LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 16 July, 1986. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER, Hon. M. Phillips: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . PRESE NTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Memb er for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Madam Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same, and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the Member for lnkster, that the Report of the Committee be received. MOTION presented and carried.

MINISTER IAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF REPORTS MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mi nister of Finance. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to table the Financial Report 19 84-85. MADAM SPEAKER: I'm pleased to table the Annual Report of the Legislative Ass embly Mana gement Commission for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985. Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS ' HON. J. STORIE introduced, by leave, Bill No. 43,

An Act to Amend The Teachers' Society Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur !'Association des enseignants du Manitoba. OR AL QUESTIONS Manitoba Lotteries Commission Report MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'd begin by thanking the Premier for prevailing upon the Minister responsible for Lotteries to share the report of the Miller Commission with our critic on this side of the House. Brandon University -Perkins' settlement MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speak er, my question for the Premier is: Has he received a response from the Board of Governors of Brandon University with respect to the request to make public the settlement between former President Parkins and the University? Manitoba Lotteries Commission Report HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, first I would like to correct the comment by the Leader of the Opposition. The Minister responsible for Lotteries required no prevailing; the document was released on her authority to honourable members subsequent to the meeting of Cabinet this morning. Brandon University -Perkins' settlement HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, in addition, in respect to the letter which I forwarded to the Brandon University, I understand that that letter was received today and I anticipate, as I indicated yesterday, that the proper action will be taken in the next several days. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Premier can ind icate whether or not, given the responses that he had given earlier yesterday to my questions, whether or not the Premier is receiving resistance to his call for the making public of the settlement from his Minister of Education. HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I have received no resistance.

My letter just has been received this morning, I gather, by the appropriate people at Brandon University. I expect them to do that which is right within the next few days. 1861 MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. Did the Premier consult with the Minister of Education prior to writing his letter on Friday to the Board of Governors of Brandon University? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made some rather silly remarks with respect to my position and the Premier's position on this issue.

Madam Speaker, I have said from Day One that I indicated to the Board of Governors that I felt this information probably should be made public. They indicated that there were legal reasons and I have indicated to members opposite that the legal reasons for not making it public were confirmed by the Board of Governor's lawyer, so any insinuation that I had suggest ed, or the Premier had not wanted this information public, is foolish and pretentious and silly. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, given that yesterday in question period the Minister of Education gave many reasons why the report could not be made public, did

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 the Premier consult with him prior to sending his letter to the Board of Governors of Brandon University requesting that it be made public? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, I was attem pting to show the irresponsibility of the Opposition in this persistent questioning. Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the members the reasons the Board of Governors had given me, the reason their legal staff had given me.

Madam Speaker, I indicated many times, and I did so to the chairman of the Board of Governors, that I did not feel that the policy that they had adopted with respect to the divulging of the details of that settlement was going to be accep table. Both the Premier and I have maintained that from Day One. The Board of Governors made the decision to relieve Mr. Perkins of his responsibility; the Board of Governors made the decision to negotiate a settlement; the Board of Governors made the decision to fina lize a solution to a longstanding problem.

Madam Speaker, I had assumed that the members opposite would take some responsibility for allowing Brandon University to get back on to an even keel and to continue with the work that the commu nity wants the university to accomplish. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, if it's irresponsible to have asked to have the settlement made public, then we're in good company, because the Premier has now asked for that settlement to be made public as well. Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Education is: Has he received a copy of the letter which the Premier sent to the Board of Governors of Brandon University? HON.

J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, yes, I have received a copy. I am perfectly aware of what the Premier had requested, and as I have indicated on many occasions, it is consistent. Madam Speaker, I categorically reject the insinuation made by the Leader of the Oppositon with respect to either of our positions - the Premier's or myself - or this government's position with respect to openness. We have indicated from Day One that the university is an autonomous body and make their own decisions.

I have indicated on a number of occasions the rationale the Board of Governors suppli ed to myself with respect to their desire to not release information because, Madam Speaker, all it does, quite frankly, is lead to questions about whether there was justification in the initial instance for the removal of the president. Madam Speaker, that question has been debated in Bran don, unfortu nately , from ma ny people's perspective, for too long; the settlement ends that speculation; the hue and cry from members opp osite, when they knew essentially the details, has only acted to prolong that problem. MR. G.

FILMON: Madam Speaker, the Minister now knows why we want it to be made public, so that we can remove all the innuendos and all the debate, obviously. Madam Speaker, my question to the Premier is: In view of the fact that in the past he has tabled correspondence that he has sent to Ministers in the Federal Government and other public figures, will he table the letter that he has sent to the Board of Governors of Brandon Univ ersity request ing tha t Perkins' settlement be made public? HON. H. PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I see no difficulty in that.

Indian Affairs -cutback in funding MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Burrows. MR. C. SANTOS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a couple of questions to the Minister responsible for Native Affairs. As a result of disapproval of allotment to the five Indian bands, in the Federal Department of Indian Affairs, even if the budget has already been app roved, there has been a shortfall of $12 3 million over a period of five years, my question to the Minister is whether or not he is making representation to his federal counterpart in order to address this problem.

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister responsible for Native Affairs. HON. E. HARPER: Yes, I believe the shortfall is $1 25 milli on that have been short-changed to the five northern bands. I think it's shocking and it's shameful that the Federal Government allows this to happen and it's creat ing a lot of chaos and conc ern among community members. lt reflects on the leaders in the communit y, which is the fault of the Department of Indian Affairs of mishandling and short-changing the bands.

I intend to follow this and I may indicate that many of the bands in the North have this problem and it is something that has to be addressed from the leadership of the communities and also by the Federal Indian Affairs Minister, and I intend to follow this through. MR. C. SANTOS: Will the Honourable Minister also be meeting with the Indian Chiefs and band councils in order to discuss the implications of this shortfall with respect to their resources, their economic development, their health and social services? HON. E.

HARPER: Yes, I will be following through with the chiefs, and I have had indication that some of the leaders want to talk to me in the areas of mismanagement and also the shortfalls. I have had meetings last week with some of the tribal council directors in terms of addressing the issue in terms of the audit that was presented to the standing commit tee and also that was commissioned by the Minister of Indian Affairs. lt's a very serious issue.

I may indicate that there is some feeling among the Indian leadership that the Indian Affairs is tightening their books, and it has a reflection on the distribution of dollars to the bands, and it is causing some concern in the communit y. Tripartite Program re beef MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. 1862

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 MR. G. CUMMINGS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last spring during the election period the contract holders in the Beef Commission and the cattlemen across this province were misinformed regarding the com parison between the Manitoba Beef Stabilization Plan and the Federal Tripartite Program. Will he now reconsider the position of this province regarding Federal Tripartite and reopen negotiations? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Agricultur e. HON. B.

URU SKI: Ma dam Sp eak er, I thank the honourable member for his question, but I totally reject his premise. If the Ho no urable Me mb er for Ste. Rose has information about presentations that were made at the public meetings that were held by the Manitoba Beef Commission, and in fact - (Int erjections) - Obviously, some members, Madam Speaker, do not wish to hear the answer and it's unfortunate that the Member for Arthur, who's a cattle producer, doesn't want to hear what went on.

Madam Speaker, in fact it was members of the Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association who attended those meetings of the Beef Commission and essentially indicated support; not only support, but an unbiased app roach that the department took in presenting the information dealing with the federal plan.

Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, I have said before many times that the federal program should have been explained, not by the Province of Manitoba because of the lack of information; it should have been the Federal Government who had gone around and at least explained their program to the producers. lt should not have been the responsibility of the province. We did feel, Madam Speak er, that there was a lack of information.

The media, over the months previous, either found it too difficult to explain or just did not take it upon themselves to explain the program, so we felt it would be, because we wanted the information from producers as to the program, and as a result I have no intention of reop ening the issue. If th e producers want to reopen it, they will certainly contact us. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. Could I remind Honourable Ministers that answers to questions should be as brief as possible. The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, a new question, in light of the answer that I just received.

The Minister stated that the Cattlemens' Association in this province were complimenting the one particular person who presented an unbia sed opinion, but why were they denied the oppor tunit y to present the Tripartite Program at those meetings? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, any organization, a producer organization, if the Manitoba Cattle Prod ucers' Associa tion wished to take the role representing the Federal Government, they are always free to set up their own set of meetings to explain the plan, and in fact the federal plan was announced several months before the Commission and the department undertook those meetings. Quite frankly, Madam Speaker, anyone, any party was free to set up their own set of meetings if they wished to support the plan and go around and say, this is the plan that producers should buy.

Madam Speaker, I don't know what the honourable member wishes us now to say. We will take any group on this side or that side of the situation and, in fact, supply information of another level of government that should have undertaken that information themselves. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, the Minister just makes my case that all the facts were not put before the farmers of the province at tha t time . Manitoba cattle producers wanted to be part of those meetings. My question to the Minister . . . MADAM SPEAKER: Order, order please. Does the honourable member have a supplementary? MR. G.

CUMMINGS: Ma dam Speaker , I have a question. My question, will the Minister, in light of the facts that we have just brought forward today that are apparently new to him, reconsider the July 31 deadline and let the farmers and the cattlemen across the province, whether they are contract holders or not, have the opportunity to reconsider the tripartite plan with all the facts in front of them? HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I'm hopeful that honoura ble mem bers opposite will convince their members of Parliament and their Ministers in the federal House to go around and explain the federal plan if they wish farmers to join. Madam Speaker, this matter was raised last week by the Member for Virden insofar as the misinformation that he provided to the House as to the level of support. I want to advise my honourable friend from Ste.

Rose that notwithstanding the options that are put forward to the producers of Manitoba, either to increase the premiums or, in fact, lower the support, the options and the difference in support between the federal program and the provincial program even in the first quarter, we only know the results of the first quarter under the federal plan. There is a difference, Madam Speaker, and here we will show the honourable members the adjusted support level, as of the first quarter of 1986, that's taking away the premiums that producers pay in Manitoba.

The suppo rt level is $86.78 per hundred pounds of beef under the provincial program and $71 .46 a pound under the federal program. Madam Speaker, if producers wish to join the federal program, they will be pleased, I'm sure, that they will correspond and say, change your mind and we want to opt into the federal program, Madam Spea ker, and we certainly will want to hear their proposals. Madam Speaker, the vast majority of produc ers who attended the meetings cer tainl y overwhelmingly rejected the federal plan. 1863

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Government Services. Before that, I'd just like to indicate to the Minister of Finance my appreciation for sending a copy of a letter indicating where he is requesting a Provincial Auditor to do an audit on the Department of Natural Resources and I appreciate that. Flooding -compensation for damages MR. A.

DRIEDGER: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of Government Services is based on the deadline of May 31 where individuals and municipalities can make applications for flood damage. I wonder if the Minister could indicate the amount of claims that have come in and the amount that has been applied for at this time. MADAM SPEAKER: The Hon ourable Min ister of Government Services. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I believe the deadline was extended to the end of June.

There were about 20 municipalities for public sector damages who made application and hundreds of individuals from all of tho se affected areas who made application and inspections were carried out. I could give all of the information. Perhaps it would be better to just hand the individual a copy of the latest report that I had from the Disaster Assistance Board with regard to not only the public sector applications, but the various municipal governments, as well as the private individuals who applied. So I will provide all that information to him for his information. Most of the inspections have been done.

Once they have been completed, the Disa ster Assistance Board will be coming forward with a request for payment for those who qualify under the guidelines. That has not been done as yet . The y'r e ass essing all of the applications following inspection. MR. A. DRIEDGER: To the same Minister, can the Minister indicate the time frame that is going to be involv ed until the applic ants or claimants will get settlement? HON. J.

PLOHMAN: I expect that I will be gett ing a recommendation from the board within the next couple of weeks, so I will be able to take it to Cabinet for consideration of payment on the recommendations that are made.

I think that will mean then about a two, two-and-a­ half month period from the time that the flooding occurred to the actual decision on payment, which is comparatively quick compared to other situations that have occurred in previous years, even during the time when the previous government was in office when there was major flooding that took place. lt took, many times, more than a year, to comp lete the settlements. MR. A. DRIEDGER: A final supplementary to the same Minister.

Could the Minister assure the claimants that they will get the same consideration that the Peguis and Fisher River Reserves have gotten in terms of having their claims dealt with and the money being forwarded to them? HON. J. PLOHMAN: Certainly the same guidelines apply, Madam Speaker, except that, in the case of the Reserves, the Federal Government is 100 percent responsible for the payments of those damages, both for private sector and for Band-incurred costs and flood-fighting during the flood.

In the case of the municipalities and the individuals who qualify under the Disaster Assistance Program, the same guidelines for assessment of the dam ages and payment will be in place as were in place for the reserves. Child and Family Services - apprehension of 12-year-old MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for River Heights. MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Thank you, Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Community Services. Last evening, a 12 -year-old was apprehended by the police, because Child and Family Services were either unable or unwilling to act.

Can the Minister tell the House if the child is now in the care of Child and Family Services? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mi nister of Community Services. HON. M. SMITH: Madam Speaker, I'm happy to report that the child is in a receiving home with the Child and Family Services. But the facts, as reported to me, differ from the report that occurred in the newspaper. The agency was phoned at 9:30. The child was not in immediate danger, and the plan that was put in place was carried out within two hours. The agency was arranging to pick up the child when the complainant phoned the police and the newspaper.

They did attempt to call her back and explain what steps had been taken, but she hung up the phone on them so it was difficult for them to communicate the plan. But I'm happy to say the youngster is in care and being looked after. University of Wi nnipeg MRS. S. CARSTAIRS: Madam Speaker, a new question to the Minister of Education. Since June of 19 67, one of our un iversities in this province, the Un iversity of Winnipeg, has been working on Order-in-Council which makes it less than a full­ fledged university. Can we count on 1986 being the magic year by which the University of Winnipeg is afforded full rights?

MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, to my knowledge, there are no intentions to bring such legislation into 1864

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 the current Session. However, I have been app rised of the situation and have spoken with the president of the University of Winnipeg about the issue and we'll be taking it under consideration for the coming year. Crop Insurance MADAM SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Sunday evening, many Southwest Manitoba farmers were hit with a second devastating hailstorm.

One of those individu als is depen ding on crop insur ance settlements and claim adjustments to be carried out so that they can receive their payments. Will the Minister of Agriculture put all resources available through the crop insurance to make sure that there is an immediate adjustment and funds forthcoming for those individuals? MADAM SPEAKER: The Hono urable Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Sp eak er, I thank th e Honourable Member for Arthur for raising this matter. In fact, he did raise it with me a day or so ago.

I've asked for a full report from the Crop Insurance Corporation on this matter and I'm assuming that all available staff, in terms of adjusters, are in the area to make those adjustments and we will endeavour to make sure that the claims flow as smoothly as possible. I have not received a report back on the matter and as soon as I have the report, I'll be pleased to make it available to my honourable friend. MR. J. DOWNEY: I, Madam Speaker, through you, thank the Minister of Agriculture for that comment. Tripartite Program re beef MR. J. DOWNEY: To the same question, following on my colleague from Ste.

Rose, I would like to know if the Minister of Agriculture will have a meeting with cattle producers and with the individuals who are involved in the Beef Stabilization Program . Will he carry out a meeting to project what the third quarter and the fourth quarter, the kind of cash position it will put them in for the coming months, and may be beneficial for him and the cattle producers to take a look at the federal option? Will he carry out that request and put all the facts on the table that was very well put by my colleague from Ste. Rose?

Will he give the facts to the producers and let them make their decisions up so they know where they're going as far as their future and their incomes are concerned? HON. B. URUSKI: Madam Speaker , the analysis that I gave to the Member for Ste. Rose in terms of comparison and the difference in the support levels was based on the new support level as of September 1 under our plan and the actual support level that was made under the federal plan in the first quarter of 1986, because one can't project what the federal plan will be.

For example, the second quarter support level under the federal plan will not be out until the end of July. Madam Speaker, the honourable member knows as well as I do as to the results of the meetings that were held with our department and the Beef Commission throughout the year.

If, in fact, producers themselves wish to now say we want to be involved in tripartite, I am sure that they will be making their views known and will want the Federal Government to explain what the support levels are and, in fact, it may be the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association or some other association wishes to take the federal proposals again out in the field, they're free to do so, Madam Speaker. We've done it once, Madam Speaker, and producers responded to us and I will respond accordingly when producers make their views known if they are so inclined to change their mind. MR. J.

DOWNEY: A final supplementar y, Ma dam Speaker. Will the Minister of Agriculture screw up his courage, Madam Speaker, and meet with the farmer and tell them how he deceived them prior to the election of March 18 and tell them the truth? MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. I'm sure the honourable member was not accusing a Minister of being deceitful. The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: No, Madam Speaker. HON. B.

URUSKI: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate to my honourable friend that, not like the Conservative Party who went around and hid from the farmers of Manitoba until the year of the election that they thought they would consult members on this side and, in fact, the Beef Comm ission and mem bers of the staff consulted with the farmers on this issue during the election and not before the election. This consultatio n process was in pl ace during the election this year, Madam Speaker, and producers rejected the federal plan out of hand. That's really the results. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H.

PAWLEY: Madam Speaker, I would like to table the letter which I agreed to table just a few moments ago. Barrows Lagoon MADAM SPEA KER: The Honourable Member for Roblin -Russell. MR. L. DERKACH: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs with regard to the Barrows Lagoon which has been identified as a problem for a long time.

Given that the original contr actor of the Barrows Lagoon under construction was not fully paid for his contract even though the work met and surpassed mineral compaction standards, and given that McLean Construction was hired to redo the work at a cost in excess of $1 00,000, can the Minister tell the House whether or not monies were withheld from McLean Construction, because after they completed their work, there was still leaking of 1865

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 that lagoon, and if monies were fully paid to McLean Construction, why funds were withheld from Zander Construction? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Mini ster of Northern Affairs. HON. H. HARAPIAK: I believe that the member must be referring to the lagoons at Barrows which were completed last year, and presently this is before the courts, so I don't think it would be proper for me to be commenting on a subject that is before the courts. MR. L.

DERKACH: Well, Madam Speaker, can the Minister tell the House why it has become necessary for companies having contracts with this government to sue the government in order to have their cont ract monies received, and can he tell the House what the contract was for M.M. Dillon and why funds were withheld from them and why was it necessary for them to take the government to court? HON. H. HARAPIAK: Yes, Madam Speaker, obviously there was a difference of opinion between the Department of Natural Resources and the contractor on the Barrows case and that is presently before the courts to resolve that. With M.M.

Dillon there were some additional works that were taken on by M.M. Dillon because of the estimates given in the first place; there was some greater works required. There was further works required on behalf of M.M. Dillon and discrepancy was in the amount that they felt they should be gett ing for the service they performed. There was a difference of opinion that was negotiated. We settled in negotiations how much difference there should be paid. MR. L. DERKACH: Will the Minister tell the House what specific steps are being taken to rectify the problem of the Barrows Lagoon which is still leaking? HON. H.

HARAPIAK: The engineering staff have been into Barrows. They visited lagoons. The lagoon is functioning and there is no problem with the lagoon presently. lt is functioning as it was designed to function. Manitoba Telephone System - service for rural Manitobans MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Springfield. MR. G. ROCH : Thank you , Madam Sp eaker. My question is to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.

Given the fact that MTS has seen fit to continue pouring millions of dollars into its money-losing Saudi Arabian MTX operations, would the Minister inform the House as to whether he would be kind enough to consider using portions of those monies to allow greater toll-free access for rural Manitobans to the Winnipeg Exchange? MADAM SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mi nister responsible for MTS. HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I thank the honourable member for the question.

The honourable member does a disservice to the work of the Honourable Member for Pembina who has been making these kind of allegations not only before the comm ittee but in the press, and I don't think the Memb er for Springfield has put the case as vehemently as the Member for Pembina.

There's no question but that this matter is still before a committee, and I expect that before the comm ittee we will be able to esta blish, notwithsta nding the allegations that have been made, that the investments that the telephone corporation has made through MTX are not unwise or imprudent but, over the long haul, will provide the corporation with real benefit. In respect to the question that he asked, well, Madam Speaker, he both made a statement and a question.

In respect to the question he asked, this government has under active consideration proposals to look at the impr ovement of long distance communic ation services in th e province pursuant to the recommendations made by the very active former Member for Springfield who implored on this Minister several good suggestions about changes in telephone services. Certainly , we are looking at that whole question, and when those policy considerations have reached their stage of conclusion, I'll be reporting to this House. MR. G.

ROCH: Yes, Madam Speaker, seeing as the Minister is expecting many benefits from the MTX operations, would he then consider reducing the cost of FX service to rural customers? HON. A. MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I didn't hear the question. The speaker didn't enunciate very clearly. MR. G. ROCH: The Minister stated that he is expecting a lot of benefits from the MTX operations. Would he then use some of those benefits to help to reduce the cost of FX service to rural customers who are being charged ridiculously high prices? HON. A.

MACKLING: Madam Speaker, I thought that I had answered that question. lt sounded to me like it was a repet ition of the first question. I could give the same answer. MR. G. ROCH: Madam Speaker, FX service is a comp letely different type of service. What I asked was: Will he be looking at reducing the cost of FX service to rural customers? HON. A. MACKLING: Ma dam Spe aker , I don't understand.

The honourable member is suggest ing, I suppose, that investments that are being made by the telephone corporation to further its operation should not be made and the monies diverted to reducing or improving services in Manitoba. If that's his question, I would like to point out to the honourable member that we should look with pride upon the operations of our corporation which has the lowest telephone rates in North America. I would also like to point out that a responsible board of directors has made recommendations to government, 1866

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 not only this government but the previous government, in respect to the outreach of the corporation, using its expertise and its high technology to the benefit not only of the corporation itself but to other parts of Canada and other parts of the world. Not only this admi nistrat ion made th at decision, a previous administration had made that decision as well. So I don't think that the honourable member will want to reflect on the ability or the integrity or the success of this corporation in Manitoba in the kind of disparaging way he does. MR. G. ROCH: A final question, Madam Speaker.

I'm just wondering if the Minister is more concerned about the citizens of Saudi Arabia or those of Manitoba. MADAM SPEAKER: Order please. That question is out of order. Portage la Prairie - dump, clean up MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. E. CONNERY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To the Minister of Natural Resources: Last summer, in a legal dump, toxic residue was discovered seven kilometres upstream from the Portage la Prairie Water Treatment Plant. The city was not notified of the serious potential hazard to its water supply, nor did the province move to clean up this dump.

I've been unable to obtain information as to what the province is doing to resolve this hazard. Will the Minister inform this House what action the department is taking to prevent contamination of the Assiniboine River, and why did the Minister muzzle his staff? MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of the Environment. HON. G. LE CUYER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I assume the mem ber is referring to the legal dump to which reference was made in the newspapers perhaps a month ago, which is located some six kilometres west of Portage la Prairie.

If that is indeed the one he's referring to, I can assure the member there was no muzzling of anybody, no muzzling on my behalf and in regard to staff, nor vice versa. Madam Speaker, the information that I can provide has already been provided in the press; indeed, the reference was made to that last summer, I believe.

Letters were sent to the municipalit y, unknowing that this was in the municipality rather than in the city. 1t is indeed located in the municipality and as a result that's with whom communications took place; but in effect, and having done so, it was assumed that the municipality would in turn be in touch with the City of Portage la Prairie and that I believe did not happen. The inspection of that dump could not take place because of weather conditions until this spring. This dump I believe is either now cleaned up or in the process of being cleaned up. MR. E.

CONNERY: Huzzled-muzzled Minister, Madam Speaker, he didn't give us a definite answer; it maybe is in ... Can the Minister definitely tell us that action is being taken right now on cleaning up that dump and, if it is, when will it be cleaned up? HON. G. LE CUYER: I can get the definite details for the member in terms of whether it is cleaned up now or in the process of being cleaned up.

For a lengthy period of time there was a question as to who the owner of the property really is, whether it's Crown land, which was our belief, or whether it was, as claimed by one of the individuals who actually carries on activities on that land, whether it really belonged to him, and, in that case, whether there could be charges laid in this particular instance. I don't know if that has been completely resolved, but I will get the particular details and bring them back to the House. MADAM SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has expired.

ORDERS OF THE DAY HOUSE BUSINESS MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. J. COWAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. On a matter of House business, I would just like to indicate that through discussions with the Opposition House Leader it's been determined that the Standing Commit tee on Economic Development will meet on Tuesday, July 22 and Thursday, July 24, if required, to consider the report of Manitoba Forestry Resources Corporation.

For today's business, Madam Speaker, I would ask that you would call Second Readings as they are listed on Page 4 of the Order Paper in the order in which they are listed and, following that, if you would call Adjourned Debate on Second Readings, starting with Bill No. 4 on Page 2 and carrying on through to Bill No. 33, if time permits, on Page 3, in the order in which they are listed on the Order Paper. SECOND READING BILL NO. 15 -THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT HON. J. PLOHMAN presented, by leave, Bill No. 15,

An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Highways and Transportation. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Madam Speaker, I'm pleased to present for Second Reading these amendments to The Highway Traffic Act today. Many of the amendments have been made so that The Manitoba Highway Traffic Act is consistent with federal legislation, brought in last December by the Federal Government, which imposes tougher penalties 1867

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 on those individuals convicted of impaired driving. The federal legislation supports provincial initiatives that have been developed here in Manitoba regarding offences involving alcohol and drugs. We welcomed many of the changes that were introduced by the Federal Minister last December. Previously, The Manitoba Highway Traffic Act only made provision for suspension of licences, Madam Speaker.

In the case of suspension, an individual's driver's licence is taken away but, if there are grounds for appeal, reinstatement of driving privileges can be made through the Licence Suspension Appeal Board. We are now including in the act prohibition from driving, in order to reflect the federal legislation. I would like to point out that anyone convicted of impaired driving on a first offence is prohibited from driving for at least three months under the federal legislation.

The length of prohibition varies depending on the severity of the offence, but it means the individual cannot appeal the prohibition. lt was necessary to make these amendments because of the federal legislation, but I want to emphasize to the House that we do have reservations about the compl ete prohibition which may cost some people their jobs where they require a driver's licence for work purposes because they cannot appeal for three months. We have voiced these concerns, Madam Speaker, on many occasions to the Federal Ministers, but the changes went ahead anyway.

So we have had to make changes to The Highway Traffic Act now to be consistent with the federal act. Also under the amended Manitoba Highway Traffic Act, persons suffering from an alcohol or drug-related problem may not be issued a driver's licence until these people meet the standards reflected in the regulations. The amended legislation recognizes the obvious danger of allowing drivers under the influence of any drug on the road.

As well, if the Registrar of Motor Vehicles has reason to believe a person has an alcohol or drug-related problem, he or she may be required under this act to produce a report from any recognized agency engaged in the diagnosis or treatment of persons suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction. Previously, the act referred only to people with an alcohol-related problem. We have also added a new clause to the act to help educate those people convicted of impaired driving, and to also help prevent further offences.

Under the new clause, the Registrar may require any person convicted of impaired driving to compl ete an Im paired Driver 's Cour se. This is an educ ational progr am provided by the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba. In cases where an individual fails to compl ete the requi red Im pair ed Driver's Cour se, th ere will be provisions in this act that would ensure that they would not be issued a driver's licence. Amendments have also been made to the act so that terms and references conform to federal legislation, as I mentioned.

For example, the sect ion previously titled, "Driving whil e licence suspended" has now been renamed to read , "Drivi ng while disq ualified or prohibited." We have also made several other amendments, including one dealing with vehicle inspection and the safety of motorists. In this

section of the act, we have replaced the term "motor vehicle" with the broader term "vehicle." The act will now allow us to introduce the compul sory Com mercial Vehicle Ins pection Program. The department's Vehicle Inspection Program will be realigned to include tractors and semi-trailers. Vehicle inspection is now concentrated on cars and light trucks. Commercial vehicles have a greater potential for serious injury, since they travel on the highway more frequently and for longer distances. For this reason, they should also be subject to inspection.

The Commercial Vehicle Inspection Program, which will be implemented early next year, will have vehicles inspected regularly at private shops, which have been government-certified in accordance with government safety standards. Amendm ents have also been made to the act concerning towing of trailers. My department and myself, personally, have received requests to permit the hauling of two traile rs behind one vehicle, particularly for recreational purposes.

I'm sure many members are aware that, as an example, requests come forward from individuals who have recreational vehicles that are equipped with a fifth-wheel type of hitch, who would also like to pull a boat trailer behind. The amendments to the act will now allow the towing of a camper trailer and a boat trailer, if the towing vehicle is equipped with a fifth-wheel type of hitch. Ontario and Saskatch ewan already have provisions allowing for this kind of towing, and I believe this will be a welcome amendment, especially for tourists in Manitoba.

In the existing legislation, the definition of "axle group" is rather rigid and, if enforced to the letter, would eliminate the use of most tag axles in the province. The Manitoba Government has, in practice, exercised moderate flexibility by allowing tag axles to be added to single-axle trucks. This allows them to carry the weight limits which are restricted to double­ axle trucks, providing the weight maximums for either axle are not exceeded. The current practice will now be reflected in amended legislation.

However, those tag axles which can be raised or lowered from within the cab will be strictly prohibited by this legislation, which will prevent cheating insofar as those vehicles that are overweight. This has been a problem many times in the past, particularly where people are entering the scales along the highways. The amendments also pr ovide for rest rictions concer ning operation of mo bility vehicles. These vehicles will not be allowed to operate on provincial trunk highways, which have a maximum speed limit of more than 80 kilo metres per ho ur.

There were amendments brought in by myself a couple of years ago, dealing with mobility vehicles. However, we had overlooked at that time this particular amendment, so the speed restriction was only issued to mopeds, and did not include mobility vehicles. Now, of course, they will be consistent, as was envisaged originally when the legislation regard ing mobility vehicles was introduced. As well, requirements for posting of speed signs will chang e. lt will no longer be necessary to post highway and road signs indicating the end of a speed zone.

Instead, signs will indicate to motorists the maximum speed allowed for the zone they are entering, which is the current practice in fact. A clearer definition for highway classifications will be provided in the amended act. This will be achieved 1868

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 thr ough revised

definitions for all five hig hway classifications. Currently, only three classifications are mentioned in the act. The remaining two are stated in the regulations. My department will soon be proceeding with necessary changes to the regulation, so that it will conform with

definitions provided in the amended act that I am introducing here today for Second Reading. Under the amended act, each type of hig hway in the province will have one basic classification, with provision to reclassify to any other classification. (Mr. Deputy Speaker, C. Santos, in the Chair.) There are also changes to the clause covering payment of vehicle registrat ion and insuranc e premiums. As many members are aware, many people take advantage of the Time Payment Plan offered by the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. We have made changes to this

section of the act to provide people using the Time Payment Plan with a clearer definition of their responsibilities and the penalties impos ed for non payment of insurance prem iums. Although the existing clause covers drivers when they apply for the Time Payment Plan, the courts have ruled recently that suspension action cannot be taken for people who fail to pay their second time payment, as they cannot be considered applicants. Therefore, we propose to include registration holders in the act as well as registration applicants, to give effect to the original intent.

Currently, private vehicle owners who move into Manitoba are given three months to register their cars. lt is becoming more common to see light trucks being driven for private use and, for this reason, the Manitoba Government has chosen to provide a three-month period to new residents who drive light trucks for private use. At present, trucks must be registered immediately, even if they are small light trucks for private use and this would allow them the three-month grace period, the same as other motor vehicles. We have made extensive amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to The Highway Traffic Act.

Many of these focus on safety and protection of lives. Since safety is a key concern, as has been indicated and illustrated by this government over the last number of years, we are very pleased that the amendments reflect this concern, these amendments that I'm introducing on The Highway Traffic Act. Thank you very much. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Minnedosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I might ask questions for clarification, I gather that there's nothing required in the act to provide for changes in the speed zones throughout the province.

I see nothing in there that the Minister indicated earlier was going to regularize some of the speed zones throughout the province, from 90 kilometres to 100, where the roads are intertwining. I wonder if he is still considering that, or is it required to be in the act. HON. J. PLOHMAN: Mr. Deputy Speak er, that does not deal with the amendments that I have put forward in The Highway Traffic Act.

But to deal with the question, these are set by regulation by the Highway Traffic Board and there's no specific legislative changes that have 1869 to be made to The Highway Traffic Act to give effect to change speed limits. MR. D. BLAKE: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Riel, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Vital. MR. J. WALDING: Mr. Deputy Speaker, before you put the motion to the House, I wonder if I might ask a question of the Honourable Minister for clarification of his introduction. Now, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, with regard to the proposed wording change having to do with the inspection of motor vehicles, the Minister is proposing to change it from motor vehicles to vehicles. Would this permit the Minister to inspect bicycles which ar3 vehicles but are not motor vehicles. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I don't believe that would be the case, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As envisaged under The Highway Traffic Act, bicycles are not classified as vehicles under the act, so therefore it would not apply to this amendment in The Highway Traffic Act. QUESTION put; MOTION carried. BILL NO. 26- THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE ACT HON. R.

PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 26,

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

Loi sur le curateur public, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney­ General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Deputy Speak er, th ese amendments to The Public Trustee Act are designed to strengthen the role of the public trustee acting as the guardian of infants and persons with respect to whom court orders have been made under The Public Trustee Act or The Mental Health Act. In the past, some medical pactitioners have refused to provide medical information to the Public Trustee without a court order and without formal permission of the parents or legal guardian.

In many cases, however, such permission is not feasible. In fact, the Public Trustee only acts in cases in which the child is without parents or a legal guardian. Under one of the proposed amendments in this bill, the Public Trustee will be able to request medical information without the expense and time consuming procedure of obtaining a court order. A further amendment allows the court to make an order at the instance of the Public Trustee without the formality of the trustee issuing a statement of claim. In most cases, infant claims are settled before commencement of an action and this amendment will

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 allow the court to approve such settlements without the issuance of a formal statement of claim. lt would still have to be done by the court, but not by means of a statement of claim. A further amendment gives the Public Trustee a right of appeal in circumstances where no such right presently exists. In particular, a court might approve a settlement on behalf of an infant. In such cases, the Public Trustee should be able to appeal a court order to the Court of Appeal. This, if the Public Trustee feels that the best interest of the infant aren't being met.

This amendment will give the trustee the status to do so. Another amendment will allow the Public Trustee to file caveats in the Land Titl es Office to prevent unauthorized dealings - or unconscionable dealings - with the land of trustees' wards. At present, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you well know, there is nothing in the legislation to prevent the ward of the Public Trustee from making a land transaction. Such a transaction would likely be found binding if the other party to the transact ion, purchaser or mortgagor, had no notice of the mental incapacity of the ward and there was consideration for the transaction.

This amendment accordingly is a protective device to protect the real property assets of the wards of the trustee against unconscionable transactions. A further amendment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will allow the public trustee to delegate to a responsible person his or her authority, as the case may be, to give medical consent in certain instances. This practice is already in existence in th at the med ical directors of the provincial facilities in Brandon, Selkirk and Portage have been functioning under the trustees delegation for a considerable period of time.

However, the act does not have any statutory provision authorizing the Public Trustee to delegate in that way. In order to avoid any possible challenge to the existing practice, it is felt necessary to grant such authority in the act. I am advised by the Public Trustee that the delegation is only with respect to routine and non­ controversial medical treatment. Anything beyond that must be handled specifically by the trustee himself or herself. I commend this bill to the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speak er.

I move, seconded by the Member for Brandon West, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 32- THE PENSIONS BE NEFITS ACT HON. A. MACKLING presented, by leave, Bill No. 21,

An Act to amend The Pension Benefits Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les prestations de pension, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. A. MACKLING: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a copy of my notes and a copy of what I call a spread sheet of the amendments for the Opposition Critic. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to share with honourable members and the people of Manitoba, some general observations about Bill No. 32,

An Act to amend The Pensions Benefits Act. Manitobans have a tradition of caring for ordinary men and women in our society, men and women who work hard for their living and who look forward to a secure retirement when they might enjoy the fruits of a lifetime of work and sacrifice. lt is fair that their financial security for retirement plans be protected to the greatest extent possible. In too many countries, retirement means privation and exclusion from the mainstream of living, a gloomy existence in the twilight of life.

The Government of Manitoba has actively encouraged and promoted the creation of meaningful private-sector pension plans, supported by realistic levels of funding. There has been some measure of success in attaining this goal. The Pension Commission of Manitoba has laboured hard since it was established more than a decade ago to promote the establishment, exte nsio n , and improvement of pension plans throughout Manitoba, reciprocity between pension plans, and the further protection of rights under pension plans.

The amendments my government has put before the House for consideration address the very heart and essence of Manitoba's pursuit of fairness and security for ordinary Manitobans, men and women who have laboured hard for a decent living, both now and after retirement. Increasing ly, fair-minded individuals and institutions are recognizing the fundamental principle that pension funds are deferred income and monies that are set aside for the workers who belong to a pension plan.

Pension funds are wages set aside dur ing the productive years to provide security in retirement. lt is essential and fair that those funds are protected for their rightful use, sheltered from those who would use them for a purpose quite different from what they were intended. I'm sure that honourable members will agree with me when I say that most employers act in a responsible manner and have a genuine concern for the welfare of their emp loyees, both now and in their retirement years.

In recent years, a particularly odious practice has surfaced and it is becoming a more popular tool for a small number of employers, opportunists concerned only about their personal gain. There are a number of employers that act in a predatory manner, gaining access to healthy pension funds and using whatever amount is considered to be surplus money, for purposes other than pension fund development. This minority of employers is undermining the future financial security of the men and women who are depending on these pension funds to ensure a decent standard of living at some point in the future.

The retirement income for ordinary working men and women must be protected. In the years 19 69 to 1979, there were no refunds of surplus pension funds in Manitoba. Since 1980, 13 pension plans have been terminated and surplus funds have been paid out of 14 others which are still active. 1870

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 What is the cost to ordinary working men and women who depend on pensions for a secure retirement? Nearly $17 .25 million. These figures do not include withdrawals of funds from plans Manitoba workers contribute to, but are registered in other provinces. You may recall one such withdrawal by International Nickel Company of Canada that amounted to $10 0 million, money that should be working on behalf of the employees that depend on it for retirement security.

Bill 32 is designed to protect the interests of those workers who contribute to pension plans registered in Manitoba, and ensure that refunds of surplus pension funds are in their best interests and not merely to facilitate the gain of others. In general, Bill 32 is designed to ensure fairness and security for the workers of Manitoba. The Manitoba Pension Commission's authority to approve or deny requests for the refund of pension monies will be enhanced to ensure that the best interests of Manitoba's workers are served.

In order to enable the Pension Commission to review this matter and determine if recommendations for further action should be consider ed, cu rrent applications for surplus funds withdrawal will be frozen, pending the results of that review. Manitoba intends to actively pursue the establishment of uniform legislation and regulations across this count ry, so that the 4.5 million ordinary Canadians covered by provincial and federal pension benefits legislation will enjoy the security and peace of mind that Bill 32 is designed to bring to workers in this province.

This effort is a reflection of the spirit that is fast growing in Canada in response to the increased requests for pension fund refunds. In recent years, courts in Ontario and British Columbia have supported the principle that emplo yers can't initiate fundamental changes to employer-sponsored pension plans that would allow the withdrawal of surplus funds against the wishes of the beneficiaries. There is supp ort for Manitoba's position on this matter and it is reflected by the concern about this problem that is being expressed in other jurisdictions at this time. Mr.

Deputy Speaker, it is my belief that these amendments are timely, necessary and fair and, further, that they will enjoy the unqualified support of those members who have a concern for pension security for the workers of Manitoba. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wholeheartedly recommend the provisions of Bill 32 to this House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Brandon West. MR. J. Mc CRAE: Mr. Deputy Spe aker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 34 - THE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS ACT HON. R.

PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 34, The Constitutional Questions Act;

Loi sur les questions constitutionnelles, for Second Reading. 1871 MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney­ General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, The Constitutional Questions Act replaces and strengthens provisions presently in the existing Constitutional Questions Act and in The Queen 's Bench Rules, comb ines these with respect to constitutional challenges. At present, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the process by which the government becomes alerted to constitutional challenges to its legislation is unsatisfactory.

Cases have been argued and decided in the Court of Appeal which have a constitutional componenent to them arising from the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, without notice having been given to the Attorney­ General and, it follows, without the Attorney-General having had the opportunity to be represented on that particular issue in order to argue in favour of provincial legislation. The comprehensive statutory scheme being proposed here will ensure the integrity of the challenged legislation until such time as the Attorney-General can be heard in response to that challenge.

The proposed act will have the immediate effect of alerting both the Bench and the Bar to their particular responsibilities with respect to constitutional matters. In addition, the proposed act clears up the question of standing. The Court of Appeal or the Court of Queen's Bench may direct that any persons interested, or any one of a class of persons interested, be notified of the constitutional hearing and those persons are entitled to be heard. In addition, Mr.

Deputy Speaker, where any interest affected is not represented by counsel, either the Court of Appeal or the Court of Queen's Bench, as the case may be, may in its discretion request an appointment of counsel to argue the case and, in such event, reasonable expenses of such counsel are to be paid by the Minister of Finance. I commend this bill to the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MER CIER: Mr. Deputy Speak er, I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 35 - THE INTER NATIONAL COMME RCIAL ARBI TRATION ACT HON. R.

PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 35, The International Comm ercial Arbitration Act ,

Loi sur l'arbi trage commercial international, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney­ General. HON. R. PENNER: Mr. Deputy Speaker, this legislation will enable Canada to implement the Uni ted Nations

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, kno wn as the "New York Convention." That convention, Sir, was adopted by the United Nations Conference on international commercial arbitrations in 1958. As of January 1, 1986, 69 Sta tes were parties to the convention. Canada alone, of the industrialized states, is not a party. This legislation, together with similar legislation now being enacted by other provinces and by the Federal Government, will enable Canada to become a party to this convention.

The convention will enter into force for Canada 90 days after accession, and that involves filing with the U.N. documents indicating Canada's intention to be a party to the convention. In order to implement the convention, Sir, and to ensure tha t Ca nada can meet its international obligations upon accession, it is necessary for the provinces and territories to enact legisla tion to implement the convention with respect to property and civil rights in the provinces; that is, matters which fall by reasons of The Constitutional Act within provincial jurisdiction.

To date, the Federal Government, British Columbia, Saskatche wan, Nova Scotia, New Bruns wick, Newfoundland and the Yukon ha ve passed the legislation; Quebec, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories have reached at least Second Reading stage. So that by October it is anticipated, Sir, that all of the provinces and territories and the Federal Government will have passed this standard bill.

The New York Convention provides a means by which arbitral awards made in one state may be readily enforced in another. lt applies, Sir, to commercial matters. lt affects arbitral awards and arbitration agreements concluded before or after the coming into force of The Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention Act. At the present time, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, enforcing an arbitral award in Canada, in a common -law province, involves a tim e consuming process and, indeed, I'm advised that the same holds true in the civil law of the Province of Quebec. That process involves bringing an action before a court.

Under the New York Convention, recognition and enforcement of such awards is simplified. In essence, the y are recognized and enforced by the simp le expedience of filing them in a court of competent jurisdiction in which enforcement is sought. There are and still will be grounds for refusing to enforce an award which can be brought to the attention of a court such as improper notice of proceedings, legal incapacity of a party, and if it would be contrary to the public policy of the jurisdiction to enforce the award. These grounds are listed in

Article V of the New York Convention. As you well know, arbitration has many advantages over litigation and the resolution of commercial disputes, especially where they involve parties from different states. Canadian business persons will not be in a strong position to request arbitration agreements in their international contracts until they can assure their business partners that foreign arbitral awards will be readily recognized and enforced in Canada.

In this connection, I might note that this legislation has received the strong endorsation of the Canadian, Manitoba and Winnipeg Chambers of Commerce, and I commend it to the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Chairman, I move, seconded by the Member for Fort Garry, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 36 - THE REAL PROP ERTY ACT AND VARIOIUS OTHER ACTS AMENDMENT ACT HON. R. PENNER presented, by leave, Bill No. 36, The Real Property Act and Various Other Acts Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les biens reels et diverses autres lois, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney­ General. HON. R. PENNER: The proposed amendments to The Real Property Act and Various Other Acts Amendment Act are specifically technical in nature. In the main, they are an essential precondition to the introduction and implementation of a computerized and modernized system to replace an outdated land titles system. The proposed amendments will revise the terms and

definitions used throughout The Real Property Act and Various Other Acts Amendment Act in order to be consistent with computerization; for example, to allow for printouts for instruments and titles, to abolish the seal which cannot be used on computerized printouts, and provide for the technological acceptance of titles and data storage retrieval and recording by means of electronic media. Other of the proposed changes relate to and are in response to increasing volumes of land title business and some systems related to improvements designed to simplify forms and eliminate antiquated language used in parts of the existing act. For example, various amendments are proposed to the definition

section of The Real Property Act to make the present act, which is related to a manual paper handling system nearly a century old, consistent with a mixed manual and computer operation. Mo st of th ese amendments do not make any substantial change in the province's real property law. These amendments are extensive and, in the main, technical in nature, as I've said. Accordingly, rather than attempt to cover them all in these remarks, which would take one or two hours, I have had officials in the Land Titles Office prepare a

summary which I am now sending over. I've just sent it over to the Opposition, to the Opposition Critic, together with a copy of the Land Titles Office proposed instruction booklet for the proposed new forms and a booklet of the new forms which will be used following passage of this bill. These amendments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have been discussed with the Real Property Sect ion of the Manitoba Bar, the real property teachers at the Faculty of Law, the Western Bar Association, the Manitoba Mortgage Lenders Association; and many suggestions for ch ange made by th ese gr oups have been incorporated in the bill as drafted and presented. 1872

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 I commend this bill to the House. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Mem ber for St. Norbert. MR. G. MER CIER: Mr. Deputy Sp eak er, I move, seconded by the Member for Sturgeon Creek, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 41 - THE PRIVATE TRADE-SCHOOLS ACT HON. J. STORIE presented, by leave, Bill No. 41,

An Act to amend The Private Trade-Schools Act; Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ecoles de metiers privees, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. J. STORIE: I'm pleased to be able to provide some remarks on Second Reading of this bill. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it brings forward some timely amendments, both in terms of the experience that the Department of Education has had and perhaps individual members have had with respect to the activities of private trade schools in the Province of Manitoba over the recent past.

As I will be indicating in my remarks, it is also timely in that there have been significant changes over the last couple of years, in particular, with respect to the offerings available to individual Manitobans through private trade schools or what have been termed private trade schools. One of the things that I hope this bill will do, Mr. Deputy Sp eaker, is to provide some un ifor mity , some assuranc e to the consu mers of Manitoba, the consumers of courses offered by private vocational schools in a very direct, concrete, and understandable way. Mr.

Deputy Speak er, this act allows the government, among other things, to monitor the operations of private trade schools in the province. lt ensures that course fees are reasonable, and that qualified instructors offer quality training and adequate security to students enrolled in private trade schools. We are proposing, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a revised act, because the existing act is approximately 50 years old. The existing act is very limited in scope. There is a great deal of ambiguity in the current wording, which makes it unclear as to whether a particular school is covered by the act.

Moreover, discussions with the Atto rney-General have ind icated that, in many instances, they would have difficulty supporting the department's application of the act because of the vagueness of the wording. So part of the intent in redrafting and providing these amendments is to make more clear those sections which have been reviewed, and have been cause for concern over the intervening years. Additionally the act, currently at least, does not lend itself to easy application or interpretat ion.

Many small businesspeople are frustrated by what they perceive to be excessive bureaucracy and uncertainty as to the scope of the act. Also, with the emergence of the Canadian Job St rategy, we anticipate that there will be a significant increase in the number of private companies offering training over the next few years.

The limited scope of the current act makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for the department to require these new operators to adhere to the legislation. lt makes it equally difficult, I suppose, for students, those enrolling in private training courses, to be assured of the quality of the instruction; to be assured of the security of their investment; to be assured that any time, effort and money that they put into a course is going to end in gainful employment. The proposed new act, Mr. Deputy Speak er, contains changes to remove most of these problems.

The new act clarifies and expands the scope of the act to ensure that all schools offering training leading to employment are covered. A major change is the clarification of "vocation," as the present wording tends to restrict the act to trades training, as opposed to vocational training. A second change, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is a reduction in the need for ministerial approval, in many cases. The new act tends towards a monitoring role by the department and its staff, which should allow for quicker response time in dealing with requirements of the act, as well as removing some of the current restraints.

The new act ensures a higher quality of training is offered by private trade schools, through improved regulations for monitoring of schools. Fourthly, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the new act provides for improvement in the level of instructor training. The present act is inadequate in this respect, and the concern obviously is that, when there is a contract for training, implied or otherwise, both the quality of the material, the timing, and the quality of the instruction be of such quality that an individual can be assured that the end result again will be both satisfactory training and gainful employment.

Fifth ly, the new act clarifies the Minister's authority to exclude certain schools from the act, where desirable. As members may know, there are other professions, other bodies which operate under terms enacted in this Legislature, which traditionally and I believe logically should be excluded. Provisions are provided in the act to allow the Minister of Education that latitude. Finally, and perhaps of most importance, Mr.

Deputy Speak er, the new act provides for greater student protection through the clarification of regulations for the establishment of schools, the bonding of instructors, and stronger instructor qualification requirements. In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the new act is being amended so that The Private Trade School Act is up-to-date; that it reflects much more realistically the realities of today, the expectations of parents, the expectations of students. We believe that the amended act will meet the requirements and ensure that Manitoba students receive quality vocational training.

Those are my remarks, Madam Speaker. I understand that my colleague from Fort Garry would like a copy of my remarks, and I will make those available to him now. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, a question for clarification, I note in the definition, there would appear to be an 1873

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 expansion of the definition of what a private vocational school is. lt seems to have broadened the net as to what is being caught by the new definition. I can appreciate that the thrust is to try and deal with those courses of training that deal with the technical training of an individual, in other words, what is needed that you have to take before you can get a job.

The question I pose to the Minister for clarification is whether or not those types of courses that one takes while in a job, such as a real estate agent or a life insurance agent must take to continually upgrade themselves for professional development, is it the intention that type of training, skills, and programs be included in this bill or is it to be excluded? HON. J. STORIE: Madam Speaker, there are two aspects to the question raised by the Mem ber for Fort Garry.

One is, and I believe I said in my remarks, that there is an intention to exempt those bodies which operate private vocational schools which operate under legislation, the Manitoba Chartered Accountants or the Canadian Chartered Accountants. I'm not sure if I've got the title right, but those that operate under acts of the Legislature. Secondly, I can give the member assurance that there is no intention to monitor or register those training comp onents operated by a com pany for its own employees. I believe that was the question being asked. MR. c.

BI RT: The only question that the Minister didn't answer is whether or not the pr ofess ional or paraprofessionals, such as com puter programmers - they are not covered, I believe, by any particular statute which would be exempted according to the Minister, and it might entail more than some employees for one company. In other words, you might get a group organization of com puter programmer s offering upgrading courses for themselves. Is it the intention that they would be exempted as well? I would think they would be, but I just would like clarification. HON. J.

STORIE: Madam Speaker, I'm not clear on the member's questions. I believe the intention is that, if a course is being offered for which there is payment, the individual taking such a course is not an employee. But if you're suggesting a scenario where three or four companies get togeth er, their employees are taking training for their own particular purposes but there is no course, no contract between student and vocational school, then those would be exempt. I assume that's the kind of thing.

There is no intention that employees, who are not of their own volition and with their own resources taking training, be covered. MR. C. BIRT: I move, seconded by the Member for St. Norbert, that debate on this bill be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. ADJOURNED DEB ATE ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 4 - THE FAMILY FARM PROTECTION ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Agriculture, Bill No. 4, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Emerson. MR. A. DRIEDGER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am pleased that I can enter into the debate on this particular bill.

I had hoped, when the bill was introduced, that possibly it could be one bill that the present Minister of Agriculture could be introducing from time to time that I could sort of sympathize with and feel comfortable with. But unfortunately, that is not the case, lt is my intention to oppose, along with my colleagues, this bill, and I want to give some reasons for that kind of a position. What I find most interesting and frustrating, I suppose, with the Minister is that this seems to have been an election promise and sort of a reaction to some of the problems in the farm communit y.

He feels that, by bringing in this kind of legislation, he is solving the problem for the agricultural communit y. As has happened in the past with this Minister, once he brings in the bill, the reaction starts and he finally realizes - and I think he will again in this case - and must be realizing now that this bill is not a popular bill. it's not popular with the lending institutions, and it's not popular with the farm communit y. Sometimes as happens with these bills, it takes a little while until sort of the feedback gets to the people and they understand what it's all about, realize the implications of it.

Then the reaction starts. I'm sure that this Mi nister of Agriculture must already be getting that kind of reaction. We were just discussing this before lunch. This Minister's been here for a long time. I think he's from the class of '69 or something like that. I would think that possibly he should have a better grasp and perception of what is required in the farm communit y, instead of always working on the knee-jerk reaction to some kind of a problem. That's basically what he's doing and he's done this before, Madam Speaker.

He did that with The Farm Lands Protection Act, and he's come up with another dandy again. Well I shouldn't call it "dandy"; I think it's a frustrating bill. Initial ly, Madam Speaker, our caucus took some time dealing with this, and our very capabl e Critic of Agriculture, the Member for Virden, spent quite a lot of time agonizing over this bill, looking at the implications, what was the pu rpose of it and what it would do. Ultimately, we had various discussions in our caucus about it. I know there was some concern by the media to some degree, indicating why we did not come out with our response sooner.

Well I think most of us that represent rural areas wanted to make very sure that there was something in there that we could support, and I think the Member for Virden indicated the various problems we had with the bill. I found it most interesting the other day, after the Member for Lakeside had spoken to the bill, the Member for St. James in his usual fashion got up and started wailing about his knowledge of the whole affair and fed-bashing involved in this and protect ion. What I found most interesting was his position about the Conservative caucus protecting their backs.

That's sort of a normal reaction that I expect from the Member for St. James. I find that ludicrous really, you know, 1874

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 the kind of approach he used on the whole thing without really knowing what it was about. But I think after the tongue-lashing that the Minister of Agriculture got from the Mem ber for Lakeside, a reaction had to come from somebo dy, and the Mem ber for St. James is very popular in doing that. Madam Speaker, I've had the opportunity to farm pretty well all of my life, with the exception of two years when I lived in the city. When I started off farming, it was in pretty tough times.

I come from a family of seven and I was the second-oldest, the oldest boy in the family, and things were pretty tough. To get into the farm business at that time was a major undertaking. Anyway I was fortunate enough, after I had worked in the city for a few years, to go back and work an arrangement with my dad in terms of setting up an expanded dairy operation. The one thing at that time, credit was tough. lt was hard to get somebody to borrow money for building of a big barn, buying the additional cattle. What we did at that time, Madam Speaker, we went to the banker.

We needed financial commitments or borrowings, pretty substantial. We went to the local ban ker, explained the situation as a father and son to him, had a good discussion, and he helped us with our planning to some degree, and we started farming. In subsequent years, it worked well. When we had difficulties from time to time, we could go back and explain the situation, and always got a good reception. I want to re-emphasize, Madam Speaker, I am not talking in defence of the banks, because they can look after themselves. When I borrow money from them or anybody else, they expect it to be paid back.

They tell you beforehand what the interest rates are going to be and, given circumstances are normal, it happens that way. Later on, we ran into some financial difficulties because we went into an expanded beef program, and our capital requirements were substantial. This was at the time when the Government of the Day had said, we'd never catch up with the beef industry. So we jumped, based on that information, and we ended up with approxima tely 300 breeding cows. Our investment was substantial and most of it was borrowed money. Then the market crashed, and we were caught in dire straits.

I suppose, if the same circumstances would have applied tod ay, possibly the bank would have foreclosed on us. I don't know. However what did at that time - my dad had now retired from the business, I was in it with my broth er. We went back to the banker and said, give us some rope. Give us a chance; let us work this out. We'll liquidate some assets. Anyway, Madam Speaker, we ma naged to work out an arrangement and, su bsequently , mana ged to stay in busine ss and continued our farming practice.

Why I raise that, Madam Speaker, is just to illustrate that, at the present time, the one thing I have found, if you have financial difficulties, even if you have financial difficulties where you've borrowed from one of your suppliers either for fertilizer, fuel, stuff of that nature, if you go back and you communicate and talk to the people, explain the circumstances, your desire to try and do your best, in most cases they will give you the opportunity to work your way out of it.

What bothers me is when we have to come forward with legislation, as this Minister has now done, and feels that we're going to legislate goodwill with the banks and with the credit unions and with the suppliers. Well exactly the opposite is going to happen. I read an article, and I'm sure that the Agriculture Minister must get to read The Cooperator as well. The one dated July 10 indicated where the banks are sort of putting their position forward. As I say, I think it is appropriate that we should address that, because I have always had a good working relationship with the bank.

Madam Speaker, I've always owed them money, and I've always tried to pay my payments as well as my interest. But the people from the banking institution have indicated here: "lt is a common practice now, where cooperation is received by our clients and where the faintest glimmer of hope of survival exists to waive principal payments in their entirety for a year at a time and/or suspend interest payments indefinitely in order to accommodate the situati on." This is a banker speaking on how they're trying to address the problem of farm financial difficulties.

On other occasions it indicates: "We have actually set aside loans, charging no interest or princi pal payments in the hopes of some recovery of the overall situation if the obligations to the bank were removed.

We have done this on a voluntary basis, and the emphasis here is on the word 'voluntary.' lt has been a negotiated settlement where the Royal Bank, in this case, continues to deal with the client in a pre-arranged way that is mutually satisfactory to both sides, in lieu of the consequences which would be disastrous." We have a prime example of exactly what the Minister, I suppose, is trying to do with the bill and forcing somebody to do that. The moment you try and force borrowing institutions to do this kind of thing, they'll react negatively, and that's exactly what's happening.

I know that the Minister of Agriculture is already getting pressure from the credit unions. I don't know what he considers pressure from the banks, but certainly they have major concerns about something like this. Not only that, Madam Speaker, there are many farmers who are in financial difficulty right now who look at this bill and have said to me personally, and I met with some in the Legislature that said, this is not solving the problem. There must be other ways to solve the dilemma of the agricultural community, the financial straits they're in.

But this kind of legislation certainly is not the answer, and I think the Minister realizes that. lt's window dressing. Basically it's, as I indicated before, a reaction to a promise made that sounded good during the election. The Minister must be wincing inside, with the kind of response that he's getting. Mind you, he's got a pretty thick skin, Madam Speaker. I have realized that over the years. They can jump on him pretty hard, and he still goes on in his one-track mind. But I just wanted to illustrate some of the problems that are developing because of this bill. I want to continue on this

article and I feel that, especially after the Member for St. James said we were supporting the banks, I'd still like to put some of these concerns on here. The banker in this particular case is talking about the pending legislation which was not finalized yet. He makes reference: "Should this be the case, subject to the Manitoba Farm Financial Review Panel's decision, it is also possible that, in addition to 1875

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 disallowing lenders the right to foreclose, farmers may also have their contracts adjusted in a court of law. Admittedly, this is the worst scenario. However, we have been led to believe nothing else and, until further clarification has been provided, the bank should gear itself to expect the worst. "Should the aforementioned legislation take place, a number of reactions by lenders and trade creditors are likely to occur, both in the short run and longer term.

In the short run, federally chartered banks would likely try to test the legislation in a court of law." I don't know whether the Mini ster has thought of th at, especially in view of the fact that we now have federal legislation in place which basically solves the problem that the farmers were looking at. They are happy with that. They know that they will not get the kind of reaction that I'm going to be illustrating in here a little further. "In the short-run ...

" - you see, Madam Speaker, they indicate here that, if the federal banks take this to court, it might be as long as two years before this will be resolved. What the Minister is going to do in the interim about the problems, I'm not quite sure. "In the long run," it says, "more serious implications exist in agriculture for those who continue to farm in this provi nce and form the large sil ent ma jor ity.

Unquestionabl y, increased premiums over prime will be charged to offset the additional losses expected as a result of the legisla tion." That is what every one of our speakers has already indicated , and I want to repeat that. "I ncreased premiums over prime will be charged to offset the additional losses expected as a result of this legislation.

This will be especially true with those accounts where the financial sta bili ty is any thing less than totally desirable. lt will also be increasingly more difficult to obtain credit, as no lending institution will want to place itself at any risk of having to contemplate foreclosure, much less expose themselves to the legislation and the resulting possibility of curtailment of seizure of assets and rewriting of contracts.

"Margin requirements will increase substantially and, in case of mortgages where a double impact takes place, we refer you to The Manitoba Farm Lands Ownership Act. lt will be necessary for loans to be margined at no more than 60 percent of the purchase price or the appraised value, whichever is less, rather than the 75 percent which is allowable under The Bank Act." That is sort of the long and short of it, Madam Speaker.

The Minister denies that there's going to be any impact on the general farm communit y, and we have the banking people indicating right here that they will be wanting more interest and that they will require more equity to finance any operations. lt also indicates here: "This would have the impact of further reducing farm land prices, which will in turn further agg ravate an already serious land asset value situati on." Now, Madam Speaker, if I came up with these kinds of statements, you know, everybody would say, well what does he know about it.

But these are the people that are actually going to be involved directly, the lending institutions that are making these kinds of statements. The Min ister of Agriculture fails to accept that statement. As I indicated before, he sometimes has a hearing problem and, if he hears, maybe he has an impa ct problem, because certainly these are very serious statements that are made. He's looking at helping possibly - I don't know what the percentage is. I think some of my colleagues indicated the percentage of the people that would be helped.

But what's going to be the result of this thing is that every farmer is going to be paid substantially more. If this Minister thinks that he can take the banks to task, he's sadly mistaken. Madam Speaker, they are a big operation. The banks will always look after themselves. They need nobody else to look after them. I can't foresee us doing any harm to the banks. Madam Speaker, we can legislate all we want. If they feel that they cannot make money at this, whatever they're borrowing on, let's say in the farm communit y, they just won't borrow the mon ey.

If they do, it would be at such an int erest rate that they still make money. So where does this Minister get off feeling that he is going to be helping the farmers in financial trouble? Further on in this

article here, it indicates: "The Royal Bank feels that there are still some positive alternatives that would serve Ma nitoba better than bl anket legislation or, if you will, the shotgun approach. We would much rather prefer to use a rifle, and address those issues and specifics or those farmers that are in financial difficulty.

The use of Farm Financial Review Panels is an acceptable one to us, provided that they become a real player in the situation rather than an adjudicator that takes no responsibility monetarily for any actions that they may impose on either party." Madam Speaker, they make some suggestions here. "With this in mind, it is our suggestion that Farm Financial Review Panels be empowered with authority to either lend directly into the situation or to the guarantee loan or to guarantee loans for other lenders.

Moreover, the bank is prepared to voluntarily set aside loans in an appropriate amount, provided that the government is prepared to guarantee the amount of this set-aside, should it be desirable as determined by a Farm Financial Review Panel to sustain the farming operation by this method." Now, Madam Speaker, that is a suggestion that I would certainly endorse, because there used to be a time - and I indicated before, when I started into farming, the financial difficulties we had.

We had a Farm - what was it called? - the Farm Improvement Loan, which was guaranteed by government, and the banks felt very comfortable using that approach. They looked at the program that the farmer presented, and made the loan under The Farm Improvement Loan Act. lt was guaranteed by government. lt worked well, but that is not being used anymore. But this is what the banks thems elves are suggesting would be a proper approach, instead of using what we have.

"The emphasis on this type of action, by necessity, must be on a voluntary basis between the lender, the farmer and the Farm Review Panel, rather than imposed by way of legislation." That is where the reaction comes from the people, and it's been slow coming, Madam Speaker, but it is coming. This is not a good bill. lt is going to aggravate a situation between many friendly lenders.

Madam Speaker, I'm not saying there isn't the odd banker who possibly has a bit of a hard hand, but the majority of them, in their self-interest and the interests of the banks, are prepared to discuss these things and they have outlined this very specifically here. Why this Minister is not prepared to take them back off and consult with them rather than take an 1876

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 aggravated situation that is going to be unhealthy for both the farmer and the lender, I can't understand. That is why, in my opening remarks, I indicated, Madam Speaker, that it's a knee-jerk reaction type of legislation that he is bringing forward. He's done this in the past. And when the pressure starts coming down from the general public, from the people affected, why he will not then reconsider his position, I cannot understand. We have the same thing with this very same Minister. In May of this year, he turned down the Tripartite Beef Stabil ization Program.

He did it at a time when he had not probably done his research properly. He did not foresee what was happening in the future, and as a result now the cycle has turned again and there is a lot of pressure to change his position in that regard. Invariably, this Minister always ends up in trouble where he starts off with something and he has to reverse his position. I just hope, not for the sake of a political victory, Madam Speaker, but for the sake of the farmers, that the Minister will reconsider his position because it is a very sensitive one out there and it's just starting to boil.

I can indicate to you, Madam Speak er, that this bill will be getting a lot of attention before it's going to be pass ed in Second Reading because many of my colleagues have major concerns that they want to express, and even if we have to repeat them many times, maybe eventually this Minister will start to listen to some of the concerns. I just want to continue with some of the articles in here.

Making reference to the panels and the kind of suggestions tha t they have come forward with, it indicates it allows for involvement of government in a real way even if it is determined that the guarantee method be used rather than direct lending and hence government leverage of its limited funds would be considerable. The government would not have to put out the bucks if they worked on the guarantee system. As a result, you'd be helping many of the people who are looking right now to try and sort of amalgamate their loans, be able to refinance, set up on a situation and redevelop their program.

That would be the route to both. Instead, the Minister comes up and he says we'll have Farm Start, Farm Aid. He's going to pump millions of dollars into there. In many cases, it's going to be operations that cannot be saved anyway. I think the farmers are the first ones to realize that they can't all be saved. You can't save all the businesses, you can't save all the marriages, you can't save all the farms no matter how much legislation you pass, and that is a thing that I think we have to accept here.

I hope that the Minister would accept that. lt indicates here that it is politically acceptable to the vast majority of farmers who are not in financial difficulty and can perceive that the proposed legislation will cost them significantly more. That's the final statement on the

article that it was quoting from. Madam Speaker, I don't know. We've had many ti mes legislation being presented by various Ministers, and then they've gone out and they've gotten a reaction from the people. They try and meet with various groups. I don't know whether any of our colleagues can indicate that this Minis ter, before presenting this kind of legislation, met with various farm groups, people who would be affected and explain what would happen.

If the Minister has met with these groups, I'd certainly like to know who he met with and how he explained this situation, but I suspect that this has not been the case, that this Minister has come up with a poor judgment again. Madam Speaker, I hope that as long as we keep debating this bill here and bringing forward the concerns of the farm people that we all represent, that finally this Minister will take and swallow some of his pride maybe and maybe consider the fact that there is federal legislation in place. He's getting himself into a box with dual legislation.

Which one is going to have the authority: the federal or the provincial legislation? He's got himself into a jackpot where he himself does not really know what is going to happen. I don't think he's got the legal advice at this stage yet to indicate where his position is with his bill, and I would suggest to this Minister that he quietly withdraw this bill, swallow some of his pride, indicate his support for the federal position and then there would be no problems. Thank you, Madam Speaker. MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR. C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur, that debate on this matter be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. MADAM SPEAKER : The Honourable Leader of the Opposition on a point of order. MR. G. FILMON: Madam Speaker, I understand that in my absence from the House the Minister of Education introduced for Second Reading Bill 41,

An Act to amend The Private Trade-Schools Act. In view of the fact that my family and I have a direct pecuniary interest in a private trade school known as Success/ Angus Business College, which I understand will be regulated by this particular piece of legislation, I want to inform members of the House that I will not be participating in any discussion or deliberation with respect to the bill and will absent myself from such discussion and any vote that takes place on that bill. MADAM SPEAKER: I'm not sure whether that was a point or order, but .

BILL NO. 5 - THE TRADE PRACTICES INQUIR Y ACT MADAM SPEAKER : On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Labour, Bill No. 5, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Riel. MR. G. DUCHARME: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I'll be brief. it's a pleasure to rise on this bill on the Trade Practices Inqu iry Act. Our leader, on Friday last , gave the Opposition's views and their viewpoints and did it well. 1877

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 I also personally have problems with this bill, and I'll use the words of the Honour able Min ister who introduced it - I believe the honourable member does a disservice to the Manitobans - it seems to be a word that he uses every other day. This government, and I can understand their problem, their sensitivity, about its inlibility to carry out a First Minister's statement during a campaign and, very specifically, a promise to reduce the price of gasoline by I believe 9.5 cents a litre. The government , however, cannot make the promise go away.

The Premier was quite specific on the subject and received considerable publicity because of it, and many people listened to him with regard to this statement when it's coming from a First Minister. My concerns at this point are not to defend the oil com panies; they can take care of themselves. However, because of this type of legislation, and the people's concerns seem to be focusing on the oil industry, I cannot avoid using them as my example. Any research I have done in the last couple of days has stressed the oil companies.

However, this bill is being used, I believe, Madam Speaker, as a sledge in affecting the marketplace, using a sledge where I believe a hammer will do. As admitted by the Minister, he has the power to do this under the existing bill. He has the power to do it with the four people coming forward to ask the inquiry and I think this power is as strong as he would require.

One of the questions I'll ask is: Even with its own purchasing, the Province of Manitoba, on $125 million that they do each year, will they not have a conflict in probably controlling the prices of the purchases that they obtai ned during the course of the year? A similar type of legislation, Madam Speaker, was proclaimed in Nova Scotia in 19 34. lt was replaced by a similar bill in 19 50. This particular bill has many, many problems. lt does not give the incentive to lower the prices. Individuals do not know when the marketplace changes.

The area in gas prices has stayed very constant in Nova Scotia; however, consistently high. That was specified in an

article in the Sun on April 26 after the Minister had been giving a press conference on what he was going to do in regard to the report that was ordered. In that article, it mentioned that Halifax was one of the highest at the time at 50. 1 cents a litre and our own in Winnipeg was 45.4. Some of the problems in Nova Scotia that they've been having problems with in this legislation - and theirs is a little broader than ours. lt controls when they open; it controls the days; it controls the square footage of filling stations; it goes on and on and on.

I won't get into it at this point, but they're finding that the gasoline problems, the maximum margin has become fixed. Consumers definitely pay higher prices over that certain period of time. Marginal dealers, they survive, and they survive by cutting service and hours, and they do so. Little incentive for price differential, based on service. They have found that a smaller dealer cannot offer the extra service, even if customers are willing to pay.

Some promotions, for instance, that are offered across Canada that seem to be part of the oil industry, and probably of many, many other industries are withheld from that particular area. They're not allowed. Consu mers lose some value in th at particular marketplace. lt protects the in efficient and the ineffective people. Wholesalers depend on retailer viability for success. Little downward pressure at the retail level, and why would they? Wholesalers are hesitant to move downward.

A recent report also mentions that while Montreal and Ottawa showed substantial price variations, in Halifax, would you believe that 96.5 percent of the retailers, 137 of the 142, were at the same price. The remaining five stations priced marginally below the market. Halifax probably in there, realize it really is a one-price town. The report also noted that almost all dealers in the Hal ifax area, that same 96 percent, charged the maximum price permitted by the Public Utilities Board with retail margins at approximately 3.9 cents per litre.

In contrast, at the time of the report, average retail margins in Toronto were below the 3 cents per litre. In a paper delivered to the Halifax Board of Trade in 19 79, and this paper was delivered by a former member who sat on the Public Utilities Board, by the name of Mr. J. L. Kirby. After sitting on the board and seeing the damaging effects of this particular legislation, he strongly advocated deregulation, based on his experience. Mr. Kirby concluded in his statement and is as follows, and it's right to the point, very clear.

"Two major studies, the Renouf and Dalhousie Reports, have concluded that Nova Scotia's unique regulatory system leads to significant insufficiency in the marketing of gasoline inefficiences, which lead to a redistributin of income from tens of thousands of consumers to a few hundred dealers.

"In addition, regulation restricts the range of choices open to customers, in terms of type of facility from which they can get gas and it afford the dealers a degree of protection given to no other segment of the retail industry in the provinc e." Madam Speaker, I emphasize, I use the oil industry as an example, not to stick up for the oil industries. I use that because it seems to be the one that the most research has gone through in the last couple of years that have been carried out by the Federal Government on the many, many means and regulations put forward.

All I say to the Minister is McDonald's, watch out. This is a typical Socialist-type of bill. When you can't govern by simple regulation and you can't buy them, then you govern it to death. I will have more questions when it gets to the committee level, after the public realizes the seriousness of such legislation, controlling the marketplace, and as previously mentioned by the member earlier in his speech, when the public is aware. A lot of the public aren't even aware we're sitting here, so how can they be aware of these bills until they come forward and it's told to the public?

I, like my leader, and our members will not support it.

I will not allow myself to be part of establishing a broad-brush approach to a bill, without looking &t alternatives, just to save the embarrassment of the First Minister's ridiculous statements, and to show how ridiculous that statement was, a month later, in April after the election - and this is coming from a lawyer - quote in The Sun, Winnipeg, April 16 , 1986: "I think it (the Act) needs more teeth so that we can avoid the legal challenges that might take place." Why did the Minister not think of this before he made such a statement during the election period? 1878

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 Another political statement that was made was the Minister of Finance with the idea of setting up gas pumps in the 12 cities in Manitoba. The only thing they would have effect on would be to compete with the small business dealers. I can hardly wait for the reaction on the next increases, for instance, on the coffee from Brazil. Will the Minister then become involved and maybe take up the act of storing the coffee in freezers, the same as he wanted to do with the gas pumps?

This government has several alternatives that will probably be discus sed at the time of comm ittee and also at the third reading and I will leave them till then. This is a short bill, however a very dangerous bill and, I repeat, "dangerous." The presence of this bill that will affect, as previously mentioned, a now existing deteriorating relationship between this government and the very concerned independe nt busi ness in this province today. I look forward to the continuous discussions at committee and at third reading. I thank you for this opportun ity. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Garry. MR.

C. BIRT: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the Member for Arthur, that debate on this bill be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL 11 - THE PLANNING ACT MADAM SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill No. 11, standing in the name of the Honourable Memb er for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to make a few comments on Bill No. 11, Madam Speaker. One has to appreci ate that it is a fairly extensive number of changes that the Minister is proposing.

The first question I would have to ask of the Minister, in view of the fact that he has not been in that department for very many weeks or months, if he has taken a very careful look at it, as a Minister, as a policy maker, to make sure that he is in full agreement with what the bureaucracy has brought forward.

I don't think, Madam Speaker, that in the short period of time that the Minister of Municip al Affairs has sat in that capacity as Min ister , that he has ha d an opportunity to look at the department, look at The Planning Act, and say all these things are wrong with it or all these things are right with it, and I'm going to produce for the Legislative Assembly for this Session a massive change to the legislation in The Planning Act.

I ask him those questions because it's my concern, Madam Speak er, and it has been a concern with planning from Day One, that what we are basically doing is taking some of the decision-making away from those individuals who are elected at the local municipal level and putting it in the hands of the bureaucracy and out of the reach of those people who are elected to look after local community affairs. lt's been a concern of mine from Day One; it continues to be a concern, Madam Speaker, and I want to talk just briefly about that because I think when people are elected to the local municipal council as reeves, as councillors, as mayors, as alder people, they in fact have a major responsibil ity.

Yes, Madam Speaker, I believe they need guidelines, but there is no point of putting guidelines in a democratic system; putting people in place, giving them guidelines, giving them the opportunity or the responsibility of carrying out that job, and then bringing in a whole list of bureaucratic regulations that stops them from making the decisions that are in the best interests of the economics of the lifestyle of those communities that they're representing. I'm going to give you an example in a few minutes of an experience that I have had when I was a Minister and some of the problems that can develop.

As well, in talking to some my colleagues, it has been pointed out, and the Minister has it in his notes of explanation, that he is removing the ability for one municipality to form a planning district. There's no longer an opportunity for one municipality to do that. Well, Madam Speaker, the reasoning for that is that no municipality has requested it up to this particular point. Now is that a substantial reason to make the change, because it hasn't happened up to this point? I think, Madam Speaker, the Minister should rethink this.

I would hope that he would check with the different municipal authorities to make sure that they are truly supportive of what he is doing. Another area of concern that has been brought to my attention or that I want to point out is that they are removing the responsibility of the Municipal Board from having to consult with municipalities affected, to give the Municipal Board the discretion as to whether or not they want to.

You know, for a government that has been making a lot of noise about this great consult ative pr ocess and gr eat agreement with everybody and making sure everything was in proper discussion or had been properly discussed, why would the Minister of Municipal Affairs proceed to take that out of The Planning Act? I don't think, Madam Speaker, that there is any pressing need to take out the necessity to consult with municipalities. That is a principle, and that's what we're debating on Second Reading is more the principle than the specifics.

Again, for a government that is so high on their own record or pretend to be so high on the record of consultation, why would they remove that very important element from this piece of legislation? I would ask the Minister to be prepared to respond. I think that, when he's introducing such a massive piece of legislation, he would have done a little bit better in giving us a clarifying statement in this regard. The major question though is the one of removing the authority or some of the responsibility from local councils.

Why not leave with them the maximum ability to make the decisions for the people that they're elected to represent within their jurisdiction? I know the Minister of No rthern Affairs and I'm sure the Mi nister of Municipal Affairs doesn't want the Federal Government imposing on their responsibilities. I don't think they want them getting involved in the jurisdiction which is the provincial jurisdiction. I'm sure they don't. So why would they want the imposition on local municipal councils when it comes to the jurisdiction which they 1879

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 are elected to represent? I think, Madam Speaker, the whole question of the municipal planning, the whole question of municipal authority has to be looked at and looked at carefully. I'm sure, as I said earlier in my opening remarks, that the Minister of Municipal Affairs hasn't had the opportunity since the 18 th of March to get a compl ete handle on what the bureaucracy is presenting him to present to this House to impose on the people of Manitoba.

I can tell you, Madam Speak er, that I am certainly going to have some reservations, because of the magnitude of the changes that he's proposing, and not going to give him a blanket endorsement here to go to comm ittee with. There is going to be a lot more discussion take place with the municipal councils and with the Union of Municipalities. I'll tell you why. I said earlier in my comments that I would relate a specific experience that I had when I was the Minister of Agriculture.

I also want to talk briefly about, when it's in the Provincial Government's interest and when it's got economic benefits to the NDP and their government, how quickly certain decisions can be made. Madam Speaker, when I was a Minister of Agriculture, The Planning Act was in place to protect farm land and to make sure that there wasn't an abuse of rural Manitoba. If you were going to build something, you had to go through the steps. Well, Madam Speaker , the Mem ber for Rhineland came to visit me one time, my colleague from Rhineland, in my office. He said, Mr.

Minister, there seems to be a problem with your department and The Planning Act. I asked him to explain what it was, and the situation was this. There were three small communities in his constituency that were deciding in which community to build the school. There was going to be a new school built, and they were having some disagreement as to which town would get that school. 1t was a political problem for him, but it was a problem for those people because they felt that, when a school was built in their community, it meant the long-term viability of that community, and they were somewhat correct.

Each one of them had the responsibility to make sure that the economic viability was there, that the school was there, and the traffic was there. So they did come up with what most reasonable people will do in small towns and rural commun ities in Manitoba. They decided on a comprom ise. They would build it appr oximately equidistant between the three communities, which to me ma de a pr etty reasonable and sound recommendation, and one I was able to accept. But you know what happened? Under The Planning Act, Madam Speaker, the Department of Agriculture said, you can't do that.

You can't build a school in the middle of thr ee commun ities to serve th ose communities. I said to them, why. Well we were going to use agricultural land to build a school on, Madam Speaker. What do they think they were going to build it on if they were building it close to one of the other communities? it's all pretty productive land, even though it's in the town limits, whether it be for gardening or whatever it be for that commun ity. But it was going to, in fact, use a small acreage of agricultural land for the education of our children.

Madam Speaker, it didn't take me two minutes to make the decision that the Department of Agriculture was in error in prohibiting those three communities from agreeing on building a school that would accommodate the education, accommodate all their feelings in support of that school, and assist the Member for Rhineland. lt wasn't a political decision, Madam Speaker. lt was a common-sense decision. When we have legislation on the books in the Manitoba Legislature that prohibits common sense from being carried out by local elected officials, then we have to look pretty darned hard at it, Madam Speaker.

I'm not satisfied that this Minister of Municipal Affairs to this point has taken a look at it. I'm not so sure, if he did look at it, how much common sense would be applied, but I'm not so sure that he's even looked at it. So I would ask that the Minister give pretty serious consideration to the changes that I have talked about, Madam Speaker. I would ask that he not let the bureaucracy run him and the department; that a major review to ma ke sure that the ob jectives of the department or the people of Manitoba are being carried out under their duly elected municipal officials.

Too much regulation, too much intervention can only cause a lot of problems. Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, as I said on the record the other day, it doesn't take this government long to appr ove the drilling of an oil well on a piece of valuable farm land, because there's going to be revenue come from it. lt doesn't take them long to flood another acre of the northern part of Manitoba, if it means a political benefit and what they perceive as a benefit in hydro development. lt doesn't take them long to disregard the needs of the Native commun ities that are going to be flooded out.

You see, they've got a double set of standards, Madam Speaker, so I don't care what piece of legislation they've passed. We have to watch it very carefully and scrutin ize it, because it always hasn't been and never always will be, under them, in the best interests of Manitoba. So, Madam Speaker, those are my comments, and I will reserve the further comments till we get to commit tee. MADAM SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Ste. Rose. MR. G. CUMMINGS: Madam Speaker, my comments regarding this bill will be very short, but I have one specific area that I'd like to bring to the Minister's attention.

That is the area that was alluded to by my colleague a minute ago. I would like to give an example of where I believe that this may cause some problems with the changing in the regulations as he has outlined them, the changing of the opportunity for a single municipality to become part of a planning organization or implement a planning act of their own. I would give an example, in the community at the south end of my constituenc y where two rural municipalities and one larger town were in a planning act, and were preparing to put in force their zoning by-laws.

At that point, as the Minister I'm sure is well aware, was when concerns became very apparent on the part of the rural municipalities. That is where the concerns were laid out regarding the problems that 1880

Wednesday, 16 July, 1986 people in the outlying parts of the municipalities had in being attached to the larger town in terms of the planning act. lt's my unders tanding, as was stated in the explanatory remarks, that the bureaucracy has been able to, and I assume, through the approval of the Min ister, the bureaucracy has been able to not put any single municipality planning districts in place at this point and has not allowed them to go that route. There may reasons of cost that I'm sure enter into the equation. My concern is, very simply, that there are communities out there of substance that are expanding.

You can look at the communities of 3,000 to 4,000 population where they need planning; where they need the opportunity to implement zoning by-laws. Yet, if they are encumbered by the fact that some of the areas surrounding them may, in fact, be not at any particular stage of development yet and are not concerned with being restricted to a great extent that, in fact, we are doing a disservice to the communities that are caught in this position.

First of all, in order to accommodate some of the concerns that may be part of the rural or outlying areas surrounding the communities, the zoning by-laws may have to be watered down considerably.

This in itself should give the department some concern when they considered changing this particular regulation. it seems to me that if we left this particular part of the act intact and all owed some discret ion on the part of the department, I think there are cases that are probably in the works right now where some discretion can be used and the planning process in the rural parts of Manitoba could go forward more smooth ly.

We can look at the area to the west of my constituency and the constit uency of Minnedosa, where there are mun icipaliti es surr ounding the town - which will probably be in a growth situation in the next few years - who are going to have to go through a considerable amount of discussion before a complete area can be planned.

If I could look at the experiences of some of the other towns where they have gone through a considerable amount of uncontrolled development around their fringes prior to planning and zoning being put in place, I suggest that some of that problem may have been brought about by the fact that they needed an agreement with the surrounding municipalities in order to implement that. I would encourage the Minister to take a second look