Manitoba Hansard — 6 July 1983 (Sitting 101, 32nd Legislature, 2nd Session)

32-2-101

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

ISSN 0542-5492 Second Session'- Thirty-Second legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 31-32 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Walding Speaker VOL. XXXI No. 101 - 2:00 p.m., WEDNE SDAY, 6 JULY, 1983. Printed by the Office of the Quee ns Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTE TT, Andy ASHTON, Steve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, Da vid R. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKL ASCHUK, Ho n. John M. CARRO LL, Q.C., Henry N. CORRIN, Brian COWAN, Ho n. Jay DESJARDINS, Ho n. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOERN, Ru ssell DOLIN, Ho n. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DRIEDGER, Al bert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Ho n. Leonard S. EYLER, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOURLAY, D.M. (Doug) GRAHAM, Ha rry HAMMOND, Gerrie HARAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, El ijah HEMPHI LL, Ho n.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYRA, Hon. Eugene KOVNA TS, Abe LECUYER, Gerard LYON, Q.C., Ho n. Sterling MACKLING, a.c., Ho n. Al MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Cl ayton McKENZ IE, J. Wally MERCIER, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NORDMAN, Rurik (Ric) OLESON, Ch arlotte ORCHARD, Do nald PAWLE Y, Q.C., Hon. Ho ward R. PARASIUK, Ho n. Wilson PENNER, Q.C., Ho n. Ro land PHI LLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Br ian SANTOS, Conrad SCHROEDER, Ho n. Vic SCOTT, Don SHERMAN, L.R. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STORIE, Ho n. Jerry T. URUSKI, Ho n. Bill USKIW, Ho n. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D.

James Constituency Ste. Rose Spr i,.,:;field Thompson La Verendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Riel Elm wood Kildonan Arthur Emerson Lakeside Brandon East River East Tuxedo Concordia Swan River Virden Kirkfield Park The Pas Rupertsland Logan Portage la Prairie Sturgeon Creek Seven Oaks Niakwa Radisson Ch arleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Gladstone Pembina Selkir k Transcona Fort Rouge Wolselev Dauphin Tu rtle Mountain Burrows Ross mere lnks ter Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon Interlake Lac du Bonnet St.

Vital Party NDP NDP NOP PC PC PC NOP IND NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP PC NOP PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP PC PC NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP PC PC PC PC PC PC NOP NOP NOP NOP NOP PC NOP NOP NOP PC NOP PC NOP NOP NOP NOP

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 6 July, 1983. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speak er. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiving Petitions . . . Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Comm ittees Mi nisterial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion . . . INTRODUCTION OF BILLS HON. R. PENNER introdu ced , on behalf of the Honourable Minister of Education, Bill No. 10 2,

An Act to amend The Teachers' Pensions Act. HON. R. PENNER introd uced Bill No. 108,

An Act to amend The Criminal Injur ies Com pensation Act (3). ORAL QUESTIONS Finance Ministers' Meeting MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tu rtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, it's reported in today's Globe and Mail that the Finance Min isters' Meeting in Montr eal had agreed on the need for continuing restraint. My question to the Min ister of Finance is, in view of the fact that Manitoba's spending increased this year as over twice as much on a percentage basis as the spending of at least eight of the other provinces, what will this province be doing to meet its commitment to continued restraint?

MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The documents that were provided to that conference by the Federal Government ind icated that in terms of wages Manitoba was, indeed, in the area of the average - just a little below - in terms of the increases in the last year. So from that perspective one would assume that we were in on target. I haven't had a chance to read the Globe and Mail but if it is somebody's

interpretation of the outcome of that meeting that we agreed that somehow we should be in a period of restraint at this time, that that was the issue, then that is an

interpretation that certainly I didn' t gather from the meeting. In fact, a number of the Finance Min isters and Labour Ministers present indicated that they felt the first priority, the very, very first prior ity, had to be the nurturing of the recovery to make sure that it takes hold and that doesn't necessarily mean restraint. That can mean care in spending to ensure that the spending that is done is utili zed to the best effect for job creation. That's something that cert ainly the Min ister of Finance for Ontario, the Min ister of Finance for Queb ec and some other provinces took as their position. MR. B.

RANSOM: A suppl ementary to the Min ister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Is the Min ister then telling the Ho use tha t the report that th ere was un animous agreement on the need for restraint is false, and that this government does not subscribe to that conclusion put forward, at least by the Federal Min ister, as a consensus? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Well, we always do our best to be careful and if that is restraint then certainly nobody at that table suggested that we get into some spending programs that didn' t make sense. Everybody at that table was concerned to ensure that we would have an economic recovery.

As I indicated, I haven't read the report so I don't know what conclusion, specifical ly, the Federal Min ister drew or whether the conclusion he drew was correctly stated in the article. MR. B. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, I believe that there is agreement on the necessity of crea ting real and meaningful jobs for people in the count ry. There seems to be a dir ect correlation with job creation, creation of real jobs, and an inverse correlation with the rate of inflation.

Unfortuna tely, lately inflation seems to have been running somewhat higher in Manitoba than elsewhere and higher than the previous record for the province. What proposals did the Min ister of Finance put forward at that meeting as a commitment by his government to try and keep the rate of inflation down in Manitoba? HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, I know of many people who would disagree with the premise on which the honourable member based that question, that is that when the rate of inflation goes down, more jobs are created.

Indeed, over the last 12 months, it was while inflation was dropping that employment was dropping throughout this countr y. In fact, what was happening was that inflation was dropping because of the recession; people were simply not able to pay out money when they were not earning profits in their small companies and larger companies; workers were afraid to ask for wage increases because of insecurity and it was on that basis that we had a decrease in inflation. As well, the memb er's qu estion shows the contradiction when it suggests tha t less inflation produces more jobs.

When we look at Manitoba, if he's arguing that our percentage inflation is higher than in other parts of the coun try, and it has been in the last couple of months, that's true, in Manitoba, at the same time we've had greater numbers of people working than in other parts of the countr y. In the country as a whole, we have less people working today than we had a year ago when we had high inflation, but in Manitoba we have more people working than we had a year ago. We have, in total - (Interjection) - Well, the member is referring to one specific sector of the Manitoba economy.

Manitoba workers are concerned about how many jobs there are in total. In total, in Manitoba, we have more people working today than we had a year 4135

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 ago. In Canada, there are less people working today than there were a year ago. People can refer to specific sectors and say one sector is weak; that means another sector is that much stronger but, in total, we have more people working and that's not good enough. Nobody suggested that's good enough. We've still got more than 50,000 people unemplo yed and that's why it was Manitoba's position that we must nurture the recovery, that we must have some form of job creation policy as the number one priority in this countr y.

That is why we were saying that we had been happy with last December's Finance Mini ster's meeting where there was a consensus on that issue. That consensus fell apart by March when many of the Con servative Provinces began to dis agree with that and I think that's one of the reasons why, in a lot of the Cons ervative Provinces, employment is now down from where it was a year ago. Autopac - Mclellan case MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I dir ect a question to the Mini ster responsible for Autopac.

The Mini ster will recall that during the examination of Autopac's Annual Report I made a special request for one Elaine Mclellan who has a particular hardship case involving a serious injury for which she cannot get treatment in Manitoba. The Mini ster agreed at that time to take that individual under special advisement. Has the Min ister been able to discuss this matter with his Autopac officials? MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Min ister of Corpo rate and Consumer Affairs. HON. J. BUCKLASCHU K: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker, I well recall that issue being raised during the Estimates process and I must correct the member, I had indi cated that I had been aware of that situation for some time. I had been in correspondence with Mrs. Mclel lan, I believe, on a number of occasions and there was, in fact, some remedy that was available to her. It was a matter of having her solicitor take the matter to the courts to determine responsib ilit y for the particular accident. At that time, a certain interim payment would be available to Mrs.

Mclellan to assist with her medical costs and the matter of the quantum of the settlement would be something that could be resolved at a later date. Since sending that letter to Mrs. Mclellan some time ago, I've had no further correspondence and I assume that she has taken the advice or dir ection that was provided to her. Wayside Parks - closures MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Yes, Mr. Speak er, the other day I had some questions asked of me in respect to the wayside park at Mafeking.

In rationalizing the operation of the parks system as a result of restraints, a variety of methods were intr oduced to stretch the available dolla rs. While the reduction of services at selected sites and closures were options, the more positive one was to seek interested operators from the private sector who would be interested in increasing their viability by assuming responsib ility to operate a campground. As reported in the House earli er, the Overflowing River Campground was closed this spring pending investigation and negotiations for an operator.

This was ,;uccessful and a new local entrepreneur assumed responsibility as of July 1s t. This facility plus the others at the Red Deer River and Birch River would continue to offer suitable facilities for travellers using Highway No. 10. On the basis of im pro ved facilit ies now being available, the underutili zed site at Mafeking was deemed not to be util ized as a wayside. On this basis, two deteriorated concrete firepla ces were hauled to the dump as not salvageable; two pit privies in poor shape were removed as well as two picnic tables, one of which was not useable.

The low use made of the site allowed for the redevelopment of maintenance staff for the balance of the year as travell ers could be accommodated elsewhere in appropriately maintained and staffed sites. The recent background with respect to the Mafeking wayside is of interest, as earlier negotiations with the department by councillors of the Unincorporated Village of Mafeking had resulted in land from the wayside being committed to the site for their fire hall. More recent di scus sions had been entered into regarding the provision of additional land for the RCMP.

In addition, the department had been asked by the Local Government District if the remaining land could be used for building sites as the former park area is superior to surro unding land in the village. Parks Branch files do not reflect any commitment or interest to maintain and operate the facility as a park by the local community. This Monday, the department was contacted by a local member of the community suggesting that the park area could be cleaned up and then STEP students could be util ized over the summer to maintain the facili ty.

Formalization of this request was asked for, but has not yet been received. Over the past several years, as the site had a low level of use, ongoing maintenance was carried out pending completion of the fire hall and RCMP facility negotiations. On the basis of the community interest that appears to be now forthcoming, we are prepared to provide further facilities lik e a pit toilet, picnic tables, barbecues, firepla ces with ongoing responsib ility for maintenance and upkeep being transferred to the local community, if that local community actually formally asks us to do so -which they haven't done to date, Mr.

Speak er. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan R1,er. MR. D. GO URLAY: Mr. Speak er, I would like to thank the Honourable Minister for his answer. I wonder though, in whose opinion was it that the wayside park was not being utilized. Was it from his staff, or was it from the representative of the uninc orporated village district committee? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, there is no formal ind ication on the file of interest by way of a written 4136

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 request by the community. I know that staff do maintain statistics as to use and the advice I have is that this wayside park, which happens to be right within the villa ge, is very, very much underutilized. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GO URLAY: Mr. Speak er, I had dir ected a question to the Min ister of Natural Resources back on May 27th and he took the question as notice and responded on June 7th, and indicated that the Mafeking Wayside Park was open and being used by the people.

Now how is it that he is reporting today a completely different answer than he did the first part of June? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, on the date that the honourable member refers to I confirmed to him that the Overfl owing River Park was closed. It was closed temporarily because we sought arrangements to get a private operator. That park is now open. The question of the Mafeking Park -certainly if we have difficulties in operating these wayside parks we're going to look at it. The admin istrative arrangements are not cast in stone. If there is insufficient use . SOME HONOU RABL E MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. HON. A. MACKLING: Well, Mr. Speak er, I'm not going to try and compete with the hilarity opposite. There are people that came from the Stone Age but I won't reflect on them, Mr. Speak er. Mr. Sp eaker, we don't take the adminis tration of the system as a laughing matter.

We consider that it is important that we provide services and, in the provision of those services, we're going to use taxpayers' dollars very carefully , and we're going to, where it's necessary, make arrangements where public facili ties will be operated in conjunction with private operators and with local counc ils; but we cannot do that with local councils and local government if local government doesn't enter into some sort of arrangement with us.

We've been asked to take of that park, a parcel of it, for the provision of a fa cility for the town, for a firehall, and now for the RCMP, and if there is still some interest in the community for a park, certainly we'll be happy to co-operate, but we have to have that interest recorded with us and not through the concerns from the member opposite. MR. D. GOURL AY: Can the Mini ster give assurance to the Communit y of Mafeking that the toilet and the picnic table and the barbecue that he has now returned to the wayside park will be maintained there for at least the rest of the summer? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speak er, I want to assure the taxpayers of Manitoba that we will not be throwing money away wastefully in the administration of our system; and where there is insufficient use for facili ties, and it doesn't make sense to keep them open, we'll close them. Where there is community interest and they want to assist us in operating facili ties, we'll co-operate with them. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, the Min ister that there was no assurance from the community they would operate this park or have any contrib ution towards it.

Can he confirm that the person in quest ion had phoned the parks office in Swan River and within two hours the parks staff were there to remove the picnic table and the bar becue and the toilets? So how in the world could they have time to put anything down in writing and send it through the parks office in Swan River before that happened? HON. A. MA CKL ING: Mr. Spea ker, obviously the member has some close contact with people, someone whose complain t I don't kn ow about.

But if the honourable member will arrange for the community to formally ask the department to do something, certainly I'll be happy to respond. But I didn't receive a telephone cal l; I wasn't involved in what the honourable member suggests, but the honourable member seems to be just here to find fault with good tight adminstrative policy. I can't - (Interjection) - well, Mr. Speaker, they want us to squander money on faci lities that are underutilized.

And if every MLA across wants this government to continue to fund, at public expense, facil ities that are underutilized they're wrong because we won't do that. · MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speak er, yesterday the Minister of Natural Resources said that he would take as notice and report back to the House if there were any further campgrounds that were closed. I wonder if the Min ister could inform the House today that there is, in fact, another wayside park by the name of Steep Rock that is not being maintained by the department and he ind icated in his report on June 7th that it was. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speake r, I've indicated that we are going to make sure that taxpayers' dolla rs are spent very carefu lly. We are not going to throw money away. While we are going to maintain to services to the travel ling public, we are not going to waste money. We don't belie ve in that kind of administration, Mr. Speak er. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Mini ster of Natural Resources is indi cating that the constituents of the Swan River area should contact the Mini ster of Resources rather than their own MLA? HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speak er, the constituents of the Provincial Constituency of Swan River should contact their MLA and indi cate their interest in matters that concern them, but where they want to util ize government property for a specific purpose, I would appreciate it if they communicated with the government because I think that in order to enter into any kind of contr act, they should do so. Mr. Speaker, those are the arrangements that most other people respect. Jobs Fund - advertising MR. SPEAKER: The Hono urable Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, I have a question for the First Min ister.

In view of the Mini ster of Natural 4137

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 Resources' sta tements tha t the government was concerned with a careful expenditure of the taxpayers' money and not squandering the taxpa yers' money, could the First Minister , in view of the saturation of the news media by advertisements related to the Jobs Fund recent ly, could he advise this House as to the total amount of money spent to date on advertising the Jobs Fund and projects under the Jobs Fund, and the anticipated expenditures to the end of this fiscal year for advertising un der the Jobs Fund and related projects? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speak er, that would probably be best dealt with by way of an Order for Return which, I believe, is the traditional manner by which such requests are dealt with. I would suggest that the honourable member file an Order for Return and we'll provide the information that he requests. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr .

Sp eak er, in view of the squandering of money that is taking place in the advertising media through advertisements placed by the First Minister , as Chairman of the Jobs Fund, of recent weeks, would the First Minister not undertake to accept the que stion as notice and provide the House with that information tomorrow or the following day? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I suggested that the honourable member do what has been the traditional pattern and that an Order for Return be filed. Employment Standards Branch re babysitter MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, it's apparent the First Minister does not want to reveal the amount of money spent in advertising to date. A suppl ementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, now that Cabinet met this morning I believe, can she now advise the House and Mrs. Normand that she will be proposing an amendment to The Employment Standards Act to have retroactive effect so that Mrs. Normand will not have to pay over $900 as order by the Employment Standards Branch of her department? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Minister of Labour. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Mr.

Spea ker, I cannot inform Mrs. Normand specifically of anything and the member ought to know that that is a case before the Labour Board. Cabinet did deal this morning with that issue, and we will be bringing in a clarification and definition of a childs itter or a person who does stay with an invalid or an elderly person in the home that specifically removes that from coverage under the amendment to the act that was passed last year. Mrs. Normand's case is before the Labour Board and will be dealt with, as I und erstand it, some time later this month or early next month.

I suspect that the Labour Board will reflect on the amendments brought in by this Session of the Legislature. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Spea ker, in view of the fact that Mrs. Normand's case before the Labour Board has been moved up from August 3rd to July 18th and relates to babysitting, could the Minister advise whether or not the amendment which she is proposing will have retroactive effect so that Mrs. Normand will be relieved of the order that has been made by the Employment Standards Branch of her department?

Will it be of :-3troactive effect, and if so, can she not take some steps to arrange to have that matter adjourned so that Mrs. Normand doesn't have to go through this hearing before the Labour Board? HON. M.B. DOL IN: Mr. Spea ker , we are rather constantly reminded of the Rules of this House and one of those is that when legislation is introd uced that is when members see it and they see it before anyone else sees it.

When that amendment comes forward and I suspect, I certainly hope, that we are getting towards the end of this long Session, it will be very soon and the members will see it just as they do with any other piece of legislation. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speak er, I find the Minister's answer totally incomprehensible. We're dealing, Mr. Speak er, with a working mother of four children who has been ordered to pay over $900 and can't afford to make this payment. Could the Minister not make a simple statement to the effect that the amendment will be retroactive and she will be relieved of having to pay over $900.00?

SOME HONOU RABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. We have· here a former Attorney -General, a man who professes to practice law, a man who was a House Leader here, asking a que stion about a matter that is before the courts in this province. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule that out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour ab le Member for St. Norbert on the same point of order. MR. G. MERCIER: On the same point of order, Mr.

Sp eaker, we're talking about an order made by the Employment Standards Branch that is going to the Labour Board tor a hearing. We're talking about an individual who should be put out of her misery and put her fears to rest and it's the respons ibility - (Interjection) - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker , members opposite er laugh all they want about the situation that this \'1oman finds herself in, in a state of misery caused by the inaction of the Minister of Labour.

We are asking for a simple statement to be made by the Minister of Labour that can put her fears to rest, and she can be assured that her situation will be looked after and she will not have to pay the $900 to her ba bysitter. That's all we are asking for is a simple statement from the Minister of Labour. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Finance. 4138

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 MR. V. SCHROEDER: Mr. Speak er, again, on the same point of order, what the member fails to catch as an issue is the question of what exactly Mrs. Normand's employee was, or whether there was an employee. What kind of a relationsh ip was it? Was it a childsit ter, as opposed to a domestic, because if there was a domestic, then certainly the minimum wages of this province apply? That is not something that I think everybody in this House ought to recognize, that it's not up to us to determine the status of individuals.

We are saying that we are bringing forward legislation dealing with those individuals who are primarily chil dsitters, as explained by the Minister of Labour, but what category people fall into is something that is for the tribunals we have established to determine, and I ask the Speaker to rule that question out of order. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Tu rtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: To the same point of order, Mr.

Speak er, the Min ister of Finance raised the point of order and, of course, points of order may deal with calling attention to a departure from the standing orders or from the customary modes of proceed ing. Perhaps if the Minis ter of Finance would draw to your attention the standing order which has allegedly been violated, or the departure from customary proceed ing, it might make it easier for your ruling, Sir . MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. Members might wish to refer to Beauchesne which on Page 118 deals with matters that are before the court.

It makes it quite clear that in matters before a criminal court, it is quite clear that questions cannot be asked, or that they can be mentioned in debates. When it comes to civil cases, the same convention prohibiting questions does not apply until the matter has reached the trial stage. It has not been made clear whether hearings before the Labour Board, in fact, come under the definition of a court, either civil or criminal, and there is no mention of the particular fact un der tho se cita tions in Beauchesne. The

section termi nates with the following sentence, "In doubtful cases, he," that is, the Spea ker, "should rule in favour of debate and against the convention." However, si nce the same question, with sli ght variations, has been asked a number of times in this House, both today and on former occasions, it might well be better if the House were to drop the matter and proceed to some other ques tion. The Honour able Minis ter of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, as Deputy House Leader ... MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Member for Tu rtle Mountain on a point of order. MR. B.

RANSOM: A point of order was raised by the Minis ter of Finance, Sir . I bel ieve that it is your duty to rule on whether or not there was a point of order, and not to give advice, Sir , with all respect, not to give advice to the House about what should be dealt and what should be dropped. MR. SPEAKER: I believe that a ruling was given that the Honourable Min ister did not have a point of order. The Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speak er, on the point of order and on your ruling, I would ask that, although there is no reference in Beauchesne, I would like you to consult the rulings of previous Speakers of this House, including the previous Speaker who is now the Member for Virden, the Ho nou rable Member for Concordia, who was a previous Speaker of this House, and take under advisement whether or not this House, by precedent, has not established rules in respect to questions being placed regarding matters that are before our provincial tribunals. I think that you will find that rulings have been made by previous Speakers, Mr.

Speake r, and I think those rulings have as much bearing, in fact more bearing, on your decisions than those that are recorded in Beauchesne. I would respectfully ask you take this matter under advisement and then report to the House. I am asking the Speaker on a point of order. I am asking the Speaker on a point of order now. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. I thank the Honou rable Mini ster for his advice, and will certainly check former rulings. There is no point of order before the House. The Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. layoffs HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speak er, I do now have a matter in which I do want to ind icate, and I expect that I will get many catcalls from opposite, but I am prepared to await silence, if necessary, in order to complete my answer. I do want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that my department has erred in respect to some arrangements regarding employment of unemployed people regarding forestry initiativ es in southeastern Manitoba. Mr. Speak er, the error occurred in this way. We had ongoing treeplanting activity in the southeastern region of the province.

In addition to that, we had some further money in our bud get to pr ovide for some in itial sylviculture work, forest thinning, pruning and so on. There was an expectation that one of the applic ations that we had, as a department, before the Jobs Fund would be approved. Now, given that expectation, there was an error made on the part of staff to somehow commit the department to a period of employment of approximately 26 weeks. While it was ind icated to be approximately 26 weeks, I feel that a commitment was made to those people. Now it was wrong for the department to have assumed that approval would be given.

It was also wrong -there was a further error -because there was communication from the Jobs Fund that the matter had been deferred. Someho w the department interpr eted that the application had not been approved. A further error occurred when the department, without reference to me, ind icated severance to those 18 4139

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 temporary staff. If I had known that, certainly I would have been able to take the matter up and ask the Jobs Fund for earlier consideration of that item. I have now taken the matter up with the Jobs Fund and that further extended period has been approved. It was departmental error and I take full responsibility for that, Mr. Speak er, but let me say that these are init iatives that we under took, to provide employment, to provide useful employment, and I admit its error; but, Mr. Speak er, to err is human. If we were doing nothing, there would have been no error. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for La Verendr ye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I thank the Minis ter for those words and I'm sure the 18 employees who have had a couple of anxious moments these last few days will be pleased to hear that news.

I wonder if the Minis ter of Natural Resources could tell the House whether or not he has sent out notices to these employees saying that the contr act which they entered into with the government, which would see them working till sometime in No vember, whether these employees will be notified, either by letter or through their su pervisors, or in what manner this will be accomplished. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Sp eaker, the employees involved were working, as I und erstand it, to July 15th in any event, and I have communi cated the decision of the Jobs Fund so that communication would go as quickly as possible to the employees involved. Special Wage Assistance Program Engineering & Science grads MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speak er, I'd like to respond to a question that was posed to me on Monday by the Honourable Member for St.

Norbert pertai ning to the Engineering Science Employment Program for jobs and some concern that the honourable member had that this would interfere in respect to jobs that would otherwise have been allocated to Red River Communit y College Design and Drafting Program students. The answer to the question is, no, there will not be any conflict, Mr. Speak er, insofar as those job applications.

The honourable member might appreciate -and I'll table this in the House -there is an Advisory Board which consists of the Associate Dean of the Faculty of Engineering, University of Manitoba; the Vice-President of Mani toba Op erations, Maclaren Engi neers; Technology Consultant with the Manitoba Department of Economic Development, Jim Reichert; Dave Cross, President of the Association of Professional Engineers; and Mr. Ferris, the Di rector of Program Poli cy Development with the Manitoba Jobs Fund Office.

The responsi bili ty in connection with that Advisory Board is to help the program managers ensure that the jobs that are being offered, in respect to busi nesses, are well matched to the qualif ications of the graduates themselves, and the intention of the program is to give both the busi nesses and gradua tes the maximum mutual benefit, which means fitting the employee's quali fications with the job that, indeed, is the su bject of the application. Community Bail Program MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Community Services. HON. L. EV ANS: Mr. Sp eake r, yest erda y the Honourable Memb er for St.

Norbert asked me a question about the termination of the program for people on bail at halfway houses. I can advise the honourable member that we have people both on probation, as well as on bail, at halfway houses. Budget limitations causes us to give priority to those on probation and that particular program will continue. Those who are on bail cannot be handled, unfortuna tely, within the present budget, but I would advise the honourable member that there are only about half a dozen people in question that are in halfway houses, at any one time, under the bail program.

It's very important to note that we have a new program called Community Bail Program, which is expanding, and last ft..:lr we had 90-100 people on that program and I'm advised that this year it has been expanded to about 200. So this is much more effective, Mr. Speak er, it's much more cost-effective and, in fact, I believe it's even better for the individuals involved.

I point out that, although the honourable member said halfway houses are cheaper than the Remand Centre or Headingley, that's looking at it on an average cost basis, but if you look at it in terms of add-on costs or marginal costs, to have these people at halfway houses is certainly an additional cost to the taxpayers, so I'm satisfied that the way we're going is the right way. It's good for the individuals involved and it is ultim ately cheaper for the taxpayers. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Memb er for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr.

Speak er, could the Mini ster confirm that those people, now that program has been terminated, will be incarcerated? HON. L. EVANS: Ulti mately the people that have been referred to these particular halfway houses are referred there by the courts. It's a decision made by the judges and I'm advised that many of the people who are on our community bail people are of the same category as some of those who go to the halfway houses, so I suggest that, hopefully, the courts will see fit to util ize Community Bail Program even more so than they hzive up until the present time.

I can't talk specifically about the indi viduals but I'm hopeful that we' ll ha ve even greater use of the Community Bail Program. layoffs MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I di rect a further question to the Mini ster of Natural Resources. The Min ister 4140

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 frequently reminds us, of course, of the major forestry operations in other parts of the province, other than Hadashville, namely, The Pas. Can the Min ister assure the House that there were no layoffs occurring, or errors as he now calls it, in other parts of the province similar to the ones that occurred in the two ridings represented in this Chamber by my Cons ervative colleagues, the Mem ber for Emerson and the Me mber for La Verendr ye? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr.

Speake r, as I ind icated in the Hous e the other day, the operations of this department and this government are not targeted to deal only with areas of the province that are represented by New Democratic MLAs. We have initi atives under the Jobs Fund , and certainly under the Department of Natural Resources, that do not respect any political system at all, but do reflect the priorities, needs of a resource development in the province.

One of the areas of the province where there is a forest that is extremely heavily used is the southeastern part of Manitoba, and for years governments have, in their programs -and our government is no exception -paid attention to the problem of reforestation in that area. We have, Mr. Speaker, doubled the size of the forest nursery at Hadashville in recognition of the need for reforestation in southern Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Tu rtle Mountain on a point of order. llll R. B. RANSOM: Mr.

Speak er, you have repeatedly admonished the opposition to be brief in their questions and Min ister to be brief in their answers. My col league asked a very dir ect question, could he assure us that ihere had not been any other layoffs. What we get from the Min ister is a recitation of the programs that he alleges to have undertaken. Sur ely, Sir, that is a question which was concise and would lend itself to a short, concise answer. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: On the same point of order, Mr.

Spea ker, if you read from the Rules, a copy of which you were good enough to send to all the members, makes it quite clear: "In putting a question a member must confine himself to the narrowest limits, making a question observation which might lead to a debate cannot be regarded as coming within the proper limi t of a ques tion." Th at free bit of advice certainly warranted a debate or an explanation, Mr. Speak er. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: I am prepared to rephrase my question. Were there any employees laid off at The Pas? HON. A. MACKUNG: Mr.

Speak er, not only were there not any employees laid off at The Pas, there have been more employees involved in reforestation at The Pas because we are developing a very significant forest nur sery there which will increase employment in forest ind ustry generally. Mr. Speake r, I don't need to be lectured by members opposite as to answering questions. I know that some answers that provide facts that trouble them, irri tate them but, Mr. Speak er, I intend to give full and frank and honest answers to questions in this House without any lecturing from the Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. SPEAKER: Order pl ease.

The time for Oral Questions has expired. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Mr. Speak er, I rise to ask leave of the House to make a non-political statement. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honour able Member have leave? (Agreed) The Honourable Member for Niakwa. NON-POLITICAL STATEMENT MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to announce that the Provincial Constituency of Niakwa is a sports-excellent centre in the Province of Manitoba.

In making that announcement, I would like to advise that Chris Baraniuk of the Winnipeg Aerials Gym nastic Clu b, was the onl y Western Canadian competitor to win a gold medal during the weekend at the Canadian nationa l age cl ass gymnasti cs championships in Banff, Alberta. Baraniuk, who finished seventh overall in the novice division -that's the 17-year-olds and under -with a score of 98.10, won his gold medal in the vault with a score of 9.35 in compul sory and 9.45 in optionals to give him a total score of 18.80.

Prior to the Canadian meet, Chr is was overall champion for Western Canada where he placed first in the four ind ividual events as well as first overall. He represented Manitoba on the gymnastic team at the Canada Winter Games, and at the end of this month will compete at the Western Canada Summer Games at Calga ry. In addition to his dedication to gymnastics, he is an A-plus grade 10 student at Windsor Park Collegia te, where in the past year he earned three outst anding achievements, the Certificate of Award in English, French and General Busi ness.

I would ask the House to join me in congratulating this young Manitoban. INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: If I might di rect the attention of honou rab le members to the galler y, we have 16 members of the Selkirk and District 4-H Club under the direction of Mrs. Foster and their guests from the Richmond County 4-H Club from Cape Breton Island under the di rection of Mrs. Fugere. On behalf of all of our members, I welcome you here this afternoon. 4141

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAK ER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for Rhineland. ORDERS FOR RETURN MR. A. BROWN: Mr. Speak er, I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Mi nnedosa, that an Order of the House do issue for the Return of the following information: ( 1) The log of all Government of Manitoba aircraft showi ng passe nger li sts, da tes, des tin ations and pur pose for all flights from June 26, 1982 to the date of this Ord er.

(2) The numb er of aircraft chartered or leased by the government and Crown agencies during the period June 26, 1982, to the date of the Order, and the date of each flight, the passenger lists, the purpose of the charter or lease and the costs of the said charter or lease. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A.

MACKLING: In respect for the Ord er, since this government does want to acco mmodate the broadest possible information we certai nly will accept the Ord er, but I would like to indi cate that a similar Order for Return was filed last year for a seven-month period. That involved the production of 4,000 log sheets and 10 copies that were requir ed by the Order for Return. That was 40,000 sheets, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that this information could be obtained at a good deal less expense to the taxpayer.

We would be prepared to accommodate the opposition in the obtaining of that information in some other way, because it is extremely expensive. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Mem ber for Minn edosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rhineland, that an Order of the House do issue for the return of the following information: The travel and expense allowances paid for or on behalf of all members of the Executive Council and all members of any board, commission or agency of the Government of Manitoba for the period from June 26, 1982 to the date of this Order. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natu ral Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speaker, if my information is correct, all of the information requested here should be obtainable through the Public Accounts.

If I am incorrect about that, certainly I would be happy that we provide this information, but if it already obtainable under Public Accounts I think it's dupl ication of expense, Mr. Speaker. If someone on the opposition says it is not obtainable in that way, then I certainly will ind icate that we are happy to accommodate it. But if it's dupl ication, I would rather not do that, Mr. Speaker. 0o we will accept it on that un ders tanding ; that information is not obtainable the other way. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KO VNA TS: Th ank you, Mr. Sp eak er. Mr.

Speak er, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Assiniboia, that an Order of the House do issue for the return of the following information: For each department and agency -the name, position, classification, annual salary and qual ification of each person hired since April 1, 1982, to the date of this Order and also showing:

(1) How that person was appointed, i.e., Order-in Council, contract, term;

(2) If a Civil Service Competition was held, and if so what the competition .. umber was; and

(3) If the person was a civil servant, what position and salary did that person previously hold? MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr. Speak er, I want to ind icate that certainly we want to provide all the information the opposition is entitled to, and we'll accept the order but it's one that requires a great deal of time on the part of staff, and it really involves an updating of a previous request; we're prepared to do that but the expectation is it will take a good deal of time and will cost a great deal of money. MR.

SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: On a point of order. The Mini ster of Natural Resources seems inclin ed to debate each of these motions as they are placed before the House. If he doesn't wish to accept the order, then he should have it put over for debate. If he wishes to accept it then it should be accepted without the little gratuitous comments which the Mi nister likes to throw in. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speaker, it is longstanding prnctice in the House that when an Order for Return is ,ccepted, at that time the Government House Leader, the Acting House Leader, can explain the problems Jr any other matters incidental to the production of that Or der for Return. That's commonpl ace, Mr. Speaker, and for the honourable member now to be taking affront at the brief comments I made is, I think, exceptional, Mr. Speak er, and is abuse of the rules. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. 4142

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 MESSAGES HON. V. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speak er, I have a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. MR. SPEAKER: The Lieutenant-Governor transmits to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Estimates of further sums requi red for the services of the province for Capita l Expen dit ur es and recommends these Estimates to the Legislative Assembly. Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, $6 mill ion. The Honourable Min ister of Finance. HON. V. SCHROEDER: Mr.

Sp eaker, I move, seconded by the First Mi nister that the said Message, with the Estimate accompanying the same, be referred to the Comm ittee of Supp ly. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLl lll G: Yes, Mr. Speak er, would you call Bill No. 90, Bill No. 91, Bill No. 3, Bill No. 47, Bill No. 85 and Bill 55, in that order. ADJOURNED DE BATE ON SECOND READING BILL 90 - THE CATTLE PRODUCER S ASSOCIA TION ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speak er, this bill that's before us is really a very strange vind ictive piece of legislation that one doesn't often see brought to the Legislature. Mr. Speak er, it again demonstrates a capacity on the part of this government to go out of its way to alienate, and to anta gonize, and to cr eate last ing politi cal enemies for no real reason at all. Mr. Speaker, we know, of course, that there are some segments in the farm community that were opposed to the checkoff that is currently in place as a result of the legislation brought in by my colleague, the Member for Arthur, then Min ister of Agricultur e; but, Mr.

Speaker, the facts also speak for themselves that a good majority of cattlemen across the province, by and large, if not in every instance in every action, but by and large support the activities that the Manitoba Cattlemen's Association have been engaged in on behalf of the beef industry in the Province of Manitoba. Now, for the Min ister of Agriculture to act in this vindi ctive way because one Jackie Skelton told him to do so, or one or two others like that, to respond in this way to a relatively small handful of producers. I suppose, Mr.

Speaker, in a personal it's understandable, we're all human beings, but I can't understand a Min ister of Agricuilture that has had some experience in this Chamb er, is not exactly a greenhorn in the busi ness of politics, to del iberately go out of his way to kick the cattlemen in the Province of Manitoba in the chin and tell them, look I don't like you, you know I don't like you, and I'm going to show you who's boss. That's what he's doing with this bill. 4143 Mr.

Speak er, the Manitoba Co-operator is not always the greatest friend of all what Con servatives do or, indeed, of what my colleague, the former Mini ster of Agriculture did, but they went out of their way in a lengthy editorial indicating support for the measure now in effect, the checkoff that is now in effect, indi cating that the Manitoba Cattlemen's Association is doing a commendable job for the beef industry in the Province of Manitoba, and that is should be left alone.

That is the authoritative voice of the farmer speaking, the one authoritative newspaper that we have in rural Mani toba, namely, the Manitoba Co-operator. Mr. Speaker, there is no real reason, other than the ones that I've given, for this government to do this. It's not a question of costing the taxpayers of Manitoba money, that's not impinging on them, Mr. Speaker; it is not impinging in any way, other than ones that I could spe cula te on the poli ci es of the Department of Agricultur e as such.

The Min ister has the freedom, the department has the freedom, to carry on with whatever other activities, in this case particul arly, that are directed to the livestock ind ustry that he may dream up from time-to-time, or that currently are in place. There is no difficulty in having the cattlemen have their independent capacity to collect independently some dollars so that they can run their association. So, Mr. Speaker, I simply cannot understand this legislation and, again, I speak to some of the other members, it's a case where the Min ister of Agriculture has bamboozled his caucus.

He's responding to a very small minority group to whom he obviously made a commitment way back when this bill came in, and said, well, if we ever get around we'll throw it out, but, again, that isn't what he campaigned on during the election campaign. That wasn't part of the list of promises that the New Democrats made to the people of Manitoba or, in this case, to the cattlemen of Manitoba. The urban members of caucus should at least realize why it is that the farmers, in this case, the cattlemen, do not like, will not like, do not trust the New Democrats. It's because of this kind of legislation, Mr.

Speaker, and there's no necessity for it. It's simply a group of cattlemen that want to have the ability to check off - (Interjection) - Well, okay, Mr. Speaker, then I'll say MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H. ENNS: . . . I am just explaining to you and it should concern you, why you will never get the suppor t of the cattlemen in this Province of Manitoba: and there's no reason for you to -you could at least begin to nibble away at some of that support and get some of it, maybe, in the future, but not by this kind of legislation, Mr. Speak er. Mr.

Speaker, when my colleague, the then Min ister of Agriculture intr oduced the checkoff legislation, there was perhaps some validity in the very strong speeches that were made, coming from this side of the House at that time, from the New Democrats. They said to my colleague, if you're going to do it, at least go out there and let them have a vote on it, whether it ought to be done. That's what speaker after speaker, that's what now the First Mini ster said, that's what now the Minis ter of Agricultur e said and many others speakers said that.

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 Mr. Speak er, the reverse of course was the fact. We kn ew tha t the majority of cattlemen wanted th at legislation; we knew that and so perhaps we acted in a somewhat arbit rary way by passing it without a vote, without a refere ndum. (Interject ion) - Mr. Speak er, one always learns, but I'm telling you I can well remember what you said at the time. You said, put it to a vote, so, Mr.

Speaker, if it offends this government that this piece of legislation, if it offends this government that this piece of legislation, and it's there without a vote, then why not do what the cattlemen themselves are asking? What are they saying to this Minister of this government? They say, okay, you want to take away our organization; you want to take away our rights for a checkoff, they say, will you please allow us to put it to a vote? A MEMBER: That's what they're asking. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speak er, having a referendum or a vote is not an easy underta king.

It costs money; it takes a great deal of effort, but, as their position, they are asking thi s Min ister , before you dis band our organization -because that's what he'll be doing -Mr. Speak er, can you imagine this government taking away, making it volun tary for unions not to deduct their union fees? - (Interjection) - A MEMBER: It is. A MEMBER: Oh no, it isn't. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speak er, we have to fight for very special causes. A person has to go to the Labour Board and be able to prove religious reasons for exemption from union dues. The cattlemen don't have to do it.

Any body that doesn't want to belong to this organization, anybody that doesn't want to contribute to this organization, all he has to do is send in a letter and say, fine, I shipped 40 head of cattle this year; send me back my $40.00. I don't want to be part of your organiza tion. Mr. Spe aker , 7 percent of the cattlemen did that; 7 percent of the cattlemen that had their checkoff had the monies taken off their receipts when cattle were sold because that's the only practical way of doing it. Seven percent asked for a refund and they got their refu nd. HON. B. URUSKI: What's the problem? MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, the Min ister says, what is the problem. That is the question, what is the problem? What could be fairer, what could be more democratic and what is the problem' ;' Why are you now disbanding them? Why are you now ordering stock taken off the checkoff? Yes, that is what he's doing, Mr. Speak er. The Mini ster can pla y games with me but, Mr. Speak er, the truth of the matter is that Judge Skelton tells this Minister to jump and he jumps. (Interjection) - He just asks, how high? That's right, the Member for La Verendrye says.

I tell this government and I know this Min ister belie ves that, but again I appeal to the other members that look to some support from other than their immediate areas. They've got to have some understanding of why rural Manitobans, cattlemen in this case, simply don't like the New Democrats, because they can't understand why they're getting kicked in the shins right now. They have an organization that is functioning well; the y have a de mocratic ally ele cted exe cut ive.

If some thing is happening on that exe cut ive that -,omebody doesn't like, they have a chance, the same way as in this Chamb er, to change the executive. Anybody that doesn't want to be a member, that doesn't want to contribute to the Cattlemen's Fund simply sends a letter and it doesn't have to go to any Labour Board; it doesn't have to go in front of any quasi-judicial body. They simply say, look, I don't want to contribute to this fund; I want my money back, whether it's $2, whether it's $7 or $50 or $10 0.00. - (Interjection) - Mr.

Speak er, the Min ister says, check on procedures, then change the procedures or ask them to change the procedures, but we know exactly what he is doing. He is del iberately tearing do wn the Mani toba Catt lemen's Asso ciation becaus e th ey have demonstrated, in the past, not the greatest friendship for this government but, Mr.

Speaker, what I'm telling this Minister and this government is what they are doing with the intr oduction C'f this bill is ensuring that, in the future, no reasonable, no thinking, no responsible cattleman will vote for the New Democrats; because the New Democrats have gone out of their way to cripple their organization and they will remember that, Mr. Speaker. They will remember. Mr. Speak er, it's my understanding that we will be hearing substantial representation from the cattlemen and their organization, both from their organization and from the individual cattlemen on this bill.

I would beseech members opposite; I would ask members opposite, why not listen to their presentations? Mr. Speak er, just to repeat, in conclusion, it is no skin off our collective noses, if I could put it that way. It is not a matter of public taxation; it's not a matter of interfering from carrying out any public program. It doesn't interfere with your beef plan. This simply enables a commodity group to have some funds to run their organization. Mr.

Speaker, I can only indicate to you, as I'm sure we will have to start doing more frequent ly, that in two-and-a-half years or whenever that particular time comes, I will certainly be very supportive of whoever is then the Minister of Agriculture, to reinstate the kind of legislation that this Min ister is now busy tearing down; but I do so, Mr. Spe aker, on the basis and on the belief and the knowledge that I would acting in the interests of the majority, a substantial majority of cattle producers, not a handful of activists that have the ear of this Min ister. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question?

The 1·1·,nourable Attorney-General. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture will be closing debate. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, I certainly appreciate the comments made by the honourable members but, certainly what they have been saying is not the fact of the matter. Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Member for Lakeside, in his add ress thi s after noon, has indica ted th at 4144

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 somehow we are taking away some thing from pr oducers. The Honourable Mem ber for Lakeside should read back some of the speeches that he had made when this bill was introduced, when we called for a referendum, after the vote had been taken by producers in '7 4 who turned down that very kind of an association in this province. A vote was called, Mr. Speak er, and almost 60 percent of the producers who voted in that referendum voted an organization like this down. Mr.

Speak er, there was a second vote held, and the honourable member -and I will repeat what I said before -there was a second vote held in 1976, Mr. Speak er, on the basis of a marketing board. That vote was in a negative, but during that debate, Mr.

Speak er, there was a so-called freedom campaign in which letters were distributed and approximately, I am told , and in that respect I take the former Mini ster of Agriculture's word that there were 4,000 letters of producers who signed a form in which, underlin ed in that form, was: We want -not a marketing board - but we want a voluntary, producer-funded organization. How did they act? No, they didn' t say that producers could join an organization, bringing a bill, setting up an association, or the association didn't need even a bill. How were other associations funded?

They went and they incorporated, and they were funded and there are many such associations, Mr. Speak er. There is the Milk Producers Associat ion, Mr. Speaker . . . MR. J. DOWNEY: Tu rkey board, chicken board. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is totally mixed up, and he is trying to distract me from my comments, the Member for Arthur. He is mixed up, because he bel ieves in his own mind that somehow the Manitoba Cattle Producers Association is somehow a marketing board. It has not been set up under The Natural Products Marketing Act as the honourable member states from his seat.

But there are producer organizations now in the province, as I was saying, the Manitoba Milk Producers Co-op, Mr. Speak er, which has, I believe, somewhere around 400 members who have signed up on a letter form saying, we wish funds to be deducted from the sale of our milk to support this association. Mr. Spea ker, we are leaving in this legislation it open to the association to decide how best to deal with the funding of their organization, whether it be by a one time letter , whether it be by a per time sale. That is up to the association and the producers to decide how they will fund it, but somehow, Mr.

Speaker, in their remarks they want to leave the impression -and this is where I find it very, very hard to comprehend the mentality of the honourable members opposite. They are saying that we are now going to kill the organization. Mr. Speake r, is that how little faith they have in the beef producers of this province, that they do not want an organization to represent them? Is that really the basis of which they established the compulsory checkoff when they brought in the legislation, because they knew that prod ucers would not fund an organization? Then, Mr.

Spea ker, for all these years, they have been placing a sham on all the Legislatures and the public of Manitoba, saying that this organization represents the 15,000 farmer of Manitoba. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speak er, if this group - and I believe that there will be a large number of producers who will, in fact, support this organization and I respect them for it.

But to come into this House as the Honourable Member for Lakeside says, we are now going to do away with this organization certainly, No. 1, has little faith in the farming community, and certai nly shows how deceptive they were when they brought in the legislation and the remarks that he made as to how they collect the fees. Mr. Speaker, I gave the honourable member, and I guess he wasn't listening very well, the procedur es that have put into place.

The second point and the fundamental point that we objected to, the honourable member didn't allude to that question when the bill was brought in, this bill gave a private organization, a private association more powers than any other group in society has today about the gathering of information, the forcing of information without publi c accountability in this Legislature. That is the fundamental difference between the legislation and our position on this legislation. They can't get out of it. Mr. Speak er, no matter how the honourable members want to try to turn this question around, they cannot do that.

That fact of the matter is, it is a compuls ory checkoff, and we here on this side of the House belie ve that producers should have an organization and we respect their right to do so. We respect the producers of this province in having an organization to represent them but, Mr. Speak er, they should make that decision on an individual basis as to how that organization may be funded. To say that we are now doing away with the organi zation has li ttle faith, Mr. Spe aker , in that organization. Mr.

Speaker, if they continue to make those kinds of comments, it will only just go to show how few producers, in fact, support that organization. It may be a self-prophesying matter. Mr. Speak er, it will then show that very few producers actually did support that organization. They speak of a refere ndum, Sir . Why isn't there a referendum? Mr. Speaker, there will be a referendum. MR. H. ENNS: There will be when we have an election HON. B. URUSKI: No, Mr. Speaker. There will be a referendum on the way the group decides to set their funding into motion. There will be a refer endum.

Either they chose the one-time form as the Milk Producers Co-op, that you sign it once. In fact, that group was dealt a pretty massive blow by the Milk Producers Marketing Board where they said, no longer will we accept that signature that you gave to the Milk Marketing Board. They did away with the Milk Producers Co-op. The milk producers went out and re-signed, several hundred producers, to show that there is a volunta ry organization and it can survive. There is also another organization, Mr. Speaker. There is the sheep producers of this province.

They have a volunt ary checkoff in the province where they place a checkoff on the amount of wool that is marketed to fund their organization. That is a voluntary producer funded group. It has survived. They are raising funds. We do assist them in terms of providing some secretarial 4145

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 help and the like. We do that kind of assistance to this small group. I say, they are a small group, but they do voluntarily fund themselves. But to say that somehow we are doing away with an organization, Mr. Speaker, is not factual. If we were doing away with the organization, Sir , we would be repealing this legislation. We are not repealing this legislation. We are still leaving the legislation, allowing producers to have, the only producer group in terms of an association to have legislative authority in the setting up of that matter.

No other producer group has that legislative authority other than, of course, marketing groups. MR. J. DOWNEY: Did you ever hear of the Women's Institute? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speak er, now the Member for Arthur says, did I ever hear of the Women's Institute? Mr. Spea ker, I am assu ming that the honourable member is trying to say that the Women's Institute is a producers group. They represent rural women from all across the province. That is not in the same -he is basically talking apples and oranges when he relates to that group. So, Mr.

Speak er, this bill may become the self prophesy of what the Cons ervatives were afraid of when they brought the bill in; that really the majority of cattle producers did not support this organization. They did not support it initiall y, so we had to bring in a compulsory checkoff and allow that group to make the requir ements fairly difficult so producers couldn't make a voluntary choice whether to join it or not.

That may very well happen what the honourable members say, but I don't believe that the producers of Manitoba should be told that they have to belong; they should make that choice themselves, as to whether or not the funding for this producer group is paid by that produc er, whether it's done on a one-time basis, or whether it's done every time a head of cattle is sold, that's up to the association to decide, they will decide which is their best way to settle this matter. QUESTION put; MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Turtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: Yeas and nays, Mr. Speak er. MR.

SPEAKER: Call in the members. Order please. The question before the House is the pr opo sed motion of the Ho nour able Mini ster of Agriculture, second reading of Bill No. 90. A STANDING VOTE was taken, the result being as follows: YEAS Messrs. Adam, Anstett, Ashton, Bucklaschuk, Cowan, Desjardins, Doern; Ms. Dolin; Messrs. Evans, Eyler, Fox. Harapiak, Har per, Kostyra, Lecuyer, Ma ckling, Malino wski, Pawley, Penner; Ms. Phill ips; Messrs. Plohman, Santos, Schroeder, Scott; Mrs. Smith; Messrs. Storie, Uruski, Usk iw. NAYS Messrs. Banman, Blake, Brown, Downey, Driedger, Enns, Filmon, Gourla y, Gr aham; Mr s.

Hammond; Messrs. Hyde, Johnston, Kovnats, Lyon, McKenzie, Mercier , Nordman; Mrs. Oleson; Messrs. Orchard, Ransom. MR. CLERK, W. Remnant: Yeas 28, Nays 20. MR. SPEAKER: The motion is accordingly carried. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Min ister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Honourable Member for Emerson has 35 minutes remaining. BILL NO. 91 - THE REAL ESTATE BROKERS ACT MR. A. DRIEDGER: Mr. Speak er, I indic ated my comments on this bill the other day already, I'd just like to repeat to some degree, in my opinion, the lack of need for this kind of bill.

When the Min ister indicated that there was only a few instances where the bonding of salesman had come into question at all, to me, at least, it indicates the f"lct that all the more reason that the bill has been working, that the act to date has been working, it's worked as a deterrent for salesmen not to get themselves into trouble with trust money, and I'd just like to repeat that I think the Mini ster is asking for trouble. I think he could have left it the way it was, I don't know where the pressure came from to present this bill. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my comments on the matter. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Tuxedo. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In following up on the comments of my colleague, with respect to these amendments being proposed to the Real Estate Brokers Act, I certainly agree with the intent of what the Minister is doing, that is, to provide a greater degree of protection for the public in dealing with real estate brokers to ensure that there is a sufficient bond avai lable should errors, omissions, delibe rate misinformation cause an action.

I think it's in the interest of the publi c to have a sufficient amount of money available under the protection bond. On the other hand, costs have been rising, the pr ices and values of properties involved in transactions have all gone up so, I think, we can under stand and go along with that intent.

I would repeat what the Member for Emerson has said, that in taking away the need to bond a salesman, then I think that we are putting an undue amount of !'': ess, and an undue amount of onus on the salesman's -;mployer -that being the broker in this case -and, I bel ieve, that it's wrong in principle to take away or denegrate from the degree of responsibili ty that a salesman has in dealing with his clients in a real estate transaction.

Admittedly there has been a gathering together of large groups in the real estate sales field so that you're getting more and more salesmen under the employ of a broker, and I can understand the need, therefore, for a greater surety bond on behalf of the 4146

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 broker; but to take away any sort of responsi bilit y, or any onus of responsibil ity, from the salesman, I do not think is in the interest of either the publi c who deal with them or, in fact, their employers, the brokers, and I question the need to do this at this time. As I say, I support the need for an incr ease in the level of bonding coverage on behalf of the broker, but certainly I don't agree with the move that's being made to take away any responsibility by not requiring a bond on behalf of the salesman, his or herself.

So, consequent ly, we're quite prepared to pass this along to committee to have it open for discussion to members of the publi c, and I would expect that there would be a concern expressed by others on this matter. Thank you very much, Mr. Speak er. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. Bill 3 - THE FARM LANDS OWNERSHIP ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Virden. MR: H. GR AHAM: Thank you very much Mr. Acting Speaker . Mr. Speaker, the other evening we heard a tir ade from the Min ister of Agriculture that to me was rather ast onishing, because firs t of all he didn't understand what the bill is all about.

Secondly , he refused to give us or to su bstan tia te any of the documentation that he used in his arguments. He ended up by saying that the six-month hoist should be defeated. Mr. Speaker, I have to say that if there is going to be any understanding at all by the Minister of Agriculture on what this bill is about, and if members of the Assembly want to unde rstand what it's all about, then I think there definitely should be a six-month hoist and probably more so they can really begin to under stand the pur pose of this piece of legislation.

I asked the Min ister repeatedly the other night if he would give us the documentation that he was quoting from in the pr esen tation he was making to this Assemb ly. Mr. Speak er, I will read from Hansard, Page 4083, where the Min ister says, "Mr. Speak er, first of all, I do not have that information at my pu rview. Even if I had that information, I would not divulge the name of the landhol der, Sir . Mr. Spea ker, even if I had that information, I would not divulge it." Well, Mr. Spea ker, the Minister is asking us to make a decision based on a whole bunch of cases.

I believe he cited nine cases the other night. I don't know if they are true or not. He refused to give us the information so we could examine it to see whether or not it was correct. So I would have to assume from that it may be correct or it may not be. I don't know, but the most damaging part about it, Mr. Speaker, was the argument put forward by the Min ister. He cited nine cases.

In the citation on all of them, I want to refer, Sir, to his particular comments: Case No. 1, 8,928 acres valued at 5.2 milli on; Case No. 2, 7,031 acres valued at 7.3 mill ion; Case No. 3, 3,000 acres at 2.5 million; Case No. 4, 5,000 acres at 3. i million. Then he goes on to further ones: 75 acres purchased for 37,500, but sold later for $41,250 six days later, an increase of $3,750.00; 745 acres for 375,000 and sold later for 409,000, an increase of 34,000, and on and on and on. In every single case, Mr. Speak er, the Minis ter is complaining about the increase in price.

He's not complaining about the ownership of the land at all. He's concerned about the increase in price. Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Honourable Minister that is not the intent of this legislation. That is not the purpose for which it was introduced. I think the Minister is misguided, wrong headed and ignorant of what the legislation is sup posed to do. In every single case that he has cited in Hansard, and I'll ask anybody to refer to Pages 4081, 4082, 4083. His concern has been about the increase in price that occurred when land was transferred from one owner to another. Mr.

Speake r, I have seen many land transfers in my life. I have seen land transferred from one farmer to another, and very seldom has it been at a price lower than what it was pur chased for. There has always been an increase in the price on transfer. I can tell you, Mr. Speak er, that I personally bought a half-section of land for $7,250, and I turned down an offer of $100,000 for it. I would think that's a pretty significant increase. Yet, I turned down the offer, because I felt that if it was worth 100,000 to somebody else, it was worth 100,000 to me. And I am a farmer. Mr.

Speake r, the Minis ter seems to be concerned about the price of land . He is not inte rested in the ownership at all. He's interested in the price. I hope that what the Min ister is getting at is not what happens, because if I know the farming community at all, Mr. Speaker, and I think I do and I know that other members on this side of the House do know, a farmer lives his whole life poor in the hopes of dying rich when he sells his farm because the sale price of his farm is his retirement program. He hopes to get as much as he possibly can for his property so that he can retire in comfort.

He has li ved his whole life, scratching from pillar to post to make ends meet, so that he can retire. That, Mr. Speak er, requir es that there be an increase in price of that farm land in order for that farmer to retire. Now if the Mi nister of Agriculture is telling me that he wants every farmer in Manitoba to have no retirement program; that he wants to tie everyone of them to the land and say, there's no possible way you're going to get the value for your land when you sell it, then I have to tell the Min ister that he is barking up the wrong, wrong tree.

The Min ister has no comprehension of agriculture and is totally unfit to be a Mini ster of Agriculture if that is the way he is carrying out the busi ness of agriculture in this province. Mr. Sp eaker, it just infuriates me to see this Min ister of Agriculture bringing forth arguments, this tripe that he brought out the other night in his defence of this bill. - (Interjection) - Mr. Speak er, I know that I should not be dallying too long on the remarks of the Min ister of Agriculture.

In fact, if I gave five minutes to it, I think that's five minutes too long because it is not worth the paper that it's written on. - (l nterjection)- Mr. Speake r, I wanted to deal with the bill that the 'vlinis ter has brought forward, and deal with it in a positive way to provide constructive criticism that I hope the Min ister will take and consider very seriously when this bill goes to committee. - (Interje ction)- 4147

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 Mr. Speaker, I'm not really concerned about who ducked what vote or who the guy is that wants to sit over there and yap, but I would suggest if he wants to yap, he leave the Cham ber. Mr. Speake r, when it comes to the (Interjection) MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to you, Sir , that we have a member in the Legislature that is not properly dressed, the Member for Radisson. If the rest of us have to sweat in this here hot box, I see no reason why he should be allowed to take his jacket off. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Radisson. MR. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speak er, I wish to point out to you that my jacket is on my back. MR. F. JOHNSTON: If he enjoys wearing a shawl, that's up to him. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, I bel ieve we have a dress code in this House and I intend to see that it be carried out. - (Interject ion) - Put his jacket back on. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Ho nourabl e Acting House Leader. HON. A. MACKLING: Mr.

Speak er, I want to point out to the Honourable Member for Portage that it is tradition in this House that formal wear has to be in place, or at least worn by the person, but it doesn't ind icate that your tie has to be fully up to the neck. I have a tie on, although my top button is loose. The rules do not ind icate that the jacket must be worn with both arms through the sleeves as long as the person is properly attired; and the Honourable Member for Radisson is pr operly attired , Mr . Spea ker, and ther efore the objection is lud icrous. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur . MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Portage, quite rightful ly, has pointed out to you, Sir , as the Speaker of this Assemb ly, that one member in this Assembly is not properly dressed. He is not wearing the attire properly that one would consider to be prop erly dr essed . His jacket is dr aped over his shoulders, his arms are not in the sleeves and he is not properly dressed, that I would say, would leave a good publi c image for this Chamber where we are sup posed to be statesmen and present ours elves proper ly. What they are doing is truly demonstrating how sloppy they are as a government, Mr.

Speaker, and won't respect the decorum of this Cham ber. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Radisson will explain, perhaps, how the formal wear of a jacket is. MR. G. LECUYER: No, Mr. Speake r. I propose you take the matter under advisement and in the meantime maybe we'll get this Assembly or this Chamber cooled off a little bit. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Member for Portage la Prairie. MR. L. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke to you about the dress in this House, that man, that Member for Radisson did not have his jacket over his shoulders - (Interjection) - he did not.

And I say to you, Sir , that there is a dress code in this House and if you're going to let that man carry on with his jacket just draped over his shoulders, let the rest of us do it. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The real question here is what does wearing proper attire mean? I think we are quarreling about a very trivial matter, but it affects the decorum and respect in the House as well. I don't think the Member for Radisson will object in putting his hands through his jacket so that it will be proper attire. The Member for Virden. MR. H. GRAHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Spe aker.

I hope that the last 15 minutes was not deduc ted from my time in the debate. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member has about seven minutes more. MR. H. GRAHAM: Could the Speaker ind icate again how much I have left? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Seven minutes. MR. H. GRAHAM: Seven minutes? Mr. Speake r, I have only been speaking 10 minutes on this bill and I bel ieve that I'm entitled to 40 minutes in debate and I would like to deal with the important factors in this bill. One of the things that has caused me the greatest of concern is in the definition portion where the bill attempts to define who a farmer is.

A farmer means a resident who receives a significant portion of his income, either directly or indirectly, from his occupation of farming and who spends a significant portion of his time actively engaged in farming. Mr. Acting Speak er, I would like to know what "significant" means. In attempting to find out I went to The Muni cipal Assessment Act which states that, "in determining whether or not a building is exempt under

Section 30(5), it states that where a farmer receives his major source of income is from the farm; and if his income from other sources is greater than his farm income, then his buildings are taxable." I would ask, is this what is intended by saying a significant portion? Does the major source of income have to come from the farm in order for a person to qual ify as a farmer under this thing? Mr. Speak er, I suggest that it's a very dangerous precedent to just leave that as loosely worded as it is 4148

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 where it says, "a significant porti on." To a farmer 10 percent today, in a depressed economy, is significant. It may be peanuts to the Min ister of Agriculture, but I think it is a very significant portion. I think that should be cleaned up when we get to committee. One of the other parts that bothers me about this bill, Mr. Speak er, is a

section that deals with the reverse onus. Reverse onus is always an abhorrent practice that has been frowned on in all legislation for many many years. We find that reverse onus is, again, rearing its ugly head in this bill where it says that "the onus lies on the person to prove his innocence," rather than on the Appeal Board to prove that he is guilty. So the reverse onus part of it, I think, is one

section that should not be allowed to stand in there. If there is any doubt I think the responsi bility lies with the Farm Protection Board to prove otherwise. It is, I think, rather significant, Mr. Speak er, that there are grounds for appeal from decisions of the Farm Lands Protection Board in certain cases. There are some cases, Mr. Spe aker, where there are no grounds for appeal. I would think that

section is one that is probably the most dangerous of any in this particular bill. It gives the Farm Lands Protection Board the right to exempt any individual, any corporation, or any class of persons, class of farm land, interest in farm land, or class of interest in farm land, to exempt any or any part of that from this bill. That decision of the Farm Lands Protection Board, in exempting somebody from the control, is absolute; it is absolute. There is no appeal from any decision of the Farm Lands Protection Board when they exempt a person from coming under the control of this board. Mr.

Speaker, can you see people who, through devious means, want to circumvent the purpo se of this act? The Min ister of Agriculture brought this very act in to try and prevent things of that nature happening. Yet, he is buildin g a great big catch-all that will allow those very things to happen. In doing so, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Min ister of Agriculture has opened the door to the biggest payola that could possibly happen in agricultural land in the Province of Manitoba.

It would be the most corrupt situation that could possibly happen if he does not allow an appeal on any decision that is made from this board. On top of it, he has exempted members of the board from any liabili ty for their actions. I would think, Mr. Speak er, that if he is going to leave that in there he should cert ainly hold the mem ber s of the board personally liable for their actions. Mr.

Speaker, it is going to be very interesting to see who he puts on that Farm Lands Protection Board, because they will, of necessity, have to be people who have tremendous ability to resist pressure, because I'm sure that pressure would be there -just look, do me a favour, and I'll do you a favour; you exempt me from the actions of this board -and you have the power to do it. That power and that action has no appeal from anyone, not even the Min ister. The board can do that without any appeal at all of their decisions. So I think, Mr.

Spea ker, that is probably the most dangerous piece of legislation, or dangerous section, in legislation that could ever be devised. I don't know who the Machiavellian person was that brought it in, but I would suggest, Mr. Spea ker, very strongly that, when it goes to committee, must be removed because it opens the door to graft, corruption and payola, the likes of which this province would never see again. I cannot stress too strongly how dangerous that particular

section is, and I would urge all members to consider it carefully when it gets to committee. So, Mr. Speak er, those are my few comments on this bill. I know that there are many other things that I could talk about on it, but I wanted to point out two or three of the very dangerous things, and the fact that the Min ister, in his remarks the other night, was completely misguided. He wasn't interested in ownership at all; the only thing that he was concerned about in every case he cited was the increase in value of the land.

So that he has not got the interests of the farming community at heart at all; he doesn't know what he's talking about, and I would hope that members in this Chamber will support the hoist motion. Give the Minister six months to try and clean up his act and understand what farming is all about. Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Walding: The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Portage la Prairie, that the debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR.

SPEAKER: On the pro posed motion of the Hono urable Min ister of Muni cipa l Affa irs, the Honourable Member for La Verendrye. Is it the wish of the House to have the matter stand? The Honourable Mini ster of Natural Resources. HON. A. MACKLING: No, Mr. Speak er. I had received this list after consultation with the . . . Perhaps the Honourable Member for La Verend rye could . . . do you want to wait a moment? Perhaps we could go to No. 85 and then come back to that one, Mr. Speaker, No. 85? BILL 47 - THE MUNICIP AL COUNCIL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ACT MR.

SPEAKER: On the propo sed motion of the Honourable Mini ster of Mu nicipal Affairs Bill No. 47. The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In dealing with Bill No. 47 which is

an act which will deal with conflict of interest at the municipal council level, I have several observations that I want to make with regard to the proposed legislation. One of the things that we have faced in society over the last number of years is a growing cry by many sectors of the public to put in place some types of disclosures for people who are running for public office. This bill, after looking at it, is almost identical I guess in many aspects to the one which we are going to be dealing with as members of the Legislature ourselves, 2nd that is before us at this time.

One of the difficulties that one has in dealing with this legislation is that it is geared for the entir e province and I wish to elaborate on that statement somewhat and clarify it. 4149

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 In smaller rural communities this type of legislation will cause a lot of problems. We have many people who are serving on municipal councils who are doing so out of a spirit of public service and who are, in one way or another, very active in the community either through farming ventures, through business ventures or even dealing with such things as real estate and many other busi nesses that are conducted by people self-employed as well as working for others in the smaller rural areas.

One of the difficulties that this legislation will present is that it will allow virtually anybody who has any axe to grind with any councillor or with any mayor or with any reeve, to go into the municipal office and demand to see what type of assets that individual has even though it might be a small percentage like a 5 percent share in a particular company, or they will be able to see exactly what that individual's wife has, and should that individual have some dependents or some childr en still living at home that are involved in any operations, they will also have to dis close that.

Now to someone living in Winnipeg that might not make much difference because you are not subject in the city to the type of small-town politics that get played in very many rural municipaliaties. One has to remember that in a municipal election now for councillors there is very often maybe 12 5 votes cast in a ward and you have one councillor running against the other one and there, somebody can win with 70 votes. This is a very small close-knit community and if somebody wants to cause a little havoc, cause some problems, this type of legislation is just geared to allow that to happen.

As one of the members has pointed out it is tailor made for that type of action. One of the things that concerns me and concerns all members and should concern all members of the Legislature, is the effect this will have on people who have expertise in certain fields in the community who have done well in the community, that this type of legislation will, rather than encourage them to run, will definitely have a bearing on whether they feel that they want to go ahead and discl ose all their assets. Now, let me just give you an example of what could happen and it's happened in our community.

In a time of tough eco nomic times we see a busi ness, for instance, that is on the verge of bankru ptcy. The community wants to keep that business. Four or five people get together and each put in $5,000 or $1 0,000 to try and salvage that business, that means that automatically they now have maybe a 5 or 10 percent interest in that business. They really don't want to be involved. They're not even looking for a return on their investment.

They hope to maybe get that capital that they put into that busi ness out of it at sometime but suddenly the councillor or the mayor who has put $5,000 or $1 0,000 into a small enterprise to save that at a time when, as I mentioned, that busi ness is going bankrupt -it might of a plumbing and heating nature in that community, the only backhoe operator that they have -suddenly the mayor has to go to the town office, disclose that he's got an interest in it; this is the type of thing that one sees happening over and over again to people that are involved in public office.

This bill, I suggest to you, makes it virtually impossible for anybody involved in the real estate business to run for town council because they will, in one form or another, by commission or something else have a 5 percent inter est in anything.

I think most commissions are running at 6 or 7 percent right now and if you get involved in any venture where you're dealing with properties, I suggest to the members opposite that every time a real estate agent for some reason or other buys a house and it's entered on his name personally or his wife's name to either make a livelihood, for resale or that, that has to be added onto this particular bill. I guess my biggest objection, and I go back to what I mentioned earli er, the biggest objection I have to it is that anybody for any frivolous reason can go and ask for a disclosure of all these assets.

I think, not only should that be changed, I have no problem with people listing their assets and having those filed away with the clerk -or in our case with the clerk and in the municipal councillors' case, with the secretary-treasurer. But to have anybody just walk in off the street just to maybe cause a little bit of mischief within the communit y, I think that is wrong. If there are allegations made and there is good cause being shown why there could possibly be a conflict of interest, I think then that can be looked up. Now the Min ister says, how is anybody to know? In a small community, Mr.

Speake r, that is just about common knowledge; everybody knows. We've seen some things happen in rural areas where there have been alleged conflicts of inter est on situations where there was only maybe one type of busi ness of that nature in the municipal ity, or in the area, and the municipality has done busi ness with that. We've clarified that to a certain extent in our act now, but that, years ago, was a contentious point; we've cleaned that particular thing up.

But I say to members opposite that, even though there is a hue and cry for disclosur e and conflict of inter est legislation, most rural areas and most people know if they are being taken advantage of, and that particular individual will not sit and serve on council very long.

So I say to members opposite, to force councillors, mayors and reeves to have, for public scruti ny, at anybody's whim or fancy to look at these assets of the ir selves, their wives and their childr en, their dependents, I think is wrong, and I think there should be just cause having to be shown before anybody can go and do that, because really what will happen, I say to the Min ister, what you'r e really doing is you are, by this bill, going to on the municipal level, cause a lot more problems for people running than you have now.

The Min ister realizes that, in some areas, last time we couldn't even find anybody. In some of the towns we couldn't even find anybody to run for mayor; you had to appoint them. We had to hold new elections and I say to the Min ister - (Interjection) - That's what I'm saying. Mr. Speaker, the Mini ster is now missing the point. I'm saying that even without this bill it was difficult to get people; and what I'm saying to you, it's going to be even more difficult now because people will not want to do that.

I feel that this bill will definitely deter a lot of good people, people who do have assets and who want to have some privacy in their private life, it will keep them from running. That is, as I have mentioned, my own personal belief and I really, from my experience in municipal politics, having been there, know this to be a fact. 4150

Wednesd ay, 6 Ju ly, 19 83 The other thing I want to just briefly mention is the problem with the government having maybe moved on this in a fash ion which I don't think is at all proper at this point in time. The Mini ster claimed that he has sent these conflict bills out - I know I sent them out to my municipal councils and I'v e got a lot of comments back - and I say to the Minis ter, I'm reflecting some of their comments.

They agree with some aspects of it because, when they are voting on things that are of possible conflic t to them, they would agree with the abstaining portions of the bill and that type of thing; but the total asset disclosure of 5 percent equity or more by both spouses is someth ing that just isn't acceptable to the majority of councils. I point out another thing in the bill, and maybe this really demon strates how you've moved on this too quickly, Mr. Min ister. You have said that on October 1st this bill comes into force. Well, Mr.

Mi nister, you know what's happening on October 26th, we're going to have a municipal election in Manitoba. So what I'm saying to the Min ister is, I think it would be kind of ludicrous to ask all the councillors to file, by October 1st, when maybe a lot of them won't be running on October 26th. For a period of 24 or 25 days I don't think that we should force them to go through all this paper work, because a lot of them might not be there next time. So I say to the Min ister, I believe that's sort of indica tive of the ha sti ness with whic h we'v e proceeded with this.

I don't think this bill, if it's passed, and I wish the Mi nister would make some substant ive changes to it, but I don't think, if it is passed, it should be passed for October 1st. You could maybe make it affective December 1st so that the new councils that come in will go ahead and have to comply with the act. Then at least the new councillors know what they're running un der.

If the government insists they want to pass this act in its present form the new councillors will know the type of disclosure that they're looking at and then will have to comply with the act if the government wishes to pass it in its present form.

So 1 say to the Min ister, while there is a large hue and cry for conf lict of interest legislation, I believe the public will not be best served by this bill; I believe that it will deter good people from running and, in the final analysis, even though we talk about conflicts and pos sible confli cts, this bill will hur t muni cipal governments, and people will not get as good a service, because of this bill, as they would have before. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Min ister of Municipal Affairs will be closing deb ate. HON. A. ADAM: Mr.

Speaker , I would like to move, seconded by the Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Honourable Member for Burrows wish to speak to this bill? MR. C. SANTOS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKE R: The Honourable Member for Bu rrows. MR. C. SANT OS: Ali i want to do, briefly , Mr. Speak er, is respond to some of the points raised by the Member for La Verendrye.

The member has stated that, because of this bill, many persons of high quality and expertise and skill will be discouraged from running for public office simply because they had made a little investment in some little enterprise in the mun icipal ity. He cited, for example, an investment of about $5,000, and he also stated that anyone who is engaged in the realty busine ss, as a broker or as an agent, would find himself in a difficult position because he would alm ost always be found in some kind of a conflict situation while acting, at the same time, as an alderman, a municipal councillor or a mayor .

But the logic about the inhi bition that is being placed by this legislation is to prevent a person who, acting in one capac ity, deals with hims elf in another capac ity. it is too well known that in the large cities, including the City of Winnipeg, and I suppose even in small municipalities, some people who are members of the city council find some information ahead of the public, with respect to a change in zoning regulations of a certain piece of land, and if they are also engaged in the realty business that gives them a undue advantage over the other cit izens and the publ ic-at- la rge.

Ther efore, they can buy ahead the piece of land and make a killing in terms of quick money or profit.

That is the reason why a person who is occupying a position of public trust is now being inhib ited to deal with himself in another capacity as an inv estor or as a businessman, because it will not be right. it is not fair to the rest of the publi c-at-large that someone will have some inside information about some proposed change in zoning regulation, let's say, of some agricultural land that will be rezoned into another type of land, like commercial development land, and that information is not available to the rest of the publ ic-at-large. lt gives him an undue advantage, and it is unfair for the rest of the other people in the co mmun ity to be deprived of the opportunity which is available to the one who is a member of the city council.

Ther efore, the reason is that, instead of putting the person in a difficult situation it, in fact, helps him get out of trouble before he gets into one such kind of difficult situation. Strictly speaking, it may not be moral, but it doesn't look good if a person has advance in formation about some reclassification of lands and other people do not have such information, and they have a business interest to protect; and they also, in another capaci ty, will be acting as members of the city council, or as mayor of the municipal ity.

So it is very, very logical and fair that everybody should have the same footing with respect to business opportunities for investment. Th e other point rais ed by the Mem ber for La Verendrye is that anybody who has an axe to grind, a mem ber of the public, will easily come to the municipality and inquire and snoop around a person's possessions. Therefore, he said that it may not be a problem wit h respect to big urban ized cities like Winni peg or Brandon, but in the case of a small mun icipality that might be a di fficult problematic situation. MR. SPEAKEq: Order please.

The time being 4:30, when this bill is next before the House, the honourable member will have 35 mi nutes remaining. 4151

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 The time being 4:30, Private Members' Hour. MR. B. RANSOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speak er. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Tu rtle Mountain. MR. B. RANSOM: I would just confirm then that the bill will be standing in the name of the Member for Burrows and not the Min ister. MR. SPEAKER: I did not put the question to the House on the motion by the Honourable Minister since another member wished to speak. The bill will stand in the name of the Honourable Member for Burr ows who will have 35 minutes remaining. PRIVATE MEMB ERS' HOUR MR.

SPEAKER: The first resolution before the House is the proposed resolution of the Honourable Member for Tuxedo, Resolution No. 14 , and the amendment moved by the Honourable Member for Concordia. The Hono ur able Mem ber for Kirk field has 10 minu tes remaining. RES. NO. 14 - UNPOLL UTED WATER SOURCE FOR WINNIPEG MRS. G. HAMMOND: Thank you, Mr. Speak er. I think it might just be wise to reread the amendment, to reread actually the resolution.

It says: "WHEREAS Shoal Lake is the only developed source for the essential service of water supply for the residents of the City of Winnipeg; and "WH ERE AS devel opment on Sh oal Lake could increase the risk to Winnipeg's water supply and might result in water quality that is unsatis factory without full treatment prior to use at a large increase of cost; and "WHEREAS there is currently under consideration a proposed 350-foot lot cottage development on the shores of Shoal Lake;" and the original amendment: "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of the Province of Manitoba protect the right of the people of Winnip eg to an unpollu ted water source without unnecessary cost to the taxpayers of Manitoba." The resolution was then amended to say: "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the Government of the Province of Manitoba continue to work with the City of Winnipeg, the Government of Canada, and Shoal Lake Indian Band No. 40." I want to ask the members of the government, how long do we continue to work towards a solution to an unpol luted water supply? It is now Jul y, and there does not seem to be a solution in sight. How long C:o we continue to work? Do we go months? Do we go years? When is the Band impact statement to be filed with FEARO?

Back on November 30, 1982, when I received a letter from the Mayor of Winni peg about the Shoal Lake, it said, "The city bel ieves that the best way to guarantee the safety of the water is to have the Ba nd's proposal scrutin ized by the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Office, FEARO . FEARO panel to assess the Band's proposal was appointed by the Min ister of Environment on January 13, 1981. However, to date, the Band has refused to submit its development plan for review." I don't think, to this date, that the development plan has been filed. I may be wrong, Mr.

Speaker, but I don't think that has been filed. In the meantime, how long do the citizens of Winnipeg have to go before something is done about their water supply? You can only work so many months, so many years. Manitoba has got one of the purest water supplie s that there is. It is a supply that we have had for years, and we hope to continue to have. How long is this particular government planning to put our water supply in jeopardy? I don't imagine that the NOP Government wants to be known as the government that helped wreck Winnipeg's water supply and yet, that's exactly what could happen.

Here we have a proposal for 350 cottages that may, or may not, be built with all the pollution and sewage problems that go along with it. We are in a time when no one seems to be doing anything; people, again, have sort of forgotten. I'm sure the citizens of Winnip eg have put it into the back of their mind that Shoal Lake is there; their water supply is always there. But I hope they don't wake up one day, Mr. Spe aker, and find that something has happened, that their water is polluted, and then we have a massive problem on our hands.

We have got a massive problem on our hands today, and yet this government doesn't seem to want to deal with it. I feel very strongly, Mr. Speaker, that as a government it has to be dealt with now. It is not a problem that is yesterday's; it's a problem that's today's, and it is going to be a problem in the future. I think that we have to be very concerned and very aware of what might happen to our city should we lose this particular water supply. It would be strictly through negligence and sitting back and think ing, well there is always tomorrow and we can wait another day.

We'll continue to work with the feds; we' ll continue to work with the Indian Bands; we' ll do anything but try and solve the problem. I think that the big problem today is that this is the government that was going to solve every problem. They promised the people of Manitoba they were going to turn the province around and now they say, what did we do? Well, they said they could do it all. We really didn' t have to do anything. In fact, anything that happened we were to blame. But, Mr. Speak er, they're the government of the day and the government today will be the one that will be blamed if something happens.

They screamed and cried about this particular problem but nothing has happened. Here we are, we're consulting with the Feds; we give in to any situation; we interefere in everything where we shouldn't have our noses in; there's The Farm Lands Ownership Act, there's any number of bills, any number of things that aren't needed and yet what is needed is some help for the people of Winnipeg, for the City of Winnipeg, to help give us some solution to the problem that's facing us now.

It's not just enough to blame, and we don't want to lay the blame, what we want to do is solve the problem and that is what I am saying to you, is try and solve the problem. - (Interjection) - Oh, they just sit over there and laugh and the Min ister of Urban Affairs especially sits and laughs because I know that he in 4152

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 particular has been the one that has been holding back on what is happening. He's the one that wants to consult. In fact, I think he'd like our water supply to jus t go some where els e, disappear, but it won't disap pear, hopefully it won't disap pear. I think if this government would just come to grips with the real problems that Manitobans face -and the Winnip eg water supply is one -not The Election Act; not to give us money for our own elections; not to give us pieces of paper to send out to our constituents, we can do those things ourselves.

Give us the help we need that we can't do without. It's only problems such as this that this government can help work out and yet they are doing nothing. You'r e sitting in this House, content and hiding, plan to stay here all summer, that's fine, but these are problems that when we bring them to the attention of the people of Winni peg that you're not doing anything about, bel ieve me the problem is there and they will rise up and they will say, what are you doing? I cannot tell you how important this particular issue is. It's not - (Interjection) - oh, the Member for Thompson laughs.

I want to tell you he laughs at anything that doesn't happen in Thompson; but Winni pegger s sometimes, and even us that are in the suburbs, we like our water supply too and we have some say even though you see us as sitting there just very comfortable. This is very important to us and bel ieve me we'll get the message. We'll get it into the St. James constituency and into lnkster constitue ncy. We'll get it into - (Interjection) - oh, eat them? We won't bother eating the words.

What we want to be able to do is have a safe supply of clear water that we can drink, not some polluted water that has garbage and sewage in it. We want our water supply protected. I say to you, through you Mr. Speak er, let us get on with the job of saving Winnip eg's water sup ply. It does us no good to be sitting around consulting any more. How much more can you consult. For heaven's sake get on with the job and let's get something done and let's, by all means, do something about the problem that we face with the Shoal Lake. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Cultural Affairs. HON. E.

KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speake r. I'm pleased to have the opportunity of speaking on this resolution though I'm somewhat perplexed and don't quite understand why we're dealing with this resolution. The resolution suggests that the government hasn't been taking a cle ar position with respect to the protection of the City of Winni peg water supply and I think the record, and I'll relate it to the members opposite just to refresh their memories, that the record is clear with respect to this government's role and this government's position with respect to the City of Winnip eg water supp ly. So given that record, Mr.

Speak er, one has to ask the qu est ion, why is this res olution here? If the gover nment's record is clear with respect to the protection of the City of Winnip eg water supply , why is this resolution here? As I und erstand the kind of resolutions that come up from time-to-time in Private Members' Hour, they are there for a number of reasons to give di rection to a government, to place issues of importance to the people of the province, to other governments; or sometimes, Mr. Speaker, they are used by members in order to make their position clear.

So I'd suggest the reason behind this resolution being here for those members opposite to get their position clear in the record because it hasn't been, it hasn't been, Mr. Speaker, and one would have to look at what happened during the years that they were in government and what they did with respect to this issue. There must be some feeling of guilt, Mr. Speaker, that they brought this resolution forward. There must be some feeling of guilt, that they wanted to make sure the record was clear with respect to their position with respect to the City of Winnip eg water supply .

They must have some guilt with respect to that, Mr. Speak er. That's why ... MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Tuxedo on a point of order. MR. G. FILMON: I believe it's improper for any member to impute motives for bringing forth a resolution or for any other action taken in this House. I'm sure the member doesn't understand the rules.but perhaps you could edify him on them. MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure the Honourable Mini ster is quite aware of the rule that prohibits the imputing of motives to other members of the Legislature. The Honourable Min ister. HON. E. KOSTYRA: Thank you, Mr. Speak er.

I did not want to impute motives to the members opposite; that seems to be some sensitivity from some members opposite with respect to that, but it's certainly my impression as to why this resolution is before the House. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. HON. E. KOSTYRA: The stone, Mr. Speaker, hit another rather shaky windshield over there, but that is up to members opposite to speak to, but it seems that they are very sensitive when I suggested that it may well be part of the reasons behind this resolution. The position of this government, Mr.

Speaker, has been clear with respect to Shoal Lake, with respect to doing everything that's possible to protect the City of Winnip eg water supply . The mem ber tha t spoke previously made fun of the amendment saying wherein the amendment calls for the government to continue to work with the Federal Government with the Band, with the City of Winnipeg to protect the Winnipeg water supply, somehow implying that we ought not to continue. Well, Mr.

Speaker, I know I speak for all my colleagues on this side, that we will continue to work; that we will do everything in our power to work with the other levels of government to protect the Winnipeg water supply. If that takes days, Mr. Speaker, if that takes months, Mr. Speak er, if that takes years, we will continue to do that. We're not going to stop our efforts because of members opposite. The y seem to think that the amendment that we've proposed, that if we continue 4153

Wednesday, 6 July, 1983 to keep our efforts up is somehow ridiculuous, but I'm not going to stop my efforts to do everything in my power to protect the City of Winni peg water supply because I think it's important for the residents of the City of Winnipeg. There seems to be a lot of sensitivity on this issue opposite, especially when I made comments earl ier. Well, I think times always seems to prove things out, Mr.

Speaker, and I think if members opposite are a bit more patient over the next while and the people of the province, they'll clearly understand the position of this government and we' ll, hopef ul ly, in due cou rse, und erstand the position of members opposite when they had an opportunity of being in government and had the opportunity of protecting the City of Winnipeg water supp ly. I would like for a few moments, Mr.

Speaker, to just outline what has taken place, what actions have been under taken by this government, in particu lar, actions taken by my department with respect to the City of Winnipeg water supp ly. This was an issue that we inherited when we formed government in December of 1981.

It was within weeks, I bel ieve within two weeks, of assuming office, of being appoi nted to Executive Council that I held a meeting with the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, a number of councillors from the City of Winnipeg, key staff from the City of Winnipeg and my col leag ue, the Min ister of Northern Affairs responsible for the Environment. We met with the city to listen to them, to get an understanding of their concerns with respect to the proposed 350-cottage lot development on Shoal Lake Indian Reserve No. 40.

It was shortly after that that we met further with representativ es of Indian Band No. 40 to hear their position with respect to the development proposals that they had been making for a number of years, in fact, a number of years prior to us coming into office, proposals that they had discussed with the previous Conser vative Government over a number of years, Mr. Speak er. As a result of those meetings, this issue was discu ssed by my Cabinet colleagues and myself.

We decided that we were going to do everything that we could to protect the City of Winnip eg water supply , and to ensure that no development would take place on l.R. No. 40 that would in any way have the possibilities of degrading the water supply of the City of Winnipeg. There were further meetings held throughout that wint er, in Februa ry and May with various representatives. It seemed to me, Mr. Speak er, that those discussions were not taking us anywhere; that there was not in sight any resolve to the problems.

I suggested to all the parties, both to the City of Winnip eg, to the Mayor, to Ch ief Red Sky and to the federal Min ister -in fact, I wrote to all of them on June 23rd of last year suggesting that we all meet to see if we can look at identifying solutions to the problems. In the early part of July of 1982, I travelled along with my staff to l.R. No. 40 on Reserve land and toured first-hand the area so tha t I could get a better understanding and met with the full membership of the Band Council of l.R. Band No. 40.

At the same time, I had arranged a tour by city officials of the intake of the City of Winnip eg water supply at Shoal Lake, and had a good briefing by city staff on the way that the intake and the associated works there operate with respect to drawing the water out of Shoal Lake and sending it on its way down the aqueduct to the City of Winnipeg. This was actually the second opportunity that I'd had. A number of years previous, I had the opportunity of travelling to that area by train, but I certainly didn't have the kind of briefing that I received this time. I was certainly impressed, Mr.

Speaker, at the operation there, impressed to the extent that that was developed many years ago. I was impressed also with the fact that very little was added to the water in the initial stage and, of course, at this end to make sure that it's safe for human consumption in the City of Winnipeg. So it is a unique resource that we have for the City of Winnipeg, the water that does come to us from Shoal Lake. As a result of my letter, we were able to convene a meeting with the Federal Min ister, Mr. Mu nro, with also in attendance the Federal Mini ster of Employment and Immigration, Mr.

Axworthy, and the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg, representativ es from the Executive Policy Committee and Chief Red Sky and his advisors and Band Council members. At that meeting, we outlined the various problems that were associated with LR. No. 40, dealing with the specific proposal for a cottage-lot development, dealing with the potential sewage and solid waste problems. We did reach a tentative accord at that meeting, calling for the development of two parallel processes.

It was decided that each of the parties would go back to their respective councils, governments -what have you -to get agreement on that accord. That accord allowed for two parallel developments. One was that the Federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel would be asked to adjust its guidelin es to restrict its consideration of the proposed project to the impact on matters related to the water qual ity, and to proceed through the normal hearing and reporting process as soon as possible. Related to that was that the parties would agree to submit all relevant information to the panel as quickly as possible.

Second ly, contingent on the above, Canada, Manitoba, Winnip eg and the Band would designate negotiators to begin to prepare a dr aft agreement on possible compensation on a cost-shared basis in order to restrict developments on Reserve No. 40 to protect the City of Winnipeg water supply . So we were able to reach an agreement at that point in time on July 26th at that meeting with all of the

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	32-2-101
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	32nd 2nd hansardpdf 101.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	e3ee1205a2cf564ec6fb7cf708c9d8635812acde

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