Manitoba Hansard — 10 June 1987 (Sitting 66, 33rd Legislature, 2nd Session)

33-2-66

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Second Session - Thirty-Third Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 36 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Myma A. Phillips Speaker VOL. XXXV No. 66 - 1:30 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 10 JUNE, 1987. ISSN 0542-5492 Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Third Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ASHTON, Steve BAKER, Clarence BIRT, Charles T. BLAKE, David R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CAR STAIRS, Sharon CONNERY, Edward J. COWAN, Hon. Jay CUMMINGS, J. Glen DERKACH, Len DESJARDINS, Hon. Laurent L. DOER, Hon. Gary DOLIN, Marty DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Albert DUCHARME, Gerry ENNS, Harry J. ERNST, Jim EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. FILMON, Gary FIND LAY, Glen M. HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Hon. Harry M. HARAPIAK, Hon. Leonard E. HARPER, Hon. Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon. Maureen JOHNSTON, J.

Frank KOSTYRA,Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYER, Hon. Gerard MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. Al MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS , Clayton McCRAE, James C. MERCIER, Q.C., G.M.J. (Gerry) MITCHELSON, Bonnie NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Charlotte L. ORCHARD, Donald W. PANKRA TZ, Helmut PARASIUK, Hon. Wilson PAW LEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard R. PENNER, Q.C., Hon. Roland PHILLIPS, Hon. Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John ROCAN, C. Denis ROCH, Gilles (Gil) SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Q.C., Hon. Victor SCOTT, Don SMITH, Harvey SMITH, Hon. Muriel STORIE, Hon. Jerry T. URUSKI, Hon. Bill WALDING, D. James WASYLYCIA-LEIS, Hon.

Judy CONSTITUENCY Thompson Lac du Bonnet Fort Garry Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli River Heights Portage la Prairie Churchill Ste. Rose Roblin-Russell St. Boniface Concordia Kildonan Arthur Emerson Riel Lakeside Charleswood Brandon East Tuxedo Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Swan River Rupertsland Logan Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson St. James Elmwood Morris Brandon West St. Norbert River East Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina La Verendrye Transcona Selkirk Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Springfield Burrows Rossmere lnkster Ell ice Osborne Flin Flon Interlake St. Vital St.

Johns PARTY NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP LIBERAL PC NOP PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 10 June, 1987. Time - 1:30 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . . . Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. H. PAW LEY introduced, by leave, Bill No. 66,

An Act to amend The Electoral Divisions Act (2); Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les circonscriptions electorales (2). BILL NO. 68 -

AN ACT TO GOVERN THE SUPPLY OF NATURAL GAS IN MANITOBA AND TO AMEND THE PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD ACT HON. W. PARASIUK introduced, by leave, Bill No. 68,

An Act to Govern the Supply of Natural Gas in Manitoba and to amend The Public Utilities Board Act; Loi regissant l'approvisionnement en gaz nature! du Manitoba et modifiant la

Loi sur la Regie des services publics. (Recommended by His Honour the Lieutenant Governo r.) MOTION presented. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, under Rule 85, I will be making a brief statement on this bill. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. W.

PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, this legislation is an important piece of the natural gas policy announced yesterday by the Premier of Manitoba, which has as its fundamental objectives fairer prices for natural gas, long-term supply of natural gas at fair prices, fair natural gas distribution costs in Manitoba and, where feasible, providing more Manitoba communities with increased access to natural gas through extension of services.

The main points of this legislation relate to the establishment of a Crown corporation called the Manitoba Consumer Gas Corporation, with its major function being to purchase and distribute natural gas on behalf of Manitoba consumers to ensure, firstly, adequate and secure supplies and, secondly , stabilization in the price of natural gas for gas consumers in the province over the future. Another part to this act relates to natural gas supply and will give the Cabinet the authority to set the price of the natural gas commodity cost portion of the purchase price.

This clause is for a transition period only, and is eliminated by a sunset provision on or before September 1, 1989. It's designed to take us 2941 through the process where we supposedly have deregulation but really don't have deregulation. Also, the Cabinet will be empowered to designate a purchasing agent to buy natural gas on behalf of Manitoba consumers. The third part of the act relates to amendments to The Public Utilities Board Act in respect to natural gas.

This will allow consumers or others to petition Cabinet to alter a Public Utilities Board order or to require the board to hold new public hearings regarding a board order or a decision regarding natural gas. This modification follows what exists in Ontario with respect to the Ontario Energy Board, their equivalent of the Public Utilities Board.

There will also be a provision applying to looking at decreases made after November 1, '86, and this particular provision will also have a sunset provision to 1989 regarding this aspect, again taking us through the transition through a supposedly deregulated system to a fully deregulated system, if in fact that occurs. Also, the act will prohibit dealings with natural gas in Manitoba without a PUB order .

It will allow the PUB to order a public utility to deliver natural gas for the benefit of others and to make collections on behalf of the designated purchasing agent and as a fast track, if timeliness is a requirement, it will also permit the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to order the Public Utilities Board to grant a selling franchise to a purchasing agent designated by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. The legislation will also permit the Public Utilities Board to order refunds to consumers through lower rates or other means where rates have been higher than permitted.

It also expands the factors which the board can consider in making an order. It also allows the board to set rates or other charges for dealing with natural gas. This legislative package will help provide the tools that the Government of Manitoba needs to stand up for Manitobans for fair prices now and in the future , for long-term security of natural gas supplies and fair prices, for fairer distribution costs and, where feasible, for extension of services to more Manitoba communities.

Madam Speaker, I believe that the vast majority of Manitobans want fairer natural gas prices, want secure supplies and as a result, Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. HON R. PENNER introduced, by leave, Bill No. 69, The Statute Law Amendment Act (19 87); Loi de 1987 modifiant le droit statutaire. HON. J. STORIE introduced, by leave, Bill No. 70 ,

An Act to amend The Public Schools Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles publiques.

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 SPEAKER'S STATEMENT MADAM SPEAKER: Before moving to Oral Questions, I have a brief statement. During Oral Questions yesterday , two honourable members informed the House about potential conflicts of interest affecting them. I agreed to take the matter under advisement and to report back to the House, although my responsibilities are, as Speaker, procedural not legal. Our rules direct the Speaker to preserve order and decorum and to enforce the rules and to decide all questions of order.

Beauchesne Citation No. 117.(6), however, reminds us: "The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question or decide a question of law." Clearly, this is a matter of law and is therefore outside my area of responsibility. I would , therefore, strongly urge all members who have concerns about potential conflicts of interest affecting them to seek the advice of the Assembly's Law Officer, with respect to the application and

interpretation of the law in such individual cases . The penalties provided for non compliance with the act are severe . The Honourable Attorney -General. HON. R. PENNER: Yes, Madam Speaker, with leave , I would like to table for the benefit of all members of the House a legal opinion delivered by legislative counsel a short time ago, in which he deals with some of the questions that have been raised , and is offered for the guidance of members.

He cautions of course, quite rightly so at the end , that it would be the better part of wisdom for any member who feels that potentially he may have a conflict of interest apropos the specific matter being referred to, or indeed any other matter, that be considered by the personal legal adviser of the member. We must remember that the Chief Law Officer of the Crown , legislative counsel, is not ordinarily in the position of giving legal advice , except on matters of statute or statutory

interpretation, and I think it's only fair to him that his caution be observed . He does, let me say, Madam Speaker, arrive at the opinion which I share, that there would be nothing wrong with members being present during question period who may otherwise have a conflict of interest, but that is for members to decide for themselves finally. ORAL QUESTIONS Natural gas distribution - government business plan for MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition . MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

Given the massive losses that have been incurred under this NOP administration by a number of Crown corporations that proceeded into ventures without due care and concern - in fact, MTX, $27 million , MPIC 's entry into the reinsurance field , $36 million loss - given those massive losses because Crown corporations proceeded without due care and attention into those kind s of investments, I wonder if the Premier can indicate whether or not the government has prepared a business plan for its proposed entry into the natural gas distribution field . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I can recall, back in 1970-71, some honourable members were present during that period of time when the previous New Democratic Party Government, of which I was a part of, introduced legislation to establish the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. I recall the dire predictions of doom and gloom from honourable members across the way, suggestions that the benefits that we outline d under the publ ic automobile insurance system would never work out; that there would be massive dislocation , massive disadvantage to the people of the Province of Manitoba.

They were supported by many outside this Chamber at that time. Madam Speaker, they were wrong then with the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, which today has the lowest rates of any insurance corporation and automob ile insurance in Canada. Likewise, they will be just as wrong when it comes to natural gas consumer prices for Manitobans. Natural gas distribution - business plan of Min. of Crown Investments MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, it's regrettable that the Premier isn't aware of any business plan on this very important matter of an investment in the hundreds of millions of dollars. So, Madam Speaker , I'll ask the Minister responsible for Crown Investments , the super Minister who has been given powers over all Crown corporations in this province. I wonder, Madam Speaker, this Minister who is preparing a plan of Crown corporation reform, whether or not he can indicate whether his department prepared a business plan for the entry of th e government into the natural gas distribution business.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I'm very delighted to answer this question, because these are the first times that the Leader of the Opposition has ever raised questions about natural gas , even though Manitobans have been overcharged for natural gas for well over a year. Madam Speaker , he is not even now asking questions on behalf of the consumer ; he doesn't care .

Now the Premier yesterday brought forward an entire package, Madam Speaker , including long-term purchases of natural gas through long-term contracts at prices that are at least $1 lower than the price being charged today, which is, I think, a pretty sound investment and a sound business plan for the people of Manitoba , and not one whimper out of the Leader of the Opposition on that . 2942

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Madam Speaker, we are proceeding to look at direct purchases of natural gas reserves which again would ensure that, over the longer run, we can blend in low priced gas into Manitoba. We have indeed done our ho mework with respect to what the purchase price and what the longer-term operations of the natural gas distribution system will be in Manitoba.

When the negotiations are completed, Madam Speak er, we'll be providing that information to the Le gislature and the people can judge then which side cares about the consumers, who puts the consumers No. 1, the New Democrats who are doing something or the Conservatives who are too paralyzed to act. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, you can see why I haven't asked this Minister a question on natural gas, because he doesn't have an answer on the business side ... SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'll ask his boss, the super Minister responsible for Crown Investments, whether or not the Department of Crown Investments pre pared a business plan for the entry of this government into the natural gas distribution field. HON. W. PA RASIUK: Madam Speaker , these negotiations are being conducted under the re sponsibility of the Minister of Energy and Mines. The proper homework has been done; we've done a lot of homework, it was the homework done by people in my department. Read through the Public Utilities Board or have someone read it to you.

A great deal of hom ework was done, showing that prices were excessive and discrimina tory. That was an initiative taken by this government and they said nothing, they did nothing. We're doing the homework with respect to purchasing of reserves; we're doing the homework and had done the homework as to what would be viable with respect to natural gas distribution. Madam Speaker, I'm surprised. I would have hoped that they would have wanted the negotiations to take place, to let us bring about this policy which we say will save consumers money.

If they had any interest for the consumers, they would be supporting us and wanting to make that work. Madam Speaker , the proof of the pudding is in the eating and they can say, fine, let us judge how this government operates and, when the next election comes we can make judgments, because let's recall what the Premier said about Autopac. They were against it then, but the people judged that it was correct at the subsequent election. Natural gas distribution - role of Dept. of Crown Investments MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, my question is for the Premier.

So that Manitobans won't think that his announcement of Crown corporation reform was a sham, that his setting up of a super ministry responsible for Crown corporations wasn't a sham, will he now tell us, if the Department of Crown Investments was not involved in preparing a business plan for the involvement in the natural gas distribution field, what role did they play in this whole matter? What role did they play? HON. W.

PARA SIUK: Madam Speaker, I'd be happy to inform the members of the House and the public at large that staff from the Department of Crown Investments were, in fact, involved in the background work that has been done, that Cabinet has been fully informed throughout that this is a government decision. It's a government action, it's an integrated package, Madam Speak er, and it's endorsed and fully brought in by the Cabinet, introductory statement made by the Premier . This side of the House is clearly united and standing for the consumers. That House on that side is quite divided. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order please. National Energy Board - abide by decisions re movement of natural gas MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , members of the government have all too often, on many occasions, criticized myself and other members of the Opposition when we, in their opinion, failed to pay sufficient attention to some of the decisions rendered by the National Energy Board, to pay attention to the wisdom of their decisions, their fairness, their integrity.

My question, Madam Speaker, to the First Minister or the Minister of Energy and Mines is whether or not this government will abide, in advance, on any future decisions the National Energy Board may be called upon to render with respect to the movement of natural gas from one jurisdiction to another in this country. HON. W. PARASIUK: To answer this question, I've had meetings with the Federal Minister of Energy and we've received technical opinions from the Federal Minister of Energy's Department as to our position, what the

interpretation by Ottawa of the Deregulation Accord is. I indicated to him that we would be contracting for gas; I indicated to him that we would be applying to the National Energy Board under the rules and conditions as apply. He indicated that the National Energy Board would act in a normal manner in treating this as a normal matter. Madam Speaker , if in fact those rules apply consistently, well obviously we would be abiding by those rules. We would be concerned if the rules were changed with respect to Manitoba's application, as opposed to an American utility's application.

I think that members on the other side would be concerned if there was discriminatory treatment against Manitoba versus someone else, and I think that is a condition I put on that. But, Madam Speaker, the National Energy Board makes rulings with respect to the transmission of natural 2943

Wednesday, 10 June, 19 87 gas, in that the TransCanada Pipelines which owns the transmission facility also owns great reserves of natural gas and, in fact, was trying to buy Dome Petroleum to gain more reserves of natural gas and, in a sense, increase their monopoly position with respect to the selling and distributing of natural gas.

But the Federal Government, if you can recall the old pipeline debates, was involved in the financing of that transmission line, and that transmission line should operate as a non-interest public-interest highway across Canada with the same rules and conditions that would apply to all people in a non-discriminatory way. I fully expect that the National Energy Board will in fact deal with it in that manner. MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker, just for clarification, I just want to make sure that I understand the Minister and the government's position.

I don't want to interpret their position to be that, if the National Energy Board moves or rules in a certain way that they approve of, they will support and stand by that ruling and, if they rule in a different way, of course they will not. I don't think that's what the Minister said. I'm asking him a simple straightforward question. Having placed so much confidence in the fairness and the integrity in the operations of the National Energy Board, will this government accept rulings with respect to movement of natural gas by that same board? HON. W. PARASIUK: Madam Speaker, I answered that.

We have applied, under the present rules and conditions, to the National Energy Board; we don't expect that those rules and conditions would change. If they did change and, if rules were applied in a different way, we reserve the right to appeal and there are appeal procedures, Madam Speaker. But certainly what we are doing is normal, straightforward under the present rules and conditions of how the National Energy Board operates. I wouldn't expect them to be changing the rules; I would expect them to be dealing with this matter in a normal way.

Workers Compensation Board - amount of deficit MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would direct my question to the Honourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation. Has the Minister been informed that the figures put forward by the past Director of Finance have been largely substantiated by the King Commission, indicating the actual deficit to be in the range of $1 80 million to $200 million? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that when that memo was sent, forwarded to the chief executive officer , it was not a report to myself. He was giving this report from the view of an accountant, and that is his responsibil ity. He is a Director of Finance, and he has a responsibility to view all of the potential accumulated deficit that the Workers Compensation may be faced with. I, as a Minister, have a different set of responsibilities.

I have a responsibility to see that the injured workers receive the services they require, and we do also have a responsibility to see that Workers Compensation is conducted in as efficient a way as we possibly can, and it is being conducted in that way. Legislative Review Committee - concerns re permanent disability awards MR. A. KOVN ATS: To the same Minister, Madam Speaker. Has the Minister been informed that the Legislative Review Committee has expressed concerns that the permanent disability awards are being awarded for impairment which cannot be reasonably attributed to compensable incidents? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, it is extremely interesting that, of the number of reports that have been coming out that the Opposition critic has, they have now had copies of the Wiebe Report, Cormack Report and now obviously they have copies of the Legislative Review Committee, which I will be tabling on Thursday morning. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Are we ready to continue? Workers Compensation Board - increased assessment rates re job creation MR. A. KOVNA TS: To the same Minister. The Minister has said that the Cabinet is concerned that increases in assessment rates has affected job creation.

Can the Minister advise how much rates have to increase, on an average, to arrive at a fully funded position, as required in

section 66(1) of the act, and which he has said is the ideal situation? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, when the assessments were tabled for the year 1986, at that time the Minister responsible for Workers Compensation said that we may be in a break-even point in the operations of Workers Compensation by the year 1989. From the figures that I have from the Workers Compensation Board, that is still the year that we will be in a break even point for the operations of the Workers Compensation Board. Radon levels - introduction of guidelines MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S.

CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Environment. Madam Speaker, the public has been aware for some time of the dangers of excessive radon levels in their 2944

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 homes, particularly in Winnipeg, but in other places in Manitoba. But as with other public health issues, this government appears to be dragging its feet. I ask the Minister: Given the fact that the province is waiting for some leadership in this serious matter, when is the Minister's department going to produce the guidelines which would determine the acceptability of differing levels of radon, which the Manitoba public may confront? What efforts will be made by this government to educate Manitobans about the threat and the ways in which the residents might counteract it?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. First of all, I do not accept the panic that the member is instigating on this issue in the latter part of her question, because there is no threat from all the reports that we have at this point in time, no threats to life - and limb of citizens of Winnipeg in regard to radon gas at this point in time.

Having said that, Madam Speak er, we are participating on a national committee which is in the process of drafting those guidelines, a committee which involves representatives from other provinces and the Federal Government. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Five hundred and seventy deaths are of no significance to this particular Minister. Will the Minister offer today a guarantee that his department will take the necessary action during the present legislative Session to combat this radon threat? And will he establish guidelines and a program to assist the public in knowing what they can do to protect themselves? HON. G.

LECUYER: It is surprising, I would like to know where the member gets those figures of 570 deaths, since none of the expert opinions that I have has given any specific numbers. The only information I have, Madam Speaker, is that • this does not pose any significant threat. In fact, Madam • Speaker, we are told that cancers caused from smoking number 20 times the deaths that are caused from radon gas in the Province of Manitoba. Winnipeg taxicab drivers - investigation of list of names given to Manitoba Food and Commercial Union MRS. S.

CARS TAIRS: A new question to the same Minister in his capacity as Minister of Workplace Safety and Health. Madam Speaker, it has recently come to my attention that a confidential list of Winnipeg taxicab drivers was provided to the Manitoba Food and Commercial Union. It also appears that this list has come from either the Minister's department or from the inquiry established by the department to investigate safety measures.

Will the Minister undertake an investigation of his department to see if, in fact, his Minister's department is responsible and, if so, will they guarantee that that breach will not take place in the future? 2945 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Madam Speaker , I shall look into this matter and report back. Workers Compensation Board - removal of self-insured status of City of Winnipeg MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Charleswood. MR. J. ERNST: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for the Workers Compensation Board.

The King Commission has a recommendation contained therein to remove the self-insured status of the City of Winnipeg with respect to the Workers Compensation Board. The removal of that status will cause a significant financial burden, an additional financial burden, for Workers Compensation benefits on the City of Winnipeg. First of all, Madam Speaker, has the Minister had any discussions with the City of Winnipeg with respect to this recommendation? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister responsible for Workers Compensation. HON. H. HARAPIAK: No, I have not had any discussion with the City of Winnipeg.

As a matter of fact, I haven't even tabled the report. I will be tabling the report in this House tomorrow afternoon. I have made that announcement and, after that point, we will be discussing with all parts of the working society and the City of Winnipeg and all the other people who we will have to consult because of recommendations that are made in the King Report. Workers Compensation Board - City of Winnipeg to control own costs MR. J.

ERN ST: Will the Minister give some consideration to either a concession to the City of Winnipeg or some other method of allowing them to deal with control of their own costs, as opposed to being lumped in with the substantial deficit that the Compensation Board already has? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I shared in the House, prior to today, that there are 17 8 recommendations in the Review Committee Report. It took 20 months to come up with the report, print it and interview all the people. I am sure that the Member for Charleswood would not expect me to be acting on all the recommendations at this point.

We will be tabling the report. We will be reviewing the report and acting on the recommendations when we have had an opportunity to analyze it thoroughly. MR. J. ERNST: Madam Speaker, can the Minister advise if this is an attempt by his government to grab the payroll of the City of Winnipeg in order to fund the

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 deficits created by their incompetent management of this corporation? SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! HON. H. HARAPIAK: Madam Speaker, I don't believe that comment deserves an answer. Bill No. 61 - will Minister withdraw MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speak er, today the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which represents 1, 600 workers in the Province of Manitoba, has gone on record as being in opposition to Bill 61, the final offer selection bill of this Minister , the bill which -(lnterjection) this is the bill, Madam Speaker, which could be used to settle the Westfair Foods dispute. In view of the fact that Paul Moist, the Tr easurer of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, a CUPE member, has resigned his position and has said that he can't support or remain silent on the final offer selection and Shirley Lord, a former New Democratic . . .

MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? Will you please ask it? MR. J. McCRAE: Yes, Madam Speaker , I have a question.

Shirley Lord, the former New Democratic candidate and a member-at-large of the Manitoba Federation of Labour, has resigned her position because she cannot support the legislation of this Minister supported by the Manitoba Federation of Labou r, will the Minister listen to these people, as well as the Canadian Association of Industrial Mechanical and Allied Workers, other union people in this province, the Manitoba Labour Council, the Chamber of Commerce - dare I mention it - but many other business groups? Will the Minister now withdraw Bill 61? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I'm sure that honourable members will interpret support for Bill 61, or concern and opposition to it, in any way that they think is best for their side. I think it's obvious that there are people who have valid concerns about any new innovation in the labour relations field. We heard those concerns, some legitimate, some just political concerns, in 1972 in this House; we heard them in 1984.

Yet I heard on television people who, up until a couple of weeks ago, had been saying we had the worst labour relations climate in the country, saying we had the best labour relations climate in the country; why is the NOP Government introducing this legislation? So, I have to say, Madam Speaker, that I appreciate those who say they have valid concerns about any change. I will listen to those concerns, this government will listen to those concerns, but we think this legislation is sound and it should proceed. MR. J.

McCRAE: Madam Speaker, a little while ago, the Minister of Energy reminded us how important it is to do our homework. The Minister of Labour is a very good example of why that is so true. I'd like to correct something I said in my earlier question, Madam Speak er. There are not 1, 600 members of CUPE; there are 16 ,000 workers who belong to CUPE. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have a question? MR. J. McCRAE: Yes I do, Madam Speaker .

As far as the Minister's contention about the best labour relations in the country, Madam Speaker - those were his contentions - and we ask, if the Minister's statement is true, then why does he need this? Why does this Minister put the personal ambitions of a failed union leader , the leader of the Manitoba Food and Commercial Workers Union . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh , oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. As the member well knows, he is not to impute motives. Will the honourable member please ask his question? MR. J.

McCRAE: It's a very well-known rule, Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: Right. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speak er, why will this Minister put the personal ambitions of Bernard Christophe ahead of the concerns of 16 ,000 workers and many, many others in this province . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. MR. J. McCRAE: Why will he not withdraw Bill 61? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. That question, I just ruled out of order. MR. J. McCRAE: Pardon me, Madam Speaker. Bill 61 - why does Minister listen to only one union leader MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West with a question. MR. J.

McCRAE: Why does this Minister listen only to one union leader in this province and to no one else? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , I'm delighted that the kind of inept questioning that the honourable member makes at least gives me an opportunity to make a small statement indicative of the labour relations environment that we have developed successfully in 2946

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 this province and will continue to develop with sound legislation like . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Order. The Honourable Member for Brandon West on a point of order . MR. J. McCRAE: As honourable members and certainly yourself well know, Madam Speaker , if you want to make a statement at this point, you have to ask for leave and the Minister has not done that. MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member does not have a point of order. The Honourable Minister answering the question. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Madam Speaker.

I know that the honourable member has frustrated ambitions himself. I know that, when it comes to loyalties and support, the honourable member should reflect on . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. May I remind the Honourable Minister that answers to questions should not provoke debate. The Honourable Minister to answer the question. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I respect your concerns.

I indicate to the honourable member that we believe that it is the responsibility of government not to stand still, but to look forward with pride and with confidence on continuing to improve the labour relations environment in this province. We've done well; we can still even do better. And we are going to make sure that the innovative changes that we're proposing do work well and we're committed to them. Amalgamation of Dept. of Health and Manitoba Health Services Commission - date of MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health. Madam Speaker, during the Estimates process, the Minister of Health indicated that the department and the Manitoba Health Services Commission would be amalgamated within the next several months. Can the Minister indicate whether he has a date at which that amalgamation will be completed? MAD AM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: No, Madam Speaker, but it should be soon. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, given that precise answer from the Minister of Health, I'd like to ask the Minister of Health as to whether MHO, which is in control of a $250 million pension fund, probably one of the best employee pension funds in this province, whether the greed and avarice of this government for more money is stimulating the government to undertake the takeover of MHO and that $250 million pension fund. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Madam Speaker, I don't intend to answer those ridiculous questions by that member. MR. D.

ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, the member facilities of MHO and the employees who have contributed to that pension plan do not consider these to be ridiculous questions when this incompetent group of money-wasters are attempting a takeover of their pension fund. I ask the Minister a direct question: Are there any negotiations going on between himself and any designates of his department with MHO for the takeover of MHO and that $250 million pension fund, so that they can have their hands on more money to squander in this province? HON. L. DESJARDINS: Absolutely not.

There have been requests, meetings with MHO that I've always agreed to. They have brought the matter up on a number of occasions. It is a partnership. When there's a fund like this, it's a partnership with the workers also, and they are the ones who want something to do in placing their funds. The discussion is between the workers and MHO, not the government at all. The government is not trying to take over anything at all. It is between the two groups, and we repeatedly send them back to try to make arrangements amongst themselves.

Swan River housing project - reason for concrete steps not supplied by local contractor MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Gladstone. MRS. C. OLESON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister explain to the House why precast concrete steps were being trucked from south of Winnipeg to a government housing project in Swan River, when the local contractor could have supplied the steps very easily? MADAM SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Madam Speaker , I'll take that question as notice.

Swan River housing project - was contract tendered MRS. C. OLESON: While the Minister is taking that as notice and investigating it, I wonder would she find out if the contract was tendered and if the local contractor had a chance to tender on that? HON. M. HEMPHI LL: Yes, Madam Speaker. 2947

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Mediation Board re The Family Farm Protection Act - how many cases MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G. FINDL AY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Madam Speaker , last Session the Minister of Agriculture introduced Bill 4, The Family Farm Protection Act, which the Minister said would save farmers facing serious financial difficu lty. Madam Speaker , the Mediation Board that the Minister appointed has been in place for about four months with a $41 0,000 budget.

Madam Speaker, about 400 cases are now before the Federal Debt Review Board. I would like to ask the Minister how many cases are presently before his Mediation Board. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I'll take that question as notice. Mediation Board - tabling of guidelines MR. G. FINDLAY: Madam Speaker , maybe the Minister will have to take this question as notice too. He has $6.5 million budgeted for the utilization of this board, Madam Speaker .

I would like to know if he's given that board guidelines on how that $6.5 million will be administered, and if he will table it in the House. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker, the board and MACC and our staff are involved in finalizing those guidelines, and we will not be tabling the guidelines in this House, because those guidelines will be used as part of the negotiations that take place between lenders, the farmer and the board.

In fact, it would be imprudent, I believe, to have those guidelines public because of the fact there may be instances in which financial institutions would tailor their request on the basis of the guidelines that are there. The guidelines would be used in cases where the settlements, or at least the proposals, of financial institutions over a broad spectrum of cases would in fact be the basis which the board would use as a starting point in which to use the $6.5 million fund. That fund should not be used to complement or assist financial institutions in settlements that they are prepared to make in other cases.

Mediation Board Fund - utilization of MR. G. FINDL AY: Madam Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister if any of the $6.5 million has been utilized yet to help farmers of Manitoba. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speak er, I don't believe that the actual $6.5 million fund has been utilized at this point in time. However , Madam Speak er, there have been a number of instances - and this is why we have said that M'ACC as well, not only the fund, but MACC as well plays a role in which the regular funding of MACC can be used in settlements and agreements, in terms of financial restructuring.

But, Madam Speaker, that's not to say that the fund will not be used. But we want to be very certain that the fund will only be used in cases where the board is satisfied that the assistance provided will go beyond what financial institutions have, in fact, been prepared to negotiate and settle in other cases. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. HANSARD CORRECTIONS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-Gen eral. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker , I have some corrections for Hansard. Would now be the appropriate time? MADAM SPEAKER: Yes. HON. R.

PENNER: Hansard of Wednesday, the 3rd of June, 19 87, page 2713, right-hand column, third line from the bottom, first word of that line reading "convenance" should be "covenants." Madam Speaker, page 2714, second line from the top, the word "because" should be "as." Madam Speaker, page 2714 , right-hand column in the third paragraph, third line, the last three words in that line "private restaurants and" should be struck.

Madam Speaker, page 2715, left-hand column the beginning of the first full paragraph, the third line in that paragraph, the word "bounces" should be "balan ces." Madam Speaker, the right-hand column, page 2715 , the word "tenants" should be "tenets," t-e-n-e-t-s. Madam Speaker, on page 27 17 , right-hand column, second line from the bottom, the word "paying" should be "pain." MR. D. ORCHARD: This is terribly important to the future of this province. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Perhaps if we had a bit more order in the House, people would not have to make so many corrections to Hansard.

It's very difficult for the Hansard translators to get accurate account of events in the House when there is all kinds of extraneous racket. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker , those are all the corrections. They are for the literate members of the House, not for the Member for Pembina. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Ellice, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Statutory 2948

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Regulations and Orders be amended as follows: M. Dolin for the Honourable L Evans; the Honourable L Harapiak for S. Ashton. I move, seconded by the Member for Ellice that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The Honourable G. Doer for the Honourable J. Storie. I move, seconded by the Member for Ellice, that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: The Honourable H. Harapiak for the Honourable L Evans; the Honourable J. Plohman for the Honourable G. Doer; Honourable G.

Lecuyer for J. Maloway. MR. D. ORCHARD: Is that motion in order, Madam Speaker? MADAM SPEAKER: Yes. Agreed? (Agreed) HOUSE BUSINESS � MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government , House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Speaker, before proceeding on Orders of the Day, I'd like to, by leave, make a motion to change the review of The Real Property Act from Municipal Affairs to the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) HON. J.

COWAN: I therefore move, Madam Speaker, seconded by the Attorney-General, that Bill No. 27, The Real Property Act and Various Other Acts Amendment Act, be withdrawn from the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs and transferred to the Standing Committee on Statutory Regulations and Orders. MOTION presented and carried. � MADAM SPEAK .ER:- The Honourable Goveament , House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: I also understand, Madam Speaker, that there is a disposition on the part of members to forego Private Members' Hour today, by leave.

MADAM SPEAKER: Is that agreed? (Agreed) ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COW AN: Would you please call Second Readings as they appear on pages 4 and 5 of the Order Paper , however , starting with Bill No. 56 and then proceeding with the Second Readings in the order in which they appear, starting with Bill 40 and proceeding on to and inclusive with Bill No. 67 on page 5. Following that, Madam Speak er, would you please call debate on Second Readings for Bills No. 44, 50, 47 and 43 in that order. SECOND READING BILL NO. 56 - THE MINING CLAIM TAX ACT HON. W.

PARASIUK presented Bill No. 56, The Mining Claim Tax Act; Loi de la taxe sur les claims miniers, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. W. PARASIUK: Merci, Madame la Presidente. Madam Speaker, this new statute repeals The Mining Royalty and Tax Act and re-enacts

Part 3 of that act as The Mining Claim Tax Act. With the exception of

Part 3 of the old act, The Mining Royalty and Tax Act has been superseded by other mining tax legislation and is now redundant. Repeal during the Session avoids the need to translate it into French.

Part 3 of the old act levied a mining claim tax of $10 for each claim grouped under a number of Order in-Council leases and government patents. Since the leased rental provisions of The Mines Act and regulations do not apply to these claims . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. If honourable members want private conservations, could they please do so elsewhere so we can conduct the business of the House in an orderly fashion? HON. W. PARAS IUK: A separate claim tax was levied in lieu of normal rental. In order to continue the province's ability to collect the mining claim tax,

Part 3 of the old ... MR. H. ENNS: Madam Speaker , I hesitate to interrupt, but I would ask for some order in the Chamber so that some of us who wish to listen to the explanation . . . HON. W. PARASIUK: I can appreciate the Member for Lakeside's interjection. This is quite an esoteric topic that he and I really want to get into in some depth, and I think it's important that at least I can hear what I'm saying and he might hear what I'm saying as well.

Part 3 of the old Mining Royalty and Tax Act is being re-enacted as The Mining Claim Tax Act. The new act does contain one significant change that I'd like to make the members aware of. The level of the tax, which is just $10 per claim, is removed from the act itself and will be set by a regulation made under the act. Although it is not common to set taxes by regulation, the precedent has been set in the Saskatchewan oil industry and is incorporated into Manitoba's freehold oil and gas taxation legislation being introduced this Session of the Legislature.

The reason for this change is to introduce a greater degree of consistency into the administration of the province's Crown mineral resources. Rentals for mineral leases under The Mines Act are currently set by regulation. Since the Mining Claim Tax is a payment in lieu of rental, it should be set in a similar way. In future, any changes in the rental and fee structure applicable to mineral dispositions can be 2949

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 extended to the Order-in-Council leases and patents without the necessity of drafting new legislative amendments. The new Mining Claim Tax Act will come into force January 1, 19 88, and the repeal of The Mining Royalty and Tax Act will be effective as of that date. This timing will allow for a review of the tax rate relative to other rentals and fees and the introduction of appropriate regulations which are made public. With that, Madam Speaker, I conclude my comments on Second Reading of this legislation. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H.

ENNS: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Emerson, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 40 - THE HUMAN TISSUE ACT HON. L. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 40, The Human Tissue Act;

Loi sur les tissus humains, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd like to first of all inform the members of this House that this is actually a companion bill, a companion to another one that will be introduced short ly, Bill No. 60, The Anatomy Act. I think some of the statements that I'll make, the information that I will give on this bill, I think you will understand why we need changes in The Anatomy Act also.

This bill will replace the present Human Tissue Act, and its major purpose is to maximize the availability of human tissue and organs for use in transplants and other therapeutic procedures, as well as for medical education and research. However, it aims to achieve this goal with maximum sensitivi ty, most importantly, to the wishes of those donors whose bodies or body tissue will be used for the above-stated purposes and also to the wishes of their immediate families.

The impetus for this bill arises largely from the report of The Human Tissue Act issued by the Manitoba Law Reform Commission in March of last year, and much of this bill implements the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) We have also drawn to some extent on The Uniform Human Tissue Gift Act prepared by the Conference of Commissioners on Uniformity of Legislation in Canada.

Also, there is somewhat similar legislation throughout Canada, but I am confident in assuring this House that the bill we are tabling is among the most advanced and comprehensive pieces of legislation dealing with organ donation and use in Canada. It deals with matters not covered under the present Human Tissue Act of Manitoba or comparable provincial legislation, and it has been developed to accommodate medical advancements for some time to come. I will now like to turn to the general principles of this bill.

The first area to which the bill applies is the use of a person's body or tissue from the person's body after death. The bill would authorize any adult person to direct that his or her body or tissue from his or her body may be used after death for therapeutic purposes, including transplants, or for medical education or medical research. This principle essentially consolidates the existing law which is split between two statutes. Presently, The Anatomy Act authorizes after-death donations of a person's whole body,

whereas The Human Tissue Act covers donations of individual body tissue. Additionally, however, the bill lowers the effective age for making a direction respecting use of the body or body tissue after death.

Whereas the present law is restricted to adult persons, this bill would authorize individuals between ages 16 and 18 to authorize use of their body or body tissue after death, but only with parental consent. The rationale is that the 16 year old has reached a maturity level consistent with a decision to donate body tissue. This is evident from the right to seek a driver's licence at age 16 . In establishing the right of an individual to direct use of his or her body or body tissue, the guiding principle is the wishes of the individual.

Where the individual has authorized such use, no surviving relative would be able to intervene. But what if a deceased person has, prior to death, given no direction respecting the use of his or her body for transplants or other medical purposes? The present Human Tissue Act in this situation permits the nearest surviving relative to direct that the deceased's body be so used.

The new act would also provide such authority and would expressly extend it to include those tragic situations where a person under age 16 has died and the surviving family members - generous and compassionate in the midst of their grief - authorize use of the person's body for a transplant or other medical purposes.

However, consistent with the principle that the wishes of the deceased person should be paramount, a direction by a deceased person's family could not be acted upon where there was a reason to believe that use of the body or body tissue would be contrary to the religious beliefs of the deceased person or that the deceased person would have objected to such use. Thus far, I have emphasized the bill's attempts to maximize the legal authority of individuals to donate their own bodies or the bodies of their loved ones after death to preserve the life or restore the health of others.

But is there more that we can do, any further steps we can take in this vital area? Two of the realities respecting transplants in these times are: (1) there is still a shortage for organs for potential recipients; and (2) most surving relatives of a deceased person, when approached, do in fact agree to a transplant. With these realities in mind, the government is proposing in this bill, a system of required consideration and request that, as far as we know, is unique in Canada but is becoming more common in the United States.

The bill would require the last physician to attend a deceased person before death to consider the factors relevant to the possibl e performance of a transplant. 2950

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Where, after such consideration, the physician considers it appropriate to do so, he or she is required to request permission from the surviving relative to use the deceased's body or tissue for therapeutic purposes including a transplant. By the simple expedient of asking, the supply of organs could be increased significantly, and experience again shows the donors' families will generally welcome the opportunity to recognize something positive from their grief.

I emphasize that discretion to request permission would ultimately rest with the presiding physician, and indeed no request would be permitted in certain circumstances, for example, where the presid ing physician has reason to believe that use of the deceased person's body or tissue would be contrary to the person's religious beliefs or that the person, if living, would have objected to the use of his or her body after death.

I would now like to turn to two exceptions to the general principle that use of a person's body after death must be on the direction of the person before that, or with the consent of the surviving relatives. The present Human Tissue Act has a "Presume Consent" rule with respect to use of the pituitary gland after death. Where a post-mortem examination is being conducted on the body, the pituitary gland may be removed and used for therapeutic purposes even in the absence of a preset direction from the deceased or a direction from the fam ily.

The new bill also contains this provision which in fact is common in similar legislation across Canada. Even here, the wishes of the deceased and surviving relatives are important. Where there is reason to believe that any of them wm1ld have objected to removal and use of the pituitary gland, the presumption of consent is defeated and the gland cannot be removed. What is new in the bill is that we are proposing a similar "P resume Consent" rule with respect to the use of eye tissue in limited circumstances.

Wh ere a deceased person will be given a major post-mortem examination under The Fatalities Inquiries Act - that is, an examination that will require opening and examination of all body cavities - the bill will autl).orize the removal of eye tissue from the body and its · use for therapeutic purposes only, including transplant. This could be done in the absence of pre-death direction from the deceased person or subsequent directions from surviving relatives. This principle is also unique amongst other provinces, only Saskatchewan has anything similar.

The object is to supply desperately needed therapeutic tissue, namely eye tissue, in situations where the body of the deceased person is by law being subjected to a major medical procedure. Removal of the tissue would not be permitted unless there was a reasonable expectation that it would be used to treat a living person and under no circumstances would be permitted where there is reason to believe that the deceased person, if living, would have objected to the use of eye tissue after death, or that the nearest surviving relative of the deceased objects.

The second major area which this bill addresses is the donation of tissue by living persons for therapeutic purposes or for medical education or research. This legislation is entirely new in Manitoba, as the present 2951 Anatomy Act and Human Tissue Act deal only with use of body or body tissue after the person's death. Once again, the wishes of the donor would be paramount. The principle is that any person 18 years of age or over and able to make a free and informed decision may consent to removal of tissue from his or her body and its use for specified purposes.

In order to ensure that the person's consent is truly free and informed, the bill requires the written certification of a physician that the potential donor understands the nature and effect of the procedure authorized by the consent. The bill will also permit donation of tissue by living persons between age 16 and 18, but subject to stringent restrictions consistent with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. For example, the tissue would have to be used for a transplant to a member of the donor's immediate family.

There would have to be parental consent, as well as written certification from a doctor that the donor understands the nature and effect of the transplant. This provision would permit, among other things, the transplant of a kidney involving immediate family members - the kind of procedure that already is occurring in our hospitals - and that should be familiar to the members of this House.

Finally, in the area of tissue donations by living persons, the bill would permit transplant involving donors under age 16 , but only under very stringent restrictions, again generally consistent with the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission. For example, in addition to parental consent and the other restrictions I have just referred to in respect to donors over 16 , transplant involving a donor under age 16 would not be permitted unless the risk of the life and health of the donor would be relatively insubstantial for the purpose of the recipient of the tissue who would likely die without the transplant.

Also, the proposed transplant must involve regenerative tissue; that is, tissue that will restore itself in a donor's body. This restriction would prohibit, for example, kidney transplant involving donors under 16 , but would permit transplant of, say, bone marrow. In fact, it is my understanding that bone marrow transplants are not currently being done in Manitoba. But this bill, as I indicated at the outset, is designed to accommodate future developments in this rapidly expanding and exciting medical field.

Finally, in order to protect fully the interest of young persons in a potential transplant situation, the bill would require court approval for any transplant involving a donor under age 16 . The third major area covered by the new Human Tissue Act is to protect the integrity of the process of using human tissue for genuinely beneficial purposes. With certain exceptio ns, the bill would prohibit disclosing the identity of any person in respect of whom a direction or consent for the use of tissue has been given or refused, or who is a recipient or potential recipient of transplanted tissue.

Also, an extension of a provision which is currently in The Anatomy Act with respect to dead bodies, the bill would prohibit selling, buying, or trafficking in bodies or tissue from bodies or the acquisition of bodies or body tissue, except as authorized by provincial law. These provisions also are proposed on the recommendation of our Law Reform Commission. I

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 would like to add also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we've had meetings between the Attorney-General and myself and our staffs, and the MMA and people responsible and in charge of the transplants who have agreed and have recommended passing this legislation. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHA RD: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder if the Minister might entertain some questions for clarification. The Law Reform Commission - to make it a little quicker, has the Minister got an extra copy of that in his office which he might forward to me?

My filing system won't allow rapid retrieval of the Law Reform Commission recommendations on this act that you've referred to. HON. L. DESJARDINS : Is my honourable friend saying that he wants a copy of the Law Reform recommendations? I'll see if I can get that and give it to you as soon as possible. I'll probably get that from the Attorney-General. MR. D. ORCHARD : Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for St. Norbert, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : Second reading, Bill No. 41 -An Act to amend The Animal Husbandry Act, standing in the name of . . . HON.

L. DESJARDINS : Do Bill No. 60. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : Okay. Bill No. 60 . HON. L. DESJARDI NS: I'll do Bill No. 59 following this, as I - well, I can do Bill No. 60 right now; it doesn't matter. BILL NO. 60 - THE ANATOM Y ACT HON. L. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 60,

An Act to amend The Anatomy Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur I' Anatomie, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDI NS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is proper I guess that I should introduce this because it is the companion bill, and I just have a very short addition to what I've already said on the previous act. Mr. Deputy Speaker, this bill is a companion to the proposed new Human Tissue Act and simply makes consequential amendments to The Anatomy Act based on the proposed new principles of The Human Tissue Act.

For example, we intend to remove the provision in the present Anatomy Act that allows a person, prior to death, to direct that his or her body be used after death for the purposes of the act. As I indicated with respect to The Human Tissue Act, we are proposing to consolidate all of these statutory directions in The Human Tissue Act, so that the law respecting pre-death directions is consistent and easier to find and understand. Also, where necessary, we propose changes in The Anatomy Act to accommodate the authority given by the proposed new Human Tissue Act to direct the use of a body or body tissue.

In those rare cases where the inspector of anatomy will make such a direction, he or she would be able to move quickly to use the body for a transplant, rather than waiting the 48 hours currently prescribed under The Anatomy Act. However, this power could not be exercised where there is a reasonable expectation that a surviving relative will come forward to claim the body of the deceased person. The Anatomy Act amendments also increase the penalty for unlawful trafficking of a dead body or any other contravention of the act.

The proposed new penalty, in fact, is consistent with the penalty under the anti-trafficking provisions of the proposed new Human Tissue Act. Finally, we propose to make The Anatomy Act subject to The Human Tissue Act in order to establish and clarify the fundamental principle that a pre-death direction by an individual, or a direction by his or her surviving relatives, should be the conclusive and governing basis for the use of the person's body after death. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Member for Pembina. MR. D.

ORCHA RD: I move, seconded by the Member for River East, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 59 - THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT HON. L. DESJARDINS presented Bill No. 59,

An Act to amend The Mental Health Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la sante mentale, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER : The Honourable Minister of Hea lth. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Thank you Mr. Deputy Speaker. I'm pleased to introduce the following amendments to The Mental Health Act. Mental Health Acts are always subject to revision as our knowledge of the mentally ill increases and as we develop more refined conceptions of individual's civil rights as represented in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These amendments are based on work done by a committee that I established to review the act and bring forward Charter-related amendments.

As well, these amendments embody the spirit of what are as yet draft recommendations of mental health legislation proposals being developed by the Uniform Conference of Canada, a body that seeks to bring about conformity of laws across the country that remain within provincial jurisdictions. 2952

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 The major purpose of mental health legislation is to ensure that the individual's rights are protected so that treatment is not arbitrarily applied against a person's will, but then to ensure that treatment is available to those who, by virtue of mental illness, do not recognize the need for treatment. It is this delicate balance that this legislation is intended to address. Essentia lly, the work of The Mental Health Act Review Committee was divided into two phases.

Phase I was initiated in January 1985, when I invited the major professional associations, the provincial Mental Health Association, consumer groups, hospitals and othe r service agencies to comment on the existing Mental Health Act and to suggest changes to it. While awaiting their submissions, a committee conducted a review of The Mental Health Acts of all the provinces, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Manitoba Law Reform Commission's 197 9 report on emerge ncy, apprehension, admissions and rights of patients under The Mental Health Act.

As well, numerous other documents on mental health concerns in Canada and abroad were reviewed. Additionally, the committee consulted with the directors of mental health from a number of provinces and with legal experts regarding the Charter and its implications for the current Mental Health Act. After reviewing the submissions, the committee developed a set of recommendations in the form of a discussion paper. This paper was distributed to all those who originally submitted, as well as other professionals and consumer groups. Once again, these various organizations were asked to comment.

Phase II consisted of reviewing the submissions and the drafting of recommendations. It is these recommendations that form a framework for the amendments which I am now introducing. Notwithstanding the above noted submissions, it was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that most influenced the majority of the committee's deliberations. Of primary concern to any mental health legislations are sections 7, 10 and 15 of the Charter.

Section 7 states: "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."

Section 10 further guarantees: "Everyone has the right on arrest or detention: (

a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor; (

b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and (

c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful."

Section 15 states: "Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particu lar, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability." In considering these sections of the Charter , our goal in proposing these amendments is to blend the ability to help people with mental disorders who experience serious and urgent situations with their right to the protection offered in these sections.

As noted previo us ly, of tremendous benef it in considering these amendments was the work done by the Uniform Law Conferences Committee on a Uniform Mental Health Act. While that committee's final draft has not yet been adopted, their proposed recommendations are incorporated in the majority of the following amendments. While it is not possible to detail all the amendments, which total over 40 pages, the major ones include: 1. The introduction of a new definition of mental disorder which more accurately reflects the functional criteria for determining a person's need for mental health treatment.

This definition states that: "M ental disorder means a substantial disorder of thought, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour , capacity to recognize reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life." 2. The implementation of a two-certificate process which will require a medical certificate to authorize conveyance and brief detention and a second certificate for longer-term detention. This two-certificate process will replace the court orders or warrants currently required to authorize conveyance of a person to a psychiatric facility. 3.

The introduction of specific criteria such as required to proceed with an involuntary admission where before there were none. 4. The inclusion of specific patient rights to bring The Mental Health Act in line with the requirements of the Charter. These rights include access to a review board to review all aspects of the committal and involuntary treatment process. 5. A competency examination to determine both capacity to consent to treatment and competency to administer one's own estate.

Since mental health legislation is constantly evolving, it is expected in the future that these amendments which I have introduced today will require further revisions. This will be especially so when the proposed vulnerable adults legislation is introduced. The n we anticipate that mental retardation and guardianship will be removed from The Mental Health Act. As well, by that time, we will be in a better position to evaluate the impact of the Uniform Law Conference's recommendations on Mental Health Legislation throughout Canada.

The current amendments, however , will ensure the legislative framework for the care of the mentally ill which will be in keeping with the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as ensuring that those in need of treatment can receive it. In closing, I'd like to inform the members of the House and the Opposition that a paper is being prepared, the usual paper where we have the present act, the changes and what it'll mean, to make it easier to look at the act. I'll provide that as soon as I can, in a couple of days or so. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina.

MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I move, seconded by the Member for River East, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. 2953

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 BILL NO. 41 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE ANIMAL HUSBANDR Y ACT HON. B. URUSKI presented Bill No. 41,

An Act to amend The Animal Husbandry Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAK ER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI : Mr. Deputy Speaker, this act was enacted and given Royal Assent back on May 4, 1933. It has been amended several times since then in order to ensure that it reflected and served the needs of an ever-changing livestock industry. It was last amended in 1976, when a substantial

section regarding artificial insemination was added to it. We find that it is now outdated in terminology and in dealing with issues of modern livestock technology and changing rural environment. It needs to be updated too in respect to licence fees and penalties. The changes to the act which are proposed in this bill are presented in order to address problems arising from the present act. These problems were brought to my department's attention by livestock producers, producer organizations such as the Manitoba Sheep Breeders' Association and many concerned individual members of the general public.

The changes proposed are in parts 1, 2, 3, and 9 of the act, and parts 4, 5 and 6 remain unchanged. The specific objectives of the bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, are: (1) to expand the very limited

definitions of some of the terms of the present act and to update the language by replacing some very antiquated terminology with more appropriate terms. For example, the definition of animal has been changed from "an animal of husbandry" to "any animal kept for domestication or captivity." This reflects the increased number of species of animals that are kept under domestication. "Sheep and turkeys" has been changed to "animals and poultry. " The department has received several complaints in recent years that keepers of species other than sheep and turkeys are not protected under the present act.

"Husky and sleigh dog," for example, is changed to "dog," because most problems with dogs running at large nowadays involve dogs other than Husky or sleigh dogs. "Giving tongue," Mr. Deputy Speaker, an old English fox-hunting term, is now changed to "disturb ing." "Mileage" is being changed to the metric conversion. To remove the hardships imposed on finders of stray animals by the present legislation and to put the onus on municipalities to enact and enforce by-laws regarding stray animals and mischievous dogs, that's the second objective of the act, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

For example, under the present act, the finder of a stray animal is required to keep the animal for two weeks before a notice of find can be posted and is also responsible for paying for the notice. The proposed changes require finders to notify municipalities or the RCMP immediatel y, and the animal must be placed in a pound if the owner cannot be contacted. (Madam Speaker in the Chair. ) Secondly, the period of time an animal must be kept before being sold is changed from one month down to 10 days.

Thirdly in this area, the responsibility for dogs running at large is placed upon the municipalities, and will require them to address this problem by enacting and enforcing appropriate by-laws. The third objective, Madam Speak er, is to add sections regarding offences and penalties to the part of the act concerning brands. The present act covers only registration and cancellation of brands, and there are no provisions for penalties for such acts as the misuse of brands.

In order to address the problem of rustling, provision has been made for the requirement of proof of ownership to accompany all animals being transported. Vents have been eliminated from the act because this is a practice no longer used. The fourth objective is to recognize the commercial development of embryo transplant transfer in livesto ck, especially cattle, by including regulations governing the procedure with those of artificial insemination.

The artificial insemination part of the act has also been amended to confirm the custom that has evolved and is practised regarding designated areas, or area protection and technician commitment to provide an equal opportunity for all producers to obtain semen and embryos from all suppliers, and to ensure the provision of A.I. services in all areas of the province. And fifthly, to bring the penalties and fees in line with present-day costs, that is, moving them from $2 to $10, $25 to $10 0, and $50 to $200.00.

The intent, Madam Speaker, of the act is to control stray animals and dogs running at large, to ensure the protection of injured or abused animals, to regulate the use of brands, to allow for the improvement of livestock breeding and the government purchase and sale of livestock and to regulate the use and sale of semen and embryos for artificial insemination and embryo transfer purposes.

The powers of the act allow the enactment of local by-laws respecting stray animals and dogs running at large, the issuing of permits and licences related to brands and the practices of artificial insemination and embryo transfer, and authorize inspectors to carry out their duties as required to effect compliance with regulations of the act.

In this regard, the definition of an authorized judicial officer has been reworded to reflect the changes that have taken place since 1933 when the act included in the the definition: "A superintendent of an Indian agency or an assistant Indian agent, appointed under The Indian Act (Canada), a duly ordained minister, clergyperson or priest of a church or religious denomination, or an evangelist, missionary , or theological student authorized or employed by a church or religious denomination having charge of a mission stationed in, or conduct services in an unorganized territory.

" The extent to which the RCMP personne l are involved in maintaining law and order in the rural areas, and their necessary assistance in the successful administration of the act, is recognized by their appointment as inspectors under this act. 2954

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Where appropriate, in matters where it is deemed unnecessary for the Minister to be involved, jurisdiction formerly vested in the Minister is being transferred to the Director of the Animal Industry Branch. The right of appeal to the Minister is of course maintained. The act is compatible with the municipal administration statutes. The identification of animals in transport is compatible with the Department of Highways and Transportation regulations. Those are the issues that arise with compatibility with other statutes.

As well, there may be some controversy from municipal governments in those sections requiring municip alities to enact by-laws regarding stray and mischievous dogs and making municipalities respon sible for damage caused by mischievous dogs. The department has received several complaints regarding the reluctance of municipal councils to enact such by-laws. In some areas, packs of dogs running at large are a real problem.

The Manitoba Sheep Breeders' Association, as well as numerous individuals, have asked for these changes, pointing out that this will bring our act in line with those of other provinces, particularly Saskatchewan and Ontario. Those sections in

Part Ill, the brands section, dealing with the requirement of a bill of sale for transported animals, should help to address the problem of rustling and will bring our act in line with those of other western provinces. I might point out, Madam Speaker, that there were concerns raised by the Hog Board about the need for ident ification of hogs being transported to market and I think, in terms of our discussions, there is no intent to enforce the act in terms of hog transportation, but it's clear that most hog producers will have a valid hog producer's number if ever there was some need to check .

But we, in discussion with the RCMP and with the Hog Board, have basically resolved the issue to say that the intent is primarily for cattle and that the issue of cattle identification is part and parcel of the act. These changes have been discussed with the Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association and the Manitoba Beef Commission, and both organizations appear supportive of the changes dealing with brands.

Since its addition to the act in 19 76, the legislation regarding artificial insemination has proved to be sound and of benefit to the industry in ensuring that cattle breeders anywhere in the province have an equal opportunity to obtain semen available anywhere in Canada and the Uni ted States, and that artificial insemination services are available in all areas of the province. It is expected that the inclusion of embryos and embryo transfer procedures to this part of the act will prove to be equally sound and beneficial in making the benefits of embryo transfer available to the livestock industry.

Madam Speak er, this then is the gist of our proposed revision of The Animal Husbandry Act. I shall be pleased to discuss it in more detail when we go to committee, and I will have staff there to explain some of the details which I may not be able to explain. As well, I want to ask the Pages to provide what I have provided in the crop insurance bill, a couple of copies for the government caucus and about half-a- dozen copies of the spreadsheets of the changes to the exist ing act, the proposed changes and the comments on the changes of Bill No. 41, for members opposite for their information.

I want to indicate as well, while I'm on my feet, Madam Speak er, that there will likely be some minor amendments in terms of the drafting. There were some headings to the different parts of the act that were left out in the original printing, and I'll give my honourable friends an example. For example, in

Part 1, there was no heading in printing about the stray animals and poultry municipalities. So those headings will be made as amendments because they are missing from the draft. So there will be some minor amendments due to some missing out in the printing, but they will be minor in nature. If there are some further suggestions that honourable members will make during the debate of this bill, I'll be pleased to hear those suggestions to see whether or not some of them can, in fact, be accommodated if they prove to be valuable contributions in the debate. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR. G.

FINDL AY: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I move, seconded by the Member for La Verendrye, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 46 - THE CHARTER COMPLIANCE STATUTE AMENDMENT ACT, 1987 HON. R. PENNER presented Bill No. 46, The Charter Compliance Statute Amendment Act, 19 87; Loi de 1987 modifian t diverses dispositions legislatives afin d'assurer le respect de la Charle, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R.

PENNER: Madam Speak er, this is the fourth bill specifically directed to the issue of Charter compliance that the government has tabled in this House over the course of the past three Sessions. It's the second bill dealing primarily with the equality guarantees set out in

section 15 of the Charter. I submit that four Charter compliance bills in three years are, in and of themselves, examples of the govern ment's pro-active response to the Charter. By that I mean that we are not waiting to be directed by the courts but attempting to anticipate reasonably. It does not stop there however , Madam Speaker , because many other bills, although not specifically referring to the Charter in their titles, nonetheless take important steps towards Charter compliance.

For example, in the current Session, we have before the House the new Human Rights Code and a new Ch ange of Name Act, both of which propose changes to the present law specifically directed in some aspects to equality guarantees under Charter

section 15. 2955

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Additionally, Madam Speaker, I would like to remind members of the House of the very significant changes that the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation made in the Autopac premiums and benefit structures last year. These changes significantly restrict the use of age, sex and marital status as criteria for determining premium payments and no-fault benefits under the Autopac scheme. In the case of premium payments, the changes eliminated distinctions that, despite being openly discriminat ory, had been securely established in the insurance industry for many years.

I should also, Madam Speaker, make clear that this bill is merely another stage in the Charter compliance process and we are already planning significant legislation for the future. My departmental officials are presently analyzing several Law Reform Commission Reports with a view to consolidating and simplifying the rules relating to maintenance and distribution of marital property , family maintenance and the distribution of marital property. Once tabled, these amendments will also be recognized as Charter

section 15 compliance legislation because they will do away with the inconsistencies and inequalities in the current patchwork of statutes dealing with maintenance and with family property distribution. And so we will be looking at, pursuant to recommendations of the Law Reform Commission, The Devolution of Estates Act, The Dower Act, The Married Womens' Property Act, The Marital Property Act, and so on, proposing to consolidate those.

That will be for the next Session and, as I indicated, I hope to be able to table a White Paper before the end of this Session so that all members have an indication of what we will be considering. I will now deal briefly with the major principles of Bill 46. The focus is primarily but not exclusively on statutory provisions that discriminate on the basis of religion and age.

I should say, Madam Speaker, that there are no really significant policy issues addressed in this particular Charter compliance bill but nevertheless they are, in and of themselves, important in bringing our statutes into the era of the Charter. In terms of religious discrimination, various statutory oaths of office and oaths of allegiance do not provide the option of affirming rather than swearing the oath. We are proposing to amend each of these to permit the option of affirming. At the same time, we are proposing amendments to related enabling and deeming provisions, such as those in The Evidence Act and The

Interpretation Act in order to assure that, under all provincial laws, the legal status and effect of taking an affirmation is identical to swearing an oath. There are many people in this province, Madam Speaker, who for religious reasons or perhaps because they don't have a particular religion, prefer to affirm. As for the changes dealing with age, the overall intent is to expand various statutory rights and privileges that currently are restricted on the basis of age. The current restrictions cover all parts of the age spectrum.

For example, one of the elements of the bill deals with The Chartered Accountants Act where it was stipulated that, before you could be admitted to that society, you had to be age 30. It was clearly discriminatory and, incidentally, that society has been consulted, as have the various departments affected by changes that are being proposed. Most of the changes are in relation to age 18 , however, in cases where the restriction is either inherently unfair and unrelated to the notion of the age of majority or in fact fails to conform to the present administration of the law.

One example of an inherently unfair provision is in The Highway Traffic Act where the convicting Justice is authorized to order impoundment for up to three months of a bicycle belonging to a person under age 18 who has violated the act. No similar penalty is permitted in respect to a person over the age of 18 , and thus there is a clear case of age discrimination that we are proposing to rectify because it can't really be justified on any reasonable grounds. The bill also proposes -(Interjection)- Well, it was at your urging, threatened to take away your bicycle again, didn't they?

The bill also proposes, Madam Speaker, some amendments to overcome discrimination based on disability, for example, in statutory limitation periods, penalized persons under a disability who wished to take legal action. These will be changed to give disabled persons the same opportunity as others to make their claim.

So that once the disability which has, for example, prevented a person making a claim is removed, the statutory limitation period will run from then rather than from an earlier date, or will be at least the same as provided by The Limitations Act for other persons and not as is presently the case in one or two instances, a shorter period of time. So, Madam Speaker, as I say, none of the changes being proposed in this particular bill are, in themselves, momentous.

They are just another step on the way towards the compliance with the Charter to which we dedicated ourselves post- 1982, and I commend the bill to the House. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Morris, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 61 - THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT HON. A. MACKLING presented Bill No. 61,

An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations du travail, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak in some detail on the content of Bill 61,

An Act to amend The Labour Relations Act. This bill adds a procedure called "fi nal offer selection," as another option for settling labour contract disputes. I believe it will be an enhancement of the existing settlement methods. Madam Speaker, let me make it absolutely clear that this new procedure does not replace or take away from 2956

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 the dispute settlement methods that are now available to the parties. Final offer selection does not, for example, replace or restrict the use of conciliation, mediation or conventional arbitration. It simply adds another option that the parties can choose if they feel it would be appropriate in their particular circumstances. In some ways, Madam Speaker, I guess that one might characterize this as an improvement that may not be used in a great number of cases. We believe, however, that it is a significant change because it opens up another opportunity for parties to reach an agreement.

To fully understand the significance of this measure, it is necessary to consider the historical development of the field of labour relations. Most people tend to think of government involvement in labour relations as a very recent phenomenon. In reality, governments have for centuries been involved in labour relations. For example, in England, during Tudor and Stuart times, the government regulated wages. Throughout the 18 th Century, there were laws banning workers from organizing.

It wasn't until the 19 th Century and after considerable hardship and even violence that provisions were made in the law to allow workers to organize and to protect workers from intimidation. The key to the modern relationship between employers and employees has been this ability of workers to organize and negotiate suitable arrangements and benefits with employers. As our civilization has progressed, so has this relationship grown and the procedure matured. Employers, workers and union representatives have learned to work with this system and have benefited from it.

The maturing of the labour relations process has involved the introduction of appropriate legislation to assist the parties reach satisfactory agreements. Throughout the history of this movement, improvements in labour legislation designed to protect employees or to ensure fairness in the workplace have often been seen by employers as shifting the balance of the labour management relationship. Yet management has always had the greater power in that relationship and probably always will have.

In the past, legislation has been introduced for the purpose of bringing some balance into an otherwise unbalanced situation. Today, the laws governing collective bargaining affect a substantial sector of the labour force. Close to 50 percent of Manitoba's non-agricultural workers are covered by collective agreements. The province's economic prosperity is heavily influenced by the conditions in organized sectors of the economy. A climate of industrial harmony is important to the future of Manitoba as a good place to work and to invest.

Over time, labour legislation in Manitoba has developed into the sophisticated and useful instruments contained in The Labour Relations Act. Various options such as conciliation or mediation have been established in the process. Recently of course, in 19 84, we developed grievance mediation and expedited arbitration. As we head towards the 21s t Century, we need to keep innovated. We need to protect the interest of workers and employers, including their ultimate rights to strike or lock out. But we must also seek other options. We believe final offer selection is another option.

It is an effective mechanism in helping the parties reach a settlement. Then the public interest is served because of fewer work stoppages. Improvements and new innovations to labour legislation are desirable ways of increasing harmony in labour relations. Through the introduction of Bill 61, the final offer delection process, our government is contributing to this ongoing commitment to fair and progressive labour legislation. What is final offer selection and how does it work? Union and management commence bargaining for a new collective agreement in the normal fashion.

If they're having difficulty reaching agreement, either the union or management may choose to ask the workers to vote on whether or not to use final offer selection. This vote can take place no earlier than 60 days before the exploration of a collective agreement and no later than 30 days before expiry of the agreement. If the workers vote "no," collective bargaining will continue and, if no agreement is reached, a strike or lockout could result. If the workers vote "yes," union and management will submit a list of unresolved issues to a selector.

The selector is an impartial third party who can be chosen by mutual agreement or, if the parties cannot agree, a selector can be appointed by the Manitoba Labour Board. The selector will meet with the parties to hear arguments in support of the parties' offers. The selector will then choose either the union's offer or management's offer. The offer chosen, along with all the items previously agreed to, would then constitute the collective agree ment.

In certain cases and conditions, either the union or management could call for a vote of the workers to endorse final offer selection after a work stoppage, a strike or a lockout, has begun. This rule will apply if the work stoppage is in progress for a minimum of 60 days but not more than 70 days. Madam Speaker, we expect that the existence of final offer selection will encourage both sides in a labour dispute to bargain in good faith and to resolve disputes through mutual agreement.

Because the selector picks either one offer or the other , without mixing or matching of the proposals, we expect that both sides will be encouraged to narrow the number of unsettled items to a very few, and that the final offer submitted will be their best, most reasonable offer. In selecting the better final offer, the selector will consider various criteria as stipulated in the bill. Criteria for assessing the offers include the terms of the previous contract, changes in the cost of living, the employer's ability to pay, and other related factors.

The emphasis is on what is reasonable, based on the information and documentation provided. The selector's decision is binding on both parties. This new provision does not replace any of the mechanisms currently available under The Labour Relations Act, but only provides another alternative. Again, let me state that we believe that it will reinforce the collective bargaining process because it encourages the parties to engage in serious and meaningful bargaining throughout the process. Right up until the selector makes that final decision, the parties are still free to reach a settlement on their own.

As you can see, Madam Speaker, this procedure 2957

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 is not pro-union or pro-management; it is pro settlement. The legislation is a unique model developed especially for Manitoba. We are now, however, the first ones to introduce this kind of mechanism for settling contract disputes. Variations of a final offer selection process have been tried in other jurisdictions with some success. It's been used in Ontario, New Jersey , Indianapolis, Oregon, Michigan, Wisconsin, and in other places, usually in the public sector.

Generall y, these jurisdictions have found that it encouraged the parties to: negotiate seriously right up to the final selection; - narrow the number of unsettled items; and - develop more realistic final offers. -(Interjection)- Well, Madam Speaker, honourable members opposite, by their continued interjections, obviously underscore the importance of this legislation.

Madam Speaker, the experiences of final offer selection in other jurisdictions were that they found that, by encouraging the parties themselves to compromise rather than risk the other offers being selected, the result was more likely to be acceptable than if an arbitrator had compromised the two positions. A negotiated settlement is always preferable to one determined by a third party. The availability of final offer selection, where it has a reasonable chance of producing such a result, is a desirable development. Final offer selection is not magical.

It will not be the answer in every case and the parties are still free to use other existing methods of conflict resolution. But we think it has potential as a useful tool in some circumstances. We believe it deserves an opportunity for trial here in Manitoba. As I mentioned, we have developed a unique form of final offer selection that fits the needs of the Manitoba labour relations situation. We developed this model after studying those used in other jurisdictions.

The key difference is that the Manitoba model has been designed in such a way as to support and reinforce, not replace, the collective bargaining process. All Manitobans can be proud that our province boasts one of the best labour relations records in the country. Last year, we had the lowest rate of person days lost through work stoppages next only to Prince Edward Island. Manitoba is the envy of other provinces because we experience so few work stoppages and so few days are lost because of them.

It is a tribute to the multitude of workers, employers and unions that come together in good faith to work out mutually beneficial arrangements for their own work setting. You may ask, who benefits from this favourable situation. Everyone, Madam Speaker . Business benefits because it means our workplace is peaceful and our work force is productive. Work stoppages cost businesses in lost productivity, lost customer confidence and lost profits. Good labour relations means good business. Certainly, Madam Speaker, workers benefit from harmony in the workplace.

A stable labour relations environment provides a stable income and an opportunity to build a good quality of life for workers and their families. I suppose that, for the benefit of the honourable members opposite, I must point out that our good labour relations is no accident. It is not a coincidence. It is not luck. It is a direct result of sound policies and progressive legislation implemented over the years. As Minister of Labour, I am very proud of our government's accomplishments in the labour field.

Manitoba has a good labour legislation because we look to future trends and to the needs of both employers and employees, considering the greater public interest of all Manitobans. We have been innovative in introducing legislation and procedures that protect workers, establish standard practices for business, and create a high quality of life for the people of our province. We accept and encourage the amicable settlement of labour disputes and contracts through the collective bargaining process. We are committed to this as the best way yet developed of protecting the interests of all parties in the workplace.

Whenever necessar y, the Department of Labour stands ready to facilitate that process so that agreements are reached. Our approach is a positive supportive one that helps rather than interferes. Our approach and our good record here in Manitoba contrasts sharply with the experience of other Provincial Governments such as British Columbia. Policies of the government there have festered confrontation and bitter conflict, resulting in protest strikes, disruption of services and hardship for ordinary people. That is not the way we want to do things in Manitoba, Madam Speaker .

When ever you try to do something new, something different, critics appear. In the discussions I had about this bill, I have received many positive comments and a good level of support for the idea of another option to settle disputes. On the other hand, I know there will be some who will be critical. Perhaps it is natural that a few representatives from both sides of the labour equation may be apprehensive of something new and untried. They may be skeptical of its effects on their traditional ways of doing things or they may wish to reserve judgment with a "wait and see" attitude. To that, I say fair enough.

It is a fairly new process and a unique model. I would like to allay their fears by pointing out that it is an optional process and simply another tool at their disposal. The uniqueness of the model is, I think, an advantage in that it has been tailored specifically to the Manitoba situation. We firmly believe that it can be a useful mechanism in some situations and we believe that it is worthwhile to make it available as an option. Some business interests may suggest the legislation is unbalanced in favour of the union side. I cannot agree with that assessment.

It's a fact that final offer selection can be initiated by either the employer or the union. The process is fundamentally fair because the final decision, in either case, is up to the employees. The negative view overlooks the great power that has always rested on the management side of the labour relations equation. Management has the ultimate right to open or close the plant, hire or lay off workers, and determine the nature of the jobs in the workplace. Management isn't losing rights simply because labour legislation encourages fairness and equity in the workplace.

The final offer selection process provides more say to the individual employees themselves. 2958

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Whether the union or the employer requests final offer sele ction, it must be supported by a majority "yes" vote of the employees before it can take place. As you might expect, Madam Speaker, the honourable members opposite are ready to criticize this and any new measure. They have the unenviable record of being against anything new or progressive. To illustrate this, I need only go back to the revisions of The Labour Relations Act that our government implemented in 1984. Those were positive changes that were long overdue.

Indee d, those changes have led to increased harmony and a very peaceful period of labour relations that has greatly benefited the people and the economy of Manitoba. But when we look back through Hansard and through the news clippings of the day, what do we find? It's a situation of deja vu. We find the Opposition blindly opposed to revisions in labour legislati on. They predi ct ed the apocalypse simpl y because the government improved the province's labour laws.

In fact, on June 29, 19 84, the Honourable Opposition Leader said in the house, we're on the slippery slope •to destroying labour-management relations in this •province. You can find the same arguments in the debates over changes to labour legislation made in 1972. History repeats itself over and over again. Of course, the Opposition's predictions never materialized. They claimed better labour laws would drive business out of Manitoba. It didn't happen. In fact, businesses benefited from the improvement in the labour relations climate.

As a matter of fact, we've consistently had one of the best records in Canada in terms of low unemployment rates, real economic growth, capital inves tment growing at a rate twice that of the national average. Most economic forecasters believe that Manitoba's future growth will continue to surpass the national average. There is today no question that the 1984 amendments to The Labour Relations Act were innovative and forward-looking, but the Opposition criticized us for them. They couldn't see it then but the proof is all around us now that we were right.

Now, today, we are • again hearing the same tired arguments from the • Opposition as the government introduces Bill 61. The members opposite say, if there's no problem, why do anything? Such is their visionary approach. They think standing still is moving too fast. They say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Because Manitoba's labour record is good, leave it alone. Don't make improvements. Why is it the honourable members opposite won't learn from history?

And as I indicated, Madam Speaker, earlier on today in question period, I was amazed to hear people who up until a couple of weeks ago were saying, oh, the labour relations in Manitoba are desperate; it's terrible. When the news of final offer selection was being introduced as a further option, these same people were talking about, well, the labour relations in Manitoba is probably the best in the country.- (Interjection)- We ll, you know, that's the kind of argument that we can expect to hear from members opposite. Yes, Madam Speaker , we do have a good labour relations environment here in Manitoba.

That good record is a trust and a responsibility that we in government, in the government benches, take very seriously. Rather than 2959 wait for time to pass us by, we are anticipating changing times and changing needs of the parties involved in the labour negotiation process. That means moving ahead with progressive legislation that ensures a healthy labour relations climate for Manitoba, not just today but for the future as well. MR. D. ORCHARD: And you will all pay for it. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honourable Minister has the floor. HON. A.

MACKLING: In conclusion, I want to express our government's ongoing faith in the collective bargai ning process. It is always our hope and expectation that contract negotiations will be settled amicably through collective bargaining. In fact, this is what happens in the vast majority of cases. If parties want the support of conciliation or mediation to help in this process, Manitoba Labour will always be standing by ready to assist.

Today this bill, Bill No. 61, we are simply adding another option, another alternative mechanism for the parties to choose if they feel it would assist them in settling their contract dispute. In some cases, the option of final offer selection might be used instead of a work stoppage. In any event, the nature of final offer selec tion is such that it encourages the parties to bargain seriously and reasonably toward an agreement on their own.

We firmly believe that any mechanism that contributes to peaceful settlements of disputes is a worthy measure and I'm pleased to commend its introduction to all members of this Assembly. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Virden, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MADAM SPEAKER: Before calling the next bill, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 30 students from Grades 7 to 9 from the McAuley School, under the direction of Mrs. P.

Crosson. The school is located in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Virden. On behalf of all the members, we welcome you to the Legislature this afternoon. BILL NO. 62 - THE INSURANCE ACT HON. A. MACKLING presented Bill No. 62,

An Act to amend The Insurance Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les assurances, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker , I have copies of my remarks and copies of a spread sheet for . . .

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 Madam Speaker, under the current legislation, agents, brokers and adjust ors wishing to appeal determinations of their licensing status by the Superintendent of Insurance, must do so to the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council. In order to create a less formal appeal procedure , an appeal board consisting of a chairperson , two lay persons and two industry representatives will be established , pursuant to the provisions of this bill .

Appeals will also be expanded from the current suspension or revocation of licence , to include appeals of condition of licence, reprimand , as well as decisions of the Superintendant of Insurance, dealing with policy wordings and advertising . The current legislation requires the Superintendent of Insurance to maintain records of agents licensed under The Insurance Act . This requirement will be expanded to include brokers, adjusters and assistant adjusters.

As the act currently makes the status of an agent's licence available to the public , this will be expanded to include the licensing status of brokers , adjusters and assistant adjusters. In dealing with the misconduct of agents , brokers, adjusters and assistant adjusters, the Superintendent is currently empowered to only suspend or cancel a licence . There are cases where the suspension or cancellation of a licence is too severe. Therefore, the official action of reprimand is being introduced to allow some form of action of a less severe nature to be taken where warranted.

Steps also in this bill, Madam Speaker , have been taken to create an insurance exchange, to be called The Canadian Insurance Exchange, to operate along the lines of Lloyd 's of London and the New Insurance Exchange. I'm sorry, Madam Speaker , I said, in this bill steps are taken - this Insurance Exchange was developed and this New Insurance Exchange will be located in Toronto . Amendments in this bill are included to accommodate the licensing of the Canadian Insurance Exchange in a manner similar to the licensing of Lloyd's of London.

The capital and supply requirements for licensing an insurance company are being upgraded to a level in keeping with inflationary impacts and current requirements in other jurisdictions . It will now be necessary to have $3 million capital stock to license a life insurance company , and $2 million for an other than life insurance company. In both cases, the company must also have an unimpaired surplus of $1 million . Companies currently operating in Manitoba, who have less capital and surplus requirements than are being set out here, will not be required to meet these capital and surplus amounts .

Mutual insurance companies will be required to have in force contracts in the amount of at least $2 million . The Superintendent of Insurance will be given the authority to order an insurer or agent, after a hearing into the matter , to cease using any form of policy wording or advertisement that is unfair , misleading or not in the public interest. Provision is also being made for these orders to be appealed to the appeal board described earlier . At the last Session of the Legislature, legislation was passed enabling the establishment of a compensation plan for general insurance companies .

Manitoba took an active

part in the development of this plan, which will be indu stry operated, but government regulated . Powers to establish, through regulation , ongoing solvency tests and standards to accommodate the effi cient operation of this plan will be included in these amendments . The current Insurance Act requires insurance agents to hold themselves out publicly as insuranc e agents. The Insurance Agents' Association of Manitoba has requested a change in the requirements to accommodate an opportunity that they have to join with insurance agents in other provinces in presenting national television advertising .

To accommodate the Insurance Agents' Association of Manitoba, provision is being made for insurance agents who contract with more than one insurer to hold themselves out publicly as brokers. For more than 20 years , the Insurance Branch has required applicants for the licence of insur ance agent to have the sale of insurance, with some notable exceptions, their sole occupation . Insurance agents have been able to be simultaneously licenced to sell all insurance products . Real estate agents have historically been able to be licenced to sell general .I"" insurance , as well as real estate.

In towns and villages of less than 5,000 persons where it is necessary for economic purposes for an individual to have more than one business or occupation , these restrictions have not been applied. These requirements will be formalized into legislation through these amendments. The restrictions will not apply to crop hail insurance agents nor accident and baggage insurance agents.

To accommodate those occupations compatible with the sale of insurance products and to give flexibility to the system for dealing with the integration of financial services , these amendments will allow the Lieutenant-Governor-in Council to establish , by regulation , the functions that will constitute the occupation of the various classes of insurance agent. Currently, all of the insurance agents ' licences issued in Manitoba expire effective the end of May of each year.

This simultaneous expiry of all insurance agents ' licences causes a tremendous increase in workload for the insurance branch at that time each year . To accommodate a change to a more efficient system, the ,,,,,.. Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will be empowered to pass regulations to alter the expiry date of insurance agents' licences. Some difficulty is being experienc ed with insurance agents moving from company to company, replacing their clients with each company as they move.

In some cases , where an agent moves to another company , it may be in his client's interest to change to the new company , in other cases it may not . As the first year of commission s and life insurance pol icies are generally substantially higher than renewal comm issions, it is believed in some instances these changes are motivated by the individu al agents' attempts to increase their income . To deal with this practice, we will require an agent not rewrite any policies of his previous sponsoring company with his new company during the first year after he has severed relationships with the old company.

It is believed this requ irement will discourage those incidents where policies are rewr itten solely for the purpose of enhancing an individual agent's income , while allowing the agent , where it is really in the client 's 2960

Wednesday, 10 June, 1987 best interest, to subsequently change the insuranc e coverage. Madam Speaker, they are , in essence , the principles and provisions of this bill which I commend to all members of the House. MADAM SPEAKER: Are the honourable members ready for the question? The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: I move , seconded by the Member for Kirkfi eld Park, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 63 -

AN ACT TO REPEAL CERTAIN STATUTES RELATING TO HOSPITALS, HOSPITAL DISTRICTS AND NURSING UNIT DISTRICTS AND OTHER MATTERS � HON. R. PENNER presented Bill No. 63,

An Act to Repeal Certain Statutes Relating to Hospitals , Hospital Districts and Nursing Unit Districts and Other Matters; Loi abrogeant certaines lois concernant les h6pitaux , les districts hospitaliers, les districts reg ionaux de soins infirmiers et d'autres question s, tor Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. HON. R. PENNER: Madam Speaker, this is a companion piece to Bill 4 and other parts of the validation package. This bill repeals ten acts respe cting hospita ls , hospital districts or nursing districts in rural Manitoba.

The legislation was passed at a point in time when special provisions were required because there was no other act of general application in place. With the passage of time , the special purposes have been achieved or else they are provided for in our health or hospital legislation. These acts have been � researched to determine that they are spen t, Madam , Speaker, and I'm certain honourable members will appreciate the value of deleting such legislation from the listing of current statut es, rather than simply translating them.

This bill contains, appended to the bill itself, an annex which indicates what the particular bills being repealed are, and I commend it to the House. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. No rbert. MR. G. MERCIER: A question for clarification, Madam Speaker, to the Attorney-General. Is he prepared to resign if he has made a mistake in repealing any of these acts if the bill is passed? HON. R. PENNER: Only if I get paid danger pay, Madam Speaker, and that's far from being the case.

Ce rtainly we rely on very, very good legislative counsel in arriving at these decision s, and I am satisfied that indeed no mistakes have been made to this date , nor will there be. It's always possible in a revision , for 2961 example , a statutory revision or something like that, that a mistake might be made and, if so, we would cooperate with the members opposite in restoring rights lost in that way. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. HON. R. PENNER: And refer to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Orders. BILL NO. 67 - THE OFF-ROAD VEHICLES ACT HON. J.

PLOHMAN presented Bill No. 67, The Off-Road Vehicles Act, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to pres ent , for Second Readin g, The Off-Road Vehicles Act. This new act has been prepared following extensive consultation with various individuals, organizations and in conjun ction with a number of government departments and repre sentatives.

A motivating factor in the preparation of this act has been the increased use of off-road vehicl es , the alarming growth in accidents and injuries and our long-standing commitment to safety. The increased use of these vehicles has led to a growing number of injuries, deaths , traffic and trespass violations, as well as concern for impact on the environm ent. Consequently, our government is hopeful that this legislation will lead to a reduction in the number of injuries and fatalities caused by these vehicles.

I would ask members of this House examining this act to be particularly cognizant of the previous impact that these vehicles have had on the lives and on safety as it relates to children. A recent study conducted at the University of Manitoba by four medical doctors concluded that , from 1979 to 1985, 700 children were injured in off-road vehicle accidents, 33 were killed. Needless to say, these are alarming statistics. The concerns brought about by off-road vehicle use are ones which are pervasive throughout all of Canada.

In an effort to alleviate these concerns as they apply to Manitoba, we have introduced a number of measures through this new proposed legislation. These measures include: age restrictions, mandatory helmet use , as well as compulsory insuranc e and registrati on , along with restrictions to ensure protection of the environment. I would like to expand slightly on some of these measu res , Madam Speaker.

Following proclamation of this legislation, children under 14 years of age will be prohibited from operating off-road vehicles - and this is the key point - unless they are accompanied and supervised by a parent or a person who has been authorized, an adult who has been authorized by t

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-2-66
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 2nd hansardpdf 66.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d27b333338fb2fd5c76da9e70eddbda036f4a3c3

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