Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 42 (33rd Legislature, 1st Session)

33-1-42

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 9 July, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Pres enting Petitions . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speaker , the Committee of Supply has adopted certain Resolutions , directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C.

SANTOS: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Kildonan, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It is my ple asure to table the Annual Report for the year ending December 31, 1985 , of the Manitoba Civil Service Superannuation Board . MADAM SPEAKER: Notices of Motion Introduction of Bills . . ORAL QUESTIONS Credit rating, Prov. of Man. Standard and Poor's MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Oppos ition. MR. G.

FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker . My question is for the Deputy Premier.

In view of the shocking and potentially disastrous news of the fact that Standard and Poor's Credit Rating Agency has placed a AA-minus rating of all the outstanding debt of the Province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro on credit watch , what immediate action is the government prepa red to take to prevent the credit rating from being furt her decreased, as has happened twice under the leadership of this NOP Administration , and to restore Manitoba's reputation as a good place to invest and as a government that can manage its own financial affairs on behalf of the people of Manitoba?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Min ister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker . The government obviously is concerned with the recent decision of Standard and Poor's with respect to the credit watch.

It's certainly our intention to meet with them within the very near future to deal with the concerns that they have expressed and to provide them with the positive information with respect to the overall eco nomi c performance in the Provinc e of Manitoba, further information with respect to the financial affair s of the Province of Manitoba to ensure that they have the necessary information with which to make their decisions. I would suggest to the member, in the

preamble to his question suggesting that Manitoba is not a good place to invest, that is not true. I think the fact that the investment figures show an increasing investment by the private sector in Manitob a indicates that the private sector has confidence in the investment opportunites here in the Province of Manitoba. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Premier and it follows upon the response of the Minister of Finance.

St andard and Poor's in their assessment of the Manitoba situation said, "despite economic improvement in the last three years, the province continues to generate large operating shortfalls;" and , Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Ministe r of Finance has acknowledged that the potential of a drop in our credit rating would result in higher borrowing costs of up to one-eighth of one percent, how much will that cost? How much will the increased levels of interest rates cost the Province of Manitoba? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: The fact that we are on a credit watch and there has been no decision with respect to the actual level of rating is something that we'll be working on in terms of attempting to ensure that Standard and Poor 's has the necessary information with which to make a positive decision with respect to the maintenance of that level. If they were to decide that there would need to be a decre ase the amount that may cost the provin ces cannot be calculated at this point . The impact on that would vary by markets where the province borrows.

There may be some impact in the U.S. borrowing market, but on the other hand , other markets are not as sensitive to the decis ions of the New York based rating mar kets as is the U.S . mark et. 1618 MR. G. FILMON : Madam Speaker, my question is directly to the Premier. Standard and Poor's, the credit rating agency , have judged that Manitoba is not a good place to invest and

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 there is risk indeed, Madam Speak er, because of the fact that they are prepared to lower our credit rating. Wha t is the Pr emier prepared to do to avoid the prospect of a further lowering of our credit rating, a lowering that has already taken place twice under his administration? What immediate action is he prepared to take to prevent that? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I think it's very unfair on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that Standard and Poor's have indicated that Manitoba is not a good place to invest.

That certainly is not the advice of Standard and Poor's. Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition could take a moment and check total capital investment in Manitoba, compared to the rest of Canada, he would note that our total capital investment is the third best in Canada. If you'd note building permit increases, value of building permit increases, construction increases, private and public sector Manitoba ranks well up amongst the first several provinces in Canada. Our record ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The honourable member is answering a question.

I presume the question was important enough that the answer deserves to be listened to. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I'm glad that there isn't as much noise on this side when honourable members ask questions or we wouldn't be able to hear their questions, since we can't hear our own answers day-by-day. Madam Speaker , insofar as action is concerned, the Minister of Finance will be sitting down with Standard and Poor's who will be advising them insofar as the capacity of the province, the economic performance of the province, plans that this government has . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. HON. H.

PAWLEY: . . . in order to ensure that financial management is done on a prudent basis. Madam Speaker, we certainly will not be able to follow the advice of the Opposition, that during the Budget and Throne Speech Debate , demanded that this government spend an additional $155 million, another $155 million onto the deficit.

Madam Speaker , if the Opposition, who suddenly want it all ways on Tuesday, increase spending; on Wednesday, reduction in the deficit, Madam Speaker, we would certainly not be following advice from honourable members across the way who change their line from day-to-day as to additional expenditures as against the following day, a reduction in deficit. MR. G. FI LMON: Ma dam Sp eaker , the very expenditures that the Premier refers to in Capital Investment, on borrowed money, have resulted in us being put on credit watch. My question . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order please.

May I remind the honourable member that question period is not a time for debate. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FI LMON: Mada m Speaker, if I may repeat my pream ble, this is a new question. The very inv estment that the Premier referred to, on borrowed Capital, has resulted in Standard and Poor's putting us on credit watch. What is he prepared to do, what action is he pr ep ared to take with his administration to ensure that we are not decreased in our credit rating further? MADAM SPEAKER: Tha t qu estion is not a new question. That is a repetition of a question tha t has already been answered.

The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FI LMON: Mada m Speak er, each time that we have been put on credit watch in the past, our credit rating has been reduced. What new information will the Pr emier be providing to Standard and Poor's to convince them not to decrease our credit rati ng? HON. H.

PAWLEY: Mada m Speaker, the actions on the part of this government are based, first and foremost, in maintaining essential services in the Province of Manitoba, essential services to the seniors, essential service insofar as health care is concerned, insofar as education is concerned, Madam Speaker, and other essential services of the Province of Manitoba. - (Interjection)- If the honourable member has further questions, Ma dam Speaker, I would be delighted to receive further questions. I am answering the particular question that the Honourable Leader of the Opposition asked from his speech.

MADAM SPEAK ER: Or der please. Could the honourable members of the Opposition please contain themselves. If they have questions that each wants to ask, there will be ample opportun ity. The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Spea ker, Manitoba is not unique insofar as provinces having their credit ratings placed on watch or being reduced. In the last several years, there have been a number of provinces, including British Columbia, Saska tchewan, Quebec, New Brunsw ick, Nova Scotia, that have had the same registration by the credit companies. lt's a serious concern.

The Minister of Finance will be dealing with this in a prudent way, not in a way that's demonstrated by way of panic, but prudence, reasonableness, sensitivity, in order to ensure that there is appropr iate balance. That will not include the kind of "T uesday , increase your spending, Wednesday, reduce the deficit" kind of philosophy that we hear from honourable members across the way, all things to all people in Manitoba. That 's the Prog ressive Conservative Party of Manitoba. MR. G. FI LMON: Madam Speaker, this next credit rating drop would put us lower than all provinces except the Maritimes.

My question to the Premier is were concerns expressed to the government by this credit rating agency, or other credit rating agencies, prior to their bringing in their most recent Budget in May of this year? 1619

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourab le Minist er of Finan ce. MR. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker. The first indication that we had of any concern from either of the rating services was the day before yesterday when we heard of the potential decision of this agency to put us on credit watch. There has been no indication of any change with respec t to the other credit agency.

Obviously, when one looks at the various factors that go into decisions related to a Budg et , the concern of what impact it may have on the credit rating of the province is one of the considerations that's taken into account, as is the overa ll level of deficit , as is th e level of spending, as is the level of revenues. I would just remind members that, as my Premier has indicated , members opposite have called for a lower deficit , or some members opposite have called for a lower deficit. It obviously may have some impac t on what may or may not happen to Manitoba 's credit rating.

Other members have called for increased spending in amounts in excess of $150 million . Other members , when we brought forward tax increases in this Budget , even the Leader of the Opposition criticized us for putting tax inc reases on corporations, on banks , on inte rp rovincial pipeli nes. They criti cized us for increasing those taxes , Madam Speaker. In order to deal with th e financial situation of the province, one has to maintain all the balances bet ween revenues, between expenditures for needed services, and the level of defici t . It's our intention to contin ue to work to reduce the deficit . MR. G.

FILMON : Madam Speaker, Standard and Poor 's haven't talked about the performance of the Opp osition; they 've commented on the poor management of th is governm ent . . . MADAM SPEAKER : Does the honourable member have a question? MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, did the Government of Manito ba consult with the bond rating agencies, the credit rating agencies, prior to establishing this year 's budget with a deficit of $489 million , to assess what effe ct that deficit would have. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I would just say, in terms of people judging this governme nt, it was the peopl e of Manit oba that judged members on th is side and re-elected them, not a few months ago . I think we have to bear in mind as we deal with this . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Does the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek have a question? The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker, as I indicated , it was the people of Manitoba that judged the actions of this party and government over the past four years and decided that they wanted a continuation of our efforts to improve the lot of Manitobans and to increase economic and job opportunities here in the province of Manitoba . As I indicated , the various areas that we review when we look at bud getary items includes whether or not we think that certain decisions may have an imp act on our credit rating.

It is not the most paramount concern when one deals with the needs of Manitob ans, but it is certai nly one of the conside rations. I don 't know if there was any specif ic discussion by staff with any of th e rating agencies prior to the Budget, but we were certa inly aware of the general views that they take, and there has been ongoing discu ssion with them since then , and that will cont inue until we get a resolve to this

part icu lar credit-watch situat ion. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Spe aker, my question is to the Premier . The Minister of Finance has indicated he 's prepared to meet with the credit rat ing agency to present them with a plan of Manitoba 's posit ion and goals fo r the future. Is the Premier prepared to table that plan when it is developed ; would he table it here in the House ? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister . HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, the plan that the Minister of Finance presents to Standard and Poor's will be one that is presented to the m; it's internal.

Insofar as the p lan that we int end to pursu e, that will be one that we will make quite public , Madam Spea ker, as to our approach which has been an approach of maintaining essential serv ices in the province of Man itob a. At the same time, balancing that as against prudent management of the finances of Manit ob a and not, Madam Speaker , divertin g from day-to-day into different courses of action that some others would recommend that we do in this Chamber . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Spea ker, a further question to the Premier .

Is he saying that the government will only present its plan of the financial future of this province in secret to Standard and Poor 's, and will not share it with the people of Manitoba? Is he going to tell Standa rd and Poor's one thing and the people of Manitob a another? HON. E. KOSTYRA: The plan that we have presented to the credit agency , and one that we will be elaborating on , is one that we presented to the people of the Province of Man itoba, and that was . . . MADAM SPEAKER : Could the honour able members of the Opp os ition please liste n to the answer to the question that their leader has asked .

I think that's reasonabl e to expect in question period . HON. E. KOSTYRA : The information that we will be providing to the credit agency will be further details based on the financial and economic plan that was presented to the people of Manitoba in the Budget , and one that, Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to note there has been a great deal of posit ive response to by the people of the Province of Manitoba . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question for the Premier is, in view of the fact that there will be more details in the plan presented to Standard and Poor's, 1620

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 will he table those details in the House so the people of Manitoba are made aware of his plans HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I answered that whatever is . . .

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has attempted to answer that, so have I, the Budget is a public document, other documents have been presented to Standard and Poor's and, Madam Speaker, we will be making our own presentation to Standard and Poor's, but the Opposition are certainly acting in a way that the Member for Niakawa indicated that they feel they have the right to act when he indicated on May 28, 1986 of this year that, Madam Speaker, I can have it both ways - I'm in Opposition and I can have it both ways, Madam Speaker . That's our Opposition. They proudly proclaim that they can have it both ways.

Manitobans judged them on March 16th and said, you can't have it both ways. Manitobans judged them, Madam Speaker. MR. H. ENNS : The 16th we still had you beat, it was the 18th that we lost. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the Honourable First Minister that answers to questions should not provo ke debate. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , I just want to clarify the answer of the Premier because he has indicated that this will be an internal plan that will be presented to Standard and Poor 's only.

Is he saying that that information will be kept secret from the people of Manitoba and the members of this House? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, this government has never kept any of its plans confidential , nor will we in this instance. If they want a verbatim recording of all the comments that the Minist er of Finance makes to Standard and Poor's, that would certa inly be not traditional, Madam Speak er, by the Roblin administration, by the Weir administration, by the Lyon administration to rating companies.

But insofar as our presentation, Madam Speaker, on the basis of our presentation we'll be delighted , at all times, to debate it with the people of the Province of Manitoba. I wonder, Madam Speaker, if the Opposition had their way, and P.C. plans for people in the last election had been effe cted in the Province of Manitoba, where our credit rating would have gone with the enormous promises that they made, Madam Spe aker, during the last campaign. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Spe aker, will the Premier then , if he doesn 't want to keep it secret, agree to table the informat ion that is being presented to Standard and Poor's here in the House? Will he agree to table it, a very simple question? HON. H. PAWLEY: I don 't know what I'm being asked to table. MADAM SPEAKER : That again is a repetition of a question that has already been asked and to which an answer has been given . 1621 MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, we 've had two different answers to that question and so I'd like to just clarify. He 's given it both ways.

MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the Honourable Leader of the Opposition that one cannot dictate the answers that they receive . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speak er, I don 't want to dictate the answer that I rece ive. I just want to have clarification . Which is it? Will he table it in the Hous e, or will he not table it in the House? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker , I don't know what I'm being asked to table . The Mini ster of Finance will present .. . MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker , on a point of order , because the Premier doesn't seem to understand, all I want to have table d is the information that the Minister of Finance said he's going to present to Standard and Poor's. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition knows that is not a point of order. It is a clarification of his question. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition with a new quest ion . MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I'm sure you 'll appreciate my frustration at the Prem ier's inability to answer any quest ion s.

Madam Speaker, my ques tion to the Ministe r of Finance is: this new financial review that's going to be given to Standard and Poo r's, what amount will it co ntain for contingent liab ility for outstanding debts under the Northern Flood Agreement? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance . HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker. As I indicated, the information that will be provided to the rating agency will be an elaboration and further details on the financial and econo mic find that has been tabled with the government.

It will not contain new information or differen t information than what is cont ained in this budget document that provides the overall financ ial plans of the government for the next year. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker , referring to that answer, the elaboration and the additional details that the Minister of Finance has just talked about presenting to Standard and Poor 's, will the Premier agree to have it tabled here in this House? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker, that information is being provided literally on a daily basis to members opposite .

It's provided through two committees of this House as we deal with the detailed estimates of all departments as they're reviewed in Committee of

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 Supply , it's two committees. It's been discussed to an extent in discussion regarding the Estimates in the Department of Finance, and through such vehicles as Interim Supply, as the Loan Act , and Loan Act (2) when it comes forward. That information is all provided to the House in the normal fashion. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, the telex from Standard and Poor's indicates that large off-b udget lend ing activities also have increased provincial liabilities.

My question to the Premier is: has the prospect of Manitoba Hydro borrowing billions of dollars, 940 million of that in this fiscal year, impacted negatively on our credit rating? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you , Madam Speaker. People from Standard and Poor's met with Manitoba Hydro officials this morn ing and made it very clear to them that they felt that Hydro's export arrangements and process for construction and plans for construction were good. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speake r, I have one more question to the Premie r.

Given that the intention of the Minister of Finance , on behalf of the Premier, is only to provide elaboration and additional details to Standard and Poor 's, which is really, in effect , like going and rattling your tin cup on bended knee to the people in New York, Madam Speake r, what action is the Premier prepared to take, concrete action, to ensure that Manitoba doesn't have a further decrease in its credit rating? Won't the Premier answer anything? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you , Madam Speaker.

It may be the style of the member opposite if he was in government to go on his knees with a tin cup to a rating agency in New York, but it certainly isn 't the intenti on of this government to be dealt with in the manner that is suggested by the member opposite with respect to a rating agency . It would be our intention to provide the additional information , the elaboration on the plans that was contained in the Budget Address and the supporting documents to ensure tha t they fully underst and the situation with respect to the economy in the Province of Manitoba .

It is certainly our intention and it has been stated that we are concerned about the level of deficit . We have brought some steps in this Budge t to reduce it from the level of 529 last year to just under $490 million . It is our intention to continue to work to bring down the deficit, and we'll be ensuring through measures that have been discussed through Treasury Board to ensure that we maintain and stay within our budget allocations this year, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you , Madam Speaker .

The Minister in his last answer uses the word "ad dition al information ." Madam Speaker, the last five budgetary documents that have been presented to us, or the year-end report for 1985-86 , the detai led estimates of the revenue , the Main Estimates, the Auditor's Report covering the Public Acc ounts over the past year, and th e Manitoba Budget Address.

I ask the Minister whether th e information he talks about is all contained within the five documents that have been presented to this House, or whether ther e will be supplementary statistical informat ion that he will be presenting to Standard and Poor 's that he will not , or has not, presented to the members of this Hou se? HON. E. KOSTYRA: Well, I don't know all the informat ion that will be provided to them because they will be meeting with us, as they are meeti ng with the officials of Manitoba Hydro and asking specific questions, and we will respond to those questions.

The information has been provided through th e various document s and they will be certainly asking for elaboration . We certainly intend to ensure that they understand the situation with the economy in the Provi nce of Manitoba , with the positive levels of investment and other eco nomic indicators that indicate that this province is moving with respect to overall economic growth and on a relative basis is doing much better than most of Canada . MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker , I'm asking the Minister if he will undertake to provide members of this House with copies of the answers asked and the questions given in response to those questions by Standard and Poor's . HON. E. KOSTYRA: I have responded to any questions that have been asked by the members in terms of the information that I have and I will continue to do that. The discussions that take place with the agency , we will provide information that is on the public record and elaborate it in the fashion that they see the need for additional information . MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speak er, a new line of questioning . The release that came out yesterday on the wire came from the Canadian Dow Jones Wire Service . This arrived yesterday at 3:23 p.m. The Minister indicated in an earlier answer that the government had some prior notice of this matter the day before yesterday. I would ask the Minist er why he did not forthrightly answer my question when I asked specifically about credit rati ng on Monday afternoon and also Monda y evening at which time obviously he knew, had advance warning that this may occur . HON. E.

KOSTYRA: I have provided the informat ion that was current at that time . I've got nothing to . MR. D. ORCHARD: What did he just answer 10 minutes ago? 1622 HON. E. KOSTYRA: Madam Speaker , I don 't know if the Member for Pembina is interested in hearing the

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 answer. I believe that the Member for Morris is and I would like to attempt to answer his question. I have answered all questions on the basis of the information that was made available to me. What I indicated, that there was some indication the day before yesterday that they may be looking at that. lt wasn't until yesterday afternoon that we were provided with the information that was taking place. So how could I give an answer to a question when I didn't know what the answer was. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker , the Minister previou sly, in answer to a question, said the day before yesterday the government had prior knowledge that this may occur. Is he now changing his answer? Did the government not know then until yesterday, the same time indeed that we knew? HON. E. KOSTYRA: I will say it again. The official notification we got was through the same mechanism of the telex.

What we did hear the day before was that there was this possibil ity, and staff did have some contact with them, but it was until the next day that we received the detailed information from th em indicating that this was taking place. MR. C. MANNESS: A new question, Madam Speaker. Unless the government does something mid-term to change its budgetary position in this present fiscal year probab ly, by all likelihood, we will drop to an A rating. I would ask the Minister of Finance, what does this mean in qualitative terms, an A rating versus a AA rating? HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Well this is the same question that his colleague the present Leader of the Opposition asked me earlier in terms of what it may cost the Province of Manitoba. I do not know the answer to that question. lt may well be that if that were to take place after they review the matters related to the credit watch, that we may be downgraded and there may well be some impact in terms of increased borrowing costs for the Province of Manitoba. That depends very much on the conditions in particular financial markets.

In the case of the U.S., they same to be much more sensitive to the decisions of rating agencies in New York than other markets, but I cannot give a qualitative answer to that question. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speak er, does an A rating mean that we are one short step away from being shut out of money capital, many important capital marke ts, given that some people within the industry believe that once you achieve the A status, that you're just one short step away from being shut out of a lot of capital markets. MADAM SPEAKER: That question is hypothetical.

Would the Honourable Member for Morris like to rephra se this ques tion? MR. C. MANNESS: Does an A rating mean that we are one short step away from being shut out of capital markets? SOME HONOUR ABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MADAM SPEAKER: Would the Honourable Member for Pembina please contain himself. There is an old saying that it's very difficult to hear when your mouth is open. The Honourable Minister of Finance. MR. G. MERCIER: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of ord er, th e Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, you have made certain intemperate remarks from the Chair , ignoring the fact that the Minister of Health, behind the back of the Minister of Finance - and that was the reason you couldn't see him - was making his own remarks. So if you wish to make remarks like that, make them to both sides of the House. MADAM SPEAKER: May I remind the Honourable Government House Leader , that I had called the Honourable Member for Pembina to order several times and I will not tolerate any reflection on the Cha ir.

The Honourable Minister of Finance was asked a question and is in the process of answering it. MR. G. FI LMON: The Chair will be a reflect ion upon. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mini ster of Finance. HON. J. COWAN: Madam Spea ker. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J.

COWAN: I distinctly heard the Leader of the Opposition, in response to your comments, say from his seat, and I quote: "The Chair will be reflected upon." I do not believe that he intended to reflect upon your comments or to reflect upon the Chair , and I hope he would take this opportunity to make that known because, as you are aware and all members of this House are aware, we cannot in fact have either, from the seat of their pants or standing in their pl ace whence they should be, if they want to make comments to this House, reflections made upon the Chair .

MADAM SPEAKER: lt is difficult for the Chair to hear all remarks made by members from their seats or otherwise when there is a lot of racket going on in the House. I did personally not hear that remark. I certainly will check Hansard, and as members are well aware, that it is the responsibility of all members to uphold the authority of the Chair and to conduct the business of the House in a seemly manner.

We are in question period, a question has been asked to the Honourable Minister of Finance and, as the Honourable Leader of the Opposition mentioned that he was very frustrated, I must share with the House that I am very frustrated when everyone tends to yell and holler and scream at the same time. Let us continue in an orderly fashi on. The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker . 1623

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 The information that I have from the chief financial advisors for the Government of Manitoba , both internally and externally , is that the allegation that the member makes with respect to what impact it may have is not true. Potash mine, Manitoba Canamax input into MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you Madam Speaker . The Member for Lakeside asked on Friday why a Manitoba drilling contractor had been informed by Canamax that he would not be able to do the exploration drilling for them this summer which they had promised him previously .

I'm informed tha t the work being undertaken on that, on our Manitoba potash project this summer, is the drilling of a shaft pilot hole , not additional exploration drilling. There are eight contrac ts to be awarded for this work and a number of companies have been invited to bid on each . The closing date was July 8. The main contract is for drilling work associated with the shaft pilot hole . Seven companies have been invited to bid, including two Manitoba companies . The Honourable Member for Lakeside referred to a Clare Costen from Virden as a driller who was supposedly denied work , despite his experience.

It is true that Mr. Costen had been associated with Crown Drilling Ltd. which drilled a number of exploration holes . However , it is not true that he has been denied drilling work in favour of the Saskatchewan contractor . First , obviously, the con tract hasn't been awarded yet. Second , Crown Drilling, the company with which he was associa ted, is one of the compan ies which is bidding and all bids will be evaluated on a technical and cost basis befor e a contractor is selected , kee ping in mind the Manitoba preference clause which I had indicated to the House the other day. Mr.

Cost en has appar ently severed his relationship with that company, with Cro wn Drilling, and does not, to the best of our knowledge, have the manpower or equipment to bid on the shaft pilot hole drilling contract. Third, the nature of the work for the shaft pilot hole is significantly different from the exploration drilling which Mr. Costen undert ook with Crown and it's critical to the sound technical design of the main production shaft must be completed to the highest standards .

In terms of employment opportunities , the Member for Roblin-Russell asked what kind of employment opportunities there would be this summer . The major activity is the drilling of the pilot shaft hole and it will tak e approximately 65 days, just over two months is what we expect and, until the bids for the key activities are evaluated, it is not possible to project precisely the level of local employment generated, but it is unlikely to be major . In general , skilled professional personnel will come from outside of the region and general labour will be recruited within the region.

Most jobs will be skilled or professional in nature . Manitoba Hydro - meeting with Standard and Poor's MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister resp onsib le for Manitoba Hydro. A few moments ago he had indicated to this House that representatives of Manitoba Hydro had met with representatives of Standard and Poor 's. Could he please advise the House who requested this meeting and when was th at meeting called? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines . HON. V.

SCHROEDER: I would have to tak e that question as notice . MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired. The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Speaker, I beg to move , seconded by the Member for Lakeside, that under Rule 27 the ordinary Business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public imp ortance, namely, the implications of a warnin g to the credit rating of the province, which has already been reduced twice under the NDP government.

MADAM SPEAKER: Before determining whether the motion meets the requirements of our Rule 27, the Honourable Member for Morris has five minutes to state his case for urgency of debate . MR. C. MANNESS: Madam Spea ker, our government and indeed the citizens of thi s province have been given notice by a credit rati ng agency that we are now placed on a credit-watch list . Unqu est ionably this repre sents a warning from the bond setting agency that our credit rating could very well be downgraded .

Madam Speaker , I say that ther e can be no more urgent issue to debate today, given that maybe, just mayb e, we can convince the government to take some type of action, some type of action to deal with this deficit, such that this action by the bond rating agency will not occur . Madam Speake r, twice already in the past three years credit rating agencies have downgraded our credit rating. As I recall, on both cases after we 'd been placed on a credit-watch list. May 1983 , Standard and Poor's dropped our ratin g to AA-minus. December 1984 , the Canadian Bond Rating Services dropped our rating to AA-low .

May 1985 , Moody 's reduced our rating to A1 . In debate, Madam Speaker, the former Minister of Finance indicated that a drop in one notch in our credit rating could represent as much as one-eighth of a percent increas e in the interest rate. Madam Speaker , compounding on top of a $6.5 billion direct debt that type of interest rate makes me say that it's an urgent matter ... MADAM SPEAKER: Order pleas e, may I remind the honourable member that the rule sta tes very clearly that the member is to address the urge ncy of debate, not the content of the motion. MR. C.

MANNESS: Madam Speaker , there can be no more urgent debate than the one hopefully that you 1624

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 will consider. Madam Speaker, one-eighth change alone against the debt that we have in this province within this fiscal year could represent an additional $10 million or $12 million cost, and hundr eds of millions of dollars over the term of 15 or 20 years. There are six points to the urg ency, Madam Speaker . Firstly , we've already discussed, within the Treasury

Section of the Department of Finance Estimates, the

section dealing with managing the borrowing and the debt of the Province of Manitoba. We've discussed the issue of rating already . Madam Speaker , we've also considered the Budget in detail and passed it through this House; we have no other alternative to discuss some of these matters. Secondly, the credit-watch listing was given to us as a warning. We are only one-third of the way through this fiscal term, Madam Speaker, and the government can act if it wishes to change the fiscal year-end standing, the deficit of this province, if it wants to part way through the term. And therefore ...

A MEMBER: And avert the downgrading. MR. C. MANNESS: . . . avert the downgrading of our rating. Thirdl y, as to why we should urgently debate this, Madam Spea ker. Failure by the government to do anything will most certainly drop us down to an A rating, similar to New Bru nswick, Nova Scotia and Newf oundland. Fourth ly, Madam Speaker, the debt is increasing expedientially - it's increasing at an increasing rate. One-third of all new revenue, taxation revenue, has been directed towards servicing new debt, Madam Speaker. Spending is hopelessly out of control.

We were going to try and convince the Opposition that $100 million, for instance, should not be directed at this point and time to river bank clean up. There are more pressing priorities. Fifthly , Madam Speaker, we will try and convince the Minister of Finance that he should come forward with an economic statement, or even a new budget to deal with this problem in attempting to reduce the forecasted deficit now standing at $489 million.

And sixthly and lastly, Madam Speaker, the decisions made today will either do something, or do nothing, with respect to this cursed and needless and continuous half-a- billion dollar deficit that we'v e had over the past number of year. We will determine whether ultima tely we can handle our fiscal affairs as a province in the decade of the '90's. Madam Speaker, the imp lications of a most probable downgrading are serious, there can be no better time to debate this matter. I hope you find my motion in order. HON. J.

COWAN: Madam Speaker, as you are aware, in order for this motion to be acceptable, there must not be another opportunity for the matter to be debated in the normal course of the business of this House. Because what is being asked is that we set aside the normal course of business of the House in order to debate something that is of such extreme urgency that it must be accomplished in that way.

You will recall as well that a similar motion that was provided by the Opposition in 1983, in circums tances much similar to this regarding credit rating, was ruled out of order on those grounds, the explanation being given, by the Speaker of the Day, was that we were in the Estim ates of the Ho use, th ey were under consideration and that this matter could be debated during the course of those discussions.

I believe that, given the fact that we are in the Department of Finance Estimates, there is ample opportunity for the debate on this particular matter to take place during the normal course of business of the House. The Member for Morris indicated that we had already discussed that

section of the Estimates where this matter would normally be discussed . lt is my understanding that this matter can also be normally discussed under Item 9 in the Minister of Finance's Estimates, that being Public Debt, and there are a couple of sub-provisions there where this type of debate would be ruled entirely in order. Secondly, there is also ample opportunity to discuss this matter under the Minister's Salary by any member of this House. So I would suggest to you that in that one instance alone is very much ample opportunity for the debate to proceed during the normal course of business of the House.

So the motion would be out of order for that reason alone. In respect to the other arguments which the Member for Morris brought into the discussion, let it be said that all mem bers of this House are concerned about the way in which credit-rating agencies approach the budgetary policies of the government, and we belie ve that it is necessary to discuss with them their concerns and to present the case which we belie ve has been developed in the best interests of all Manitobans so that they in fact understand the many reasons that we have undertaken the fiscal policy we have.

MADAM SPEAKER: The honourable member still has some time left. I did want to remind him that comments directed toward the content are not in order as I reminded the Honourable Member for Morris. MR. J. COWAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I accept your admonition and your suggestion that we relate more carefully to the comments regarding the actual rule itself.

Ho wever, I do think it is important to state that when we are suggesting that this is not a matter that should be debated in the mannner in which the Member for Morris has suggested, it should not be misinterpreted that it is not a concern of all members of this House. We believe, however, that we have a responsibility to the people of Manitoba who elected us to provide services, to provide good government, to provide a type of government that makes certain that their needs are taken care of, and that the economic environment in this particular province flourishes.

And all those things are happening under this particular government and that is the message we must take, not only to the credit rating agencies, but to the people who elected us to serve them. So, it is with that message in mind, we suggest there are many other opportunities to debate this particular item. We welcome those opportuni ties because we believe the message that we have to carry forward through those debates is one that is designed to best serve the interests of all the people of this province; 1625

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 not only to take into consideration the concerns of the rating agencies , but to give them due consideration in the context of our overall role and responsibility as good government. MADAM SPEAKER: There are two conditions to be satisfied for this matter to proceed . The first condition has been met, in that I have received the proper notice from the honourabl e member of this motion. The second condition is that debate on the matter is urgent and that th ere is no other reasonable opportunity to raise the matter.

Given that the Estimates of the Minister of Finance are currently before the Committee of Supply , there is no cas e to set asid e the regular business of the House to consider this matter. The motion is not in order. The Honourable Opposition House Leader . MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker , with all due respect, I would challe nge your ruling. MADAM SPEAKER: Shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? All those in favour say aye. All those opposed say nay. In my opinion the ayes have it. The Hon ourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: Yeas and nays , Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: Call in the members .

Order please, order please . The question before the House is, shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained? A STANDING VOTE was taken , the result being as follows: YEAS Ashton , Baker, Bucklaschuk, Cowan , Desjardins , Doer, Dolin, Evans, Harapiak (The Pas), Harapiak (Swan River), Harp er, Hemphill, Kostyra, Lecuyer , Mackling , Maloway, Parasiuk , Pawley, Penner , Plohman , Santos, Schroeder, Scott, Smith (Ellice) , Smith (Osborne), Storie, Uruski , Walding , Wasylycia-Leis.

NAYS Birt, Brown, Connery, Cummings, Derkach , Downey , Driedger , Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Findlay, Hammond, Joh nston , Kovnats , Manness , McCrae, Mercier, Mitchelson, Nordman , Oleson , Orchard, Pankratz, Rocan, Roch . MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas, 29; Nays, 25. MADAM SPEAKER: The motion is carried. Orders of the Day. MR. D. ORCHARD : Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker , I rise on a point of order. Madam Speaker . MADAM SPEAKER: On a point of order? MR. D. ORCHARD: A point of order and a matter of personal privilege .

Madam Speaker , would you take it upon your high office to examine Hans ard and the remarks that you made of a personal nature to myself during the question period, to determine whether those remarks fall within the Rules of the Hous e a nd , more imp ortantly, within the conduct of the neutral office that you hold in this House? MADAM SPEAKER : On a point of order , is the honourable member reflecting on the Chair? MR. D. ORCHARD: Madam Speaker, I am not reflecting on the Chair.

I am aski ng, as has often been done in this House , for you, Madam , to peruse Hansard to determine whether remarks made are in comp lianc e with the Rules and in compliance with the neutral status of the office you hold in this House as a neut ral arbitrat or of this Assemb ly and this Chamber, and I would ask that you peruse the remarks of a personal nat ure that you direct ed towards myself during the question period to see if those remarks comply with the Rules of the House and your Chair.

MADAM SPEAKER: May I say to the Honou rab le Member for Pembina that , without perusing Hansard , the Chair has made no remarks that are outside the bounds of the office of the Chair , and I would hop e that the honourable member is not reflecting on the Chair in any way. The Honourabl e Opposition House Leader. MATTER OF PRIVILEGE MR. G. MERCIER : Thank you , Madam Speaker , I rise on a Matter of Privilege , and I have a motion which I will make at the conclusion of my brief remarks.

Madam Speaker, this afternoon duri ng question period on a very important matter , both to members of this side of the House and of the government side , during the course of questions you mad e certain remarks to the Member for Pembin a related to - and I wish we had had Hansard so that we could look at the exact remarks - but you made reference to the Member for Pembina not being able to hear with his mouth open .

Madam Speaker , I submit that those were remarks that were insulting and offensive to the Mem ber for Pembina and tha t, as I ind icat ed at the time , what you did not notice or wer e not aware of, that the Member for Pembina certainly had made a comment to members on the other side of the House in response to the Minister of Health's comment from his seat to the effect of - well we'll go to a " B" rating - and it was that comment from the Minister of Health's seat , Madam Speaker , that inspired the Member for Pembina to make a comment .

I accept, Madam Speaker , the fact that the Minister of Finance was on his feet , and therefore you were unable to see the Minister of Health make his comment and perhaps not hear his comment. 1626

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 But I indicated at the time, the Member for Pembina's remark was made as a result of the Minister of Health's comment that we, the government, could go to a "B" credit rating, Madam Speaker . I consider, and members on this side of the Ho use, consider your remarks to the Member for Pembina to be insultin g, offensive, unp arlia me ntar y, Madam Spea ker, and unacceptable to members of this side of the Hous e.

I therefore move, Madam Speaker , seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, that the House request the Speaker of the Ho use to apologize to the Member for Pembina for her remarks to him today. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: lt's been duly mo ved and seconded, and I will take the matter under advisement as to whether the member has a matter of privilege or not. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: On a point of order , Madam Speake r.

On two occasions since this House began its sittings, I have not been able to attend division because I'v e been led to believe that the time frame was longer than it turned out to be. For example, today I was informed that there was ten minutes from three o'clock. The vote was taken at eight minutes after three, and I was not able to vote.

MADAM SPEAKER: For the members' information, the division bells ring for 15 minut es or until both Government House Leaders have indicated to the Sargeant-at-Arms that they're ready for the vote, and it's up to individual members to make their presence available in the Chamber in time for the vote when it is held. COMMITTEE CHANGES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR. H. SMITH: Madam Speaker , I'd like to announce changes to the Public Utilities and Natural Resources Commi ttee: the Member for Churchill replacing the Member for Kildonan; the Member for St. James replacing the Member for Logan.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker . I also have changes to the Commit tee of Public Utilities and Natural Resources: Mr. Orchard for Mr. Filmon. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you . . . HANSARD CLARIFIC ATION MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Speaker, is this the time for a Hansard correction? MADAM SPEAKER: Anytime is fine for a Hansard correction. MR. J. McCRAE: Any time did you say? On Monday, Madam Speaker , Page 1496, Dr.

Mall ea, M-a-1-1-e-af MADAM SPEAKER: I thank you. ORDERS OF THE DAY MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. lt's our intention to call Second Read ings and Adjourned Debates on Second Readings today. I would ask you to call Second Readings as they are outlined on Page 4, starting with Bill No. 5 and continuing through to Bill No. 33 in the order in which they appe ar. I would also add that there is a typographical error in respect to Bill No. 16, which is shown as being presented by Mr. Storie. That should read Mr.

Plohman, the Minister of Highw ays and Transportation. Then I would ask that you call Second Readings, Adjourned Debates, in the following order: Bills No. 3, 8, 9, 10, 22, 4, 11, 17, 18, 25, 28. MADAM SPEAKER: Could I ask the Ho noura ble Government House Leader to send that list up to me in that order? SECOND READING BILL NO. 5 - THE TRADE PRACTICES INQUIRY ACT HON. A. MACKLING presented, by leave, Bill No. 5,

An Act to amend The Trade Practices Inqu iry Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les enquetes relatives aux pratiques de commerce, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I just have a few brief remarks. Copies of my remarks the Page will be giving to each of the respective critics on the opposite side. Madam Speak er, the bill to amend The Trade Practices Inquiry Act is designed to expand access to the act and to broaden the potential use of the act. At the present time, an inqu iry into the act may be initiated only where four or more persons make a complaint to the Minister. The bill provides that the 1627

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 Minister may initiate an inquir y whether or not a complaint has been received. This dual access to the act is similar in concept to th at which exists under the Federal Com bines Investigation Act. As members will ap preciate, the go vernment can set up an inquiry without the necessity of specific legislation; however, this will formalize such inquires, at least those regarding matters contemplated under the act. The Trade Practices Inquiry Act also has certain powers regarding the price of products which foot loose inqu iries would not have.

With respect to the regulation of price, the current act provides that under certain conditions a maximum price may be set by regulation for any

article or product sold to the public. One of the conditions is that the price of the

article or product has increased by more than 10 percent in the previous year. These provisions were put into the act during the period of the Federal An ti-Inf lation Bo ard. While the y may have been adequate during that period, they are not so when judged from a more general economic prospective. As a result, this bill is designed to provide that price regula tion may occur at a variety of stages of production, distribution or marketing rather than merely at the retail level. As well, the bill would remove the necessity for price to have risen by a certain percentage before regulation could take place.

There is clearly as great an economic problem where price does not fall when conditions would indicate that it should have as when price rises by some arbitrary figure such as 10 percent. The current act provides that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may regulate price only where a Board of Inquiry has recommended such control. This requirement will remain in place; however, the bill provides that the inquiry could be conducted by the Public Utilities Board and that the board may make orders in this regard.

The Public Utilities Board has developed expertise in a variety of areas over the past several years and, therefore, I believe it is expedient to use that expertise where rational to do so. Madam Speaker, these are the substantive principles of the amending bill. I recommend the bill to the House. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Brandon West. MR. J. McCRAE: Madam Sp eak er, I move the adjournme nt of the debate, seconde d by the Honourable Member for Aiel. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 16 - THE SNOWMOBILE ACT HON. J. PLOHMAN presented, by leave, Bill No. 16,

An Act to amend The Snowmobile Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les motoneiges, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minister of Highways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have copies of my speaking notes for members of the Opposition. I am pleased to introduce the amendments to The Snowmobile Act for second reading, Madam Speaker. The focus of these amendments is the inclusion of four wheel all -terrain vehicles in the act . Curr entl y, snowmobiles and three-wheeled all-terrain vehicles are the only off-road vehicles covered by legislation.

There are no provisions for other off-road vehicles such as the four-wheel all-terrain type. lt is estimated that nearly one-third of all-terrain vehicles are the four-wheeled type, numbering some 4,500 in the province today, and these are not currently registerable or insurable. In recent years, there has been a steady increase in the popula rity of off-road vehicles both for recreation and utility purposes for such things as hunting, fishing, trapping and farming. The increased popularity has, in some cases, resulted in accidents, convictions and public complaints of noise or prop erty damage.

Some jur isdictions have enacted bylaws, but it is clear that provincial legislation would more adequately address off-road vehicle use. The Department of Highways and Transportation has cons ulted with off-road vehicle manuf acturers, enforcement agencies, dealers and municipalities, and representatives from all of these areas indicate that an off-road vehicle legislation act is required. Therefore, my department is responding to those needs and is currently developing a new off-road vehicle act, comprehensive legislation. However, that will take some time and the prepa tory work is required.

Therefore, we will be proceeding with that legislation possibly in the next Legislativ e Session. As an interim measure, we are addressing the need for off-road vehicle registration through amendments to The Snowmobile Act that is already in place. We are proceeding with these amendments in order to ensure that these vehicles can be legally operated, identified and insured.

As has previously been the case, all vehicles under The Snowmobile Act will be required to have a licence plate at the rear and a pair of identification decals placed on each side of the vehicle ; but for the first time, this year, those vehicles previously registered can be reregistered under provisions of these amendments with validation stickers instead of new pla tes for the three-year period. This change will save the department approximately $35,000 this year in not having to provide for new plates, rather stickers, just as we do for motor vehicles, Madam Speaker .

Amendments are also being made to The Snowmobile Act in order to reflect federal legislation for Criminal Code driving offences primarily related to impa ired driving. Operators of vehicles under The Snowmobile Act will also be subject to driver's licence prohibitions, under I believe Bill C-19, the federal bill that came into force last December. For instance, if someone is conv icted of impaired driving while operating a snowmobile or all- terrain vehicle, they will be prohibited from operating any motor vehicle, as well, for that period.

Madam Speaker , I believe these amendments are good amendments, that they are necessary and will provide greater safety for operators, as well as for the general public, and I recommend them to this House. 1628

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. D. ROCAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker . Madam Speaker , several weeks ago I raised the matter of including four-wheeled all-terrain vehicles, that they should be included in The Snowmobile Act, and I am pleased that the Minister and the government have taken my advice and have essentially incorporated my concerns in this bill.

Madam Spea ker, I am happy therefore to indicate to you that my party and I will be supporting this bill, and if there should be any other matters that concern the users of the vehicles, I look forward to hearing from them in committee. Thank you. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 29 -THE WORKERS COMPENS ATION ACT HON. G. LECUYER presented, by leave, Bill No. 29,

An Act to amend The Workers Compensation Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les accidents du travail, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Minister of Workplace Safety and Health. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Madam Speak er. My remarks will be brief. As all mem bers by now are aware, ther e is a commi ttee tha t was app oi nted to review The Compensation Act of Manitoba, as well as all of the provisions of the act, to review changes in legislation in other jurisdictions and, as well, to review the policies and the procedures in place on the board. lt was a very comprehensive, broad mandate which was assigned to the board and it was the understanding, in appointing this committee by Order-in-Council, that as per

section 100, that the commi ttee had the powers to review and see all of the documents or any of the files and handle them at the board.

As it turned out, Madam Speaker , the commissioners of the board did not see the provision as providing them with that clear cut author ity, and discussions which have been follow ed with the board and with the members of the committee made it impossible to resolve that issue. lt was clear that we wanted the committee in order to satisfy the mandate, which was a broad one, to have access to the files if necessary; but the review commi ttee does not have a mandate to adjudicate the actual claimants' cases, and in order to have access, if the Compensation Board actually does not authorize them to review the files, would then have to resort to requiring a signed authorization by individual claimants which would thereby give the expectation that they would then perhaps be able to pursue their case with a greater degree of facility .

That being the case, and it being impossible to resolve the issue otherwise, it has been made necessary to bring in an amendment which we have in front of us and, essential ly, that is all it does. lt gives access to the files and, in so doing, it requir es that these files or the information on the files, on the individuals, names be protected from being divulged publ icly. There's also a provision for the files to remain on premises to minimize the risks of files being lost or being made accessible to the public.

As well, as I said, the mandate of the committee is also to review the procedures and policies of the board, and with that at mind, there is a provision in there which gives the members of the committee powers to request the files or the power to actually require members of the board to appear before the comm ittee. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOV NATS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health for bringing in this amendment to the act, which are the recommendations I had made to him earlier on, when we were first discussing this matter. I think, by the cooperation that was offered to him in the past, there will be no long debate on it because we agree. lt's exactly as I had made recommendations and it'll go to committee and we will pass it at that time. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker . HON. G.

LECUYER: Madam Speaker, if there is no further debate, I would thank the member of the Opposition for the suggestions and the cooperation and would move that the bill be sent to committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 33 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE MUNICIP AL ACT HON. J. BUCKL ASCHUK presented, by leave, Bill No. 33,

An Act to amend The Municipal Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les municipalites, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER : The Hon ourable Min ister of Municipal Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I do have some very brief notes for the benefit of the members opposite. The 1986 amendments are pri marily matters of clarification, housekeepi ng, or items requested by municipalities to improve local government operations.

Changes involve clarification of "residence" for election purp oses, an expande d definition of "mu nicipality" to extend pension participation rights to quasi-municipal jurisdictions, such as the Leaf Rapids Corporation, incr eased certainty for municipa lities involved with hospital extensions, or hospital grants, and a slight extension of grants in lieu of tax provisions, as they apply to provincial property within a wildli fe refuge. The remaining change s are gr amma ti cal, or housekeeping in nature. 1629

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 I have, as well, for all members of the House, some notes on the amendments to The Municipal Act, as well as some notes for The Statute Law Amendment Election Act for distribution. Thank you. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEV: Madam Speak er, I move, seconded by the Member for Morris that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried.

ADJOURNED DE BATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 3 - THE CREDIT UNIONS AND CAISSES POPULAIRES ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Honourable Minister of Co-op Devel opment, standing in the name of the Ho nourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. H. PANKRATZ: Thank you, Madam Speaker. (Mr. Deputy Speaker , C. Santos in the Chair). I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on Bill No. 3 this afternoon. I'm sure the Minister in charge and also the board members have spent quite a few hours discussing this bill and coming up with a 144- page document.

I still believe, even though there's questions to be asked on it - and I'm sure it's very difficult to please every credit union or every caisse populaire - but in general, I think it is quite a rea sonable bill. I would like to state in my opening remarks though, that the first credit union movement started in this country around the year 1900 in the Province of Quebec and from there, it expanded across this country of ours in quite a fast fash ion. In general terms, I believe it has been serving its members well, right across Canada. Having said that, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I do have a few short remarks or concerns I'd like to express. One of them, I guess, naturally you couldn't find - I am sure the members of the board and the Minister couldn't find - consensus to, when they were discussing them, but I'm sure that they were raised. One of them is that the credit union has considerable gr owth annua lly, that it has to put 5 percent of that growth basically into Central. Like in the community of Steinbach where the credit union accumu lates assets of $30 million annua lly, to put 1.5 million into Central can be quite a burden to the credit union.

I'm sure, in the future, there can be more rec omme ndations possibly made to the Minister and to the board, and if the board members so feel and the Minister so feels, changes can even be made at a later date. The other point I would like to state is this Stabilization Fund, and again, I would like to mention that a credit union like Steinbach which is naturally one of the largest in the Province of Manitoba, it pays into the Stabilization Fund a half-a-m illion dollars annual ly.

Natural ly, this is to protect the shareholders in the credit union, and I don't think any one of us in this Chamber want to deny that the general public - who invests money in a credit union - shouldn't have protection. Basical ly, the Stabilization Fund is there also to help those credit unions or caisses populair es that basically you could say are failing. Naturally, the records show that we have a couple.

This is what brings me to my concern, because I really do believe that for instance, I'm going to use it often - having received pretty well half-a-million doll ars out of the Stabilization Fund and its deficit has only been reduced by approximately $300,000, and to this day it still has over a $4 million deficit. I'm concerned about something of that nature, when we tried to keep something alive, maybe we should allow it to go its natural route and maybe fold. lt reminds me basically of what the Minister of Agriculture indicated in our Estimates when we were discussing the survival of the family farm.

He indicated definitely that there were some that would have to fall on the wayside. I think, in all fairness, I'm raising this because I believe any operation that we have should have this within its power that if it cannot show a reaso nable return and if the future does not look bright, it has an opportunity to fail. I really belie ve strongly that the board and the Minister should look seriously at this, if there is no hope or no salvation for some of these organizations, that they have basically the right to fail and that basically we take our chips as they fall and allow them to fail.

In that respect, we are just using money from one source to help pay the others which basically possibly have no right due to mismanagement or - (Interjection) - unforeseen circums tances; might be some but I would not want to put it as unforeseen circums tances. That's where the - (I nterject ion) - un foreseen circums tances I cannot accept because I believe when credit unions make poor investments, they should have to pay for their experience. Basically that is what it amounts to.

For the unforeseen, I belie ve we want to have the Stabilization Fund - (Interjection) - well I'll let you make those comments to him. I belie ve you can do that in a better fashion than I would be able to. The other point that I think should be raised and that is, while we're on Stabilization, it should be at a reduced scale. As a credit union possibly is doing better, I don't think it should have to possibly pay for the insurance at the same rate as the ones that are not running their organization in a well and equitable manner.

For that reason also, I belie ve that possibly it should be that, because it is acting as an insurance and that it possibly should be at a reduced scale so that you don't, year, after year, after year, penalize the people that are operating an efficient credit union or caisses populai res; I'm referring to them as the same. I think one step in the right direction - and here I want to compliment the Minister - and that is that dividends should not be paid unless a credit union has a certain equity level. I think that's a very good point and I want to compliment the Minister for having that as part of the bill.

So with these few comments, Madam Spea ker, I would like to - (Interjection)- oh, Mr. Deputy Speaker, pardon me, I did not realize the change - we are prepared to allow this bill to move into committee and should there be some valid concerns to be raised during 1630

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 the the committee, I'm sure that we would possibly like to, at that time, speak to it. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Speaker , I only want to say a few words on this bill. I have no reason or wish to slow down its movement toward committee. Mr. Deputy Speaker , I guess some of the comments that I would like to make, maybe to a degree, follow closely upon those made by my colleague, the Member for La Verendrye.

Although I hav en't gone through the bill in great detail, I'm confident, fi rstly, that it is acceptable to the credit union movement. I know they have been very instrumental in helping develop it. I too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, want to caution the Minister that there isn't so much safeguard built into it in supporting the smaller credit union who through bad management, maybe should be allowed to live out its life and therefore go into a wind-down; in an attempt to continually draw on the strong. I use my experience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as being involved in the cooperative movement with Federated Cooperatives.

I wasn't a member of the board, but I was a member of a consumer cooperative who dealt, and who still does deal, very actively with that major central purchasing consumer co-op. I can say that if that organization hadn't, in my view, come to its senses like it did in the late Seventies, early Eighties, and allowed some of the failing local consumer co-ops to go out of business, indeed they would have represented a major threat to the whole organization.

All I caution the Minister is that he, fi rstly, be well aware of the experience within that large organization which, of course, has gone through cyclical changes; may be in for some difficult times as soon as this year but which has survived them up to this point in time. There's been gr eat consolidation take place within that movement. In some cases, Federated has moved in and helped some of the locals to voluntarily wind down. In other cases, they were the moving force behind showing the local directors that really that was the only alternat ive.

All I would, again, ask the Minister to do, is to make sure that type of freedom still exists within this bill because if the movement, which I know he is so fond of and I guess I certainly have some high feelings and regards for too, is to survive, and quite obviously you can't so weaken the strong that you'll destroy the whole movement. I also caution the Minister to listen very carefully to the debate associated with Bill No. 4, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

I know we're dealing here with Bill No. 3 but there's no doubt in my mind that potentially the negative impa cts of Bill No. 4 could have some very meaningful, some very negative effects upon the credit union movement. That's the type of bill that will cause greater stress to the small locals which lend, in a very high proportion to the farm community; not to some of the very successful ones maybe like Steinbach Credit Union which of course is a gr eat variation and covers a wide cross-section of industrial make-up. So, Mr.

Deputy Speaker , with those few remarks, I look forward, too, to sitting through committee and 1631 listening to any of the concerns that may be brought forward with respect to Bill No. 3 at that time and again, I take it, hopefully I can trust the Minister that not too much power has been given to each and every group such that the strong, and therefore the whole organization, will be unduly weakened. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Min ister of of Co operative Devel opment. HON. J. COWAN: Yes, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, if there are no other members wishing to speak, I would welcome the opportunity to close debate so that this can be moved to the committee where the type of discussions that the members opposite indicated will take place, can take place. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. HON. J. COWAN: I can save my comments for a later time but I would like to thank the Member for La Verendrye, the Member for Morris, and indeed their caucus for their constructive comments, for their cautions, for their suggestions and for their criticisms.

I have enjoyed working with the Opposition critic, the Member for La Verendrye in this regard. I know that he will continue to provide those sorts of constructiv e remarks during the deba te in the House, th e consideration of this bill, because I think it will be more that than actual debate, and during the review of the bill in the comm ittee. I know that it is a large bill. I understand they spent quite a few hours discussing it, and certainly appr eciate the effort that they have put into forming their remarks today. I know that will continue as we move this bill through the House.

I' d also like to take this opportunity not to reject the compliments that they gave the Minister responsible for the bill, but to indicate to them tha t those compliments really should be credited to the members of the Law Review Committee, the members of the credit union and caisse populaire system, the staff who worked long hard hours in trying to develop a consensus which we believe has been developed around the principles identified in this bill. When speaking to the consensus, I think in the past I have suggested that it is the greatest consensus possible.

That is an acknowledgement that there are specific concerns about individual issues in there that will be brought forward by some credit unions that they would want to make comment on, and they will certainly have the opportunity to do that once again during the comm ittee hearings, and that they would want to address one more time. But I do believe the overall package is, in fact, the best possible consensus and a very good consensus that was reached only through a lot of hard work over the past three years on the parts of all individuals involved in the development of this legislation.

I think this House is probably somewhat unique in that I would doubt that there is a member in this Ho use now who is not or has not been a member of a credit union or caisse populaire. I think that shows very clearly, and I make that without having the facts right before me - it's conjecture, but I think it's a well-founded one - as the Member for Morris says, that we all hold

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 the credit union and the caisse populaire system in high regard, high enough regard to invest in it with our own savings, and to conduct many of our own financial matters through the credit union-caisse populaire system .

I think we will all work towards the furthering of that system, the strengthening of that system, the ensuring that there is a balance overall within the system that allows for the protection that is required and, at the same time, allows the flexibility and the freedom for individual credit unions and caisses populaires to take actions which are in the best interests of their own organization, as well as those of the overall movement. That is a balance that has to be struck over a period of time.

The members opposite have raised some important philosophical observations and considerations in respect to liquidity and stabilization . I indicate to them , at this point in time, we believe that we do have around those issues the only consensus possible, but we are prepared to listen to comments and to respond accordingly. However, I hasten to add that I do believe the major ity of the system - a s a matter of fact I know - that the vast majority of the system is in support of the principles as outlined in the present bill. In respect to management issues , one has to in fact effect a balance .

That is best done through the local membership exercising their control over the credit union, caisse populaire to the extent possible , and working within a regul atory and a developmental framework that this bill provides. I agree that if there are instances wher e t he local membership feel it is bette r to merge their operation, that is an opportunity that should be ava ilable to them . In fac t, there are mergers from time to time.

We have the examination program in place which assists credit unions in reviewing their own operations from a staff and an operational perspective ; and certainly we 'll continue working with credit unions to enable them to make the best informed decisions about mergers and , on the other side, about expansion because there are many strong credit unions and caisses popu laires that would want to expand over time. I believe the bill allows for that to happen . I certainl y have listened with interest to the debate on Bill No . 4, The Family Farm Protection Act.

I have to tell you that the Minister of Agriculture and myself have met with members of the credit union caisses popul aires system to discuss their concerns about that bi ll. I hope we will be able to allay the specific concerns. I'm certain we will be able to allay the specific concerns they have in regard to that bill.

But notwithstanding that bill itself , what we do have in place now is a very healthy system out there , a very healthy credit uni on caisses populaires movem ent that is expandin g i n a reasonable fashion and does safeguard the money which over 300 ,000 Manitobans have invested in it, and I think will cont inue to grow and prosper within the framework of this bill and with the support and the encouragement of members of this House and the movement as a whole.

So I thank again the members opposite for their constructive comments and for their cooperation in moving the bill along, look forward to the discussions during the committee and the Third Reading of the bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The motion before this House is that Bill No. 3, The Credit Union and Caisses Populaires Act be read a second time. Is that agreed? (Agreed) MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 8 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE REAL ESTATE BROKERS ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mr. Mackling, Bill No. 8, standing in the name of the Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. After careful review of the bill and notes provided by the Minister , I rise to speak in regard to Bill No. 8, The Real Estate Brokers Act . First of all, the purpose of the bill is to make a few useful and relatively minor changes to The Real Estate Brokers Act .

Some of these result from recommendations from the Winnipeg Real Estate Board and the Manitoba Real Estate Board and the Credit Union Central Manitoba. Others are primarily technical and are housekeeping in nature. The bill also is very dear to my heart. It provides the furnishing of a new surety bond , which is consid ered to be a very important principle in the operations of the Securities Commission and also in the industry . Mr.

Deputy Speaker , the two major changes contain ed in the particular bill , one of them is requiring a brok er or an authorized official to have some experience prior to being registered . This is long overdue. It rem arks in the bill , lawyers and people with prer equisite s of approximately two years in the bus ines s or some typ e of business relating. It also allows for the commission to a brokerage firm outside of Canada to be included as a result of the same representations , but the difficulties that have com e up in the last couple of years in regard to the franchis e brokers and the condominium selling .

I do not beli eve - and the question will be asked when it does get to committee - I do not believe th at this will allow brokers outside of Mani toba to list properties. I believe it will be on ly involved in partic ipating in the selling portions of the commission s. Th e other changes, Mr. Deputy Speake r, ar e housekeeping, and they reflect the introduct ion of limited partnerships and amendments to The Mortgage Brokers and The Mortgag e Dealers Act , among oth er things which are fairly important.

I will have some questions at committee dealing with some of my concerns in reg ard to the bill , a couple of them refer mostly to agent. I was wondering why they 're getting away from the referral to the agent in a particular case where brokers are the ones who carry the bonds and usually carry the licences, etc. It refers also during the course of the bill, it is quite emphatic in regarding the term " individual ," which I will also ask the Minister during the committee hearings to probably explain to us why that has been put into the act. I also would, Mr. Deputy Speaker , have other questions.

However, at this time I would like to move the bill to committee so thes e representations that have 1632

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 been made to the industry allow the public and other mem bers who have been affected by the bill, to comment at the committee. MR. DEPUTY SP EAKER: Ar e you ready for the question? QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Mr. Storie, Bill No. 9,

An Act to amend The Public Schools Act, and it's standing in the name of the Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Deputy Spea ker, I'll stand this bill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Stand. On the proposed motion of the Honou rable Member for Radisson, Bill No. 10, The Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation Act, standing in the name of the Member for Fort Gar ry. The Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOV NATS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Spea ker. The Member for Fort Garry stood this bill on my behalf, and I would like to speak on it now if I may. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is that agreed to? (Agreed) The Member for Niakwa.

BILL NO. 10 -THE MANITOBA HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT CORPO RATION ACT MR. A. KO VNATS: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Spea ker. I'm going to speak on the principles of Bill No. 10, The Manitoba Ha zardous Waste Mana ge ment Corporation Act I offer general support of the concept of this bill. The public is becoming more aware of the hazardous waste materials in our society and the need to control the hazardous wastes in our socie ty, and the disposal and the long-time storage. I am glad that this bill is being presented at this point, it's been a long time in coming.

Because this particular government has been in power for five years rhe act is long overdue and the changes and the suggestions that come in this particular act. I can see the potential of this bill. lt will bring out better management of hazardous wastes. Each year , as technology advances, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we become more and more aware of the dangers of hazardous wastes and how to dispose of them; and each year we seem to be accumulating more and more. lt's getting down to a point where, if we don't do any thing we'll be up to our eyeballs in hazardous waste.

We do have to take action right at this time. (Madam Speaker in the Chair) Madam Speaker, we do support the concept of a regulatory body, and I would suggest that when we are coming down to the nitty-gritty when it comes down to the regulatory body where we have responsibilities as to how we're going to regulate, control, supervise, inspect and handle all of these different aspects of this act. We try to keep them, not at arm's length exactly, but separate so that we can give everybody the best possible protection. This government has been in office for five years, Madam Spea ker, as I mentioned.

We've been talking about this program, and in the bill, and I don't want to get down to specifics, but there's a suggestion that $35 million is the amount that's being allocated to get it off the ground and to see that it does the correcting job. I don't know whether this $35 million is just window dressing and how much of it's going to be used to get the program started, but I hope it's not just window dressing, Madam Speaker, because it's going to require dollars to get it off the ground and $35 million seems like the right figure. I don't know how long it'll be before we're able to do anything about it.

Is the government still studying the project? How much are they going to spend this year? They talk about $35 million. Have we even got site locations picked at this point? I think these are all qu est ions that have to be answered and will be answered, I'm sure, when we get into committee. We've been burnt on a couple of occas ions, particularly where there's been promis es made of $100 million for ri ver clean-up and things of that nature, and we still hav en't seen too much money coming out of that program. So I'm going to be pushing the Minister to see that we get started on it as quickly as possible.

My party will be supporting the initiative and the correcting of any of the problems we have in hazardous waste. I was wondering whether it was the intent, and it doesn't really specify whether it's the intent of the Provincial Government just to control the hazardous waste in the Province of Manitoba. I was just looking at the estimated hazardous waste, and it's 20,325 tonnes of hazardous waste that is accumulated in the Province of Manitoba each year. That's an awful lot of waste and we'd better get started on it as quickly as possible so that we can start to reduce that hazardous waste.

I was wondering, also, whether we are going to be bringing in hazardous waste from other provinces. There's nothing in this, but there's a way of controlling the profits and what to do with the monies that come into this corporation through the Cabinet. I think that there's a way of getting rid of the money or using the money for other purposes. Whether we're going to start it into a busi ness project, I'm not really sure, but these are all questions that I'm sure the Minister will be able to answer. I guess I'v e made about as much comment on this as I can at this point.

There will be more things to be discussed once we get into the committee, but there will be general agreement on our side to be supporting this bill. Thank you, Madam Speaker. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of ... MR. G. MERCIER: Madam Speaker, I discussed this matter with the . . 1633

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Opposition House Leader. MR. G. MERCIER: . . . Government House Leader. Could we revert to Bill No. 9, which was stood earlier? MADAM SPEAKER: By leave, on the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Education, Bill No. 9, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Morris. BILL NO. 9- THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Thank you very much, Madam Spea ker. I'm pleased to be able to rise and speak on yet another amendment or another change to The Public Schools Act.

Madam Speaker, I must say, we're doing this with some frequency over the last two or thr ee years and, of course, being such an important act as it is, it shouldn't come as any great surprise that we will have to deal with it from year-to-year and Session-to-Session. Madam Speak er, I can't help but notrce that over the las t three years we are always dealing in the financial parts, Parts IX and X, I believe, of that particular bill. Of course, that says something.

What it says is that this government, when it came into power in 1981, thought that it had been given, by the prev ious administration, an education support program that was full of holes, Madam Speak er. So the new Government of the Day felt obliged to develop a review, a commission under one Dr. Nicholls, and study all matters of public school finance throughout the Province of Manitoba. Madam Speaker , Dr. Micholls put a lot of effort into his task and he, I belie ve, tabled a report with respect to all financial matters in late 1983 or early 1984.

I bring this up, Ma da m Sp eaker , because the recommendations that were included within that report, and that were to be encompassed within the new Public Schools Act, or to the amended Public Schools Act, were for the next decade to address the very real concerns with respect to financing of education within this province.

Bill No. 9, Madam Speaker, once again gives proof that all the changes that the members opposite thought that they could include in legislation in 1985 would indeed, for once and for all, hammer into place an equitable funding formula that would no longer create any disparity between school divisions, one that would also allow every school division to know where they stood and allow them to plan for years ahead, and one, of course, that would take into account greater equali zations as between school divisions. Madam Speak er, where we are now, even though it basically deals with

Part X, Other Financial Provisions, it changes some of the regulations that apply to that portion. Madam Speaker, what we have now in place is an education funding model without reference to the act. it's in regulation. We have another portion of auxilia ry grants that are now also in regulation. But most importantly of all, we have a grant system in place today that is unworkable. Madam Speaker, I can tell you that in Estimates last year I asked the former Minister of Education one question. I asked her when all the school divisions in Manitoba would be on the new GSE formula.

Her answer to me, in essence, said that everybody would be on in two years, that there was some number that would be coming on im mediately, that there were other divisions that didn't would be grandfathered, in a sense, that they would not receive any less funding. I began to realize, Madam Speaker, last fall, that that formula had a major, major weakness. I tried to make an issue out of it. As a matter of fact, I took it to one of the reporters at the Winnipeg Free Press. As a matter of fact, I'll use her name; it was Julia Necheff.

I tried to convince her that this formula which, although it was no longer cast into the act, indeed it was now in regulation, was proving to be a very troublesome sore spot for this government. The reporter in question went and talked to the Minister, who said no, I'll guarantee that regardle ss of what happens, no division receives lower amounts of gr ants, but it may take longer for everybody to come on. She then indicated to the reporter that, indeed, the department didn't know how long it would take for every division to come under that formula.

Madam Speaker, now we're another six, eight months down that track. We now are beginnng to realize that those divisions that are practising cost effectiveness indeed have virtually no hope of coming onto that formula and, indeed, if they're on it now. But other school divisions choose to spend more lavishly, to come on to that formula. Indeed, there is no guarantee in place that the division that is practising cost-effective spending will stay on the formula. lt may be bounced; they can be totally bounced off.

So, Madam Speaker, what has happened in the space of three years, when we left that terrible GSP, the Government Support Program, that the former Lyon Government had left in place, the one that had so many weaknesses, supposedly in the minds of the NDP, now we've got a formula in place where school divisions don't know from year to year whether they're going to be on it or off it. What they also know is, if they practise any cost efficiency, that they're going to be penalized severely, and I'm not going to use specific examples, I'm general izing.

So, Madam Speaker, even though Bill No. 9 doesn't make specific reference to the new funding formula that is in place, I think it's incum bent upon members of this House, when we discuss The Public Schools Act in any fashion and when we debate any bill on Second Reading, that we point out to the government the very weaknesses of that formula. We challenge them to tell us how it will be that all divisions ultima tely will come onto tha t formula.

Because, as I state, and I will keep restating until the Minister of Education can show me that he has some gr asp of that subject, Madam Speaker, I will keep saying that the formula is unworkable. There is no fashion that everybody can come onto that formula unless the government all of a sudden finds additional tens and I dare say $100 million to move into education. If the debate earlier on today tells us anything, Madam Speaker, those types of dolla rs are not available. I just wanted to indicate, Madam Speak er, that in committee, we'll look forward to some of the very 1634

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 specific changes within that bill, ones dealing with the removal of the municipal board and as my colleague the other day mentioned, we wonder now, first of all , who is going to take the ultima te responsibility for borrowing. Is it and will it continue to be the Province of Manitoba for a local debenture issue, or will the local ratepayer still ultima tely be responsible for the funds that had been borrowed? Is the local ratepayer's interest now the safeguard associated with his or her interest through the municipal board now being removed ?

We would ask whether there is any safeguard in place at all. Madam Speaker, that was one issue. We can't but notice some of the new wording which now allows for the area of grants, and again in the other grant, in the ancilla ry, the compensatory grant area, that those grants can drop. We're going to be asking the Minister for a further explanation as to why that wording is now included within the act. I would hope at that time the Minister is prepared to enter into a broad-ranging discussion into where he sees this whole area of finance and supp ort of our school divisions under some common formula.

Madam Speaker, that's what's missing. We do not have a common formula in place today. All the best attempts, and we've spent literally hours on going through that formula in Estimates last year, all the best attempts to include within the formula all the variables that trustees, that Dr.

Nicholls and that department staff considered as being imp ortant, to marry them all in one formula, as courageous as that effort was, really , again, and I repeat, we have in place a formula that does not work, a for mula that, again, is causing divisions, one by one to line up and request an audience for the Minister of Education to request additional or supplemental funding. So, Madam Speak er, I thank you for the liberty of allowing me to move somewhat off of Bill No. 9; but I say quite honestly, this whole issue of school finance should be discussed in gr eater depth.

At this point, there is only one bill before us dealing with the whole Public Schools Act. I don't think it would be fair or wise for some of us to speak out on the issue. I think we are prepared on this side then to allow Bill No. 9 to move to committee. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Education. HON. J. STOAIE: Thank you, Madam Speaker .

I'm pleased to close debate on Second Reading of Bill 9.· I do want to say at the outset that I appreciate some of the comments that have been made by the Member for Morris and other members, particularly the Member for Roblin-Russell who spoke on Bill 9, that much of the discussion has not centr ed on the immediate details that relate to Bill 9.

First of all, Madam Spea ker, in referring to the comments made by the Member for Roblin-Russell, I should indicate that there was some confusion, it seems to me in terms of his understanding of what the bill intended with respect to changes that were going to be made to allow us more flexibility in dealing with special revenue districts. There was no intention there to deal with the broader question of public school financing, and I can assure the Member for Morris that he will have ample opportunity to discuss the system of funding for public school education in Manitoba.

However, the bill really, in a small way, was providing us with some flexi bility to deal with the very real problem that he raised, and that is that without exception, Madam Speak er, school divisions are experiencing increased demand for services for children in the Province of Manitoba. There is that expectation that we are going to be able to do more and more in the educational system and what this amendment does is provide the province with flexibility in dealing with special revenue schools.

I refer specifically to schools such as Shilo and Harold Edwards and Pointe du Bois and some of the - (Interjection) - others - yes, Pinawa. Madam Speaker, what this bill does is allow us fle xibility to move away from amounts of money that were stipu lated in The Public Schools Act at a time when the other contributors to the costs of the school division were prepared, willing and able to provide large sums of money, larger sums of money on an ongoing basis.

In many instances, the other funders to the system have through circu mstance been forced to cut their contributions to those school districts, and what we're doing here is trying to react - (Interjection) - to special situations. I did. I said provide more - well, Madam Speak er, I won't get into a debate on what was said at First Reading. I would ask the members to read my comments. I believe I referred to the fact that this would provide us with flexibility in dealing with the needs of special revenue schools.

This is what it does. 1t does not deal as the Member for Morris has suggested with the larger question of public schools financing. The second portion of the bill, Madam Speaker, deals with the requirement in The Public Schools Act that capital facilities, capital projects, be approved by the Municipal Board. Madam Speaker , in the Province of Manitoba since 1969, all capital projects have been funded directly by the Province of Manitoba and 100 percent of the capital costs have been approved, supported, debentures gu aranteed by the Province of Manitoba.

I point out to members opposite that the current system requir es the appr oval of the Mi nister of Education, the Provincial Cabinet, Public Schools Finance Board, as well as - and this is important - the local school division before a project is approved. So there are a series of approval processes in place. Because 100 percent of the capital costs are gua ranteed by the province, there is no need for the Mu nicipal Board to be involved, nor has there been signi ficant involvement for many years. So I don't see that as a major change.

Madam Speak er, a num ber of the other amendments that have not been referred to specifically in debate again are of an administrative nature, cleaning the act up and making it more consistent with the Char ter of Rights, for example. In closing debate, Madam Speaker, I can only say that I guess the prime motivation for these amendments was to deal with some of the financial problems that exist in the Province of Manitoba in the area of education. I certainly look forward to the debate and the remarks of members opposite with respect to public schools financing in the province. 1635

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 The Member for Morris , Madam Speaker , couched virtually all of his remarks in terms of the weakn ess existing in the current government support to education programs . Madam Speaker , perhaps he speaks to the fundamental philosophical difference betwe en us that he sees as a weakness, the requirement and the need of school divisions to meet the needs of the children in their divisions.

While I certa inly would not be say ing that the government support to education has proved to be a panacea, I don't believe from my review of the situation thus far that the Member for Morris ' dream of a simple form ula that is understandable to everyone can be found to meet the very diverse needs of school divisions and individual students in the Province of Manitoba. It's going to require a certain degree of flexibility.

It's going to require a recognition, the recognition of the differing abilities of school divisions to provide supports locally, and it's going to requi re a recognition on the part of all participants in the system that individual needs have to be addressed and that, while it may be true that low spending divisions are uncomfortable with this formula, it may also be true that low spe nding divisions are those divisions with lower needs in ter ms of the student populations . So, Madam Speaker, we will look forward to that debate .

I am pleased to see that members opposite have seen fit to pass Bill 9 on to committee, and I look forward to further debate on the issue of public schools financing in my Estimates . Thank you , Madam Speak er. QUESTION put, MOTI ON carried. MADAM SPEAKER: Is it the will of the House to call it 4:30? (Agreed) I hea rd some comments about 5:30. PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS RES. NO. 15 - REFLECTION ON A MEMBER MADAM SPEAKER: Private Members' Resolutions , on the proposed motion of the Honourable Member for St. Vital. The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. J.

WALDING: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet, that

WHEREAS the Winnipeg Free Press edition of April 16, 1986 contained the words "Black mail and Extortion " in reference to a Member of the Legislative Assembly in a column written by Frances Russell; and

WHEREAS these words are a reflection on a Member of the Legislative Assembly ; THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the matter of the Frances Russell colum n in the Winnipeg Free Press edition of April 16, 1986 be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Vital. MR. J. WALDING: Madam Speaker , this is not a partisan issue and it's not a matt er of the Opposition and the government, and it's not really a matter of ideology.

It is a matter of the Assembly and the 56 members of the Assembly who sit in this Chamber to consider the problem that is put before them as to whether words written in a newspaper referring to a member of the Assembly is, in fact, a breach of the privileges of the House. I have tabled the offending

article in the past, and it's quite clear in black and white for anyone wishing to read it that Mrs . France s Russell uses the terms "blackmail and extortion." I would remind all members that those are crimin al offences . They are libelou s. They are clearly defamatory , and they are injurious to my reputation and , I believe, the reputation of the Legislative Assembly and of all of the members of the House. They, in fact , amounts to a scu rri lou s attack , one quite unworthy of a repu table and experienced journalist. Further than that, they are in my opinion a breach of proper journalistic ethics.

I do not wish to dwell on those particul ar words themselves, just to remind the members that there are unparliamentary words and expressions which members are not permitted to use against other members. Allegations of a criminal act ivity by a m em ber would certainly be one of those unpar liam entary expressions and would be promptly and very thoroughly ruled out of order , and we would be made by the Speaker to retrac t such a motion .

In this case , there is a member of the press using what is clearly an unparliamentary expression but you , Madam Speaker , I believe do not have the power to require a member of the press to retract or withdraw those particular words. I do have to wonder why a member of the press would be able to use an unparliamentary expression that we ourselves would not be able to use . 1636 Since the Speaker cannot make that determination, that requirement on the part of a journa list , the Hous e on the other hand can . It can make such dete rmin atio n as it wishes.

What I am suggesting to the Hous e is that they, rather than discuss some particular course of action, that it in fact refer the matter to a committee to allow that committee to discuss it and to report back , and for the House to take whatever action that it sees fit. Where there have been reflections by the press in the past, Parliaments and Legislatures have tended to treat those as a breach of privil ege although , strictly speak ing, they are a contempt . But it has been the practice to consider a contempt to be a breach of privilege .

That is what is being suggested , and that the House take some action in the case of that particular contempt. I should mention to members, on top of that contempt , there was the issue of - oh about a week or so after this particular

article appeared in the paper , I wrote a letter to Mrs . Russell with a copy to the Editor. I don 't wish to be vindictive, nor do I wish to be vindictive in this particular case or to pillory the journalist concerned ; but the letter I wrote to her was, I believe , a polite letter , and it asked for an apology and a retraction of what had happened , an apology in print for the words used. I pointed out that there was probably good cause and a good case could be made in a court

Wednesday, 9 July, 19 86 of law with an action for libel. That letter was ignored. I heard nothing more from Mrs. Russell or from the editor which makes it doubly contemptuous of me and of the House. Quite frankly , I would have been quite prepared to let the matter drop, had I received some sort of a retraction in the press. I did not wish to let it go further than that.

I did seek legal advice on the matter and I was advised that an action would probably be successful in the court for libel, but my income has dropped considerably since last year; and quite frankly , I cannot afford to go to the courts to seek satisf action. But I will remind all members that this Assembly is a court of record, from which there is no appeal, and the Assembly itself can act as a court and take the necessary action or the action that it sees fit.

So I present those facts to the members of the House, that there has been, not only a serious breach of journalistic ethics, but there has been, not one, but two contempts on a member of this House ac ting as an ML A and on the House itself. Not only is that a contempt of the journalistic question, it is a double contempt of the Winnipeg Free Press and I don't wish to go into that matter any more.

I put those facts before the House and sugge st to them tha t this matter can be dealt with mo st expeditiously by having its Committee on Privileges and Elections discuss the matter , debate it, and make its report to the House. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Thank you, Madam Speak er. I wish to speak relatively briefly to this motion. Firstly, I point out that the concern of the Member for St.

Vital refers to a paragraph, in a column by Frances Russ ell, which reads as follows: "As several top government officials put it, the Premier would not and could not submit to blackmail and extortion." This the member has referred to as a scurrilous attack, with which descr ip tion I would not disagree, but his complaint, Madam Speaker, in my view, is with the top government officials. He asks from his seat: who? I say, Madam Speaker, through you to the Member for St. Vital, start at the Premier's Office where the letter was received and the officials in that office. That's where the problem is, Madam Speaker .

The messenger in this case is only reporting the comments that came to her, as I understand it, from top government officials in the Premier's office. Madam Speaker, because of that, this motion causes me a great deal of difficu lty. I would have very serious concerns. In fact, I cannot support the motion, Madam Speaker. I cannot support referring this matter to a Legislative Committee, because what would happen there? The commi ttee would meet; issue a summons to Frances Russell; the comm ittee asks her to name her source.

I think that, Madam Speaker , would be an absolute and total infringement upon freedom of the press. I don't believe, Madam Spea ker, that we can ever allow that type of activity to take place. We may very well disagree from time to time, and we all have in public life disagreed with descriptions or adjectives that are used about us in the media - certainly I have in my own time. On one occasion, I did begin an action for defamation, as a result of which I obtained an apolo gy.

Madam Speaker, I think that certainly is a clear alternative, and if the member feels strongly about it - he said he's received legal advice - that an action would probably be successful, then I think he has to simply make the decision whether or not he wants to pursue that, because that is another way of dealing with this matter. But, Madam Speaker, to refer this matter to the Privileges and Elections Committee; to summon a reporter before it; to ask a reporter's source be named is totally wrong. it's something I don't belie ve members of this Assembly can, in any way, support.

That's why I say, Madam Speaker, he should go to the Premier's Office to find out which top government official in the Premier's office - by the way, Madam Spea ker, who hasn't resigned within the past two or three months, because I bel ieve there are a sign ificant num ber of resignations from the Premier's Office - for whatever reason I don't kn ow. But that's where his problem is or it's within his caucus. Go to the caucus meeting.

Surely his caucus and Treasury Bench have sufficient power to find out who made the statement, Madam Speak er, but it's not a matter for this House to be voting in favour of this motion. Madam Speaker , the member, I suggest, has another alternative. He is a man of principle, we all belie ve, Madam Speaker .

If the Premier's Office or his caucus won't help him with respect to this matter - in finding out who made this statement and helping him find out that identity through the Premier's office and the caucus, so that he can obtain a withdrawal or retraction or apology - then he shouldn't be sitting on that side of the House, Madam Speaker . What kind of support is that side of the House giving to the Member for St. Vital? Madam Speaker, it doesn't appear to me to be giving him very much.

I can assure him, if he were sitting on this side of the House, Madam Speaker , and a member of our caucus had a complaint like this - if we were in government, and someone had said something about one of our members of caucus, accused them of blackmail and extortion, and a member of our caucus was concerned that that was a scurrilous attack and was libelous and slanderous - our caucus would act in support of that member. We would find out, Madam Speaker, who made that type of scurrilous attack on our member, Madam Speak er, and he would get support on this side of the House for that.

I repeat, Madam Speaker, his complaint is against the Premier and it's against every member who sits on that side of the House who has not supported it and obviously not many, if any, have supported it, and that's where his real problem is. The proper resolution of that problem lies with the Premier and lies with that caucus and does not lie in approving a motion. Madam Speaker, which would infringe intolerably upon freedom of the press. MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Kildonan. MR. M. DOLIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. 1637

Wednesday, 9 July, 1986 I rise in support of the motion, contrary to the previous speaker, and I would like to make a few comments about the extremely convoluted logic in the arguments I just heard. The resolution deals with the matter of priv ilege in this House. The resolution says, that the matter of the Frances Russell column be referred to the Comm ittee on Privileges and Elections . It doesn 't say the specific person or the spe cific column. I think it 's important that the matter of, in this issue that the Membe r for St. Vital has brought up , be looked at .

I also find that the partisanship of the Member for St. Norbert being extremely interesting . He points out initially in his comments that he cannot support the principle of this motion and will not support it. He points out that if the member were on his side of the House , then all of a sudden he would support it. This kind of parliamentary responsibility app alls me. So the fact of what is being said here and what has been brought up very clearly by the Memb er for St. Vital is an issue that the Memb er for St .

Vital, in good faith and with all commo n rea l concern from the membe rs of this House , is saying that this is a matter concerning the MLA's repr esenting the people of this province, and he as an MLA feels that somehow some wrong has been done to him by this particula r issue . The fact that he is a member on this side of the House or that he is a member on that side of the House , I do not see as particularly relevant in either of the WHEREASES or in the resolution. It is somehow relevant to the Member for St. Nor bert. I find tha t somewhat disappointing from the Member for St.

Norbert wh o I thou ght better of. The fact is I do believe that the matter of the Member for St. Norbert po ints out that he should go to the Premier 's office and find out who said these scurrilous things - and I think " scurrilous" was the word the Member for St. Norbert used . Well, I would like to read it again what was said in the Frances Russell column. I would also like to point out that I have a great deal of respect for the accuracy of the reporting of Frances Russell, for her abilities as a journalist , and I point out here - because I have a problem with this as does the Member for St.

Vital - it says, " As several top government officials put it , the Premier would not and could not submit to blackmail and extort ion." I would like to point out that once again we have a deep-throat syndrome here . We have an attr ibution with unnamed people; several top government officials . Top government officials could mean in Frances Russell 's

interpretation somebody who is above the person who mows the grass; it could be somebody in the Premier 's office; it could be somebody in a departmental office. There is no attribution of that statement. However, I think this should concern the Member for St. Norbert as much as it concerns me, the statement of blackmail and extortion. Those words are used without a specific attribution as to who said them, where they came from. Is the Member for St.

Norbert not concerned that any columnist now , or any newspaper reporter, or any magazine reporter, or any person who publishes any material in the public press of any kind can call him or me or any other member of this Legislative Assembly any name or any disgraceful acronym they want or any kind of opprobrious term that they want to attribute to us, as long as they say it comes from an unnamed source. It comes from some government official.

It comes from a secret source which, of course , if the member really believes in the freedom of the press, he would know better than to ask a member of the press to identify the source in a court of law, because freedom of the press means that the press has a right to keep its sources confidential. I believe in that right. I also have serious questions then about them using terms like this . To give you another example: I don 't necessarily think that the attribution of blackmail and extortion is offensive to an MLA . I have been called wor se. I'm sure other members have been called wors e in this House .

I think I would not be personally offended by that. Fred Cleverley , in a column he wrote a few weeks ago, referred to me, a sitting member of th is Hous e, as the "Go ebbels of the Legislature ". I would suggest that Lord Ha Ha of the Free Press ca n u se whatever names he sees fit to me without my taking offence. I have no respect for Fred Cleverl ey. I have no respect for anything he says. If he calls me names, I consider that typical of Fred Cleverley. However , I do think the issue of naming members of this Legislative Assembly attrib uting characteristics, was as the Member for St.

Vital points out, are offen ces under the Criminal Code is something that Privileges and Elections should be looking at as a matter of principle. Let me give you another example of the kind of th ing that Privileges and Elections should be look ing at, is the kind of unconnected facts being printed in the paper. Two NOP donors rec ipients of loan , there was a column about the NOP reporting its donation s receive d from various sources and it says: " In 1984 , th e mining companies" - speaking of a specifi c mining company - "got a $10 million loan on favourable terms for its Leaf Rapids.

They gave the New Democrats $1 ,000.00 " . There is no comment there . The next line says , " Suc h and such Graphics of Winnipeg gave the provincial party $500, early last year received a $1 million Jobs Fund loan " . Then it says, " Al Mackling donated $4,412 .50"; and then it says , " Premier Howard Paul ey gave his party $2,200.00". There is nothing said. There is not a word said. There's not an accusation ther e. But I tell you that the readers are supposed to read into that is Al Mackling, the Member for St.

James , the person referred to here is now a Cabinet Minister because he gave money; that the Premier is now the Premier because he gave money ; that this mining company got a contract because they gave money. 1638 I would suggest to members of this House that when the Conservative bonus list is printed - if I could have some order please, Madam Speak er. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please , order please . Order please. MR. M.

DOLIN: When the Conservative 's donors ' list is printed , if the same facts that X-amount of dollars were given to the Conservative Party and this company got X-amount of dollars in contracts, the readers would look and say, how could the Conservative Party have given them the contracts?

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	33-1-42
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	33rd 1st hansardpdf 42.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	d94968a072194322e1fb93ded543670eaf6f3efe

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