a legal opinion; it's also hypothetical.

Perhaps the honou rable member would wish to rephrase his question. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, holding aside the legal opinion, I want to ask the Minister whether there is now legislation which prohibits a private citizen from offering financial assistance to a pregnant person? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speak er, I did consult the Attorney-General 's Office for advice on the issue and they said there did not seem to be anything strictly iiiegal about the advertis em ent, although they were of the opinion it was in very poor taste, which I'm sure we can all agree with.

The actual detail of legality, however, may again have to be tested in the court because there is not in law at the present time a clear

interpretation of what constitutes payment or reward, and there hasn't been a charge laid under

Section 97 where witne sses have been prepared to come forward and testify; so that

Tuft dttY, 15 May, 1984 clarification, given our legal system, may in fact have to go the route of the courts. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speak er, following on that same question, is it possible for a person to make a profit or charge a fee or run a business based on this kind of an operation? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speak er, it is not legal to do so. Payroll tax MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I ask my question of the Acting Minister of Finance or the Deputy Premier and would ask if they could tell us how many Manitoba employers have, or are refusing, to pay the NDP 1.5 payroll tax? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Co-op Develop ment. HON. J. COWAN: Mr. Speak er, while I can't give you exact figures, I can certainly attempt to find out approximate figures and report back to the member who asked the question. MR. R.

BANMAN: I wonder if the Minister could also confirm that there is an advertising campaign now, ads appearing in the daily papers in Winnipeg, urging employers not to pay this anti-employment tax. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. I do not believe that advertising campaigns in the paper are within the admin istrative competence of this government. Perhaps the honourable member would wish to rephrase his question. MR. R. BANMAN: Along the same line then, rephrasing my question, Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the Acting Minister of Finance could inform the House whether or not the individual who is campaigning through ads, and through the media general ly, against this particular tax and is spending his own money financing the opposition to this tax, I wonder if he could confirm that that person was an NDP supporter and now, because of this, what he calls a stupid tax which defies logic, that he is now leaving the New Democratic Party. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The action of a private citizen is not within the administrative competence of this government. Education funding MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to add ress my question to the Minister of Education. Firstly, I'd like to thank her for the statement of government support to public and private schools that she forwarded to me this morning. 813 Mr. Speak er, this statement has a breakdown of all the grants made to various groups within the school system and there is a figure of $4, 1 89,296 that has been provided to the private and independent schools, a number which I dare say the Minister was most fearful of announcing publicly within this Chamber.

I would ask the Minister if she could indicate what the grant is per pupil and what percentage increase that represents over last year? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr. Speaker , the increase that will be given to private schools this year is going to be - they're going to receive the same dollar in crease as are the students in the public school system. In other words, the increased funding, the funding will increase by the same dollar amount as for public schools and that is $80 per student. That is an increase of approximately 16 percent, a little over 16 percent.

They will also, as the Education Support Program requires, receive the increase in print and non print that goes to the public school system. That's increasing from $30 per student to $40 per student, so the regular grant has gone from $480, in total, with the combination of the two of them up to $600.00. MR. C. MANNESS: I thank the Minister for that answer, Mr. Speaker , and I would ask her to tell us if she can, how this compares to the support offered on a per student basis to the public school system? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speak er, I'm wondering how much detail the Member for Morris wants to go into, when we're going to be discussing this in detail, I'm sure, when we go into Estimates in about an hour. The average - it doesn't match the amount of money that is given to the public school system, as the members opposite know, because they froze the grant at the $435 level for their entire four years of office. Mr. Speak er, the only two changes in this grant have come about through our increase last year where we increased it from $435 to $480 and the increase that I have just announced this year from $480 up to $600.00.

The average cost per student in the province will be in the range of $3,000.00. MR. C. MANNESS: To reiterate what the Minister said, it seems like there's $600 being given to the private and $3,000 to the public. Mr.

Speak er, given the fact that the private school system see ms to now have funding in an area of roughly 21 percent of the public school system, and given that the government is not willing to fund private schools on the basis of a percentage of the block grants paid to pub lic schools di stricts and businesses - as re commended, I might say, within the Nicholls Report - can the Minister now confirm that this government wants to see the demise of the independent schools and force all students into the public school system? HON. M. HEMPHILL: Mr.

Speak er, that comment is absolutely ridiculous and beyond . . . lt isn't even worth the breath to make the comment, Mr. Speaker , but I can only say that the concern of the members opposite

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 is too little and too late because they did absolutely nothing for four years. Where was their concern for the private schools when they developed the Educational Support Program and didn't given one additional cent for three years? Where was their concern for the four years of their government when that grant was frozen at $435.00? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. order please. Order please.

I note that Beauchesne says that a question should not be ironical, rhetorical. offensive, or contain epithet, innuendo, satire and ridicule, and that answers should be answers to questions and not speeches. Alcohol Foundation - library MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speak er, I would like to ask the Minister of Health a question. Mr. Speaker, does the Minister agree with the notice that was sent out by the Alcoho l Founda tion of Manitoba, which he in charge of - Mr.

Speaker, does the Mi nister agree with the policy of the Alcohol Foundation that says it is with regret that we must inform the book lenders of the film library of the Alcohol Foundation of Manitoba that this library will be closed to the public? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The agreement or otherwise of a Minister is his opinion and so is not a proper question. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , then, will the Minister please confirm that the Alcohol Founda tion has informed library borrowers that the Alcohol Foundation Libra ry of Manitoba will be closed to the public? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: I have no problem with the first question, but this is kind of a ridiculous question. I can't confirm; he's got the letter there. There is no point confirming it. I have never seen this letter before. A MEMBER: You're the Minister. HON . .L. DESJARDINS: Well, I can't confirm it. I haven't got the letter; he's got it. Why should I confirm it? The Estimates are coming; we'll discuss it. I don't mind the first question. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speaker , the Minister who is in charge of the Alcohol Foundation of Manitoba, has he received a letter from the Alcohol Foundation, or a copy of a letter that the Alcohol Foundation sent out, inf orming all library borr owers that the Alcohol 814 Foundation library will be closed to the public, the library will be closed to the public effective the 29th, 19 84. Has the Minister received this information from the department he is in charge of? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly my point. I haven't received that, and that policy is not - (Interjection) - Are you going to make a speech, or ... MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Well, shut up then if you are not going to make a speech. Mr. Speaker , the final policy hasn't been determined by Cabinet at this time, so this is premature. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , I have now sent the Minister a copy of the letter. The letter says that the decision to withdraw our lending services to the public is a result of bu dget cutbacks. The Mini ster is responsible for the funding to the Alcohol Foundation. What are the budget cutbacks that are closing the Alcohol Foundation library? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: The Mimster, collectively , is also respon sible for the deficit that we have that these people are squawking about so much. Mr. Speaker , my Estima tes, I think, are on ice and I will be very pleased to discuss that with my honourable friend. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker , in view of the fact that medical students, nurses, the Medical Association, doctors and all people that have any effect from the effects of alcohol that may want to . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Question. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr.

Speak er, the honourable membe rs seem to think one of the most serious problems within our community today is fun. Mr. Speaker , I will say - I am just asking - thos e who are touched by the effects of alcohol, who use this library - Mr. Speaker , I fail to see what's funny about those people who have been touched by the effects of alcohol. All of those people who use this library for their use to study the subject, are they going to be closed from this library so that they will have no knowledge of the subject that this library has? HON. L.

DESJARDINS: I could promise that it'll be open to the members of the Conservative caucus if that's a big concern. Seriousl y, Mr. Speaker , the situation is I would want to say to my honourable friend that the policy has not been determined. This is premature. Now the decision that was made on the library, as in the case of my honourable friend, the Minister of Culture, it is that the library, what we are trying to do away with, because of the deficit that we have been talking about is - (I nterjection) - I don't give a damn what they said. I am telling you what the policy is. How many times do you want to know?

This is premature.

Tuesday , 15 May, 1984 Mr. Speaker, this, first, doesn't set the policy for the department and I will inform, I am saying that this is premature; I have said that for the third time. I am explaining the policy that this government has talked about so far as dupl ication, as my honourable friend, the Minis ter of Culture, has stated, that if there is some area or some material that is not available except in that place that it will be opened and I would imagine that'll be our policy also. My Estimates will be starting fairly soon and that is the place to discuss these policies. Remembrance Day to Peace Day MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Acting Premier. Can I ask the Acting Premier if the government has legislation that's intended to come before this caucus to change The Remembrance Day Act so that Remembrance Day will be changed to Peace Day? Is that propo sed for this Session? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, no. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, would the Acting Premier be kind enough to contact Mr.

Walmsley, the president of the Royal Canadian Legion, Manitoba and Northwestern Ontario branch, and express to him and the executive of the Royal Canadian Legion that this government has no intention of bringing forth such legislation? HON. M. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, a letter from the same gentleman arrived on my desk yesterd ay, and I instructed the office to prepare a letter giving the same answer I have just given in the House. Aboriginal self-government MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Premier as well.

During the last elec tion, the Ma nitoba Metis Federation supported the NDP openly. Since that time, the NDP Government has expressed support for the concept of Native self-government and also has voiced some expression of justification behind the Metis land claims in this province. My question to the Acting First Min ister is: What is the government doing to fulfill those expectations which they have raised among the Metis community? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the participation in the constitutional talks with a view to achieving a definition 815 of how to in crease self-gov ernment for aboriginal peoples is something we are taking

part in, but I would like to call on my colleague, the Mi nister of Northern Affairs, to comment further. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mi nister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose that if the member wants the long answer, we could start by suggesting that the past two years of work with respect to the constitutional process have been largely directed at answering questions about aboriginal self-gover nment. As the member opposite probably knows, those questions remain, to a great extent, unanswered. I think that there are two separate issues involved in that process.

One is the question of who aboriginal peoples are, and I suppose that in the context of the First Mi nisters' Conf erence that just ended in March, the Metis people in particular came away somewhat frustrated in the sense that their particular issues were not dealt with, were not add ressed by the conference to any extent at all.

So the government has been working on that front, I think, in a very supportive way, trying to come to grips with the question of the issue of aboriginal rights, what those rights are, how those rights are going to be defined and in a similar vein dealing with the question of self-government and how it might be dealt with in the different contexts with respect to Indian people, lnuit people and Metis people. The other question about what the province is doing in terms of my department, we are doing a couple of things.

One is that we are dealing with the question of resource area and resource lands for Northern Affairs communities. The department has approached it and I have expressed this to both the MMF and to other Native groups that we deal with it as a question of what local initiatives can be taken to increase input by the average citizen of Northern Affairs communities.

So, we have tended to focus the question on community control rather than one of aboriginal control and that's largely because Northern Affairs communities are made up of a variety of people, whether they be Indian, Metis, non-status, whatever, as well as other . . . MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The matter could be dis cussed by the members under some other context. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY ADJOURNED DEBATE ON RULES OF THE HOUSE - BELL RINGING MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, would you call the referral of the report of the Standing Committee on the Rules of the House. MR. SPEAKER: On the motion of the Ho nourable Government House Leader, the Ho nourable Member for Virden.

TUeaday, 15 May, 1984 MR. H. GRAHAM: Tl1ank you very much, Mr. Speak er. Ye sterday we heard the concluding remarks of the Honourable Member for Pembina and I thought that the contribution he made to this debate was one that was certainly worthy of consideration by all members of this Assembly. He pointed out five different areas that were essential and had to be addressed if there was to be any sensible, reaso nable approach taken to adopting a set of rules for this Assemb ly. What I want to add to this debate, Mr.

Speak er, I think stems from the fi rst meeting of the Rul es Committee that was held on the 12th of March of this present year, and I have to apologize to members of the Assembly that, even though I was a member of that committee, at that time I was not available and wasn't able to take

part in that meeting. However, I made sure that I read carefully the remarks of the various members that took

part in that and I saw where in my opinion the government got off to a wrong start on the whole issue of change of rules. I refer, Mr. Speaker , to Page 5 of the Hansard of that day, when the Honourable Attorney-General was concluding his remarks and I believe they were the second remarks he made. He said I think something that was quite proper and quite true.

He says, "If we don't agree that there's a problem, then we may not agree on a solution." I think he has quite properly put his finger on the whole issue of whether or not there is a problem and, of course, where ever ybody's talking about the issue of the ringing of the bells. However, that same member , when speak ing, urged "that we not discuss and debate whether or not this was or wasn't a precedent, not to debate when my signatur e as Government Hous e Leader and that of Mr.

Ransom, let it be noted that as Opposition House Leader it was affixed to that document, that it created or recognized some precedent or rule. I don't want to get into that debate." I don't blame him for not wanting to get into that debate, Mr. Speaker, because that is the whole crux of the problem, or the perceived problem that this government is trying to resurrect at this time. I suggest, Sir, that there is no problem, there never was a problem and if the Honourable House Leader wishes to try and create a problem then he will have a problem in this House. I think you have to go back, Mr.

Speak er, and review the activities of last summer and look at the whole picture of what transpired. We had a very early start to a legisl ative Session last year, Mr. Speaker, and there was a fairly heavy workload. In fact, we were into the month of June before any issue dealing with constitutional amendment was even raised and we went into July and into Augus t still dealing with a constitutional proposal which the government originally said they would not hold any public hearings on. They changed their minds several times on that. but in the meantime, Mr.

Speaker , there was other business of the House that was still being arried on or was still on the Order Paper to be dealt with. Basically, Mr. Speaker, I believe there was a log jam. There were some 100 bills on the Order Paper. There were several bills that seemed to be of a contentious nature and there was very little which was receiving Third Reading. So the two House Leaders. jointly, in trying to move the legislation through, adopted an agreement.

I say that they were both acting as very responsible members of the Legislature and they were acting - I can't say 816 this for the Honourable Government House Leader , but I suspect he was acting on behalf of the government and with the consent of government and probably with the consent of caucus as well. I think he was given that type of authority, Mr. Speak er, to go out and to negotiate, to see if there was some way that they could move the legislation forward and bring legislation to a fruitful conclusion.

I can say from this side of the House that all members on this side of the House expressed their confidence in our House Leader , the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, and he negotiated together with Mr. Penner an agreement. As a result of that agreement, Mr. Speak er, in a matter of literally hours, we were able to push roughly 100 pieces of legislation through this Assembly and complete the major work of the past Session. lt was not all completed.

In fact, there was one piece of legislation, which by agreement, they had set aside to carry on, but all the rest of it would be moved through the Assembly in an orderly fashion and the House would be left to deal with one piece of legislation only. I see that, Mr. Speaker , as the result of conscientious work done by two conscientious, dedicated House Leaders.

They were ab!e in their negotiations to arrive at a means by which the business of the House proceeded in an orderly fashion and for that I think this whole House should commend both of them because the y were acting in a respo nsible parliamentary fashion in the true tradition, the finest traditions of the Parliamentary system, Mr. Speak er. That became one of the cornerstones, that agreement, Sir, was the cornerstone for the ability for the House to proceed with third read ings and move the rest of the busine ss off the Order Paper.

That, Sir, was in my estimation one of the forms for proceed ing with the business of the Legislature. Mr. Speaker , it wasn't in our rule book because it never passed Rules Committee but it was a form of proceeding that was agreed to by all Members of the Assembly especially at a time when the business of the House seemed to be stagnated. Now we are talking, Mr. Speak er, about the Rules of the House, the forms of proceedings, the orders and all the various other aspects of trying to set up rules that will allow for the orderly debate and for the reasonable progression of business through this Assembly.

I hold that agreement that was signed by the two Government House Leaders up as a model to show what can be done in a spirit of co-operation, in order to move the busine ss of the House through to its natural completion. I don't know why the Attorney-General in his remarks on the 22nd of May didn't want to refer to that because, if I were him, I would take a great deal of pride as a House Leader in being able to move the business through in an orderly manner. But in that agreement that was signed, Mr.

Speaker, there was two or three clauses where there always has to be some dialogue and some exchanges, but there was one clause in there that was agreed to by both House Leaders and that was the bells shall not ring for longer than two weeks at any one time. I have been told by the Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain, who was our House Leader at that time, that that was not one of the conditions that he asked for. I've been told that that was one that was offered by the government at that time and one

TUesday., 15 May, 1984 that was accepted by the members on this side of the House. So we see that an agreement that had been signed, that had the approval of all Members of Assembly - at least at that time we heard no dissenting voice - all agreed that the bells should not ring for longer than two weeks at any one time. I mention that at this time, Mr. Speaker, because I think it's fundamentally important and it is the basis, it is the very basis for any argument when it comes to changing of the rules, especially when you get a specious argument as put forward by the present Government House Leader.

The Honourable Attorne y General was very prophetic when he said, if we don't agree that there's a problem, then we may not agree on a solution. Well, that may be another problem, Mr. Speaker. That may, in fact, be one of the major reasons that we see today because when the House then recessed to hold public meetings and there were meetin gs held throughout the Province of Manitoba - in fact, I attended every single one of them, Mr. Speaker, that carried on for a process of six weeks - then we sat down and we analyzed all the information we received.

We came back into the Assembly in the early days of December and then we recessed again for Christmas and came back in January. There had been some changes made in the roles that various members in this Assem bly had played. We on this side of the House in that period of time had had a leadership convention, one that had been in the works for a long period of time.

We came back with a new Leader, we came back with a new House Leader and the government in its colle ctive wisdom felt that there should be more members in the Cabinet and the Member for Springfield, who had in the eyes of many, been recognized as a rules expert, had served as an office boy in this Assembly for several years, became the lead ing expert on rules in this Assembly. He became the Government House Leader.

There's no question that the Honourable Member for Springfield may know more about rules, but when it comes to a question of applying them and the common sense that is used in the application of them, then we find that maybe his judgment is not that good after all, Mr. Speaker. That could be one of the problems because he apparently seemed to ign ore the agreement that had been reached by the Honourable Attorney-General. He seemed to ignore it completely.

We came back and we were into a protracted debate on a Constitutional matter, a matter which vitally affected every Manitoban, a matter that was probably the single most important piece of legislation that I have seen in this Assem bly in the 15 years that I have been here. That includes the Autopac debate, the changes to The City of Winnipeg Act and others that I could mention. That affected in such a way, Mr.

Speaker, the lives of people, and there was a proposal being put forward that would be entrenched in the Constitution in such a manner that I think succeeding governments would have very great dif ficulty in ever changing. So the importance of having a debate at that time was extremely important. However, the government in its collective wisdom felt that that debate should be of a limited definite nature and they in their collective wisdom, tried to impose closure, and in fact, succeeded in imposing closure. Not only that, but they immediately 817 moved that the question be now put on the question of clos ure.

So we had, in effect, Mr. Speaker, closure on a closure motion. lt seemed that power and the use of power by this new Government House Leader, was the single most important thing, the consequenc es of the changes to the Constitution didn't seem to bother him at all. He didn't seem to care about that. His No. 1 one concern was to get his own way. That was his No. 1 concern and if he had to use the rules of the House to do it he would do it, and he of course sold himself to his leader on his ability and his kn owledge of the rules.

I would think that the Honourable First Min ister , looking back in restrospect, would say, well, knowledge of rules we can always hire or purchase but the wisdom to use them is a second thing; so we see that there has not been a judicious use of the rules as it transpired in January and February of this year. The result, Mr. Speaker, was that the government never at any time allowed the bells to ring for the two weeks that was written into the agreement. In fact, after seven da ys they thr ew up their hands and anno unced that they could no longer govern or they were being obstructed by the opposition.

Nothing, Sir, could be further from the truth. The opposition was only using the rules of this Assembly, the forms of proceeding that were agreed to by this government some few, short months earlier; so if there was any breaking of the rules, it was done by the government, not by the opposition. We come back again to that statement of the Honourable Attorney-General when he said, "if we don't agree that there's a problem, then we may not agree on a solution ." Mr.

Speaker, this constant refusal of the government to recognize the facts in the case is to me, to their detriment, because to be honest in this Assembly, I think, is one of the foremost attributes of any politician, and for them to refuse to be honest, to say that the legislation was frustrated for the wrong reasons, I suggest, Sir, is not being intellectually honest with the people. As a result of that, we find that a meeting was held to change the rules. This is by our rules expert.

We will change the rules because we will get our own way, regard less, so we're having a report from a Rules Committee, even though there is no consensus and we're going to move In this Session to change the rules. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that is the wrong way to proceed. I urge the members to take some time in sombre reflection on what they are doing. I refer the honourable members to the House of Commons where they, some two or three years ago, evidenced the ringing of the bells in that House.

Again, in that particular case, I believe the public of Canada agreed that the opposition was correct in using every means available to try and persuade the government to break down a piece of legislation, that, in the form they presented, was totally unacceptable. As a result, the government did change their mind and the bells rang for several days; and the House of Commons has not seen fit to move yet to put any limit on the ringing of the bells.

They have been told, urged by the Speaker, who has, in the opinion of some, been placed in an untenable position, but the whole thing is not being rushed into. lt will be dealt with after you've

Tu..U y, 15 May, 1984 had some time to sit down and think about it and to assess what is transpiring in the House at the present time. We have seen no evidence in the last two years of a repetition of the bell ringing in Ottawa. We've seen no evidence of that, Sir, and maybe that might well be because the government has seen fit to bring in proper legislation, has not tried to ram through somet hing that was unpopular or controversial, so we see that it is unne cessary to change the rules.

At least, up to this point in time, they have not changed the rules and they were into this thing two years before we were, Mr. Speak er, but this present Government House Leader is insisting that we change the rules now, that we rush right out and change the rules. I suggest - in fact, he already knows, Mr. Speak er, that if we did that, if we followed his advice and did exactly what he wanted us to do, that the Attorney General would now be working for a salary of $1 .00. That point was very well raised by my colleague, the Member for Pembina, so I won't deal with it to any further degree. HON. A.

ANSTETT: That's not true, Harry, that's not true. MR. H. GRAHAM: The honourable member says it's not true, but the honourable member .. . HON. A. ANSTETT: The Wh ips consult with the Speak er. That's what's in the proposal. You know that. MR. H. GRAHAM: That's right. The Speaker had no authority in this particular case. HON. A. ANSTETT: Of course he does. Read your rule book, Harry. MR. H. GRAHAM: We were in committee. HON. A. ANSTETT: Right. Who's got authority in committee? MR. H. GRAHAM: And if the Speaker is not here?

What do you do when the Speaker is not in the Chair and he's not in the building and you've got 15 minutes? What are you going to do? What are you going to do if the Speaker could not be found. The Speaker doesn't have to be in the Chair. You're in Comm ittee of Supply. The honourable member just shakes his head and smiles. Mr. Speak er, I just point out that some of the problems that could occur he has not thought about yet. We have seen one that arose. There may be others, and the only reason I raise the issue is to point out to the Government House Leader the need for sombre, second thought and refl ection.

There is another thing, Mr. Speak er, that in this Assembly when we have changed rules in the past, we have quite often, in fact, in most cases I believe, brought in proposals for rule changes and they were purely proposals but, by mutual consent, we tried them out and there was always a trial period.

When we did that, then probably at a later date, they did become the rule s of the Assem bly. 818 I have seen no evidence - in fact, there is nothing - in any of these Hansards that we have had on the Rules Committee, that this memb er, this Government House Leader has given any indication whatsoever that this would be a trial period. He has said nothing about it being a trial period. He has given no indication whatsoever; he has said, we will try - yes, we will try consensus - but on our terms. Now that is consensus, Mr. Speaker, a one-way street. Mr.

Speaker, the member may know something about the rules, but he knows very little about dealing with people. He knows very little about how to protect his own respe ctability because, Mr. Speake r, the way the present Government House Leader is going he will not be gaining the respect of this Assemb ly. I doubt if he will be gaining the respect of the people of Manitoba, and Springfield constituency can make up their own mind when the next election is here. Mr.

Speaker, I cannot at this point in time agree that this report, ill-conceived as it may be, should ever go to the Committee of the Whole for dis cussion by the House and, if found favourable by the weight of govern ment authority, pass and become the rules of this House. I plead with the Honourable Government House Leader to withdraw it, take it back to committee and see if there is some other thing that he can do that might make it more palatable. At the present time, Mr.

Speaker , it is not acceptable to me and I would urge all Members of this Assembly to do a little reflection on this and think carefully about what you're doing because what you're doing is going to have significant impact on those few members on that side who will come back after the next election. So, Mr. Speak er, I close by saying that I cannot support the movement of this report to the Committee of the Whole at this time. I think the report should go back to committee, have them take another look at it, see if there are some weaknesses, if there are some places that it can be changed. You note, Mr.

Speaker , I have not made any mention of constitutional points which other members have raised . I have tried to stay away from the points that other members have raised in this debate because I think that their contributions should be considered very carefully as welL So, Mr. Speak er, I thank the House of the indulgence of their time, and I hope that members will take seriously the few remarks that I've been able to make at this time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnks ter. MR. D. SCOTT: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I'm a relatively new member of this House, being able to participate in a Legislature or Parliament of this country, and I have had since I was a wee child a tremendous amount of respect for our parliamentary system. I was brought up with a great amount of respect for the system. it was encouraged in my home - perhaps it wasn 't in the Member for Sturgeon Creek's home, · I don't know. In my home it was encouraged. My parents took me through the Parliament Buildings of Ottawa when I was about nine or 10 years old so that I could see Parliament in practice, so I could see what

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 Parliament meant to the people of this country so that I could understand a little bit and gain some respect for the institution of Parliament. Soon thereafter, when I was about 14 years of age, I was very keen to follow in my brother's footsteps of participating in Older Boys' Parliaments at that time, and I was very proud to have participated in pushing change of policies so they became a Youth Parliament with boys and girls participating in the democratic process to learn more about what democracy means.

There was no flagrant di srespect for the rules of that Chamber, of those Youth Parliaments, and I was to about seven of them I believe in the various years that I participated in it. I rose to virtually all the dif ferent levels in it to the highest level, which was the Speaker, and in that it incu lcated in me even more a respect for the parliamentary process. lt is odd that we had the Manitoba Day. Just last Saturday was Manitoba Day. Manitoba is 11 4 years old, 1870- 19 84, 11 4 years. When Sir John A.

Macdonald and the Parliament of Canada established this province, did they establish this province for it to be hamstrung in its operations by an opposit ion, by an opposition who di sagreed with something? For them to be able to destroy the parliamentary system that democracy belies on and what democracy has been built on throughout the world around the examples . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. D.

SCOTT: . . . of what democracy means, and here we have interjections from our Opposition House Leader who is supposed to have some respect for it and he's one of the loude st members in this House. He seldom shows his respect for the House. Mr. Speaker, the opposition has continually referred in their comments thus far that we will be changing a rule, that we will be somehow hamstringing the ability of the opposition to present our arguments to this House. Mr. Speaker, that is absolute nonsense.

What we have, as proposed by members opposition, by following precedence that they have established in this House - this House has a precedent now - we have a rule that says when the bells ring it's to call members in. The y, through their misconduct , through their di srespect for our parliamentary system, have taken the bells as a signal to get up and to leave, to run away from. - (Interjection) - The Member for Lakeside says it's their belief in democracy.

Well, the belief in democracy - the people elected you to come to this Chamber, to debate in this Chamber, to present your opinions in this Chamber and to vote in this Chamber, not to run outside in the hallways, not to run away from your responsi bilities as elected members of this Legislature. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside will have the same opportunity to participate in the deba te as any other member. MR. H. ENNS: Alas, I already have, Mr. Speaker. 819 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnks ter. MR. D.

SCOTT: Alas, I shall refer to some of your comments. Mr. Speaker, you have requested some direction from this House so that you, in exercise of your duties as Speaker of this Assemb ly, can better interpret what the needs of the Assembly are through a precedent established by the rules of this House, so that it is not resting upon your shoulders and your shoulders alone as to whether or not there shall be a vote.

We have had after the fiasco here earlier this year, and it can be considered nothing other than a fiasco, following some 11 times this past Session, this previous Session, when the opposition rang the bells for over six hours, 11 times, irresponsibly ringing the bells and running. Several of those times they rang them until the hour of adjournment, most of them actually ran to the hour of adjournment. lt was up to the government to bring back the proposals the following day.

They have tried and they have attempted to say that they rang the bells to protect the people of Manitoba when actually what we were trying to do was protect individual's rights in this province to communicate with the Province of Manitoba in the language of their choice. That is now before the courts. But the sad

part is that they rang the bells over trying to limit the bell ringing to two hours in this Chamber. That's what most of the bell ringing was about last Session, not what they try to refer to it as, not what they cal led them. - (Interjection) - Yes, they called them the "bells of freed om." Once again I say and reiterate to the members opposite that their

interpretation of the bells of freed om and the freedom bells is the same thing as Orwell's Big Brother, in Orwell's 1984 book, when he refers to ignorance of strength. That goes along with ringing those bells - ignorance of strength, freedom of slave ry, that's what they want. Freedom is the opposition to hold up, to destroy the parliamentary process, that's what they are saying that's what freedom is. That's what they are saying freedom is. If anything, they should know from the experience that this world has gone through in this century.

In this century when we have had Parliaments, democratically elected Parliaments, overthrown by tactics such as those suggested by the members opposite to destroy the parlia mentary process to, in effect, cause a great amount of di srespect for Parliament in the process because when you destroy the public impression of the value of Parliament, you destroy democracy. You should have learned that from the German experience; you should have learned that from the Italian experience in the 19 30s; you should have learned that from the Spanish example. You should know that from the example in Chile just in 19 73.

You should know that in all di ctatorsh ip s where th ey have overt hrown democratically elected governments by building up a disrespect and a lack of confidence in the parliamentary process. I hope that is not your goals. I hope to heavens that is not your goals. Mr. Speaker, last year we had the opposition saying, and I understand this is when the previous House Leader was in, he made the reference that they would never would be so irresponsible as to ring bells unli mitedly,

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 that they would never be so irresponsible as to ring bells for anything approach ing two weeks, that there was no need for any kind of a limit on bells because the opposition would never be so irresponsible to ring the bells indefin itely. That is what the Member for Turtle Mountain, I understand, inferred or told our Government House Leader at the time, the Honourable Attorney-General, when they were in negotiations to try and bring to a close the adjournment of the Session of last summer.

That is where the Member for Turtle Mountain was dead wrong because his party , the Progressive Con servative Party in this province, which is a right wing . . . of the Conservative Party in the whole country, but they lacked to have any respect for the parliament, that he could not trust them obviously when he said that they would never allow the bells to have rung that far. Mr.

Speaker, the Opposition House Leader, in his comments last week, made reference that the public would not understand what we are doing by bringing in a limit on bells, that the public would not understand that somehow or other there was not anything in our rules previously that stated that the opposition could ring bells indefinitely and walk out, that that was an omission of direction in our rules of this Legislature that permitted them to pick up and to walk and to castrate Parliament. What we are trying to do with this is to close off that so ever-dangerous precedent that they established in the past year.

He is saying the public will not understand that. Well, who is going to go out to the public and tell them differently? Who is going to go out to the public and tell the public that some future government is going to try and ram something down their throats that they don't like? A MEMBER: I will, I will. MR. D. SCOTT: You will. That's it. You see, the opposition, Mr.

Speaker, in that is declaring already that they will go out and obfuscate this whole issue by trying to tell the people of Ma nitoba that this government has some in tention of for cing upon Manitobans something that is not good and proper for the Province of Manitoba. I would be more afraid, quite frankly, of them doing that.

But even if they did do that, in our parliamentary process, if you have any respect for the parli mentary process, you have respect for the electorate; and if tha t electorate di savows itself of the pri nci ples established by that party when they are in office; and the government, they shall turn them out. There is no room for plebiscites in the British parliamentary system; you should know that. That is not a part of our British parliamentary system of having pleb iscites especially on areas of civil rights or human rights. There is no precedent for that in our system of government.

A MEMBER: Why did he change the act to allow plebiscites? MR. D. SCOTT: When we changed that act, Mr. Speaker, we never suspected that any city government, that any opposition, that any municipality would be so 820 low as to use a referendum process to try and raise a public frenzy up on an issue to take away people's civil rights or to take away people's human rights. Human rights and civil rights in this coun try, In our parliamentary system, from 1215 up, have never been acco mplis hed by plebiscites.

They have been accomplished by responsible parliamentarians going out, in most instances, ahead of the opposition and saying it is right, it is proper that our society move in this direction; and successive elections have proven them to be right in that in the successive elections those governments have in most instances been re elected; and that is the process of democracy, is going to the public every so many years to get a confirmation and a support for the government that is in office, or a rejection of it and its policies.

The only govemment recently that had that happen, and overwhelming ly, was the government when they were In office and the public, in 19 81, turfed them out of office on November 17 th of'81, the first time that any government in this province's history has even been turned out after one term of office.

We are seeing well why they were turfed out now when the kind of attitudes that they are exercising in this Ho use as opposition still, with their backs up against the wall, that they have this inferiority or superiority compiAX when they make references to us as not being of the proper kind to govern, of not the proper backgrounds to govern. Or when they have a member last week standing up in a committee room and making references to the black people of South Africa and saying that they are free, that they can go wherever they want, that there was no prejudic e there, they can go on buses.

Well, for God's sakes, open your eyes as a party. Discipline members who come out and make racial statements like that. That is the sort of thing that maybe they would like to see; the government of South Africa, perhaps they wish to implement some of the policies you opposition has in mind, but this party shall never have any part of that. Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are continually playing games in this Legislature. They are playing games with the essence of Parliament itself, and Parliament is far beyond games.

Somehow or other, they can lower things to games and they can then go out to the public and try to misinterpret the intentions of their intentions, or the intentions of the government, in particular, to try and mislead the public as to what is actually the intention of the government and what is actually happening. We have now precedents in this House, we have precedents in the Ho use of Commons in Ottawa regard ing bell ringing. If I could quote, Mr. Speaker, from a ruling from Mme.

Speaker Sauve, the present Governor-General of this countr y, when she said, following the episode of bell ringing a couple years ago in the House of Commons, that, and I quote, "I merely point out that there is a problem. In the meantime, the Chair will continue to be vulnerable until the House provides it with guidelines which would lead to settled practices regard ing those very difficult and highly controversial questions where the rules and practices appear to be less than satisfactory." She was referring to the bell-ringing episode in Ottawa. She followed, Mr.

Speaker, concluding her statement by saying: "lt is my hope that such a situation

T\Jeeday, 15 May, 1984 will never occur in this Hous e. However, should it occur again, the Chair , un less it is provided with firm guidelines, would need to consider its course of action with great care under the new circumstances, the new circumstances being that there has been a precedent set. I trust that in the overriding in terest of the hon ourable institution, this House will take steps to make known its will as to how the Chair should act before any such situtation arises again." Unfortuna tely, that House did not, and they had more bell ringing just this past year. We have, Mr.

Speaker Francis, in this same ruling, and he was quoting M me. Speaker Sauve, but he made reference specifically to the Manitoba situation as well as the situation in the House of Commons when he said on March 30th of this year, and I quote, "Let us understand the implications of allowing the bells to ring indefin itely. When taken to an extreme ... " - Mr.

Speaker, I repeat that again - "When taken to an extreme, the practice can paralyze parliament completely." "We have seen in Manitoba," he goes on, "how the government was forced into proroguing the Legislature because of an indefinite bell that was used by the opposition to prevent a vote in an important government matter." Mr. Speaker Francis further says, "Do we in this House of Commons really want to enshrine this device permanently in our practices?" Do we in this Hous e, in the Legislature of Manitoba, do we want to enshrine this device of bell ringing, of parliamentary castration indefinitely?

For if we do not act in this Legislature to correct that, we now have precedence and we shall not be able to correct it. We shall not be able to correct it, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker Francis fini shed off that day of March 30, 1984 - and it's interesting that this was after the Manitoba incident again - after it had taken place, he reiterated in his concluding statement - I will quote once again - "Until the House comes to grips with this problem, it will remain a constant threat to the efficiency of the House and the security of the Chair. I suggest the credibility of the parliamentary institution is at stake.

I believe we have a duty to protect it." Mr. Speaker, that once again is the critical element. We in the NDP, through Stanley Knowles in Ottawa, through, more recently, lan Deans in Ottawa and Bill Blaikie in Ottawa, have been working to protect the parliamentary institution. We in this Chamber are doing the same thing to protect the institution of Parliament. We unde rstan d, through all of their talk that the opposition has, that they're supposed to cherish the parliamentary institution very high ly.

Well, how can they at the same time talk about the supremacy of Parliament when they at the same time open it up to be destroyed? That we open it up and talk about the credibility of the parliamentary institution being at stake, as Mr. Speaker Francis, did that they want through a loophole that they have created in the laws, in the Rules of this Cha mber, to expand that, to use that at anytime, so that an opposi tion, so that a minority in any Legislature of this country can hold the government and the people of the day up to ransom. That is what they want to do, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! 821 MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speak er, I have a quote, from the radio, of Premier Richard Hatfield - not an NDP er, sometimes he acts like a very progressive Conservative, a very progressive Conservative, far more progressive than the Cons ervatives in this House you could certainly say - and on February 28th, that he hoped that the precedent established in this Legislature would never become a precedent in other Legislatures in Canada.

We have seen how other Legislatures in Canada have reacted to it even since our fiasco in this Ho use led by the members of the opposition by walking out of this House and frustrating Parliament to the ultimate. We've had Prince Edward Island, on March 24th, 198 4 adopted a five-minute limit on bells. We had other members refer to other Legislatures across this country: an eight-minute limit on bells in Alb erta; B.C.- no more than five minutes; New Brunswick, no more than five minutes; Newfoundland no more than 10 minutes; Nova Scotia, a reasonable length of time and in no event longer than one hour.

Once again after the episodes here in Manitoba, we had in Quebec, given the power to the Speaker when the Speaker has consid ered sufficient time to turn off the bells that the Speaker shall order the bells turned off. That was just on March 13th of this year. So we have other Parliaments reacting to a situation caused by a precedent where the rules were not sufficiently explanatory as to the true intent of the rules to call members in, not to send them out. You didn't un derstand them at all, that's your troub le. Th e opposition did not und erstand the rules at all.

They took the rules and they tried to twist the rules around and say they said something totally opposite to what they said. In other jurisdictions of this country, the Parliaments . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. D. SCOTT: . . . of other Legislatures in this country are reacting on it. The Speaker of the House of Commons is pleading with the House of Commons to act upon it and we have the members opposite here say, no, we want to broaden it.

We want to have bellringing at any time, we want the opposition to be able to hold up using their dictatorial powers to hold up this Legislature. This institution of Parliament, Mr. Speaker, is far greater than any of us. Far greater than any of us, far greater than any of our little personal peeves, far greater than any of our polit ical am bitions.

I'm gla d the members opposite appreciate that, that this institution that we serve and that we have a duty to protect is far greater than any of us and any of our thoughts and ideas or any of our political ambitions - (Interjection) - Well, you're not with me on that one, the Member for Lakeside. He's not with me at all on that, because he wants to continue a process where Parliament can be frustrated at any time. That is not respect for Parliament , Mr. Speaker. Mr. Sherma n made reference to the special circumstances. Well, I say, the Parliament is supreme,

TUesday, 15 May, 1884 that there are no spec1al circumstances where you can disrupt to the point of dissolution of Parliament. You can disrupt when you have sufficient members to be able to defeat a government on a motion of confidence, you can disrupt and go back to the people and ask the people to decide. You do not disrupt by frustrating Parliament, by using not even a filib uster, at least in a filib uster people are speak ing, people are talking.

That's what they're doing on this issue right now. it's been before the House for a whole week and we haven't even got referred to com mittee because they'r e fili bustering by once speak ing, by only one person a day speaking and then adjourning the debate. That's what they're trying to do. Their exercise so far in this motion to refer the report of the committee to the Committee of the Whole, they are showing that the opposition had delaying tactics.

They want, in addition to the traditional tactics which they are using right now to try and delay this issue, to try and push it off so the government will be maybe forced to use closure. This is what they really hope. lt is what they really want to see. Are they then going to ring the bells indefinitely on the bell limit? They've already done it once. Look how often they rang the bells last Session - for 263 hours straight on an issue of bells. Will they do it again? Will they do it again? - (Interjection) - How the sweet the sound, the Member for Lakeside says, how sweet the sound of the bells?

Well to me the bells are not a sweet sound when they are used to frustrate and to castrate Parliament. They are a sweet sound when members opposite and members of elected Legislatures in this country respond to them and come in to do their elected duty and to vote. We have had many references, Mr. Speaker, to the issue of Autopac in the Autopac de bate. Well, Mr .

Speaker, I would like to make some references to the Leader of the Opposition back in those days, the Honourable Sidney Spivak, and he in a radio interview which I taped and then had typed out, said that the bell-ringing episode in Manitoba was, and I quote, "an awful period for us in the history of Manitoba," an awful period. This is their former leader, the one that they kicked out, the one that they tossed out and look what they got in his place, and he's gone again al ready. The one decent leader they had, they threw him out.

Peter Gzowski, the CBC commentator, the host of the program, asked Sid Sp ivak if there was any justification for the practice of ringing bells. As you know, far better than I, Sid is not a person that usually says yes and no to answers. He usually talks around answers like many politicians do. In this instance, he said flat one word, no; no, there was no justification for the conduct of the Con servatives of this Legislature. If I could quo te again from this , refer ring to Conservatives, he said, "They had an opportunity to here to do a number of things.

They can certainly present an argument against the position as far as the resolution is concerned. That's what an opposition is there to do, but it did not have to be done in this atmosphere and they did not have to create or heighten the atmosphere or intensity of it by their actions. There is just no need for this." A very emphatic statement.

A little later in the interview he said, "There was an opportunity with the change in leadership for Gary Filmon to take a look at the national scene, to follow an example of their · national leader Brian Mul roney. 822 What he should have done is allowed a free vote by the Conservatives." Now he chal lenged us to a free vote. We responded and said, yes, let's have it right now and then all of a sudden he backed off and no way they wanted a free vote, no way they wanted a free vote on this. I don't know if he was afraid of any of the members opposite bolting from the ranks - I'm sure he was.

I know the Member for Fort Garry at one time told me he was ashamed of some of the conduct and some of the pres entations tha t were being made to committees when he wanted to get off the committee. He told me that personally once, but what do we have? What do we have now? He's taken a more stringent line; he's taken a line stronger than Sterling Lyon on the issue.

Sid Sp lvak, further on says, "The role of the opposition is to prevent every position that is possibly presented, if they oppose it, but recognizing democracy is to work in our parliamentary system, at that point having expressed the opposition, a vote takes place and a majority of the House rules." He made dir ect reference to the Autopac debate. He said, "This is . not the only example referring to the current debate or debaw of last spring. This is not the only example in which there has been an intense feeling on the matter that has been important as far as affecting Manitobans.

I refer back to Autopac debate, going back several years, when the NDP came in power, when Ed Schreyer was Premier of this Province and when they had a minority government and they introduced the Autopac legislation. The feeling at that time was as intense as it is today," Mr. Spivak stated. He went on to say, "lt did not have this racist overtone," and I'll repeat that for the members opposite for their benefit once again. "lt did not have this racist overtone and I say that because it does have a racist overtone, without question," without question, he said, Mr.

Spivak, of the racist overtone of the opposition's conduct. He talked about over 10 0 presentat ions at the Legislative Committee on the Autopac hearings, the tremendous opposition that there was, even of two former Liberals voting with the NDP at the time, one of them crossing the House, who I'm very pleased is still on this side of the House and presents our position and adds greatly to our party. He then goes on to say that, "The feelings were intense and they went on for weeks. No matter what took place at that time, there was nothing that took place that was destructive of the parliamentary system.

Ultimately, it came down to a final vote and the government was able to get the majority, and it passed. Notwithstanding the intense feelings, the process itself wasn't fuzzed up because of what took place and there wasn't intent to block whole proceed ings and, in fact, to incite the kind of hatred that is developing now." Close of quote from Mr. Sid ney Spivak.

That is his reaction to the Member for Minn edosa, to all the members in the opposition benches, who he shared the opposition benches with at one point in time before he kicked them out, one of the more honourable members that this House has seen, and certainly one of the more honourable members that the opposition has had in this House and far more honourable than any members they have there presently.

TUesday . 15 May, 1984 We have had members of the opposition expressing concern and talkin g about the constitutional amendments being special amendments. What they want to put in, in this rule that we discussed in Rules Committee, their proposal was to have unlim ited bell ringing on constitutional amendments. If we had unl imited bell ringing on constitutional amendments, the opposition, no matter what it be of Manitoba, could stop a constitutional amendment of the whole country.

Now what kind of dictatorial powers is that, when you give an opposition in one particular Legislature, and it's the only one in the country that wants it. Let that be very clearly understood. it's the only opposition in this whole country that wants a dictatorial power to stop a constitutional change, be it in their own province or in the country as a whole. To change the amending formula you must have the concurr ence of all the governments in the land. The opposition here wants that to be changed and their proposal is anti-constitutional.

I think that if someone challenged our rule in the courts, it would probably be thrown out of court. The court would perhaps overrule the legitimacy of a law of this Legislature, which is a very unusual thing for a court to overrule the process of a Legislature; but a Legislature cannot pass

an act that is anti-constitutional. We should know that from the 1890 bill, that a Legislature cannot pass a bill, cannot introduce a process which goes against the Constitution of this country. lt's already been thrown out. Now we have the opposition proposing exactly that same thing again and I can't understand why they do it, because they already passed another bill which is before the courts now which I'd be surprised if they don't rule that's non-constitutional as well.

So, if there's anything about the rule of Parliament. the law of Parliament. and within that a provision for the role of the opposition, it is to recognize the responsible role of an opposition. If I could quote from our Government House Leader back on Jan uary 23rd, in a presentation to this House when he talked about oppositions and co-operation, quoting from Mr. Charles Robert, on Page 50, of the Journal of Society of Clerks at the Table, when he stated that, "Co-operation can exist only when there is mutual un derst anding of the role to be played by the government and by the opposition.

This, in turn, is founded on a recognition that the transaction of public business must be secured in an orderly manner while, at the same time, acknowledging the right of the minority to be heard ." The minority has numerous ways to be heard. They have not found ways before. Why have they never used bells before 1980 in this country? A MEMBER: Because we had a resp onsible government that didn't bring in the kind of garbage that you brought in. They didn't affront the people of Manitoba the way you did. MR. D. SCOTT: Mr. Speaker, because they didn't know that loophole existed.

They had a respect for Parliament back then. They didn't have a precedent beforehand. They didn't have a precedent beforehand that they could act upon to ring the bells indefinitely. Erik Nielsen hadn't invented this new law for them, hadn't invented this 823 way to frustrate Parliament, to kill the parliamentary process. They just copied old Erik Nielsen, that's all that they have used, and any Parliament that uses that pr ocess; and if it's Bl akeney and the NDP in Saskatchewan, I'll condemn them here and I'll condemn them in Saskatchewan for using bells. I just did. Have I heard any of you?

I haven 't heard you condemn your colleague for his comments about the blacks in South Africa being free. We haven't heard any condemnation from you on points of principle. No, these are all little family disputes that are supposed to be settled within the family. Well, your family is a bunch of independent fiefdoms that doesn't know where the heck it's going, with no kind of co-ordinated approach to this House. Mr. Speak er, the opposition in this House and on this issue of bells has backed itself into a corner and that is why it is barking like a mad dog who's backed himself foolishly into a corner.

Most dogs aren't that foolish to get themselves into a corner. They try to get out of corners, but when they're in corners, they growl, they snap, they flash their teeth and that's what we have here. That's right; that's what we have, is an opposition trying to make an issue out of a non-issue, trying to get themselves out of a box that they have gotten themselves into. They've boxed themselves into that corner.

The Honourable Minister of Health is a former boxer, knows that when you're in a corner, you've got to get out, that when you're up against the ropes in the corner you have to get yourself out, and you have to fight your way out; so that is what they're trying to do, is fight their way out of a corner by arguing a total unacceptable and anti-parliamentary position. They want to get out of the corner. If they have any respect for Parliament, they want to get out of the corner and I think they have a respect for Parliament. At least I used to think the Conservative Party had a respect for Parliament.

I don't know how much respect they have any more, but they certainly were at one time, under John Diefenbaker, they were a party that had a gr eat respect for Parliament. Now they're a party where, in Ottawa at least, their leader doesn't even have enough respect to attend Parliament. He's hardly ever there, a tremendous change around from the days when John Diefenbaker, who was more of a populist than he was a Conservative. A MEMBER: John was a fine, honourable man. MR. D.

SCOTT: That's what I'm saying, is that John was a fine and honourable man and too bad some of you didn't follow the traditions that he established. The rules we have in this House, Mr. Speaker, are for the protection of Parliament. That's what rules are all about, is a protection of Parliament and you do not get a protection of that institution, of Parliament, when you have members opposite trying to create, out of a lack of clear definition in the rules, for the actual intent and the instruction, the instructional nature, and rules are instructional; and that is why, Mr.

Speaker, in this Cham ber, felt that there was not sufficient instruction for him to act to shut the bells off when they were ringing earlier. That's what rules are for. Rules are there to give instructions and when the instructions are not clear enough, as Madame Sauve

TUesday, 15 May, 1984 urged, as Mr. Speaker Fox observed, as Mr. Speaker Francis from Ottawa, as he has observed and as I quoted earlier, is a request that the rules be clarified so that there is not that question of ambiguity, the ambiguity of ambig uousness of the rules itself. They want clear direction so that the Speaker Is not put in a position where he must choose sides, so the Speaker is not in a position where he could be accused, not that he ever would, but that he could be accused of showing a favour to one side or another in this House.

That's a very dangerous position for any Speaker to be in because a Speaker must be respected equally by both sides of the House. I would plead with the members opposite to stop their filibuster on this issue, to stop standing up and adjourning debate every day without having hardly spoken or just after one person has spoken. We've · had it before us a whole week, and it's just a motion to refer to get it to committee.

Then we'll have a debate, but I fear that they want to put up 23 speakers, and then they want to put up another 23 speakers next time around. - (I nterje ction) - Wel l, my imagination, I hope it is only my imagination. I hope it is only my imagination and if you want - now they're threatening us to use closure again. I see the Member for Kirkfield Park is saying we want to use closure again. Well, we have no intention and no wish to use closure on this issue. Why? Well, all we know is from past practice when you have called for us to use closure in this House before we've used it.

In the last Session of this House the Member for Minnedosa has told us if we had any guts we'd bring in closure. Is that what you're telling us again now that to move this on that we have to bring in closure to get you people on your feet to debate an issue? Or do you want to put up 45 days of debate in this House on whether or not we're going to have the rules changed? Because that's the road that you're leading down now. I don't think it's too late for you to turn around. You were in a relatively untenable position of, if you agree with the rules change, you say we were wrong last year.

We shouldn't have been ringing the bells, that we were abusing Parliament. The sooner you admit that, the sooner you agree towards the acceptance of a rules change - it's not even a rules change, the rule always intended to do this, jus t the clarif ication is needed to give that instruction. it's not too late for the Conservatives to give up their tactics, to turn around and to once again restore the faith of Parliament that their party has been famous for in past years, that their party has been famous for and let them give up these tactics that they are doing right now.

Let them show the people of Manitoba that they have a respect for the institution of Parliament. Let them stand right now, Mr. Speaker, and vote in this matter and let us move it on to committee instead of delaying it any furthe r. We've had more than enough debate. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker . MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for Roblin-R ussell. MR. W. McKENZIE: I tremble with fear. I wonder, could I have leave now from the Honourable Member for 824 lnkster and the House to move, seconded by the Member for Kirkfield Park, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Acting Government House Leader. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, I move that we now go into Committee of Supply. MR. DEPUTY SPEA KER: The Opposition House Leader. MR. H. ENNS: This is to the Acting House Leader. I belie ve there's a disposition to dispense with Private Members' Hour this afternoon. In that event, as has been the case, the House will adjourn at 5:30 p.m. HANSARD CORRECTION MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Roblin- Russell on a point of order. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Deputy Speaker, Page 616 of Hansard on the right-hand column, it's got, alleged to my statement, .2 million; it should be 2.9 million. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the assumption then that there will be no Private Members' Hour today, it is moved by the Minister of Health, seconded by the Minister of Education, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.

MOTION presented and carried and the House resolved itself into a Committee to consider of the Sup ply to be granted to Her Ma jesty with the Honourable Member for River East in the Chair for the Department of Education; and the Honourable Member for Burrows in the Chair for the Department of Municipal Affairs. CONC URRENT COMMI TTEES OF SUPPLY SUPPLY - MUNICIP AL AFF AIRS MR. CHAIRMAN, C. Santoa: The committee will please come to order. We are in the process of considering Municipal Asses sments, Item No. 4.(

a) Salaries and 4.(

b) Other Expendit ures - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, last night we noticed that in assessment there appears to be an increasing number of appeals every year to the Court of Revision on asses sment and I think we established that most of the grounds for the appeal was mainly on the farm dwelling, becaus e of the move by the department to send letters to - oh no, it's not because of letters that are being sent out. We ll then, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can ask the Minister a very simple question: I understand that some ratepayers throughout the province, when an assessment is being done, do receive letters asking

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 them for information as to whether or not their income would place them in a position where their farm dwelling was not exempt from taxation. Is that correct? HON. A. ANSTET T: Yes, Mr. Chairman . The Assessment Branch, where it believes that an individual does have income from off-farm sources, will send a letter to that indi vidual asking them if they are still eligible for the exemption. I bel ieve honourable members have seen and I believe we have tabled in the past copies of the letter that is used. Mr.

Chairman, the letter is not sent to all ratepayers, although momentarily last night I thought the honourable member was suggesting that it should be, I'm not sure that would be desirable.

The letter, that was sent that members raised a question about in the House earlier this Session, related exclusively to oil royalties and was sent out to, I believe, something in th neighbourhood of 164 ratepayers in five or six municipalities, which would be a very small percentage, but would be those who are specifically identified as in receipt of oil royalties, not necessarily compensation payments, but royalties themselves I believe. I stand to be corrected on that. I believe those were strictly royalties, but there was also a question related to compensation.

So the incidence of the sending of letters reque.;ting income information is not high in terms of a percentage of the total number of properties assessed. What has occasioned the incr ease in appeals with regard to the assessment of farm dwell ings has been changing economic circumstance. Honourable members will appreciate that when that provision was first introduced in the legislation over half a century ago that there was no such thing as a pension at age 65, that the op por tuni ties for employment off the farm and participation of farm spouses in off-farm employment opportunities was somewhat limited.

The opportunities for income from off-farm part-time employment was less extensive. So in fact in the last 10 to 15 years the opportunities for off-farm income, the entry of farm wives into the labour market has occasioned the opportunity to have sources of off-farm income that were not available even 20 years ago, let alone 50 years ago. I think that's the first factor that has to be born in mind. Total income to the farm sector from all sources has structurally changed in a very dramatic way in the last 20 to 25 years.

I think the second factor is the reassessment program and the fact that our assessors are aware of that structural change and have started the last 10 years or so to ask those questions. As they ask those questions and as they get positive responses to off farm income and then require the income information to be provided, they find that they are classing fewer and fewer farmers as being eligible for the exemption. This leads to the appeals through Court of Revision, which lead to the percentage change upwards in the number of appeals that relate to the farm dwelling exemption.

So it's a long-term thing that's developed over time, that's related to some structural changes in the labour market, farm incomes and also in the way the reassessment program has picked up on this structural change. So, I wouldn't suggest that there has been any policy change or adminis trative change in the department. 825 Other than that, as these things are found, they are acted upon and the department is following the guidelines provided in Sections 30(1) and 30(2). MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I believe the Min ister ind icated there were some 164 letters sent out and that dealt only with oil royalties.

I also believe that there were some 300 appeals in the Rural Municipality of Ritchot. Could the Min ister ind icate how many oil royalty appeals or how many farmers in the Rural Muni cipality of Ritchot would have revenue from oil royalties? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe that any farmers would have income from oil royalty on property they owned in the R.M. of Ritchot. There may be farmers in the R.M. of Ritchot who have oil wells in other parts of the country or the province though. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, can the Mini ster indic ate whether letters were sent to any of the ratepayers in the Rural Mu nici pal ity of Ritcho t requesting information on their income? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, certain ly, Mr. Chairman. Letters are sent to any ratepayer who on reassessment either ind icates, or for other reasons the assessor has reason to believe that that ratepayer may have off-farm sources of income.

I used the example of the oil royalty income because I knew the member had been interested in that by virtue of the question he had asked in the House, and I provided the member with the statistics on letters sent in those five or six municipalities, but I did not mean to suggest, and I would not want the member to think for a moment that that's the only source of off-farm income. In fact, I thought I made it quite clear that there are many other sources. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, could the Min ister ind icate what basis the department uses and what information they use to decide who to send a letter to?

HON. A. ANSTETT: A certain amount of judgme nt is involved in determining whether or not the assessor believes or has received information that an indi vidual has off-farm income. If the individual is home when the assessor calls, and we usually try to ensure that the assessor does a reassessment with the ratepayer or homeowner at home, that question is usually asked. The local ratepayer usually provides that information as to whether or not they have farm income.

I received a letter recently from an individual who complained that his dwelling had been reassessed and he stated right in the letter that he didn't believe that his dwelling should lose its exemption. The next line was I told that darn assessor when he called that I haven't made money on this farm for 50 years and I've always had to have a job off the farm and that's why I think I should keep my exemption. Clearly, the understanding of how the system works and the rules in the system is somewhat lacking in those cases. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, does the department act on information that they receive from private individuals?

HON. A. ANSTETT: Ye s, Mr. Chairman, that is one source of information - information received from private individuals. MR. H. GRAHAM: On another question somewhat related, Mr. Chairman, if a person's dwelling is assess ed, is that assessed for one year only? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, when an individual has provided the information to the assessor, or to the Court of Revision, that indicates that individual is either entitled or not entitled to the exemption, that matter can be reopened at any time if there is a change of circumstance.

But once the exemption is granted, it stands until there is a change in circumstance or the assessor or the local council has reason at Court of Revision to change that, and that can be appealed either by the assessor or by the local individual, or it gets picked up on a reasse ssment some years hence. Certain ly, when information is provided, that is verified and checked with the ratepayer using the procedures that have been outlined for the committee. MR. H.

GRAHAM: The basis for that information, it's that on just one-year's activities, or does it take an average of the last five, or what is the basis that is used? HON. A. ANSTETT: When the assessor examines income information, he uses the immediate preceding year. MR. H. GRAHAM: it's only the imm ediate preceding year? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, yes, the courts have determined under

Section 30( 1) and 30(2) that will be the basis on which qualification for the exemption will be considered. 1 am given to unde rstand that some dis cretion is on occasion applied by some local councils that may technically be outside of that established ju dicial precedent. MR. H. GRAHAM: When the department decides to assess a pers on's farm dwelling as being taxable, and 1 imagine the person is so notified, and at the same time does the department provide information to the farmer that if at any time his income off the farm is less than his farm income he should appeal his assessment?

Does the department give them that notice as well? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, did the member ask if his income on the farm is less than his off-farm income or the reverse? MR. H. GRAHAM: asked the Mi nis ter if the department, in saying that a person's dwelling is now taxable because of his off-farm income, do they also notify the ratepayer that if in future years his off-farm income is less than his farm income that he should appeal his assessment at that time? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, the notice provides, the notice to the individual who - and I think we should for the record understand what the notice is. it's not a notice that the individual's dwelling is taxable. lt is a notice that the individual is not entitled to the exemption, not going around the province taxing farm dwellings. What we are doing is determ ining who is eligible for an exemption. lt is that exemption that is provided for in the act. All real property is taxable, I think that's the first thing that should be unders tood.

When the notice goes out, the individual is advised whether or not they are entitled to the exemption and the notice also provides information on the mechanism for appeal, and the notice provides that that as sess ment notice applies to that specific tax year. The next year there is another notice which may or may not be different from the one received the previous year based upon information which the ratepayer provides to the assessor. The ratepayer then can go to Court of Revision and has vested appeal rights from Court of Revision as well. MR. H.

GRAHAM: The Minister said that the following year he may receive another notice. Is that correct? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, if there is no change in the asse ssment or the classification of exemption that the ratepayer has with respect to his or her real property, then there is no subsequent notice. There is a tax bill which shows exempt property and taxable property on the tax bill. 826 MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I'm not really concerned except I think that there should be some effort put forward to try and advise people of their rights.

I would think that it might be a good move on the part of the Assessment Branch, especially when we're talking about have our "mad days" and we're trying to establish a dialogue, and basically I think what I'm saying, trying to establish a fe eling of confidence in the part of ratepayers in the fairness of the assessment practice.

I'm just asking the Minister if it pr.obably wouldn't be a wise move when notice is sent to a farmer advising him that his buildings will be taxed unless he provides information to prove that his income off the farm is less than his on-farm income, would it not be also prudent to advise them that this we are doing at this time, but if next year your off-farm income is less that you should then appeal your assessment and have the injustice rectified? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Member for Virden for that suggestion. I think it's an excellent one.

The idea of providing as much information as possible to ratepayers about the assessment process, about their rights in Court of Revision. The advertising that councils do every year certainly isn't the kind of advertising and information because of the public notice character of those ads in the classified sections, the weekly newspapers, to really inform local ratepayers and the whole public information campaign. The series of brochures that I announced last night, when I introduced my Estimates, could be well-served by inclusion of the kind of information the honourable member suggests.

I have not seen final drafts of the scripts for the brochures, but if that information is not already included I will ensure that a recom mendation

to ratepayers, who may be entitled to exemptions in subsequent years, is made to them to pursue those exemptions if they become eligible. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a) - the Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask the Minis ter if he will be spending any time updating municipal people during the regional meetings that will be held in June with respect to the assessment reform? What state is it at? HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I did give a brief review of the status of assesment reform to the municipal seminar at the beginning of March. Some prog ress has been made since then.

I will be giving them an update on that at the regional meetings in June and hopefully we'll have for them if not final copies, samples of the information brochur E!S so they'll have an update in terms of not only what's happening internally but also on the public information campaign that we'll be launching this year. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering if the Mi nis ter could also indic ate whether he has the opportunity to meet with the Mun icipal Advisory Board recently to upda te them as well regarding the state of where the assessment reform is at. HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr.

Chairman, I met with the executive of both municipal associations, however, in March and in ApriL I had an opportunity to brief them rather than just brief the members of the board. So I perhaps did one better - met with the full executive of the UMM and then was also able to give briefing to the MAUM executive when they had their annual meeting with Cabin et. I advised them on the status of assessment reform. MR. D.

GOURLAY: I believe the Min ister ind icated that the provincial assessor would be attending a meeting in Toronto in about a week's time with respect to - was that computerization or with respect to assessment from Eastern Canada? I wonder if you could just clarify that. HON. A. AN STETT: Mr . Chairman, actually the provincial assessor was going to be taking a brief personal trip. I imposed on him and asked him to tie together with that trip a visit to officials in Toronto with whom I had met early in ApriL He's agreed to that and has scheduled those meetings.

They will be discussing the equalized assessment formula, the factorlng that's used for that formula, computerized assessment in Ontario, basically those angles of the system there that impact dir ectly on the kind of assessment reform recommended by the Weir committee here. MR. D.

GOURLAY: At the outset, the Minister indic ated that the provincial assessor would be retiring sometime in the coming year and I'm wondering, in view of the fact that the assessment reform is under way and requi res the expertise of the best possible people we can get, does the Min ister have any role to maintain this expertise after the provincial assessor retires? I understand he'll be retiring in he next couple of months or so. 827 HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Not too long after assuming responsibili ty for this portfolio my Deputy Min ister said to me, "You know, we're going to lose the key person in assessment reform when Jake Reimer retires next spring." Then, luckily Jake decided to stick around till, I think, it's the end of August and during that time some discussions had been held on our being able to continue to take benefit of his expertise on some sort of perhaps consulting basis or whatever after his official retirement.

We have an agreement on that and I'm sure members on both sides will welcome the continued expertise into the whole assessment reform process. I think members also appreciate that Mr. Reimer's commitment to provincial assessment in this province is such that he too wants to be part of assessment reform since he's waited so darn long for it. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased to hear that. I think Mr. Reimer has contri buted a lot to the field of assessment and I don't think we can afford to lose that kind of expertise at this stage of the game in our whole assessment reform of changes.

So I welcome that information the Minister has brought here today. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a) - the Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, some time ago I asked the Mi nister in the House whether or not the compensation that is paid to a farmer for the loss of income because of oil activity on his land, in other words, surface rights compensation. In the original letter I believe that went out to 164, I think the intention was at that time, or it certainly left the impression that surface rights compensation would be conside red as off-farm income.

Has there been a clarification by the department on that particular point? HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the original intent was that royalty income would be conside red off-farm income. I think there may have been confusion initially as to whether compensation for crop losses, compensation for loss of productive land in whatever way should be cons idered as potentially lost farm income much the same as crop ins urance payments have over time come to be considered that way.

The department has taken a broader view of that and consistent with past policies will be including that in the farm income category. MR. H. GRAHAM: The compensation will be conside red as farm income category, is that correct? HON. A. ANSTETT: My unders tanding is that for all intents and purposes that has been the past practice, but I think some confusion arose over that because of the question of oil royalties. MR. CHAIRMAN: 4.(a) - the Mem ber for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr.

Chairman, on a somewhat related matter, can I ask whether the property that is taken by oil sites, they may take an acre and a half or two acres for an oil site when they establish a well, whether

Tuesday, 15 May, 1984 that loss of two acres is reduced from the farmer's total acreage for taxation purposes? HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr. Chairman. MR. H. GRAHAM: So the area that is, say a farmer has 16 wells on a

section of land, he could lose 30 to 35 acres in well sites, plus the various hydro lines and the roadways, the service roads that are so necessary to service the wells, and that is not reduced from his assessment? The land that he has lost Is not reduced? HON. A. ANSTETT: The Surface Rights Act passed by the Legislature specifically provides compensation which will be payable to the landowner shall take into consid eration the muni cipal tax li abili ty. So the member's question is asking that the farmer receive, in effect, consideration twice with regard to the same tax liabil ity.

I'm sure the honourable member wouldn't want us to do that. MR. H. GRAHAM: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the Mi nister is misunde rstanding. He's mixing apples and oranges. HON. A. ANSTETT: Sorry. MR. H. GRAHAM: The compensation that the farmer receives in surface rights legislation is for the loss of production that is caused by these various things.

What I'm trying to get at is I believe we are finding that the same piece of property is being assessed and taxed twice, because I believe the oil companies, if they've got so many wells, pay so much, they are assessed on the property that they have the wells on, is that correct? HON. A. ANSTETT: No, Mr. Chairman. That is not correct. The oil company pays on the real property they own. They do not pay on land in which they do not have an ownership. Their ownership is on mineral rights and they own the oil well or the pipeline and they pay only on that real property. MR. H.

GRAHAM: I thank the Mi nister for that clarification. HON. A. ANSTETT: I would ask the honourabl e member, Mr. Chairman, does that then clarify that we're both talking about apples, we're both talking about the same thing then because I wouldn't want the impression left that anyone is paying twice or receiving compensation twice with respect to the same real proper ty. MR. H. GRAHAM: I was under the impression that there was in fact double taxation taking place. HON. A. ANSTETT: Has that been clarified? MR. H. GRAHAM: You have told me that it is not occurring. Mr.

Chairman, I have before me a list of the things that a farmer should include as farm income for determining his production from the farm and I notice it includes sale of vegetables, fruits, dairy products, eggs, honey, breeding fees of farm livestock, sugar beets and straw. it does not apparently include hay. Is there an explanation or reason for that? 828 HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Chairman, I would refer the honourable member to the decision of Judge Vern Simonsen, the case in Dauphin involving George Blake Lyle and - sorry, wrong one. it was a case heard in County Court in Dauphin within the last year, heard by Judge Vern Simonsen, in which he ruled that hay produced for sale would be included in farm income, and the assessment officials in the province will be taking that decision into consideration and including hay in the farm income in the future. MR. H. GRAHAM: The list that is here listing sugar beets and straw should also include hay, then, is that correct? HON. A.

ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe the honourable member has a letter which is probably about as old as the court decision. The court decision was within the last two months - I believe in the month of March - and certainly future lists of items of produce to be considered as farm income will include hay. I would point out to the honourable member that all of these decisions tend to have a broadening effect on the

interpretation of

Section 30, which create even greater problems in the adminis tration of the act and, for that reason, I can only emphasize that it is my hope, as was ind icated by the Honourable Member for Swan River last night, that in the long term we address this by dealing with one of the recommendations in the Weir Report. MR. H. GRAHAM: Mr. Chairman, I raise the matter because I received a copy of a letter and I believe the Mi nister also received a copy from a constituent of mine from Minio ta who, I believe, wrote a letter to the Honourable Attorney-General. I believe the Min ister has a letter there from Mr. Dieter Schwanke, I believe, and he

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-3-22a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 3rd hansardpdf 22a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	ca6fcc40b7e7ccccea02a8ce25df768da87240fb

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