ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 50 - 2:00 p.m., MONDAY, 25 JUNE, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

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

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

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

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

LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, 25 June, 1984. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PR AYER by Mr. Speaker. MA. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees . MINISTERIAL STATEMEN TS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure this afternoon to inform the members and the people of Manitoba that today has been declared Senior Citizens' Day at the Legislature in recog nition and acknowledgement of Senior Citiz ens' Month in Manitoba.

The contribution that senior citizens have made and continue to make to the Province of Manitoba is imm easurable. Their wisdom, their hard work, their dedication to building a lasting heritage for us all deserves to be recognized. The wisdom, the fortitude displayed by our senior citizens in building Manitoba is a source of pride to all Manitobans. lt is In recognition of their hard work, their ongoing contribution to the vitality of our province that today has been set aside for them. I believe, Mr.

Speaker, that it Is only fitting that the doors of the Legislative Building are wide open to our senior citizens so that the government and all Manitobans can pay special tribute to them. I am sure that members will join with me in welcoming Manitoba's seniors here today. Thank you. MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MA. G. FILMON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. lt's a privilege and a pleasure for me on behalf of my colleagues on the opposition side to join with the Premier and his colleagues in welc oming our seniors here today.

We certainly want to salute them for all their many accomplishments and thank them for their contributions to our province and our country. We're proud of our seniors and we want them to be able to enjoy all of the benefits that we have to offer in our society tod ay. We certainly want them to continue to enjoy a full and complete life in Manitoba with all of the many things that we have to offer. We're grateful to them for their efforts in building our country and our economy and then entrusting us with its care.

So we join with the Premier and his colleagues in saluting their achievements and thanking them for their contributions, and in welcoming all of them here today. Thank you very much. MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Culture. HON. E. KOSTY AA: Ye s, Mr. Speaker , I have a Min isterial Statement. lt's my pleasure to present the honourable members with a catalogue fea turing Manitoba Artists Overseas, an exhibition designed to strengthen our cultural base and promote our artists overseas. I have tabled copies of this catalogue, and invite the honourable members to peruse it at their leisure.

Manitoba Artists Overseas is an exhibition of painting, drawing and sculpture, which is now enroute for display in Canadian cultural centres In Britain, Belgium and France. The exhibit ion was fina nced by the Governments of Manitoba and Canada, and organized by the Manitoba Arts Council. The five artists represented in this show have chosen to make Manitoba and Winnipeg their home. Together they are a living demonstration of a commitment to our artistic and cultural life, a commitme nt that acknowledges the encouraging trend of the past several years.

Indeed, we have witnessed an Increasing number of artists at advanced stages in their career choosing to remain in Manitoba where a stronger art market and and better access to major institutions is deve loping. Don Proch, Jack Butler, Sheila Butler, Tony Tascona and Esther Warkov each deal with a different aspect of their environment, re flecting in his/her own personal style the two inescapable issues confronting one living and working in the Canadian prairie: space and clima te.

They engage both our intellect and our emotions, whether through the investigation of new materials and techniques, or through the questioning of accepted

definitions of what constitutes art. We should be proud of these five Manitoba artists who are now our cultural ambassadors. I hope that this innovative example wil be one of many opportunities to introduce the arts of Manitoba to an audience beyond our borders, one which will place Manitoba on the map, encourage investment in our diverse art forms, provide recognition and enhance produc tion. We welcome and support Initiatives such as these that recognize the need for Manitoba artists to develop and to share their work with other Manltobans, their fellow Canadians, and now Europeans.

Manitoba Artists Overseas is on exhibit at the Winni peg Art Gallery from June 21st to July 22nd. MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MA. F. JOHNST ON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We on this side of the House would like to say how much we are in favour of this particular move being made by the Government of Manitoba and the Government of Canada to identif y Manitoba artists outside of our borders. 2224

�ond•� 25 June, 1884 We in Manitoba have had many fine and close to great artists within our province for many many years. I'm sure that this move will do an awful lot to see that these artists become known and, hopefully, future artists become known outside our borders. I would urge all Manitobans to take the opportunity to view this art display that's available to them at the Winnipeg Art Gallery from June 21st to July 22nd. Thank ·you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. S. USKIW: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a statement as well. Mr.

Speaker, before I introduce the statement, I would like to make mention of the attachment which is a press release as well, a release that will be issued momentarily. lt's an embargoed statement as well, so that privilege of the House would not be breached. As a result of discussions with the horse racing industry, the Assiniboia Downs and the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission, the Province of Manitoba will increase the level of grant assistance to the thoroughbred racing industry. This increase is in essence a rebate to the industry of tax revenues which it generates.

The government and the industry have jointly developed a proposal which will result in changes to the wagering pool. The grant assistance to the thoroughbred racing industry will be limited to the 1984 thoroughbred racing season. The total takeout from wagering will be reduced by 5.16 percentage points with Assiniboia Downs contributing 1.00 percent point, the horsemen contributing 1.00 percentage point, the breeders contributing 0.16 percentage points, and the province contributing 3.00 percentage points.

The 5.16 percentage points takeout reduction is directed exclusively to the benefit of the racing fan and will therefore stimulate wagering and the returns to the industry. The Manitoba Horse Racing Commission undertook a study of the racing industry in Manitoba and the province is currently reviewing the findings of the study with a view to establishing a long-term policy which will nurture a healthy horse racing industry in Manitoba.

The Government of Manitoba views this arrangement as being an important step towards the revitalization of the industry through the joint efforts of the industry, the race-track owner and the government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We thank the Minister for making that announcement today. We have been aware and I know the Minister has been aware of our concerns about the healthy viability of the racing industry in Manitoba.

There are many horse breeders and horse owners who contribute a great deal to the economy in terms of the employment and in terms of the investment which they have in Manitoba, and the race track in particular is perhaps the largest tourist attraction in Manitoba today. As a result, it does have a significant economic bearing on our provincial tourist dollar spending. We were aware that attendance was down, that wagering was down and as a consequence, the returns to horse owners and horse breeders were suffering.

So we are delighted that the Minister, in co-operation with the various people who have a great deal to do with the racing industry, are looking at these alternatives and have taken some action to try and overcome the problems that are there. When we were in government, Mr. Speaker, you may recall, we had occasion to do something similar for the standardbreds, so we are aware of the various considerations that went into this decision. We thank the Minister for making this announcement.

We hope that he will continue, perhaps, to evaluate some of the other' proposals that are before him, including that of non-profit ownership for the Assiniboia Downs, so that the returns would stay more in the industry and allow them, perhaps, to take advantage of certain tax breaks that would accrue to them as a result of that type of non-profit ownership. So thank you very much, Mr. Speak er, for the announcement today. MR. SPEAKER: Notices of Motion . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. M.B. DOLIN introduced Bill No. 36,

An Act to amend The Construction Industry Wages Act. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery where we have 36 students of Grade 5 standing from the Ecale Centrale School under the direction of Mr. Chartrand. The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Minister of Energy and Mines. On behalf of all of the members, I welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS Compensation re heavy rains MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier, and it follows upon the revelation during question period on Friday by the Minister of Urban Affairs that she and members of Cabinet would be meeting with officials of the City of Winnipeg today, and one of the items that we had requested to be p1Jt on the agenda was, of course, the topic of potential damage claims for the heavy rainstorm and damage that has occurred to property and persons in Winnipeg. We wonder, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not the Premier can indicate if the government is going to be participating in the compensation for some of the immense damages that have occurred throughout the city, the basement flooding and so on. 2225

Monday, 25 June, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speake r, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for that question. As the Leader of the Opposition ind icated, we did meet this morning with Mayor Norrie and other members of the Executive Policy Committee. The Item that was included earlier and, of course, had been anticipated, was the one of flood damage compensation.

As a result of the discussions that were held this morning, it was agreed that the city would be providing to us as early as possible a submission that would be the result of a survey that the city is intending to undertake in the next short period of time to ascertain the extent of damage within the City of Winnipeg, areas that are affe cted, and other pertinent information so that we, at the level of Cabi net, will be able to make a decision based upon the information that we anticipate the city will be able to provide to us very quickly. MR. G.

FILMON: As well, in view of the fact that we've had three storms in the month of June that exceed the 1-in-25-year storm frequency level and in view of the fact that there has also been even within the last few days substantial hail and wind damage to rural properties, we wonder, Mr. Speak er, whether or not the Premier and his colleagues are considering damage relief to rural properties and communities that have also been very adversely affected by the storms. HON. H.

PAWLEY: The Leader of the Opposition is aware there was announced a short time ago by the Min ister of Government Services a policy statement pert aining to criteria to be utilized insofar as declaration of disaster areas. We will, of course, be prepared to look at any submission insofar as rural areas are concerned with the same view as to examining the extent of damage, the breadth of the da mage, in order to ascertain whether or not a request should be made to the Federal Government and a declaration on our part as well as to its being a disaster area. MR. G. ALMON: Mr.

Speaker, In view of the fact that the Province of Saskatchewan, I believe, earlier today made an announcement with respect to storm damage relief for an area adjacent to the Manitoba border in the Roblin-Swan River area, I wonder If the Premier and his colleagues would take into consideration the criteria which they have established for such damage relief programs. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er , we'll be examining all pertinent information.

I might mention to the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Natural Resources is not with us at this time, because he has flown North to the Garland area because of reports of very heavy flooding in that area to examine the extent of the damage in that particular part of the Province of Manitoba as a result of run-off, I gather , from the park. Municipal Hospitals MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker , in the absence of the Min ister of Health, I direct my question to the Acting Min ister or to the First Minister.

My question is whether he/she can confirm that the province will be looking at a proposal this week to renovate the Municipal Hospitals very substantially to the degree of demolishing the King George and King Edward Hospitals. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . I'm sure that all members of the House would join with me in wishing the Minister of Health well. He's in hospital for a brief stay; we expect him to be out within several days and soon he will be able to answer that question more fully.

But as I understand the proposal of the City of Winnip eg with respect to the Municipal Hospitals it is that there is approximately $20 mi llion worth of renovation that they would like to complete within the next five years of their capital program�ing, which would then in turn be repaid through the Manitoba Health Services Commission. I'm not sure as to the exact status of it, but the Minister of Health should be back later this week and provide a more detailed answer forthcom ing. MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister of Finance for that information.

On behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House, I certainly extend greetings and best wishes to the Minister of Health, best wishes for a speed recovery and a quick ret urn to the House. Might I just place a supplementa ry question on the record to be taken as notice on that same subject, Mr. Speak er, and that is a question as to what would replace the King Edward and the King George if they are demolished. Is it the Intention of the Municipal Hospitals and the Health Services Commission and the government, to replace them with similar chronic-care hospitals?

If not, what facility is being planned for the polio patients and what facility is being planned for long-term extended care? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will take that question as notice as well, for the Minister of Health. Day care - Health Sciences Centre MR. L. SHERMAN: Mr.

Speaker, I direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Community Services and I would ask her whether she can confirm that the Day Care Centre at the Health Sciences Centre is facing a budgetary deficit crisis and again facing the critical question of whether it will continue In operation or whether it will be phased out of the Health Sciences Centre budget. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Ye s, Mr. Speaker, we've been meeting with the Health Sciences Centre people in charge of their day care. They have been granted a 6 percent 2226

MondaJ, 25 June, 1� increase for the upcoming year along with all other day care centres. With regard to their accumulated deficit, we have undertaken to do some consultation with the Health Services Commission about the issue and it has not yet been resolved. Howev er, the total amount of deficit is not an astronomical amount and it's been our expectation that the Health Sciences Centre would find a way of absorbing it within their total operation. However, we will conduct ongoing discussions with them and do everything that we can to keep that centre viable. MR. L. SHERMAN: A final question, Mr.

Speaker, supplementary to the Minister of Community Services, she may want to take it as notice for the Minister of Health. My question is whether the Health Sciences Centre has a budget and a budgetary position at the present time that would accommodate a $400,000 deficit at the day care centre. I put the question, on the basis, Sir, that the Health Sciences Centre may well be running a significant deficit already on its basic operations. HON. M. SMITH: Mr.

Speaker, the Health Sciences Centre Day Care Centre has undergone some financial difficulty in the past because they were offering a special kind of care - they had more infant care than was common in other day care centres - and they were offering a very special service to their employees.

So the question has been the extent to which they should fit into the general pattern of day care support that is equitable and equal right across the province, or whether there shc:.:!d be some special funding from the employer because the main purpose of the centre has been to enable the employees to retain their jobs or work for the centre; and that is an Issue which we are discussing with them. They have found a way to date to meet the deficit, and the question now Is whether they can continue to do so or whether a new arrangement is called for. Grasshopper infestation MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. This, Mr. Speaker, follows on a letter that 1 sent to the Minister some two weeks ago requesting that an immediate program be introduced for the control of grasshoppers in the western region of the province.

Following the meeting last week with municipal people in Melita last Thursday and numerous :>hone calls from councillors and concerned farmers about their pasture supplies and their feedstocks being severely affected, will the Minister reconsider his comments as of Friday, 1 believe it was, in question period, and will he now introduce a program to assist the farmers in the purchase of chemical to apply on those grasshoppers so they don't expand again this year and have a larger problem on our hands than is the case at this particular time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member is aware of my remarks of last week where I indicated there is a long-standing program within the Province of Manitoba dealing with the outbreak of grasshoppers. The province has, in the past, and I will repeat to the honourable member, provided the chemical as a service to municipalities and to farmers when those types of chemicals were not readily available.

During the last number of years, the province had a large supply of chemical on hand which had, In fact, deteriorated - some of the containers had deteriorated - and the province had to reformulate and change containers and eventually depleted its stock. We made the decision not to replenish a stock of chemicals within the province because there was ample supplies of it available at what is considered a much reduced cost than was readily available in the early '70s.

As a result, the long-standing policy of providing assistance to municipalities on all public grounds, the reimbursement of costs of chemicals on all public grounds continues and the treatment of grasshoppers is viewed no differently than any outbreak of other insects, whether it be beetles in the rape crops or whether it be some other Insects which farmers are obligated to treat at tht�lr own expense. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I'm extremely shocked that this Minister of Agriculture is not prepared to take action in a critical issue.

Following on his comments, I ask him if he's now prepared to live up to his policy statement that he just indicated and provide spray to the municipality in the southwest, to spray the wildlife management areas that's one of the major causes, as well as all Crown lands, will he take action and clear that statement up, a commitment which his department made earlier this spring? There has been no action taken and the grasshopper problem is there now. Will he take immediate action and reconsider his comments? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable member wishes to make much of a situation that is long-standing in terms of policy . We on this side, Sir, are not grandstanding on the basis of grasshoppers. The outbreak of grasshoppers in terms of the southwest corner is no different than the outbreak of cankerworms or infestations on rape fields, or of other infestations. And being that the chemical is readily available, the province's policy - which is long-standing, Sir - continues to be the same.

We will assist municipalities with the reimbursement of costs of the chemical for spraying on all public plans, whether it be their municipal roads or whether it be the provincial highways, as was raised last week by his colleague, the Member for Pembina. That policy stands and we will continue to assist the municipalities, both with those costs and with the technical help from our staff in the field. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pembina last week did ask a question of the Minister of Highways as to whether or not the government wouldn't provide the cost of spraying, applying the chemical.

Hansard , Page 2210, Mr. Speaker , the Minister of Highways did indicate that they would pay 2227

Monct.y, 25 June, 1984 for the cost of appl ication . Will this Minis ter of Agriculture now support the Minister of Highways, and go to his Cabinet and ask for the cost of applying the spray on municipal lands and as well on Crown lands, Mr. Speaker? As well, I again request of him, Mr. Speaker, to . reconsider his decision and introduce a program to help pay for the purchase of chemicals by farmers. They are having to apply one and two and three and four times the same fields, Mr. Speaker, to save their feed supplies. Will he reconsider his decision?

Will he support the Minister of Highways, and provide the application costs? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member knows that he should not ask repet itive questions. The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the repetitive que stion was with a false premise, Sir, because the premise that he indica ted -and I was in the House when the Minis ter of Hi ghways ind icated to the honourable member -that the policy of paying for the spraying costs was not a policy of government. lt has never been a policy of govern ment.

But this government, Sir, has extended and been prepared to exte nd the assistance to municipalities towards the cost of the chemical, whether it be on municipal roads, rights-of­ way or on provincial roads, but the responsibility for dealing with the actual spraying rests with the local government, Sir. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the First Min ister.

In view of the contradictory remarks made by two of his Mini sters in the supporting of munici palities and the farmers in this commu nity, will he support his Minister of Highways and bring into line his Minister of Agriculture who should be helping the munici palities and farmers? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: The Minister of Agriculture has dealt with the question quite well. The policy that Is now being pursued is one that has indeed been the policy for quite some time. The Min ister of Agricultur e has described that policy, and that is the one that will be pursued.

Federal dividend tax changes MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, and ask him whether he has received any ind ication from the Federal Government that they will be introducing legislatio n very shortly to block Provincial and Municipal Governments from taking advantage of federal dividend tax breaks. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Finance. HON. V. SC HR OEDER: Mr. Speaker , there were indic ations to that effect, apparently, after the British Columbia Government moved with respect to its proposal.

So one could have read from that there may be some legisla tion, because the Government of Ontario was quite concerned that money was leaving Bay Street. Ye s, we are aware, and I have been in communication with federal officials who have indicated that there will be some changes. I find that regrett able. it's all right for the Royal Bank to get cheap money; it's all right for Dome Petr oleum to get cheap money, but it's not all right for small businesses and farmers in Manitoba to get cheap money.

I believe the Government of Manitoba disagrees with that polic y of the Federal Government that provides for lower-cost money to big business and higher-cost money for small business and homeowners. But unfortunately, it is true that they are apparently moving.

Just incidental to that, as we met with the City of Winnipeg this morning, the City of Winnip eg indicated to us that they have been looking at this at the same time -and, of course, they appear now to be too late for this source of funding -so they could get reaso nable­ cost money to do the things that we need with respect to storm drainage and so on and the other projects that are so important to our citizens. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Spea ker, in these discuss ions, has the Minister or the government been Informed by Ottawa that they consider the provincial actions as an abuse of the current provisions? HON. V.

SCHROEDER: We cert ainly have not been informed that is a position they take. We have had discus sions where we've indic ated that we were quite concerned that what the Federal Government now is saying, while they're saying that they are attem pting to help the west -everybody is making great points about being out there trying to help the west -and when the west tries to get money at the same kinds of Interest rates, the same types of costs that Bay Street people get money at, then suddenly we have the Conservative Government In Ontario saying, don't do that.

We have the Federal Government apparently now agreeing with that and we take strong exception to that. We, along with the Government of British Columbia, did arrange a financing which does provide for economic development wit hin our own province at rates competitive with rates that large Canadian corporations can obtain funds for In order to take over other corporations and so on. We think that if they can do it, cer tainly we should be entitled to do it for our citizens. MR. R. DOERN: Mr.

Speak er, holding aside the Min ister's political analysis, does he accept the federal position that the Provincial Government has secured a benefit at the expense of, first of all, the Federal Government and, secondly , the other provinces In which the investors reside - a sort of beggar-thy-neighbour policy? Does the Min ister not recog nize that this polic y is not one of Manitoba only, but one that would apply equally to all other provinces and could not just be for the benefit of a single province? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, my staff, who analyzed this proposal very carefully before I took it 2228

Monday. 25 June, 1• to Cabinet, indicated to me -and I agree with their analysis -that indeed this would not be a raid on the Federal Treasury at all because people would be buying -corporations, that is, insurance companies, trust companies and so on -these preferred shares either from us or from Dome or some other private sector corporation which would use the funds for other matters. There is still only so much money out there, and it's a question of whether it will come to the benefit of the public of the west or to the benefit of the private sector in the east.

The Provincial Treasury in the Province of Ontario, we do not believe will be affected in any way. They will be affected in terms of these arrangements either by having Dome take advantage of it for the Province of Manitoba. The issue is, does the money come to the west or does it stay over there? We knew at the time we were doing it that there was a likelihood that the Federal Government might act to stop this. If they see this as an abuse, Mr.

Speaker, then we believe that certainly it is an abuse as well of our taxation legislation to allow for large, private corporations to compete against small business and homeowners and farmers and so on at rates that are much lower than what those people are able to get under our current taxation regime. MR. R. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, I would then finally ask the Minister whether there has now been a shift in New Democratic policy. The old tried and true policy, as I have understood it for the past 50 years, was to close the tax loopholes.

Is the New Democratic policy of this administration now, to take advantage and run through and create all the tax loopholes that you can? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I find it peculiar that a member who represents a Manitoba riding would argue that we should, rather than taking lower-cost money, take higher-cost money, which means that we would either have higher taxation in this province or less programming in this province. He can take his pick.

If he thinks that we should just allow the large private corporations to drive through these loopholes, as he calls them, then certainly I think that the public has at least as much right to get low-cost funds as do Dome or the other major corporations who have been getting those benefits. Compensation re heavy rains MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, and it follows on the questions earlier by my Leader to the Premier.

In view of the fact that Saskatchewan has announced today acreage payments to an area adjacent to the Swan River Constituency, and in view of the fact that the Minister of Resouces has been reported out in the Garland area, I wonder if this Minister can indicate what action he will take to assist the farmers in the Bellsite, Pine River, Pulp River areas who have also suffered great losses from excessive moisture in the last week. MR. SPE AKER: The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to indicate to the honourable member that it has been brought to my attention that Saskatchewan has announced some type of an acreage payment following some of the areas 1nat were hard hit over the last number of years. Mr. Speaker, it does, in fact, play against what is generally been known in the country and was talked about by his colleague that crop insurance schemes in Western Canada are among the best in this part of the country. However, notwithstanding that, we will want to review what is happening in Saskatchewan.

Since that province did not assist their producers who were having financial difficulty as a result of high interest rates, the program of Interest Rate Relief did, over the last two years, assist our farmers in the small and medium size. We'll want to look at that in light of what Saskatchewan is doing on an ad hoc basis dealing with acreage payments. MR. D. GOURLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister of Agriculture be contacting farmers in those areas that have been hit for specific details?

Will he be contacting the municipalities, or what will his plan of action be with respect to any assistance to that area? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, our staff, of course, have been involved in assessing the situation. In a general sense, the Crop Insurance Corporation is having their adjusters deal with the cases that they're involved in and once all that information is gathered, we'll have a better indication as to the actual losses and the insurable losses that were insured. I have to say, Mr.

Speaker, makes it very difficult to ask the Federal Government for assistance on an ad hoc basis when they, in fact, are putting in millions of dollars into sharing a universal program, such as crop insurance, in disaster areas.

Areas of damage, which have not normally been insurable and covered, have been dealt with very substantially by the Minister of Government Services and the former Minister of Government Services in the agreement recently signed with the Federal Government where there is a participation at the local level, at the provincial level, and at the federal level dealing with damages and losses incurred by individuals on items that are not normally insurable in terms of disaster losses. Those areas are covered in the new agreement.

The question, of course, has to be raised as to what does that do to the universal programming of, shall we say, crop insurance, another program that is available for losses due to wet weather. We will want to look at it very closely as to what the implications are for us. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier indicated that the Minister of Resources would be in the Garland area today. Will he be going into other areas in that immediate area that have also suffered from excessive rainfall, or is he just limiting his visit to the Garland area? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, there are other areas of the province, as the member points out, which have 2229

Monday, 25 June, 1984 had excessive amounts of rain; and areas In my area north of Riverton and in the Hodgson area where there have excessive rainfall; the Elie area as well. I will hae to take the question as notice. The Mini ster should be back tomorrow and we'll be able to report to the House. But the extent of excessive rainfall was, in fact, compounded by the rising of the creek far beyo nd its ·normal banks which precipita ted the call and the loss at the municipal level of bridge s and roads in that area far beyond what has been the case in many other areas.

There have been pockets in the province where on an ongoing basis, for a numb er of years, there have been substantive crop losses as a result of excessive moisture and rainfall, and I doubt whether the Minister is viewing those. But this matter was the seriousness of the raising of the creek which caused extensive damage to bridges, municipal roads and, I believe, probably many farm yards in that area. MR. D. GOURLAY: One final question to the Min ister. Can the Min ister ind icate to the House today who is really asse ssing the total damage in the province?

Is the Minister of Resources undertaking that role at this time, or is the Min ister of Agriculture also assess ing, or is the Minister of Government Services looking into it? I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture can specifically say who is in charge of assess ing the damage that we now see as evident in this province. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, in terms of disaster analysis, the first contact, as the member well knows, under the Emergency Measures Organization, is the local government in the municipal ity.

Our staff at the regional level have been involved with farmers in dealing and trying to assess the nature of the damages and assess the extent of the flooding; and the Crop Insurance Corporation, as well is involved in asses sing the number of claims they have on a regular basis dealing with crop losses of those who are Insured. From all that information is compiled the extent of damage that is there in the province. Sewer line breaks - responsibility for MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River East. MR. P. EYLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've a question for the Mi nister of Urban Affairs.

Last week, Council man J. Eadle of the City of Winnip eg was quoted as accusing the government of dragging its feet in introducing legislation to deal with the problem of property owners having to pay the full cost of sewer line breaks where those breaks occur between the trunk line and the private property line. Could the Minister tell us what she's doing with respect to this problem? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er, I'm glad to ha ve that question becaus e the report in the newspaper had some omissions in it.

I don't believe that the reporter questioned anyone from either side of this House, or they would have known that that amendment was coming forward. it's included in The Statute Law Amendments Bill which is before the House right now. Provincial Roads - upgrading MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russel l. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Due to the heavy rains across rural Manitoba, and especially the P.R. roads, I wonder because of the fact we have all the senior citizens here, would the First Minister try and find some money in the Jobs Fund to bring these P.R. roads up to a standard that they used to be, so especially senior citizens can drive across the roads without some of the dangers they're facing at the present time. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, just as conscious and just as concerned about the provincial roads of the province in respect to maintenance and upgrading of them.

In fact, I think without any question that this government has continued, it's had to deal with some neglect in some areas in respect to our provincial roads from past years, we're doing that, Mr. Speak er, and with a full commitment on the part of the Minister responsible for Transportation. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, could I draw to the Honourable First Min ister's attention the deplorable condition of some of the roads in Roblin constitutenc y, such as PR 484 and, at the same time, while this road is in such deplorable condition, the Minister of Highways in his own constituency is paving two roads that certai nly don't need paving at this time. Will the First Minister try and get in touch with the Minister of Highways and see if we can't fix up those PR ... I'm sorry. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The honourable member knows that Oral Question period is a time for seeking information, not for supplying it. If the honour able member has a ques tion, would he kindly ask it. The Hono urable Member for Roblin-Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker . Can I ask the First Minister if he'll contact the Minister of Highways and see If they can find some money In the Jobs Fund or in the surplus dollars that's in the Department of Highways, the Select Fund, and fix up some of the roads in Roblin-Russell Constituency, the PR roads.

Especially PR 484 which hit the headlines of the Roblin News last weekend with some glaring stories about the deplorable conditions that those people have to serve and face today with this government? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I'm sure the Hono urable Member for Roblin-Russell can commun icate and speak to the Min ister of Transportation, just as I find I have to from time to time, with respect to the condition of certain roads in 2230

MortdaJ, 25 June, 1114 my own constituency that require upgrad ing and improvement from time to time. I'm sure that the honourable member would find that the Minister of Transportation would be quit e in terested in any comments that he would like to make in respect to PR 484 and evaluate the need for gravelling or upgrading according ly. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin­ Russell. MR. W. McKENZIE: Mr.

Speaker, in light of the fact that my phone calls to the Department of Highways in Dauphin, my phone calls to the Minister's office, have failed , can I now ask a question of the acting Minister of Hig hways and see if he will defend me and get some work done in the Roblin-Russell Constituency? Horse Racing Commission - Annual Report MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I just have a brief question for the Minister of Business Development and Tourism. He had an announcement today regarding the Manitoba Racing Commission.

I wonder if the Minister could advise the House when we will be getting the Annual Report of the Manitoba Racing Commission? I believe the Minister said it was very close about two weeks ago. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Business Development. HON. S. USKIW : Mr. Speaker , I will attempt to determine that later on today. Hopefully, before the Session is out I might be able to table it. Bills - calling of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, just prior to getting into Orders of the Day, to the Government House Leader. 1 notice one additional bill was introduced for first reading today and two more are on the Order Paper as notice. Can the Government House Leader indicate whether or not that concludes the legislative load, the agenda, that the government intends to introduce during this Session? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you , Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the questions from the Opposition House Leader. Mr.

Speaker, the two bills on notice were bills that were noted in the Budget, they are not additional legislation over that forecast. The only legislation that's shown up in the last week which is new is Bill No. 35,

An Act to amend The Construction Industry Wages Act which, as members know because of consultation we had last week, is legislation brought in on an urgent basis in response, at least In part, to a court decision; it was not legislation anticipated. I expect that all legislation to be dealt with this Session, other than this one bill, members had advice of approximately two weeks ago and I do not expect any additional legislation. Water Services Board MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture.

Some time ago I requested of him the policies that Water Services Board used to determine the job allo cat ion, the tendering process, does the Minister have tha t Information available? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour abl e Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, that question was referred to the Manitoba Water Services Board, as soon as I have the information I'll make it available to the honourable member. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, as well, when the Minister Is getting that information I would like him to get the information dealing with the jobs that have been let in the last two or three years by Water Services Board; the numbers of jobs that have been tendered for and who they've sent those tenders to. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'm assuming from the honourable member's question, that he Is talking about construction tenders. Is that . . . ? MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, yes, that information would be helpful but, more particularly, the drilling of water wells and the direction that the Water Services Board have given, and the allocation of jobs, particularly dealing with drilling or drilling activity. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice but if the honourable member wishes a detailed response, maybe it would be better that he put that information in the form of an Order for Return so that we'd know precisely the kind of Information that he desires. · We did, during the Estimates process, provide him with all the lists of the projects, the amount of capital allocation on all those projects constructed, and the program that is intended for this year. The whole background paper that I had for my Information was provided for the honourable member.

He now wishes additional information, possibly if he could put it into an Order for Return and we'll assess it as to the length of· time it takes to get that information and, if that information is available, we'll be pleased to supply it to him. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I am aware tha t the Minister provided us with information that was detailed work projects coming up. I am more interested in the allocation of the work by the Water Services Program in the past, particularly the drilling of water wells, and 2231

Monday, 25 June, 1884 the allocation of that work, and the tendering process. I can put an Order for Return in but I think it would be fairly simple for him to bring forward both the policy and the past record of how those jobs have been let by that department. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House ·L eader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order. I take it from the Minister's earlier response there's no objection if the member files an Order for Return, and the information's available in the format requested be agreeable to answering it.

I certainly have no objection to answering the questions with regard to policy, but the details of all tenders on water-well drilling in the Water Services Board for the last two or three years certainly may provide for a lengthy response in question period and I'm sure the Minister would not want to use question period, nor would the member to provide that kind of detail in question period. But if the member wishes to proceed by an Order for Return I think that Information could probably be provided. MR. SPE AKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, just for the honourable member's information I can advise him that, in terms of his specifics of drilling of wells, that there's been no change in policy, to my knowledge, since I have become Minister on the well-drilling policy of the corporation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I did not ask the Minister whether there was a change in policy, all I asked him to provide was information, regardless of where the policy came from. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G.

MERCIER: I wonder if I could have leave of the House to make a non-political statement. MR. SPEAKER: Does the honourable member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for St. Norb ert. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to recognize the achievements of two of our six excellent Pages who have served the House during this Session. Two particu larly who reside within the St. Norb ert constituency and who graduated from Fort Richmond Collegiate on Saturda y, Mr. Speaker. The first, who is not with us today, who has left to attend a Navy Summer Camp, Natalie Krawchenko, Mr.

Spe aker . was not only th e Valedictorian of her graduating class, and won some individual prizes for scholastic achievement, but she established a school record of earning 29.5 credits in three years, Mr. Speaker. That's four-and-a-half-years work in three years and she will be attending the University of Manitoba next fall. The second Page, who is with us today, Mr. Speaker, and whose mother and grand parents are in the gallery, Jennifer Hen ry, has won a scholarship to attend the University of British Columbia next fall; and on Saturday she was selected by the school staff to receive the St.

Norb ert ML A's Speech Arts Trophy, Mr. Speaker, presented annually by myself. I want to warn all members, Mr. Speaker, that her ambition is to become the Prime Minister of Canada, and I think she will make it. I'm sure all members wish to join with me in recognizing the achievements of these two Pages. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Riel. MRS. D. DODICK: A committee change, Mr. Speaker, on Public Utilities and Natural Resources. The Member for Churchill substituting for lnkster; and Rossmere for Seven Oaks.

On Statutory Regulations and Orders the Member for Gimli for the Member for Dauphin. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a committee change. Mr. Kovnats to replace Mr. Orchard on Statutory Regulations and Orders Committee. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Mr.

Speaker, before we call the Order of the Day on the Order Paper, I would ask honourable members if there would be an inclination to grant leave to proceed with second reading on Bill 35 that just received first reading today, but has already been distributed to honour able members. If there is leave, Sir, the Minister is prepared to give a brief statement as to the purpose of the bill. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Minister have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Minister of Labour. SECOND READING BILL 35 - THE CONSTRUCTION INDU STRY WAGES ACT HON. M.B. DOLIN presented, by leave, Bill No. 35,

An Act to amend The Construction Industry Wages Act, for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, the introduction of Bill 35 has been precipitated by a recent Manitoba 2232

Monct.J, 25 June, 1884 Court of Queen's Bench decision regarding the payment of minimum wages in Manitoba's construction industry. Acco rding to that ruling, Sir , any Ma nitoba construction worker rceiving less than minimum wage and not filing a complaint within 30 days after receiving his or her first pay is not entitled to make any claims for the difference. While the ruling may have been accurate In terms of the letter of the law, we feel that it clearly contradicts the intent of the law.

The amendment under debate today is designed to clarify The Construction Industry Wages Act respecting its intent and to ensure that workers in the construction industry be in the same position to recover wages owing to them as are workers in any other industry. Mr. Speaker, the right to minimum wage has long been accepted as public policy. I don't believe that any government charged with the res ponsi bilit y of admini stering that policy believes that in dividual employers should be able to override wage rates established by law. That, Sir, is the practical result of the court ruling I referred to earlier.

The Payment of Wages Act provides for an effect ive method for the recovery of minimum wages In other sectors of the economy. Under The Payment of Wages Act, there is a 60 day limitation regulating complaints to the Director of Employment Standards, but more importantly, the director has the discretion to proceed beyond the 60 day limitation where he is of the opinion that it is fair to do so. Therefore, the employee has a remedy under the act, but canno t unfairly take advantage of his or her situation by delaying the complaint unnecessarily. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 35 proposes to ensure that the right of workers in other industries applies as well to workers governed by The Construction Industry Wages Act. I believe all members of this House agree that Manitoba construction workers like their counterparts in other industries, are entitled to a minimum wage and to the enforcement procedures to protect that right. By passing Bill 35, members will ensure that right is protected and that the authority to enforce regulations is very clear. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Stur geon Creek, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would you please call adjourned debates on second reading on Bill No. 11, followed by Bill 28, followed by the balance of the bills in the order in which they appear on the Order Paper. BILL 11 - THE CLEAN ENVIRONMENT ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honour able Minister of the Environment, Bill No. 11, the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. A. ANS TETT: Mr. Spe aker, I took the adjournment on this bill on the assumption that all members who wished to speak on it had done so, so that the Minister would have an opportunity, if he wished, to close debate. If no one else wishes to speak to the bill at this time, Sir, I will defer to the Minister of Environment. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Minister for the Environment will be closing debate. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, just a few words to close debate on this particular bill. I shall refer, natural ly, to Ha nsard to glean the words of the members of the opposition for their comments on that in debate on second reading. There are essentially four reasons why these changes are necessary at this time. A number of these changes, Mr. Speaker, are necessary just to t'tring about changes or repeal sections to accommodate the adopting of the transportation and handling of dangerous goods, Bill No. 6, which we dealt with in second read ing debate last week. Secondly, there are changes to

Section 14( 1 ), required in order to introduce the permit system which we have referred to In que stion period a number of times in this House and which was announced more than a year ago by the previous Minister of Environment, and was also a recommendation of the Clean Environment Commission. As well, Mr. Speaker, changes are required in order to bring the waste disposal of water or sewage from the City of Winnipeg under the provisions of the act.

Those are the three main reasons for which changes are being brought in on The Clean Environment Act at this time, as well as taking advantage of the fact that we are amending the act to bring about certain other minor changes that are required at this time. Mr. Speaker, having said these few brief words, I will termi nate at this point in time and answer the specifics and the details of this bill when we deal with it in committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried .. BILL NO. 28 THE EXPROP RIATION ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Ho nourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 28, th e Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a few comments to make on Bill 28,

An Act to validate an Expropriation under The Expropriation Act. I would like to put a few things on the record that came out of the report of the Inquiry officer, known as the Tonn Report. While I recognize that some of the statements have already been on the record, I think that they bear repeating. 2233

Monday, 25 June, 1984 On Page 86 of the report, Mr. Tonn says, "lt is my conclusion that the expropriation of the specific lots which are subject to objection is not fair and reasonably necessary in order to achieve the objectives of the expropriating authority, at least not at this particular time. I come to that conclusion with some considerable reluctance." Mr.

Speaker, further down on Page 87, it says, "Ho wever, I am troubled by the fact that the detailed planning processes that have been undertaken by the Administrative Task Force prior to the filing of the declaration of expropriation, and by the North Portage Development Corporation after the filing of that declaration, have not included an inventory and assessment of the buildings, businesses and people presently in the area. lt is apparent that such an assessment has been done to some extent." Then it goes on to indicate that there were about four properties that were excluded. lt was lsbister School, the YWCA and YMCA, the Gordon Downtowner Hotel, and there was another piece of property that was owned by the City of Winnipeg that did not have to be expropriated under the act.

In these cases, cost seemed to be the measure, so certainly the other businesses in the area would have liked the same type of shake that these businesses are getting. At the top of Page 88, it indicates, "But it appears that there has not been time to undertake a similar analysis of the other properties within the zone, properties which are presently occupied by the residents and businesses of the area. lt seems to me to be unfair and unreasonable to have done only a partial assessment. For, in that way, the property owners in the area have been subjected to differential treatment.

I'd like to state that the North of Portage Task Force had 60 days to recommend a specific course of action. Now 60 days to determine the livelihoods of people in that area, the businesses certainly, is a very short time and, then for the government now to bring forward a bill to cover a mistake that was made under The Expropriation Act, I think, gives further penalty to the businesses in question.

I can't help but feel somehow when I've read this report, that if we hadn't had a federal election coming up, that maybe the great push to show something was being done in that area wouldn't have happened and maybe would have given the task force some time to take a look at these businesses and see if possibly they could have fit into the area; we're not just talking about land and buildings when we're talking about expropriation. The more I read about expropriation, the more I hear about it and see what happens, I think that governments should certainly give every benefit of the doubt to these people concerned.

Winnipeg's been around a long time and north of Portage has been here for a long time, and when I was reading the report it indicated that Toronto and Vancouver took a period of from 5 to 10 years for the planning process to come to the point of specific site development, and we're talking about 60 days in which to put the hammer on these businesses. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it's most unfair and that this bill is most unfair, and I think that the government should have taken a little longer and a closer look at what they are doing to these people.

There was an example in the newspaper on the weekend, I believe, of a business that was going under. Now, this may not been the specific cause, but what it did bring out is some of the concerns and some of the things might happen when these people are under the threat of expropriation and you've got a business, and you're dealing with other businesses. They're selling to you; they're worried about getting their money.

So, when you may have had 30, 60 or 90 days, these business may have had credit time of 30, 60 or 90 days, I imagine the lot of it's going to turn into COD and that's going to make it very difficult for these businesses to stay in business while under the threat of expropriation. I think that in many cases this has been a hasty action and I hate to see the government proceeding on this bill so quickly and not letting the businesses have that extra chance.

I want to go on to the Tonn Report and, further down on Page 88, he indicates: "Indeed, the corporation is not yet at the stage of knowing what particular development will have taken place on any given street." Now, l can understand that there's going to be problems in a development of this size, but I agree with Mr. Tonn that in the context of the fairness and reasonableness, which I understand to be contemplated by The Expropriation Act, I cannot find that level of planning is sufficient to justify the taking of an individual's land, business, or home. I believe that's a damning statement, Mr.

Speaker, and when I questioned the Minister of Urban Affairs about the expropriation and about this report, that it was just a sham and this government had no intention really of listening to the people, they were going through the motions, and that's certainly what happened, the Minister said we may have some surprises. She indicated that there may be some surprises. With that I thought, well, maybe there's a bit of hope; maybe they are going to look at this and take into consideration some of these business people. Of course, that didn't happen.

The report was looked at and there was a lot of hand wringing and oh, we're sorry, but nothing happened, except for this particular bill which deals retroactively with the expropriation. I'd like to go on Page 89 of the Tonn Report, and he said, "H owever , in considering whether the expropriation is fair and reasonably necessary in order to achieve the objectives, the expropriating authority must attempt to carefully balance, as was stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in the case of Re: Parkins and the Queen, the conflict between private and public interests which exists in every expropriation.

In my view, this concept of fairness requires that the individual landowner who is faced with expropriation ought to be in a position where he can be confronted with the proposed use to which his property is sought to be put, and given an opportunity to convince the expropriating authority that that objective can be accomplished in some manner that will not require the expropriation of his property. In this inquiry such a scenario was not possible." Mr. Speaker, the report goes on and it was indicated by Dr.

Naimark, and this is on Page 90, that it may be that detailed planning would allow some of the parcels sought to be expropriated to remain in their present condition, or with some form of modification, other than demolition and replacement with a mall. Now, that's pretty cold comfort to someone who is sitting under the threat of expropriation, and also may 2234

Monday, 25 June, 1984 be in the position of having their building or businesses dama ged. I had one of the businessmen phone me who is a leaseholder and he said for them there is little, if any, consideration given. I believe that when we have a government who professes to be a friend of small business, I really feel that this act is in the contrary to that.

I can't help but be rather fearful for these businessmen and women that are in that area because the Deputy Minister, when he was questioned during this Report Stage, indicated that the province was anxious to provide increased employment activity , construction in the short term and, as a result of the redevelopment, jobs in the long term. Well, when there is no actual plan we don't know when this is going to take place. I think that it's dangerous for the government to be dealing with a bill such as this when there hasn't been time for any precise planning and most unfair to the businesses involved.

Some of the businesses have been there - well they've had businesses, this has been their lifetime business - and they're living in fear and uncertainty of what is happening here. I hear some questioning from the other side of the House on expropriation and what's happening on the north of Portage. - (I nterjection) - No, they shouldn't have had to pass special legislation and, not only that, if this is such a long-term project, 1 think that then the planning could have been more precise and the businesses involved could have had more of a chance in the planning.

I see, reading in all the different objections that were In here, tha t the different businesses, they're pleading for their lives.

We're not just talking, as I've said before, about buildings and land, we're talking about people, we're talking about families, this is their livelihood; and to have this under the threat of expropriation, not knowing if their business is going to fit into the North of Portage development, not having any idea what is happening, and they haven't got any idea because the people that are planning don't have any idea and I think that's probably the most horrendous part of this whole business of expropriation.

As I said, the more I hear of expropriation and when governments are dealing in it, they certainly have to be very careful how they're dealing with people. This isn't just land we're talking about. 1 think expropriation is a mighty sword and I think that the government is remiss when they bring in this kind of legislation to further hinder the businesses when they have a chance to make themselves heard in court. These people are fighting for their very lives, and businesses can go steadily downhill.

There, you're ending up with not even something you can sell; you're in a business that you can't renovate; you can't plan on changes and I question the planning of the North of Portage when I see 60 days given, and then when I read about Vancouver and Toronto taking five to 10 years. So I feel nervous and I haven't got a property there, but I feel nervous for the very people that are there and that their businesses are being subjected to this type of tyranny by a government that really professes to be a friend of the small businessman and woman.

I'll go on to Page 92 of the Tonn Report. lt says, "I am forced to conclude that I have not been satisfied that the expropriation of any of the properties subject to objection is fair and reasonably necessary for the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority . lt is my view that the expropriation is premature." Now I don't know If the Attorney-General had a chance to read this report but if he hasn't I think he !i'hould look at it, because maybe it would give him second thoughts about this bill that he's bringing in. I think it's most unfair, and I agree with Mr.

Tonn's assessment of what is happening North of Portage and what's happening on this expropriation. I am sorry that the Minister of Urban Aff airs, when she said there may be some surprises in store, wasn't able to follow through with that. I think she was probably under the threat that nothing would happen. That was not so. it's a threat because we've got a Minister of Transportation in the City of Winnipeg for the Federal Government who is anxious to see something happen there. So they're pushing it to an extent that needn't be at this time. Mr.

Tonn goes on, on Page 92, to say that: "I believe that fairness would dicta te that an inventory of existing buildings and businesses be accomplished, and a more detailed site plan be developed before it is determined precisely which space is req uir ed for physical redevelopment." On Page 93, he goes on to say: "1t is my conclusion and recommendation that the intended expropriation is not fair and reasonably necessary for the achievement of the objectives of the expropriating authority." Mr. Speaker, I don't agree with this bill that the government has brought in. I think it's overkill.

I think there is plenty of time for the expropriating authority, for the task force or whatever corporation - I think it's the North of Portage Corpora tion - to have made an inventory of these businesses, to have been able to say to people, look, this looks like it's going to fit In; this doesn't and that's not happening. In some cases and in probably all the cases, these businesses are under threat of closure before expropriation comes along, because they can't make any plans for the future. They are left in limbo.

I think to have a bill to cover a mistake made by the expropriating authorities is unwarranted and I would think, not in kee ping, as I said before, with this gov ernment's professed support for the small businessmen and women. I too urge caution and ask the Minister to take a good look at what is happening North of Portage, because I think that this is altogether premature, and to recognize that this is not just land and buildings but people that are having their lives changed drastically by this action. In saying that, Mr.

Speaker, we are prepared to let the bill go to committee, and let the people involved have a chance to have their views heard. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: The Honourable Member for Ellice. MR. B. CORRIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Spea ker. I, too, want to join in this debate, not so much for the purpose of enjoining a heated political debate, but to put on the record my views in this regard. I have had some experience with respect to expropriation proceedings and, more importantly I think just by way 2235

Monday, 25 June, 1984 of background, I used to work as a lawyer for the City of Winnipeg and one of my jobs was, from time to time when my political masters required it, taking lands under The Expropriation Act Also, as a former city councillor and as a person who has had the honour, if not any success, the honour of running for Mayor of Winnipeg, I became involved in the public process which predated the decision to expropriate this particular tract on north Portage Avenue. So I was a participant in a fairly long-standing and a fairly specific and detailed debate on what would be in the best interests of Winnipeg from the point of view of redevelopment of that particular

section of the city. I should also say that, even before I was a candidate and while I was a member of the Legislature, I took the opportunity to express my views with respect to the redevelopment of north Portage Avenue to the North of Portage Task Force, which members will remember, was constituted by the three levels of senior government responsible for the Core Area Initiative, and which carried on some public inquiries in the City of Winnipeg with respect to this topic in the months of April, May and early June of last year.

I was one of those who took the opportunity to make a formal presentation to this task force committee. The committee, I might add for members' edification, was made up of the then Deputy Minister of Urban Affairs of the Province of Manitoba, the Chief Commissioner of the City of Wi nnipeg, and a representative of the Federal Government who is responsible on a seconded basis for the Core Area Initiative in Winnipeg.

At that time, I spoke very briefly, as I had before that on council and as I did during the mayoral election, on the need to introduce a housing component that would be viable and on a mixed basis to north Portage. I personally felt and I still feel that the downtown area of Winnipeg is satisfactorily complemented by the present commercial sector, and particularly by the large shopping complexes which are accorded public access on the south side of Portage Avenue.

I relate in this regard, and refer specifically to complexes such as Eaton Place with its 41 retail establishments; Eaton's retail outlet itself with, I believe, eight stories of commercial shopping which is among the largest, if not the largest in Manitoba; the Hudson's Bay Store again with, I think, seven floors of commercial retail shopping which again is certainly in the top three in terms of size and variety of outlets in Manitoba, and literally dozens and dozens of smaller entrepreneurs who apply their retail trades along the north-south streets of the central city.

So my feeling was, and it still is, that there is sufficient shopping, with one exception, in the downtown area and that the answer does not lie -and I felt this way during the campaign and before -the answer does not lie in any sort of mega retail project. I feel that what the downtown needs is a bright imaginative approach which will induce housing. Certainly, one of those mechanisms by which I think the lever will be tripped in this regard is the introduction of adequately and sufficiently well-priced -and by that I mean low-priced -grocery facilities.

One of the major problems which developers in the downtown area related to the task force and which developers related to City Council was the absence of reasonably priced grocery outlets in downtown Winnipeg . For some number of years almost all of the outlets have now been closed down. As a result, and I think anyone who has lived in downtown Winnipeg on a full-time basis will attest to this, there is very very little an ordinary resident can do to find access to affordable grocery shopping of that nature and type. There are a lot of specialty stores but very few ordinary grocery outlets.

So my recommendation very simply was that we should save a lot of money and not try and introduce a wholesale development plan from on top at this point and juncture to the north Portage area. My feeling was that first there should be planning -and I want to indicate that the planning authority in the City of Winnipeg is the City of Winnipeg Government, not the Provincial Government or the Federal Government - first there should be planning and then, when adquate planning has taken place, then and only-then should, if necessary, there be the introduction of wholesale expropriation of surface sites.

Now we have a very good example of what expropriation can do vis-a-vis downtown development in the small park which is adjacent to the south wall of the Free Press building. We have a marvellous, I think, and tangible example of the real bankruptcy of the expropriation approach when utilized in a rather undisciplined fashion by government authorities. it's a very good example of what happens when there is no planning and in the absence of any sort of appropriate consensus as between levels of government.

I have said I feel very badly about the absence of planning and I wish to note, because I think it's important for members' information and edification, that The City of Winnipeg Act makes very specific provision for the creation of action area plans or community plans for specific regions of the city by that municipal level of government. That legislation, as some members I think know very well, has been in place since 1971 when the Unicity legislation was introduced by the then Schreyer government in this Legislature. The legislation has unfortunately not been followed in spirit or in any other fashion.

Very few plans have been prepared by the City of Winnipeg following on that enabling mechanism and sorely, I think particularly, one notes the absence of any plan respecting the downtown of our city. I went around a great deal during the election and I spoke to people -and I am talking about the mayoral election - I spoke to people in the context of the expenditure of money that would be necessary to implement the Task Force Report. Some of you will remember that the task force made its report in the early summer of last year and just before the commencement of the fall election.

The task force recommended that the three levels of government come together in co-operation and create a rather unique concept in the heart of Winnipeg. lt was a covered type of pedestrian mall which would include a glassed-in area that would completely cross Portage Avenue. The plan, if implemented, would necessitate the deviation and relocation of the Portage Avenue raodbed to the north and the expropriation of several dozen businesses in order to accommodate the jog in the arterial roadway. As I think my colleagues on this side are well aware and I believe the public was made well aware, I hope 2236

Mondar, 25 June, 1984 they were, I was adamantly opposed to that proposal. I fought that proposal because I thought that it was essentially inefficient from a traffic flow point of view, too costly insofar as it impinged on existing businesses, too costly insofar as neither the city, the province and the Federal Government could pinpoint exactly what the cost of the expropriation of those businesses would be, nor could they pinpoint the exact process by which the mall would be constructed.

We are now faced, thr ough the auspices of this bill, with a very similar proposal, only I supp ose in some respects worse - and I don't say that to be politically critical of my friends on this side - but In order to maintain my own integrity as a person who cares about the city, who has stood for office on numerous occasions as a city representativ e and who has strong feelings about the use of expropriation with respect to private landowners.

I believe that if it was bad to go into the unpredictable and unfor eseeable waters of the Task Force recommendation, I think that it is probably more bad to proceed with the wholesale expropriation of the merchants c:nd busin ess people who are situated on north Portage unknowing of what the city and other levels of government plan to do with the expropriated sites. In all good conscience, I have to agree with Mr. Tonn that it does not seem fair that government should use its authority and jurisdiction to take someone's private interests for a purpose which is not declared.

Let me explain to all members that this is not the first time this has happened. So that members can unde rstand and appreciate the significance of this, I will use an expropriation that they put in motion, the expropriation that took the so-called north Logan site for use as an "ind ustrial park." Members will remember tha t the specific purpose, as I have said was essentially - I think the year was 1980 or'81 when the declaration of expropriation was signed - was essentially to create an industrial park.

I want you to know that subsequently when the industrial park was abandoned, that properties were taken for a variety of purposes, including the Salter Street Bridge, roadways, all sorts of thin gs whic h were never envisioned by th e orig ina l expropriators of tha t particular tract. Now why do I raise that?

I raise lt because the assessed value of the expropriated properties was set when the original declarations of expropriation were confirmed; but notwithstanding the fact that the use to which the government wished to put the properties was changed and altered in the intervening two or three or three-and-a-half years, those people still were unable to seek compensation to a greater extent than they would have been able to obtain back initially in'80 or'81. To me, that seems unfair. lt seems to me that a government states a pu rpose.

If government says that it is going to expropriate you for an in dus trial park and com menc es and then abandons, that the expropriation should be vetoed and at that point there should be a new expropriation process commenced in order to assure the owner that his or her or Its value will not be reduced by that sort of technical advantage that the government has and this concerns me.

In the present case - and I say that because all members should be aware that no one group perhaps is entitled to consider themselves wearing either a white or a black hat - of course, it's even worse because you're essentially losing your property. Your values are being established without even knowing what lt is the government wants to do with you. You don't know what role you play In the final expropriation process. You have no idea whether your interests will be secured and ensured.

I know there are platitudes which are mouthed all the time by people who are responsible for expropriation proceedings about compassion and about the provision of assurances to people who are expropriated, that their proper ty losses would be properly compensated and that they would be relocated In new developments and so on, the reality Is, that that doesn't happen. The reality is that little people do get tram pled in expropriation and they get trampled for very good reason. it's because the laws are not really built in this particular area for the little guy.

There Is indeed in this case a law for the rich and a law for the poor. You see, one of the things about being caught in an appropriation if you'r e a little guy is that you don't have the capital usually to be able to carry yourself through to be able to fight the expropriating authorities at the court level. Even though you t>ave the legal access and opportunity to do that which Is enshrined and provided by the law, you usually don't have the money to be able to hang tough and hold out.

So you have to make some pretty hard decisions about whether you're going to accept some offers of settlement, or goodly proportions of offers of settlement that are made to you, or whether you're going to try and take a business risk and relocate in the absence of knowing what exactly will happen and possibly go to court and challenge. These are very very difficult decisions.

The frank reality is that there Is a long step between the intentions of legislators - and I say this because I don't think any of us here when we actually participate In the expropriation process contemplate doing harm to anyone - but there Is a large stetJ"between what we contemplate and what actually happens on the streets. Tenants are particularly prejudiced by expropriation proceedings; tenants, because they do not have the same rights vis-a-vis the valuation of their business. Tenants are in a particularly vulnerable position.

I believe that if you took a breakdown of tenants versus owners and tried to establish levels of satisfaction and perceived levels of fairness you would find by and large that owners would indicate at the termination of an expropriation, they felt roughly that they usually had been treated fairly - usually. Tenants on the other hand, because of the differences in law, are put in a very different position.

A tenant's only real right is to claim for relocation and for business loss but business loss can't be computed until you're taken away and removed. it takes quite a way, it takes quite a little journey or trip for the tenant to be able to establish what he or she has actually lost.

Those are very difficult times because while the tenant is waiting, the tenant Is going to the bank and the tenant is asking his or, her bank manager to provide him with capital to sustain possible losses, and then the question always is, well is it bad management, and I've been through it with the bureaucrats who were responsible for expropriation. Some of them will suggest it's bad management, that it has nothing to do with the expropriation at all. it's 2237

Monday, 25 June, 1114 just poor business judgment, imprudence that the business wasn't viable In the first place, that there are many reasons why that business is suffering losses. A poor relocation choice, not an appropriate relocation choice. Perhaps they'll distinguish and they'll suggest that if the tenant had chosen another building which was available instead of that one, there would have been no loss and therefore it's compensable loss that the tenant is complaining of. These are all real problems. Psychologically, they're traumatic. For a tenant to be going through that is absolutely traumatic.

Witness the case of the two Greek gentlemen who operate the Happy Penny Restaurant whose travails and plight have been oft retold in the newspapers of Winnipeg . They have been expropriated twice. They have been expropriated twice and they say that the first time they were offered, I think it was $79,000 or $80,000 for their business, and then it went to court and the lawyers got hold of it and suddenly the offer fell to some $1 3, 000 of $1 4,000.00.

They were told that it couldn't be sanctified, as it can't without going to the Land Value Appraisal Commission, the Attorney-General's staff participated in the process of taking it there and the property immediately devalued by some $60,000 to $70,000 overnight. lt's not easy. If you're a small business person employing maybe several other people, who are marginally employable often is the case particularly if they run a restaurant or a small retail outlet, it's not easy and I think we all know that.

So I am suggesting that when we do participate in the process of expropriation we have to give consideration to exactly how it will affect people. Now we've had a task force report, the task force report was scrapped. During the election -and I say this I think with as little malice as I can bear for the Mayor of our fair city -the Mayor was initially supportive of the garden mall approach to redeveloping downtown Winnipeg.

By two-and-one-half-weeks into the campaign he had withdrawn his support; he was out of that; he wasn't for any jobs on Portage Avenue; he wasn't for any glassed-in malls over Portage Avenue either. He didn't know what he was for. Now the concern - (Interjection) - I'm suggesting to the Honourable Memb er for Lakeslde that his decisions in that regard and his judgment in that regard, seem to be very blurred and extremely subject to whimsy.

I say that with respect because he has had an opportunity as a person responsible for the planning process, as a person leading the City of Winnipeg Council, he has had an opportunity for these last seven years to actually encourage the process of planning in downtown Winnipeg and he has failed to do that, he has not done that. He has been completely remiss in that responsibility, and I think that - (Interjection) - he doesn't speak well of me.

I think that it's sad to say that what happens is, by and large, is that other levels of government, federal and provincial because they are concerned about the redevelopment of downtown Winnipeg, do whatever they can to try and assist. They do, they co-operate. But I think what the problem really is, is we're too friendly.

I think, and I say this with all due respect to the Minister of Urban Affairs, if I were in her shoes - and they would be uncomfortable because their heels are three inches high - I would certainly tell the Mayor of Wi nnipeg that we would not proceed with an expropriation in the absence of a specific detailed downtown development plan for that area. A MEMBER: Why don't you do that? MR. B. CORRIN: Now, I don't say that, Mr. Speaker, to emba rrass the ..Miflister, or to em barrass the government. A MEMBER: You should be the Minister. MR. B. CORRIN: I say that, Mr.

Speaker, because I believe that we have a responsibility to manage the fiscal affairs of the province, and in this case safeguard the fiscal affairs of city taxpayers, and federal taxpayers as well. I think that we're motivated by good intentions; I think the concept of redevelopment downtown Is excellent; I think that the need is there but I don't think we should be doing anything until we define how we're going to deal with the need. I also want to talk about who caused some of the problems on north Portage because we're talking about expropriations which are wholesale to redevelop that area.

We should know that again the City of Winnipeg, because of their rather awkward and archaic tax assessment practices, have been partially if not wholly responsible for some of that blight. The fact that north Portage merchants for years have been beset upon by city tax assessors who have Imposed unfair levels of taxation on them as a result of archaic rules, anachronistic rules, has resulted in the degradation and decay of that particular area of our city. MR. H. ENNS: You're right again, Brian. MR. B. CORRIN: The Member for Lakeslde says I'm right again. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, I want to tell you that it's not for the purpose of his approbation that I stand in my place today, but rather because I think that the City of Winnipeg Is In a very very delicate and precarious balance.

I think that we as members of the Legislature and people who are charged with responsibility, having been given a second opportunity to debate a very very important matter, In fact, given the only opportunity we will have to debate this matter because normally, as you know, expropriation can be ratified by Cabinet and does not normally have to come in the absence of a mistake to the Legislative Assembly for debate at all.

So in having respect for the fact that this is an unusual opportunity to soberly reflect on the decisions that have been made in this regard, I am encouraging all members to give consideration to the implications of this decision. I also want to talk about the cost of expropriation because I'm not completely opposed it its use, but I want people to know that cost overruns and expropriation are legendary. No one can safely pr;>dict what an expropriation will mean in terms of financial consequence.

If there is any member here who would like to stand In his/her place and do so, I would be interested to hear their views. I think anyone, and I look particularly at the Member for St. Norbert because he has had responsibility as the city's chairperson of the Works and Operations Committee, I defy anybody to say that with any safety you can predict the actual 2238

Monday. 25 June, 1984 cost im plication to any gov ernment's bud get of expropriation proceedings. The costs are really as far-reach ing in certain circumstanc es as the imagination of lawyers and the compassion and thought process of the courts. So you never know what the actual cost implications will be. - (Interjection) - Somebody says well if he's so smart, why isn't he mayor? That is not the point. The point is that we're all here - (Interjection) - I want to make this point because I think some members misconstrue their roles. We're all here to contribute to public process.

The public will decide whether we're entitled to be here - I don't know which member shouted that from his seat - but not not any one given member but the public makes those decisions and I respect that judgment, Mr. Speaker, and that's why I continue to speak on this subject because I want the public to know my views on this important matter. I feel it's important because the future of our city, I think, hangs in the balance. I am hard pressed, I must admit, to support this particular piece of legislation. I am extremely hard pressed to do it. I believe that Mr.

Tonn has given due and adequate consideration to the position not only of the expropriated property owners, but also the position of the expropriating authorities in this respect. 1 must say that I can't really find fault or flaw with his particular point of view. 1 might add for members' edification - because there are some members who seem to smirk when I suggest that 1 may not be able to support the bill and I suppose the y see that as a breach in the chink of the government 's armour - I should remind you that when you expropriated north Logan, and I remind the Member for St.

Norbert particularly because I think he was the Minister of Urban Affairs who signed the documentation and the Attorney-General, tha t when tho se expropriations commenced, it was decided to use the special authority of the Province of Manitoba not to hold a public enquiry at all. A MEMBER: That's right. MR. B.

CORRIN: So, credit where credit is due, because if you had heard from the people who were affected - and not only the residents, but also the small business people because anyone who knows the north Logan site knows that there are dozens of small business people and entrepreneurs who operate small factories and other sorts of operations in that area - if you had convened an enquiry, you may have gone about it in a different way because they would have said, did you know that we're here too and that we may be compatible with some other type of altered plan, but that opportunity was never afforded under the former Lyon Admi nistration.

To the credit of this admi nistration and I believe to the credit of the former Minister of Urban Affairs, although I'm not certain who was responsible as Minister at that particular time, the expropriations that we're now talking about was commenced but commenced with a view towards also convening and conducting a full public enquiry. An enquiry officer was appointed and a somewhat critical report was received. Now, I think that stands this government well in terms of its integrity and its integrity of approach.

I think that one has to respect a government which is willing to bear itself and expose itself to that type of criticism. So I say that I respect, although I don't respect the way we're doing it in terms of the economics or the concept which is not defined as of now, I do respect the fact that my government cared about the wishes and concerns of the people enough to commen ce enquiry proceedings. That, I think is a gold star on the record of this government and wit nesses its generally more caring approach. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I will be supporting the government in terms of confirming the expropriation. I will be supporting the government because I think the government is willing as a government to stand responsible to the people of Winnipeg in that respect.

If the government had not had an enquiry, then it would be a very different story, but since the government has been willing to bring this matter to a public enquiry, and since the government and the opposition have had an opportunity to debate - and I note that the opposition is supporting it and I'm not going to be the dog in the manger who simply out of any degree of recalcitrance registers one opposing vote against the confirmation of this particular expropriating act - remembering, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, that I would not have had the right to bring that vote or make this speech if not for the fact that there was an error and that this matter was brought here only as a result of that. So I'm saying that I will continue to be vigilant and to do my utmost to watch progress with respect to this matter, to make whatever input I can at the caucus level and directly with the Minister or other members who are interested on either side of the House.

I enjoin all members to give consideration to this matter because notwithstanding the deficiencies that I've related, as I've also related, neither government is exactly virtuous in this regard. The plight of tenants was the same under the former Lyon administration. The Lyon adm inistration didn't move to amend the expropriation law with respect to the rights of tenants. The Lyon Government didn't refrain from commencing expropriation proceedings without benefit of a public enquiry officers' hearing. The Lyon Government didn't do those things.

The Lyon Government also went into expropriations such as north Logan that were ill-defined and poorly drawn out. So they also embarked on co-operative venturing with other levels of government where there was no real definition to the plan. So, having said those things, Mr. Speaker, I have expressed my views and I think I've done what I can as a responsible member today. Thank you. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney­ General will be closing debate. HON. R. PENNER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The Member for Kirkfield Park in her remarks, at one point, talked about the expropriation being a mighty sword, in that way paralleling some earlier remarks made by the Member for St. Norbert. Indeed, perhaps it is, but it has been said that sometimes the pen is mightier than the sword and the Member for Ellice did us a service by reminding the House that with a sweep of the pen - the signature was not that of the Member 2239

llondar, 11 ,fune, 1984 for St. Norbert but of Warner Jorgenson -with respect to all of those expropriations in the North of Portage, they wiped out the rights of the people North of Portage to bring their concerns forward in a public way. So I say, Sir, that it lies ill in the mouth of the Member for St. Norbert and the Member for Kirkfield Park who probably didn't know this, to chastise this government with respect to this particular piece of legislation when they wouldn't even have an inquiry.

Indeed, one of the first acts of this government when we took office was to order an inquiry into the Logan expropriation, so that the residents of Logan and the small businesses of Logan would have a forum in which to come forward and express their views; and as a result of those views we did a number of things that I think history will justify as being the appropria te way to deal with the concerns of the small businessper son.

With respect to North of Portage and the inquiry, and again the Member for Ellice did well to point out that we ordered and held an inquiry, that was an opportunity provided for us in which a num ber of things emerged. First of all, that with respect to the area under considerat ion, there is a fairly clear delin eation of objectives. Indeed if one looks at the Tonn Report, which was referred to, to some considerable extent both by the Member for St. Norbert and the Mem ber for Kirkfield Park, there is on Pages 13 and following, a description of the evidence that was brought forward. Mr.

Diamond ind icated that the province's major objective was to encourage a major revitalization of the downtown. Further at Page 15, there is the talk about the concept of a mixed deve lopment, anchored by existing -existing re tail establishments -linked by a major new complex and suppor ted by complementary development covering four distinct areas, and always emphasizing the housing component. So that much, at least, is clearly delineated. What Mr.

Tonn went on to say, and indeed as a matter of fact he was right, that what was missing at that stage of the development was a site-by-site analysis of whether or not any particular site would fit in to the components that were there identified. it was good and appropriate that the inquiry allowed the persons who were concerned about their future in that area to come forward and ident ify those concerns. And what did we say? We said first of all specifically with respect to the Gordon Motor Hotel, that that concern would be looked after.

But I have no doubt, both from the evidence that was given and the way in which we addr essed that evidence, that as the plan becomes more articulated, that it is more than likely that most of those small busine sses who want to remain there will be able to remain there. Let it be said clearly for the record. it has not been foreclosed at all that these people who are being expropriated, therefore will have to go.

What we have indeed is what is the only possible way as I see it, given some of the time constraints particularly to articulate a compr ehensive scheme, and that is for the expropriating authority, and we're expropriat ing on behalf of the three levels of government, to expropriate the whole area and then, having control of the area, see what can stay and what will not.

But I project that most of the businesses which came and made represe ntations, the viable businesses not only will stay in that redeveloped and revitalized complex, but they will thank us because they will be in a revitalized North of Portage and instead of living in a decaying area in which they could see their economic future going downhill, they will be living in a revitalized North of Portage with a strong housing comp onent to anchor it. Again I think that fits in well with some of the major concerns that the Member for Ellice has and has raised .

So I should just want to point out the difference In the way in which we as a government operate with respect to expropria tion, and the way in which the Tories when they were in government, operated and let the record be crystal clear on that. There is a major difference in our approach to the needs of the people in that area. What Mr.

Tonn did was to point out -Indeed I think it may be said he perhaps didn't have any other choice -that with respect to each individual objector, it couldn't be said that the taking was fair and reason able because the plan hadn't got to the point where, with respect to each individual parcel, there was a concept of how it fitted In. As a very responsi ble lawyer -I have nothing but the highest regard for Mr. Tonn -he came to one of the conclusions it was possible for an Inquiry officer to come to.

What he did not do -and he said specifically he would not do because it doesn't fall within the mandate given under the act -he didn't deal with some of the possible legal roadblocks which might be placed in the way which would not have anything to do with the fair and reaso nable question, but might have something to do with apprehended legal defects in the process. Recog nizing that there was some need to make sure that this development plan took place in an orderly way, and not by fits and starts occ asioned by the judicial process, this legislation was brought in.

Let it be said, this legislation was not brought in to do away with a necessity, to make sure that any taking in the sense of an expropriation which mi ght lead to the displacement of a tenant would be anything less than fair and reasonable.

So, Sir, in closing debate, I want to say that we welcome this going to commi ttee and the opportunity again, the second opportunity for members of the public and small businesspeople North of Portage to come and make their concerns known, but I want to say and speaking for myself, the Minis ter of Government Services, the former Minister of Urban Affairs, the present Minister of Urban Affairs, the whole government and the whole caucus, that we are dedicated to listening to what people have to say either in a forum which we will provide such as an inquiry or a committee, and taking that into consideration, using our influence when it's a tri-level partnership, to make sure that the objectives which have been identified before the inquiry commission, have been identified for the North Portage Development Corporation, are lived up to.

I am setisfied that following this route, those people, whether it's Hull Publishing or Judy's Shop or whatever, that their interests indeed will be looked after. Finally in closi ng, we too are aware of a problem raised by the Member for Ellice concerning the rights of tenants. One of the things that was comm issioned by ourselves - I participated in discussions on that following a look at what was happening in some of the 2240

Monday, 25 June, 1984 co re area takings -was to take a look at some of the jurisprudence with respect to tenants' rights and to commission someone at the law school to bring in some recommendations of how we might, in The Expropriation Act, better protect tenants' rights. I want to assure membe rs of the House that indeed that is one of our objectives. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. BILL NO. 14 THE JOBS FUND ACT MR. SPEAKER, J. Walding: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Culture, Bill No. 14. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker , Bill No. 14 is this government's second attempt to more formalize the Manitoba Jobs Fund. The bill repeals an earlier bill setting up the Jobs Fund, being attached as well to the Statutes of Manitoba. I suppose, Mr. Speak er, there is nothing that we can say or do that will prevent the government from exercising its will and its majority to proceed with the Manitoba Jobs Fund as one of its high profile, propaganda tools, I like to call it, Mr. Speaker . A MEMBER: Who's the Minister in charge of the Jobs Fund? it's good to know you're listening, Harry. MR. H.

ENNS: We intend to allow this bill to pass, Mr. Speak er, having, as I said at the outset, recognized the determination that this government and this Minister has, to pull under The Jobs Fund Act any number of line department respon sibilities that are not new, are not Innovative, are not, in my judgment, being deli vered any better under the present admin istration of the Manitoba Jobs Fund and/or under the expanded bureaucracy that will be developed under Bill 14 that the Min ister is proposing in this piece of legislation, Mr. Speak er.

What we are doing is ensuring that yet another bureaucracy is being created, yet another agency is being created to do what, in my judgment, as I said just a little while ago - I think a few days ago in dealing with the Estimates of the Jobs Fund -that was being done historically and traditionally by many of the line departments that have respon sibilities in the area of job creation. Mr. Speaker , I wish the government well.

I hope that perhaps if they do collect under the umbrella of the Jobs Fund the various efforts of government in creating economic stimulation to provide more jobs in Manitoba, more jobs for Manitobans, certainly it's difficult to oppose that, Mr. Speak er. We need jobs in Manitoba.

This government ought to be aware of it more so than anybody else because, despite their pleasure at announcing the Canada Stats on unemployment, the fact that we now are, or I so understand, amongst the lowest or the lowest in Canada, the truth of the matter is there are 20,000 more unem ployed Manitobans walking the streets in the towns aand communities of Manitoba than there were when the last Tory administration was in office. That's a simple statistical number that can't be denied. So, Mr.

Speaker , I am not going to stand in the way of this govern ment's effort to develop jobs and, if they are convinced that this act will help, well then God bless them. All I could say, Mr. Speaker , is that in my judgment we are not really making the access on the part of the average citizen and/or businessman easier; we are In fact making it more complicated. What happened to the old Department of Industry and Commerce?

If a businessman had a problem, he wanted some assistance, if there was a program available, If there was a grant program available, If there was an assistance program available, then he kne w where to go. He walked into the front of the building, looked at the directory and looked for his Minister of Small Business. This gove rnment, Mr. Speaker , has in this ver y Session, in this Throne Speech, made a great ado about their emphasis on business development.

We've got a new Min ister respo nsible for Small Busine ss Development -we've still got some remnants of the old Department of Industry and Commerce, or Industry and Trade -Industry, Trade and Te chnolo gy, I beli eve they call it -we've got a department and a Minister of Small Busine ss and Economic Development and we have, of course, the head honcho hi mself, the Honourable Minister respo nsible for the Manitoba Jobs Fund who brings in this Bill No. 14 .. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that's all a fine little game of smoke and mirrors in terms of internal gratifica tion, and it fills out Throne Speeches and it puts more people into the telephone directories of the Manitoba Government Te lephone Book as to all the places that are responsible for admini strating the various programs to enhance job opportunities in Manitoba. But, Mr. Speaker , the truth of the matter is, is it any easier for the average citizen, for the average small businessman to know which door to knock on? What we, in effect, have, Mr.

Speaker , is a highly politic ized effort on the part of the government to gather unto themselves, closer to themselves politically , under the heading of the Manitoba Jobs Fund, those kind of tangible programs from time to time where they can direct monies and they can set up a big green sign and say this is what the Honour able Eugene Kostyra, the Honourable Min ister of the Jobs Fund, is doing for you tod ay.

Now whether that was normally done by ths Department of Highways, which this fund has robbed by $25 million or $26 million; whether that was normally done by the Minister of Natural Resources In the development and improvement of drainage programs, that doesn't really matter to these Min isters, Mr. Speaker . They are in political trouble and they have to try to recyc le the same public dollars that were normally spent on these various programs, put them up on a little higher profile, surround them with a green sign and label them as programs being carried out under the Jobs Fund. We ll, Mr.

Speaker , that's essentially what this bill does, it doesn't really change a great deal except set up a new bureaucracy to handle the efforts of the Jobs Fund. Mr. Speak er, there are certain sections of the act that we will watch with some concern. There is a particular

section in the act - I respect, Mr. Speaker, at second reading we don't deal clause-by-clause- but there is a principle that is involved here that I always 2241

llonct.y. 25 June, 1884 find of concern where they exempt munic ipalities or other organizations from certain regulatory obligations that they normally would be under. I don't know whether that is particularly in the interests of the persons or organizations that are involved in developing a project in conjunction with the Jobs Fund. After all, Mr.

Speaker, if a munici pality enters into an agreement with the Manitoba Jobs Fund to do something and that something that they are proposing to do would normally call for them to request approval from the Mun icipal Board or other regulatory bodies before borrowing or expending monies, they can now be exempt from going to the Manitoba Municipal Board. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I suggest to you that there is a reason why municipalities had to go to regulatory bodies for approval from time to time, to make sure that programs entered into were indeed programs that served the public interests of that particular municipality or that particular organization. For the Jobs Fund, under this act that now is being proposed, to have the power to exempt themselves from that supervision always bothers me a little bit because all too often Crown corporations, governments, like to leave, in my judgment, a bad example.

We say to the others out there, to the private sector out there, you all have to be regulated, you all have to be supervised, you have to checked, but when we, a government agency do it, we exempt ourselves from that same supervision, from those same regulations in some instances. So, Mr. Speaker, I find that objectionable in this act. I think it is removing a safeguard that for good reason is there, particularly when they are dealing with public bodies, particularly when they are dealing with municipal organizations. I would suspect that the act,

Section 8( 1) is specific that the Jobs Fund wants to be in the business of being able to enter into joint ventures, I suppose you could call them, with the municipal organizations from time to time. lt could be for an expanded version of a Main Street Manitoba Program or such other kinds of public works type programs th at may be laudable in themselves, but I see no particular reason for the exemption clause to be in the act, Mr. Speaker.

I see the only redeeming, or one of the few redeeming features of the act is that it does repeal a number of acts. lt repeals The Winter Employment Act; it repeals The Act to amend The Winter Employment Act; it repeals, as I said earlier, the original Jobs Fund Act. So what we see here at least is some diminution of old statutes and I would, in fact, encourage the Minister and the government, if indeed this is to be their vehicle -well, Mr. Speaker, I shouldn't really encourage them because it is going to be their vehicle for just a short time anyway -18 months at the most.

So it doesn't make that much difference, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have said, because in the interest of efficiency, in the interest of accessibility on the part of the citizens that want to and ought to be able to know exactly where to go when making enquiries with respect to assistance, advice, general counsel, in terms of employment opportunities, in terms of taking advantage of the different programs that are available to them by governments, that they should perhaps be, not only repealing those few statutes that are being listed in the last

section of this act, but they should be repealing many more sections or indeed responsibilities -they may not be separate acts - that are currently housed in other departments. But, Mr.

Speaker, I can tell you, and of course, the Minister will tell us that the fact that the Manitoba Jobs Fund has been singled out as the program with the highest profile and that receives the greatest public relations effort, in terms of advertising, in terms of general promotion as its vehicle for job creation, as its vehicle for economic development, that in no way means that the Minister for Business Development doesn't have his programs that he hopes to create jobs with or encourage business development.

That doesn't mean that the Minister of Agricultur e doesn't have continuing programs, continuing grants, continuing job­ creating activities in that department. Mr. Speaker, I would suspect that in the Department of Labour, I would suspect that in the Department of Communi ty Services, a host of other departments have similar functions. I might have asked that. the Minister might even have considered a greater pulling in of the various programs that are available for job creation and economic development into the Jobs Fund if we deem it necessary to pass this piece of legislation. Mr.

Speaker, there are some specific areas with respect to responsibilities of members of Executive Council, should they be placed in charge of managing property that could come under the jurisdictions of the Manitoba Jobs Fund? There are other details that we will be Interested in pursuing at committee stage but, with these few remarks, Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to see this bill move down to committee for further consideration. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER : On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, Bill No. 18, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Minnedosa.

The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, could I have the indulgence of the Hous e to have this matter stand? MR. SPEAKER: Stand. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney­ General, Bill No. 20, standing in the name of the Honour able Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Stand, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Stand. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney­ General, Bill No. 21, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, we're prepared to see this bill go to committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried.

BILL NO. 22 THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT MR. SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Hono urable Minister of Labour, Bill No. 22, standing 2242

Monday, 25 June, 1984 in the name of the Honourable Mem ber for Sturgeon Creek. MR. F. JOHNSTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Member for La Verendrye when he spoke on this bill, he referred to his -well, let's put it this way -he referred to the reasoning of why the NDP Government wanted to pass this particular piece of labour legislation. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we have to wonder why, because the Province of Manitoba has had one of the best labour relations histories and records of any province in this countr y.

I am not particularly too concerned about what other provinces do, I'm mainly concerned about Manitoba, and our record has been excellent as far as the labour relations has been concerned in this province. So we have to think of the old adage that we say, if it's working, don't fix it. But, of course, this government is one that has to meddle with everything that it can, regardless of if it needs fixing or not.

They decided to have hearings on the labour bill and they have had a report come through on the labour bill, as we call it; the White Paper was put out, it had references come back from industry, there were some public hearings on it. There was another White Paper put out, and then there were changes to the first and, of course, there were more hearings again but, unfortuna tely, this government didn't listen. Now they listened to some.

The first one that they sent out to the industry generally was looked at by everybody and when it came back to the Minister there were some major changes made before we saw the next White Paper on the labour legislation. Mr. Speaker, they didn't really listen to the important parts of what was said by industry and by business within this province. They had responses from the White Paper from the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, and much of that has not been listened to. The Manitoba Fashion Institute has submit ted the apparel industry position on proposed changes, and much of that has not been listened to. So, Mr.

Speaker, they then present the bill to the House, and we have in our mailboxes last week a statement from the Manitoba Cham bers and the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce that starts out by saying: "We have been hoodwinked, missiled and zapped." Mr. Speaker, when the business community reads a bill that they're very concerned with and makes this type of statement, I think we have all got a lot to be concerned about, but this government does not seem to be concerned.

They weren't concerned about the language issue, the changes to the Constitution; they were prepared to push this through when they found out that over 80 percent of the population in Manitoba was opposed to them. Now they are finding out that the large percentage, and I guess I have to say about 70 percent at least, of the businesses within this province are opposed to what they're doing. They're saying, we have been hoodwinked; we have been misled; we have been zapped. Now, Mr. Speaker, for a Minister of Labour to have those charges laid against her . . . A MEMBER: By the business commun ity. MR. F.

JOHNSTON: Yes, by the business commu nity, but by anybody in this province, I think, is a major charge, in other words, the people, the businesses of Manitoba. Let me just read to you: "Small business in Manitoba . . . "this is the statement from the Honour able Eugene Kostyra, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. lt says that "90 percent of the businesses in Manitoba employ fewer than 20 people" - 90 percent of the busi nesses. Those are the small businesses, and it's the small businesses that are going to be harmed by this legislation, they are going to be hurt badly by this legislation.

Let me just read another statement that was made by the Chamber of Commerce. They said: "We listened and we complime nted the Throne Speech." They felt good, and they s