ISSN 0542-5492 Third Session - Thirty-Second Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS 33 Elizabeth 11 Published under the authority of The Honourable D. James Wa/ding Speaker VOL. XXXII No. 42 - 2:00 p.m., WEDNESDAY, 13 JUNE, 1984. Printed by the Office of the Queens Printer. Province of Manitoba

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Second Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation Name ADAM, Hon. A.R. (Pete) ANSTETT, Hon. Andy ASHTON, Sieve BANMAN, Robert (Bob) BLAKE, David A. (Dave) BROWN, Arnold BUCKLASCHUK, Hon. John M. CAAAOLL, Q.C., Henry N. COAAIN, Q.C., Brian COWAN, Hon. Jay DESJAADINS, Hon. Laurent DODICK, Doreen DOEAN, Auasell DOLIN, Hon. Mary Beth DOWNEY, James E. DAIEDGEA, Aloert ENNS, Harry EVANS, Hon. Leonard S. EYLEA, Phil FILMON, Gary FOX, Peter GOUALAY, D.M. (Doug) GAAHAM, Harry HAMMOND, Gerrie HAAAPIAK, Harry M. HARPER, Elijah HEMPHILL, Hon.

Maureen HYDE, Lloyd JOHNSTON, J. Frank KOSTYAA, Hon. Eugene KOVNATS, Abe LECUYEA, Hon. Gerard LYON, Q.C., Hon. Sterling MACKLING, Q.C., Hon. AI MALINOWSKI, Donald M. MANNESS, Clayton McKENZIE, J. Wally MEACIEA, Q.C., G.W.J. (Gerry) NOADMAN, Aurik (Aic) OLESON, Charlotte ORCHARD, Donald PAWLEY, Q.C., Hon. Howard A. PAAASIUK, Hon. Wilaon PENNEA, Q.C., Hon. Aoland PHILLIPS, Myrna A. PLOHMAN, Hon. John RANSOM, A. Brian SANTOS, Conrad SCHAOEDER, Hon. Vie SCOTT, Don SHEAMAN, L.A. (Bud) SMITH, Hon. Muriel STEEN, Warren STOAIE, Hon. Jerry T. UAUSKI, Hon. Bill USKIW, Hon. Samuel WALDING, Hon. D. Jamea Constitue ncy Ste.

Rose Springfield Thompson La Ve rendrye Minnedosa Rhineland Gimli Brandon West Ell ice Churchill St. Boniface Aiel 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 Charleswood St. James St. Johns Morris Roblin-Russell St. Norbert Assiniboia Glad stone Pembina Selkirk Transcona Fort Rouge Wolseley Dauphin Turtle Mountain Burrows Rossmere lnkster Fort Garry Osborne River Heights Flin Flon lnterlake Lac du Bonnet St.

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

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, 13 June, 1984. Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. J. Welding: Presenting Petitions . . . Reading and Receiv ing Petitions . . . Presenting Reports By Standing and Special Committees . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports . Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR. SPEAKER: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the galler y, where we have 23 students of Grade 1-9 standing from the Maple Creek School under the direction of Mr. Mowbray.

The school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for Pemblna. On behalf of all our members I welcome you here this aftern oon. ORAL QUESTIONS Milk prices MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Premier.

In view of the fact tha t the recent policy announ ced by the NDP Govern ment's Manitoba Food Milk Price Commission has resulted in an almost immedia te 23 cent per two­ litre carton increase of milk at supermarkets and large retail stores, what is his government going to do to protect low-income earners who need to have milk as part of their diet against such a massive incr ease in the price of milk? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I regret that apparently the Leader of the Opposition is party to some inaccurate information.

I think the Minister of Agriculture probably could assist the Leader of the Opposition in correcting some obvious misinformation that the Leader of the Opposition is working under. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition alleges that milk prices in the Province of Manitoba have increased by 23 percent, 23 cents per litre. - (Interjection) - Oh, per two litres, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B.

URUSKI: The Leader of the Opposition should recall, Sir, that when the Milk Prices Review Commission announced an increase to farmers of approximately seven cents per litre in the cost of milk, it was followed by an increase of an additional 10- 12 cents per litre by the industry. it was felt, upon analysis, that the increases were exorbitant. Part of that was due to the fact that certain retail outlets were given very large discounts, somewhere in between 10 to 30 perce nt.

Those retailers were able to offer discounting of milk to consumers, Sir, howev er, in the rest of the province those discounts were not available. In rural areas and Nor then areas that discounting pra ctice was not available and those consumers were not able to gain the benefits of the discounting. Discounting, Sir , primarily for the reason of gaining greater market share or forcing some of the processors out of the industry. That was really the practice . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, the government on the advice of the Milk Prices Review Commission rolled back those increases at the retail level which resulted, Sir, in great savings across the province to consumers, Sir, while in some large retail outlets there was no change in the retail price. But across the board in the major part of the province , there was a red uction in prices at the consumer level.

Sir, there is no doubt that In this second stage where the Commission has now regulated the price in terms of minimum and maximum pricing, there are some retailers who will not make as large a margin - and that is what is being alleged - on their returns from milk as they did in the past. However, Sir, the vast majority of consumers have had no increase in the price of milk from what was established by the rollback, Mr. Speaker, and there is greater stability and greater equity as consumers in the Province of Manitoba will have a more stable price in terms of milk supply. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture doesn't think that a 23 cent per two-litre carton increase, which is about 16.5 percent, is something to be concerned about. MR. SPEAKER: Ques tion. MR. G. FILMON: I am surprised as well, Mr. Speaker, that he believes that in order to solve . MR. SPEAKER: Question. MR. G. FILMON: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that in order to solve some minor problems that occur 1926

Wedne.dey, 13 June, 1984 in localized areas in the province that he should instead adopt a socialist approach of spreading the misery across, so that two-thirds of the people who are consumers of milk now have to pay considerably more? Is that his answer? Is that the only answer that he has? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad that the Leader of the Opposition thinks a 14 cent a litre increase in the price of milk was minor, Sir, because that's what was imposed by the industry. That's what the Leader of the Opposition said was a minor increase. Mr.

Speaker, there may be some retailers, and I have said this, that have received greater discounts than other ret ailers. Now, Mr. Speaker, they have received greater discounts, and many of them who have received discounts did not pass on those benefits to consumers. By regulation, the benefits of a regul ated price is being passed on to the vast majority of consumers, not on the basis of one retailer, Mr. Speaker, being able to get milk at a greater discount than another retailer. But, Sir, to suggest that a roll back of anywhere from seven to 14 cents at the retail price was a minor or very miniscule problem, Mr.

Speaker , the Leader of the Opposition should drink more milk and know the prices of milk in vast parts of the province. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister and his Commission could have come up with a formula that would have protected the people outside of Winnipeg and the major markets without impa cting on all of the other mark ets; in view of the fact that what he has done impacts on about two-thirds of the markets that have access to major retailers and major independent chains. why does he believe that it's not reason able for people to pass along discounts and to use milk as a loss leader when people will benefit throughout the province? Those people are people who need milk as part of their staple diet.

Why does he not want that passed along? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honour able Government House Leader on a point of order. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, both of the last two questions have been clearly argumen tative with lengthy

preambles and not designed to solicit information from the Minister. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside to the same point. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, there has been a very deli berate policy change affected by this government under that Minister of Agriculture. My Leader is simply asking for explanation and clarification of those policy changes that have the precise effect that my Leader is talking about. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. A question should seek information and not the opinion of the Honourable Minister involved.

Oral Questions should be short, concise and to the point and answers to them should also be short, concise and to the point. The Honourable Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, in view of the fact that the President of the Consumers Association of Canada, Manitoba Branch, one Joan Friesen, indicated that the policy that was brought forward by this NDP-appointed Milk Commission will undoubtedly result in higher prices to consumers and will leave major retail chains laughing all the way to the bank, will he not go to this commission and ask them to take consumers into account and ask them to consider the low income earners who need milk as part of their staple diet? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mi nister of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr.

Speaker, it is true that there has been a change in policy, from a policy of allowing an uncontrolled intrusion into the marketplace by the processors to try and . . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, the roll back that was announced by this government and this commission was supported by members of the Conservative Party. They agreed that the roll back was adequate and it should have been brought into play, showing and agreeing that their legislation did not work, that their legislation did not work. Mr.

Speaker, because of the massive incr eases introduced by the processors. the Conservative Party agreed with the actions of this gover nment. Now to have the Leader of the Opposition come into the Legislature when the sec ond stage of the controls to regulate the prices so that there is a greater benefit for all consumers in the Province of Manitoba is pure grandstanding.

He would rather, Sir, have the consumers in rural Manitoba and in Nor thern Manitoba and consumers buying from local, small stores be prepared to pay more money for the price of milk so that the prices in the supermar kets could be discounted at the expense of the small ret ailers and chains, exact ly what was happening, Sir, before the controls were brought in by the Commission. That's the policy he's advocating.

Let him come out and say so, that we're prepared to let Safeway discount force out all the little chains and all the little processors out of business, the small busine sses out of business by discounting the price and fighting for the retail market, because that's what he's sugges ting. If he's suggesting that, let him stand up and say so, because it's his own party that has supported the policy change in terms of rolling back the retail prices of milk, Sir. MR. G. FILMON: Mr.

Speaker, if the Minister accuses me of arguing on behalf of low income families and grandstanding for the working poor in this province, I'll accept that. In view of the fact that previous submissions to governments have always indicated that it's the low income families with children who are hardest hJt, because they must have milk as part of their staple diet, will he not intercede with his commission and ask them to reconsider this policy because it's not good for two-thirds of the people in this province; and will he not say that it's the working poor and the people 1927

Wednaday, 13 June, 1984 with families, wit h children, who need this policy change? Will he not tell them about that? HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, it is clear now that the Con servative Oppo sition now admits that their legislation did not work, clearly that their legislation did not work. Sir, they agreed that the marketplace wasn't working when the marketpl ace was charging and gouging consumers over and above what should have been 1 charged by the original inc rease by the dairies and the processors.

They want to forget that and that won't go away, Sir, because the price was increased upwards to 14 cents a litre for the price of milk in parts of Manitoba. They agreed with the policy change that we had to move, we had to side-step their legislation to be able to roll back the price of milk which was exorbitant. Mr. Speaker, the Commission has set the price of milk as an interim measure pending a fuller review of the cost of production of all aspects of the industr y. Sir, if ever I heard a clear admission on behalf of an opposition that their legislation didn't work, we have heard it tod ay.

They have now said that their legislation doesn't work. We want some action on behalf of the government. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The Honour able Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: If the Honou rable Leader of the Opposition was sensitive as he says to the working poor, Mr. Speaker, he would have asked his critic of Agriculture who agreed with the steps we took to roll back the price of milk in this province and stabilize the price to consumers. He should have asked his own critic. Mr. Speaker, at the consu mer level there has been no change in the price of milk.

In fact, there's been a reduction. for many consumers across the Province of Manitoba with the exception of the odd one who was getting a greater discount at the expense of others, Mr. Speaker. Hydro power - sale of MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to th e Honou rable Premier.

Knowing of his keen interest in the impending power sales to the south, can the Premier tell us that companies such as Northern States Power or the Western Area Power administration groups are, in fact, wholesalers of electrical energy, who in turn sell at a profit to the local distributors and utilities or mun icipalities, the energy that they Intend to purchase from us? MR. SPEAKER: The Honoura ble First Min ister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House Leader but there were was really so much noise across the way I couldn't hear the last part of his question. I wonder if he would repeat it. MR.

H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I'm simply asking whether the Premier can tell the House that companies such as Northern States Power are, in fact, wholesalers of electrical energy, who in turn sell at a profit the power that they expect to get from us to any number of local utilities, municipalities or other distributors of that electrical energy in their area? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Northern States Power is a utility that serves the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, some 3 million people within that area.

As the Mini ster responsible for Energy has indicated there will be significant benefits to the Province of Manitoba by way of profit, as well as substantial savings insofar as those that are purchasing the energy. lt's a satisfactory mut ual arrangement ins ofar as both parties are concerned, Mr. Speaker. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question.

As his Minister of Energy and Mines indicated when announcing the Letter of Understanding with the Western Area Power Administration which describes their role as a wholesaler who then provide electricity to more than 500 customers in 15 states, which include mun icipalities, co-operatives and private utilities. My understanding of that statement would mean that after having purchased Manitoba power from this wholesaler, who I assume is making a profit , then it goes through the distribu tor, who I assume is making a further profit in selling it to the final American end user.

Would that be an appropriate understanding of what's happening? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the honourable member is aware, but the Western Area Power Authority is an agency of the Department of Energy of the United States Government, so I think that indeed we are dealing with an appropriate and a satisfactory party. SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, I simply want the Minister to confirm that Manitoba power is going to be sold to a wholesaler in the United States, who in turn will sell it at a profit to a distribu tor, and the distributor in turn will sell it at a profit to the American end user. My question to the First Minister is . . SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. H.

ENNS: . . . can the First Minis ter assure this House, because these arrangem ents are being concluded without taking any of us into confidence, these arrangements are being concluded with the House or the Pu blic Utilities Commit tee not having an opportunity to discuss them, can the First Minis ter assure Manitobans that after two middlemen make their profits out of Manitoba Hydro, that American users will 1928

WednHCI•r. 13 June, 1984 not be getting Manitoba power for less money than Manitoba users? HON. H. PAWLEY: I can assure the Opposition House Leader that unlike the proposed transaction that was proposed during the term of the previous adminis tration in this province, of which admin istration the Member for Lakeside was a member of the Treasury Bench, this particular transaction will not involve a subsidy by Manitoba Hydro, Mr. Speaker. lt will not involve a pickup of costs by the people of the Province of Manitoba, unlike the proposal that was advanced by the former adminis tration of this province. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, there will be a substantial profit, as the Min ister of Energy has pointed out, and ind eed that full and complete information will be provided at the National Energy Board, Mr. Speaker. I don't blame honourable mem bers across the way, Mr. Speaker, because they are worried. They have good reason to be worried about this transaction, about Alcoa that they raised yesterday, Mr. Speaker, because they are whining because they are frightened.

They are frightened out of their political wits by the fact that there is substantial economic advancement taking place in the Province of Manitoba, and that this province is on the verge, Mr. Speaker, of leading Canada by way of economic recovery. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Hono urable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, another question on another subject also dir ected to the Premi er, I understand that the Federation of Labour has requested that this government consider the nationalizing or the purchasing of Greater Winn ipeg Gas.

I am aware, of course, that is a long-standing ideological goal of this government and of the New Democratic Party. But my di rect question to the Honourable Premier is: has anybody in the government taken a recent examination as to what it would cost to nationalize the Greater Winnipeg Gas system? HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know just whether there has been any analysis in respect to same.

I think it was made very clear by the Minister of Energy some 16, 18 months ago, in that neighbourhood, when in fact that opportunity did arise because of the expiry of the franchise that we would not, in fact, be assuming public control in respect to Greater Winnip eg Gas. lt was an issue that was dealt with at that time. Thomp son - contaminated transformers MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for MR. SPEAK ER: The Honourable Min ister for the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question is most appropriate. I just received an update on the situation just at this moment.

On May 30th of this year, the Public Health Inspector in Thompson was, in fact, notified by the landfill operator in Thompson that three transformers were present in the waste disposal ground. The transformers were found to originate from the CIL Chemical Division Plant in Thompson which was - I'm not sure - either being demolis hed or being renovated at this particular time and these transformers were disposed of. The Waste Management Division of my department insp ected the site.

Approximately 20 gallons of oil had leaked from one of the three transfor mers and on the other hand the labels on the transformers ind icated oil fill, non PCB. However, a screening test was conducted as a precaution ary measure and the initial tests made in Thompson ind icated that there was a positive reading in one of the transformers and, as a result, three or four cubic yards of oil-contamina ted soil were removed and stored ih two metal containers. The transformers themselves were isolated and stored safely in the meantime, while the oil was being analyzed. MR. S.

ASHTON: In view of the fact that at least of those transformers was PCB contami nated , I was wondering If the Minis ter could ind icate what steps, if any, will be taken to dispos e of that transformer and the transformer oil and, particularly, I'm wondering if the Minister can give any assurance to my constituents that there will be no threat to the environment or the health of people In the area due to that contamination. HON. G.

LECUYER: The transformers contained, according to the lab analysis that was made here in Winnip eg, 30 parts per million, 28 parts per million and 62 parts per million of PCBs; therefore one of those was marginally above the acceptable guidelines which is 50 parts per million. The soil analysis itself was at three parts per million and on that basis, Mr. Speaker, the soil is going to be buried and left there. The two transformers that are below the acceptable limit will be flushed of the oil and the metal used for scrap or returned to scrap yards.

The one transformer which is above the acceptable limit will be taken to Gimli for storage where other transformers are currently being stored; so therefore there is no cause for concern at this time and the limits which had been im posed on the public, or access to the public in the waste disposal site, have been lifted at this time. Thompson. Manitoba Forest Resources Ltd.- Annual MR. S. ASHTON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. i have a question for the Minister of the Environment.

There has been concern expressed in Thom pson about the possi bilit y that PCB contami nated transformers have been put in the Thompson Waste Disposal Ground. I was wondering If the Minister could ind icate if this is In fact the case and whether his department has in fact checked into this particular matter. Report MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D. GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, I di rect a question· to the Minister of Northern Affairs.

I wonder if the Minister can tell us today when he expects to table the Annual Report of Manitoba Forest Resources Lim ited and if there is a change in the fiscal year end for that firm? 1929

Wedneedey, 13 June, 1984 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. STORIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I expect that I will be tabling the annual report tomorrow. Manitoba Native Council - funding MR. D. GOURLAY: I thank the Minister for that answer. I direct another question to him. During the review of the departmental Estimates of Northern Affairs some two or three weeks ago, the Minister indicated that he had received a request from the Manitoba Native Council for funding. I wonder if the Minister can tell us now whether a decision has been made to fund this organization. HON. J.

STORIE: No, no decision has been made final on that item. Camperville - self-gove rnment MR. D. GOURLAY: A further question to the Minister of Northern Affairs, has the Minister endeavoured to seek a legal opinion on the status of the Camperville Metis Government? HON. J. STORIE: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not sought, other than internal, informal advice with respect to that issue. I have indicated a number of times, Mr. Speaker, the department's and the government's position, and I belie ve that the individuals who discussed that particular conceptual framework are aware of the government's views. MR. D.

GOURLAY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to that question, I wonder, is the Minister satisfied that there is no conflict of interest between the Camperville Community Council funded primarily by the Province of Manitoba and the Camperville Metis Government, which the Minister indicates he's not sure of their legal status. but by and large these two organizations are manned by the same people. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please. The question seeks an opinion from the Minister . Would the honourable member wish to rephrase his question to seek information? The Honourable Member for Swan River. MR. D.

GOURLAY: I wonder if the Minister of Northern Affairs then can confi rm that the Mayor of the Camperville Community Council also serves as the Premier of Camperville. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to the Member for Swan River a number of times that the Department of Northern Affairs and the government deals with the duly-elected representatives of the community of Camperville. We deal with the Mayor of Camperville, and the elected councillors of Camperville. What individuals do on their own time in a voluntary way is their own affair. MR.

D. GOURLAY: Can the Minister tell the House then who is funding the Camperville Metis Government? MR. SPEAKER: If that is within the administrative competence of the Minister. the Honourable Minister of Northern Affairs. HON. J. STORIE: Mr. Speaker, I'm not sure whether that que stion was ruled out of order, or whether I am permitted to answer that question. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister should be aware that the question should be on topics within the administrative competence of the government. If it is so, the Honourable Minister may answer it; if not, he should not. Home Economics Program MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJARDINS: Mr. Speaker, a week or so ago, I was asked a question by the Member for Fort Garry. I have been waiting for him to come to the House. I know he is preoccu pied, but I would like to place the answer on the record of this House. He was asking about the Home Economic Services, and I had suggested at the time that the Home Ec's had lost their separate identity.

I want to say to him that to develop and expand a cohesive and effective approach to help promotion, the various components of the department have been realigned under one branch, Health Promotion Directorate. That consists of Home Ec's, Health Education, Service to Seniors, Fitness and other specialty health resources and public health nursing. He wanted to know if the number of Home Ec people in the staff years had been reduced. The Department of Agriculture had two in the central office and 18 in the rural Manitoba. This is the same.

The Department of Health has seven at the central office: a director, two nutritionists, one housing specialist, one volunteer co-ordinator, one money management specialist, one training and program co-ordinator; and nine in the field: six in Winnipeg, one in Wes man, one in The Pas and one in Thompson for the total of 16. Mr. Speaker, there has been no reduction in staff resources, and also the nutrition component has been identified as the top department prio rity.

Other public health resou rce nurses and educators have been directed over to this nutritional program, and some additional positions to be determined will be moved into nutrition home ec services in the field. The Nutrition Program will be directed over into the high-risk group, that is the deprived, prenatal and Native, so there has been no reduct ion of the service. He's just come in. I will send this copy over to him. A MEMBER: No, no, read it again. Manfor - spraying MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Niakwa. 1930

Wednesday, 13 June, 1884 MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would pose my question to the Honourable Minister of Environment, Workplace Safety and Health. A couple of weeks ago, the Minister advised that before spraying was to be carried out by Manfor certain prec autions had to take place. Has the government been advised as to the necessary precautions taking place? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister for the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In regard to that particular issue, Mr. Speaker, nothing further has occurred.

Neither the company who was to do the spraying nor Manfor have supplied any of the additional Information in question in regard to the first test spray that was to take place. That is not to say, they will not do so in regard to the one that was to be carried on this fall or late summe r. MR. A. KOVNATS: Can the Honourable Minister assure this House that no spraying has taken place to date? HON. G. LECUYER: The test in question, which the member refers to that we discussed here a couple of weeks ago, had to do with a special test carried jointly by DuPont and Manfor.

That particular test is the one that we had requested a design before they could carry on with the actual spraying. That, in eff ect, is what brought an end to the test on the 20th, rather than - the test was to take place on the 24th of May, but rather than to proceed with the test after having been requested for this information and not being able to supply, rather than to turn around and supply the Information requested, they decided not to carry on with the test . In fact, the chap who was to do the actual spraying left the province on May 20th. MR. A.

KOVNATS: I thank the Honourable Minister for that information, and the people in the North will thank him also now that they know that there has been no spraying taking place, even though I have been advised as to the contrary. I would like to pose another ques tion to the Honourable Minister of Environment concerning the situation at Thompson that was brought up by the · Honourable Member for Thompson, where the Honourable Minis ter described the situation at Thompson as no cause for concern.

Can the Honourable Minister honestly make that statement considering that the oil that is being buried or has been buried in Tllompson does contain PCB's? Can the Honourable Minister make the statement that there is no cause for concern? HON. G. LECUYER: I indicated, Mr. Speake r, that the soil in question contained three parts per million of PCB's, which is consi dered a trace. When the contamination level is at 50 parts per million - the member will find that there are many parts, many areas, and I am not in any way acting here or standing here as a proponent of the disposal of . . .

SOME HONOURABLE MEMBERS: Oh, oh! ..... SPEAKER: Order please. HON. G LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, if the member on the other side wishes to hear the answer maybe he can control some of the members that are shouting from his side. Mr. Speaker, it is in no way something that I condone, the disposal of transformers on a waste site, and it's not something that generally occurs. I explained the circumstances under which it did occur. As wel l, I explained that when staff first checked these transformers, they were labelled as non-PCB transformers, so obviously somewhere along the line they have been tampered with.

Some oil was added to them that was not of the type that was non-PCB content. The tests having revealed that there's only three parts per million PCB's in the soil, that will be disposed and buried. I have to inform the member that unfortunately there are many parts of this province where soil contains away higher contents of PCB's and that is unfortunate. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary and last question concern ing the same transformers.

Has any action been taken against the people who placed those tran sformers into the disposal area, has there been any fines levied, has there been any advice to those people that they mustn't do it because of the danger that is caused? Are there any fines? What is being done to see that it doesn't happen again? HON. G. LECUYER: Mr. Speaker, the matter is still being investigated. We, at this point in time, don't even know exactly who placed these transformers in the disposal site, but I also want to repeat something I said earlier. The transformers were - (Interject ion) - Mr.

Speaker, if it is rep etitive, then the questions are repetitive, but I will provide the answers seeing as it was asked, inde pendently of what the Member for Arthur wants to shout from across the House. I will repeat what I said earlier, Mr. Speaker. The transformers had labels on them which indicated that they did not contain PCB's. lt was because the department did not take any undue chances that we were able to det ermine that was not the case, otherwise these transformers could have been left there, even though they did have - in one particular instance anyways - levels that were higher than acce ptable.

Order for Return No. 15 MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Minne dosa. MR. D. BLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago, I submitted a written question that was subseq uently transferred to an Order for Return on the understanding that the information would be forthcoming quickly. I wonder if the Minister could tell me when I might receive the answers to those ques tions. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Agriculture. HON. B. URUSKI: Mr. Speaker, I hope to have that information tabled hopefully before the end of the week . 1931

wectne.day, 13 June, 1914 Lotteries MR. D. BLAKE: I thank the Minister for that answer and I'll be anxiously looking forward to that information, Mr. Speaker. I have another question to the Minister in charge of Lotteries. For some time they advised the winning numbers of the various lotteries in the weekly newspapers of Manitoba and that's been discontinued. I wonder if he could tell me when that was discontinued and why the policy change to discontinue that? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Health. HON. L. DESJAR DINS: Mr.

Speaker, the lotteries that my honourable friend refers to is run by the Western Canada Lottery Foundation and they are the ones that are in charge of that. I've been asked that question before and I'm checking with the Foundation to see what their intent is. Apparently it is not as acceptable as it was, it's difficult for people to get their winning numbers, so I'm checking with the Foundation. lt is the responsibility of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, not the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation. MR. D.

BL AKE: I apologize to the Minister for having the name incorrectly, but I wonder when he gets that information if he'd be kind enough to pass it on to me. HON. L. DESJ ARDINS: Oh, absolutely. City of Winnipeg Act - amendments MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Kirkfield Park. MRS. G. HA MMOND: Yes, my question is to the Minister of Urban Affairs. I wonder if the Minister is planning to introduce amendments during this Session to The City of Winnipeg Act so that the city can start paying claims to homeowners for sewer replacement on city property? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON. M.B.

DOLIN: Mr. Speaker, that has been under consideration by this government as I have answered before, and I suspect that an answer will be before this House shortly. Surface Rights Board - firings MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Arthur. MR. J. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question to the First Minister. I wonder if he can confirm that his Minister of Energy yesterday fired three members of the Surface Rights Board? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable First Minister. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, I would take that question on behalf of the Minister responsible for Energy.

I think there have been changes in respect to the board. The details of that I would take as notice. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, when he's taking the question as notice would he find out the reasons for the firing of those individuals? HON. H. PAWLEY: The honourable member ought to know that the proper phraseology certainly is not firing and, I think, it's unfortunate that the honourable member uses that term because it has a certain connotation in respect to it. Members of boards are changed from time to time.

They were under the previous administration, the administration previous to the previous administration, there will be changes from time to time in respect to this administration, that is to the part and partial responsibility of administering a government in respect to boards carrying on independent functions. MR. J. DOWNEY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder when the Minister is checking into it if he would find out as to why those three particular people were fired and not any of the other ones, why those particular three people were fired. HON. H. PAWLEY: Mr.

Speaker, again, I point out that the member, of course, for his own particular purposes which I think will be evident to all, insists on using a term that is inflammatory and misleading. I will take the question insofar as the change in respect to the membership of the board as notice for the Honourable Minister of Energy to respond to. MHRC - Jobs Fund Assistance MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Norbert. MR. G. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister responsible for MHRC.

Last Friday, he indicated in a statement to the House that last year with the assistance of the Jobs Fund and Manitoba Housing, there were 1,905 apartment units started. Would the Minister responsible for MHRC, Mr. Speaker, specifically identify the number of those units that received financial assistance either from the Jobs Fund and Manitoba Housing and exclude those apartment units that received funding through CMHC or were MURBS? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Housing. HON. J. BUCKLASCHUK: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was busy trying to find Hansard for last Friday for the Ministerial Statement that I made.

I will recheck that statement. I would suggest that the Member for St. Norbert do too. I do not believe that I made the connection that the Member for St. Norbert is making. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for Oral Questions has expired. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Aiel. 1932

WednHdey, 13 June, 1884 MS. D. DODICK: Mr. Speaker, I have a committee change on Economic Develo pment. The Mem ber for Seven Oaks will substitute for the Member for The Pas; the Member for Transcona for Rossmere; and the Member for Wolseley for Ain Flon. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for La Vere ndrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some committee changes on Economic Deve lopment, the Member for Lakeside for the Member for Roblin-Russell; and on the Public Utilitie s and Natural Resources, the Member for Pembina for the Member for Charleswood. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. HON. A. ANSTETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, would you call Second Rea ding, please, on Bill 22, followed by Second Readings on the othe r bills standing on Page 2 of the Order Paper; and following that, the Adjourned Debates on Second Readings on the same page. SECOND READING BILL NO. 22 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LABOUR RELATIONS ACT AND VARIOUS OTHER ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE HON. M.B. DOLIN presented Bill No. 22,

An Act to Amend The Labour Relations Act and Various Other Acts of The Legislature, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. M.B. DOLIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Bill 22 is firmly based on this govern ment's commitment to industrial harmony. We believe that such harmony is a key contributor to the province's stead y economic growth and our drive for increased job opportunity. Thirteen months ago the government undertook what we believed to be the most extensive review and detailed discussion of labour legislation that has ever been conducted in the Province of Manitoba.

We did so in the belief that lair and balanced labour laws are not only critical to a productive economy , but to the pride and dignity of all of those who live and work in Manitoba. 1t has been 12 years since The Labour Relat ions Act was first introduced in Manitoba - some of my colleagues remember that day - and it's been eight years since it has been amended. Over the course of our review, we have spent much time talking to the province's business and labour communities about the changes that have occurred over the years, about their needs and about their concerns.

Throughout that detailed and lengthy consultation, we have looked for and we have found a great deal of common ground. We have, wherever possible, sought consensus on the needs of the industrial relations community today and their needs in the future. While many of Bill 22's provisions are based on consensus, we recognize that there are other provisions that will take time before they receive general acce ptance. Mr. Speaker , that is the nature of leg islation and particularly of labour legislation.

I remind mem bers opposite tha t their cries of economic disaster, lost investment, failing business are not new cries. Indeed, it's difficult to remember the introduction of any labour legislation, though based on equality , fairness, balance, that has not met with similar cries by Conservative critics, but they'r e firmly rooted in the past. Mr. Speaker, it is time for the Prog ressive Conservatives to put away the rhetoric and quit crying wolf. I invite them - in fact, I challenge them - to join in a responsible discussion of the industrial relations needs of this province.

We recognize that Bill 22 doesn't have all of the answers and we will carefully monitor the effect of its provisions. What's more, we will continue to consult, consult with business, consult with labour in a responsible manner In our efforts to continually improve the industrial relations environment in this province. The introduction of Bill 22 comes following a period of unprecedented industrial peace in Manitoba. The number of work stoppages, the number of workers involved in these stoppages, the working days lost to industrial conflict are the lowest since 1969.

While these statistics are impressive, they should never be seen as an excuse to ignore the need for real change and for improvement. There are critics who would sugge st that it is better to wait until Manitobans have suffered through a strike or a lockout or have had their business cri ppled as a result of a work stoppage. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that such critics are not only naive but they are actually insensitive to the real needs of workers and to their employers. This government believes that progress can best occur in a climate of relative harmony.

We on this side do not believe that a humane and responsible government sits back and waits for an arbitrary quota of suffering or of inconvenience or of economic hardship. We have introduced Bill 22 to deal with specific concerns in the industrial relations community, to provide much needed clarification of the act and a firm foundation for labour relations in the future.

We believe that the future lies with a responsibl e industrial relations community and it's for that reason that we have retained the Manitoba Labour Board's tripartit e structure. lt is for that reason that we have increased the Board's independence by providing for live to seven year terms for the chair and the vice­ chair and by moving legislative provisions dealing with the Labour Board from The Department of Labour Act into The Labour Rela tions Act. it's for that reason that we have given the Board increased responsibilities and put a heavy emphasis on settlement. Finally, Mr.

Speaker , it is our belief in this province's industrial relations community that has given us increased confidence in the Manitoba Labour Board as an institution that is capable of dealing with industrit' relations issues, quickly, competently and with clear authority. Privative clauses of the type that are found in Bill 22 are not new and the protection that they provide from judicial review have been found both nece ssary and desir able. 1933

WednHdey, 13 June, 1984 In March of 19 79, the now Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Brian Dick son, wrote: "The rationale for protection of a labour board's decisions within jurisdiction is straightforward and compel ling. The labour board is a speciali zed tribun al which administers a comprehensive statute regulating labour relations.

In the administration of that regime, a board is called upon not only to find facts and decide questions of law, but also to exercise its unde rstanding of the body of jurisprudence that has developed around the collective bargaining system, as understood in Canada, and its labour relation sense acquired from accumulative experience in the area." Mr. Speaker, while Bill 22 provides the Board with greater freedom from judicial review , it also respects the role of the courts in interpreting constitutional matters and in ensuring that the Board has acted within its jurisdiction.

While we believe that, for the most part, unions and empl oyers in Manitoba do act in a re sponsible man ner , sensitive to the needs and respectfu l of the rights of employees, we also believe that it would be irresponsible to ignore the exc eptions to that rule. When an individual signs a union membership card, he or she has made a decision that must be respected. They must not be subjected to intimidation, threats or pressure. The right to join a union is one enjoyed by every Canadian and I believe it is supported also by the constitutional, freedom of association. Mr.

Speaker, we believe that what is known as a date of application certification process, is the best way of ensuring that the true wishes of the emplo yees are respected . it is a process already in effect in other Canadian jurisdictions. lt is clearly the intent of this leg islation to have the Mani toba Labour Board determine the true wishes of the emplo yees by the use of sig ned membership cards as at the date of application.

While emp loyees will still have the right to change their minds prior to the date of applica tion and the Board will still have the right to disregard the cards if a union has acted inapprop riately, the new emphasis on the date of application will limit the opportunity for unfair and illegal interference.

When the number of cards does not constitute a clear decision by the employees involved, then the Manitoba Labour Board will require that a vote be held. lt would have the authority to exer cise this option where the number of cards signed represent less than 55 percent of the empl oyees affect ed, but at least 45 percent. Where support· for the union is below 45 perce nt, the application would be dismissed.

Bill 22 contains other imp ortant certification provisions. lt gives the Board the power to grant an interim certificate where the only outstanding issue is the composition of the bargai ning unit and where it is clear to the Board that whatever way the dispute is resolved, the union has enough support to be certified. Bill 22 serves notice that blatant attempts to interfere with an individual's freedom of association and right t o join a union will not be tolerated.

Under the provisions of the bill a proven serious, unfair labour practice could result in certification, regardless of the number of cards signed at the time. Indeed, if this provision had been in place earlier there are some Manitoba emplo yees, who exercised their legitimate right to join a union, who would not have been subjected to intimidation and humiliation inflicted upon them by someone acting in total disregard of the law. We realize, Sir, that just as employees have the right to belong to a union, they must have the right to leave or to change that union.

We have introduced a number of amendments that will make that process more fair and more representative of the true wishes of the workers, while ensuring that unions act in a fair and responsible manner . For example, the board may decertify if it has found fraud in the original application, or if the union abandons its bargaining re sponsibilities. Sir , Bill 22 cont ains other provi sions allowing emplo yees to continually review their union membership and to periodically apply for decertification where they feel it is in their best interest to do so. Mr.

Speaker, while we are proud to have introduced provisions, such as, the date of application procedure, interim certificates and discretionary certification, we must acknowledge that these are not new concepts. Although labeled by the opposition as being anti­ business, they have been in effect in a number of Canadian jurisdictions for some time. The label that the opposition would like to give us they would, therefore, also have to apply to the Conservatives in Ontario, in Saskatchewan, in Newfoundland and in Alb erta, or to the Socreds in British Columbia, and also to the Fed eral Liberals.

While, under this government, it would seem that the Manitoba economy has been doing better than the ones that I have just mentioned, I don't believe that the comparatively poor performance of those economies could ever be attributed to the certification procedures that are in place in their laws. Mr. Speaker , this government is commi tted to encouraging all individuals to take an active role in building a society that is based on co-operation and that is characterized by justice and equali ty.

To that end, Sir, Bill 22 has provi sions that will ensure consultation in the workplace and ensure that it is not merely a platitude, but a contractual commitment. Bill 22 provides for the inclusion of just-cause provisions, providing for contractual protection from arbit rary dismissal or discipline. In fact, a great number of contracts already contain such clauses.

Bill 22 calls for a commitment on behalf of unions to act fairly in exercising their rights as bargaining agents and for management to act fairly in its administration of the agreem ent. lt establishes, in law, provisions protecting the rights of workers to demo cratically participate in their unions and protects the worker's right to vote on critical matters, such as, contract ratification and strikes. Where workers have found it necessary to exercise the right to strike, or where an employer locks workers out, Bill 22 includes measures to ensure that the conflict does not escalate to unacceptable levels.

The bill bans the hiring of profe ssional strikebreakers and ensures that workers will have the right to return to their jobs upon conclusion of the work stoppage. Mr. Speaker, the true strength of Bill 22 is in the pro visions it contain s to reduce confrontati on, particularly during the life of a contract. Gr ievance mediation and improved grievance arbitration are mid­ contract resol utions that are best able to deal with mid- 1934

Wedneeday, 13 June, 1984 contract di sputes. Bill 22 introd uces provisions for grievance mediation in the hopes that the persuasive powers of mediation, previously used almost exclusively to settle contracts, can now be used to settle ongoing disputes. When those disputes can't be settled, then arbitration must be used. Through the consultation process leading to Bill 22, both labour and busine ss have made it clear that impr oved grievance arbitration procedures were an absolute must.

While many colle ctive agreements contain strong arbitration provisions it was felt and, indeed, it was demanded that the act provide a faster, less expensive, high quality system of arbitration. We have responded to this request, this dema nd, by introducing provisions for expedited arbitration. Under this form of arbitration, firm deadlines for decisions are established, a mediator is appointed to deal with the parties during the time of arbitration, and a sole arbitrator is involved in hearing the case. Mr.

Speaker, having legislative remove the right to strike during the term of an agreement, I believe it is incumbent on any government to see to it that the alterna tives available are as effective as they can possibly be. That is a belief that is similarly expressed by the former Labour Minister of Ontario, Robert Elgie, when speaking on expedited arbitration, and I quote.

He said, "If we feel there is any suggestion of disrepute falling upon the grie vance arbitration procedure it is my view that we have an obligation to endeavour to correct it so that the procedure sets out to do what it was originally intended to do, and that it sets out to do so without undue delay or undue cost ." Mr. Speaker , if such measures are interpreted to be detrimental to improved labour relations, then I would suggest that such crit ics have eit her a lack of understanding of the arbitration process, or they have to be dedicated to the obstruction of the just settlement of grievances.

Exped ited arbitration is one example of this government's commitment to responsive legislation. Mr. Speaker , Bill 22 itself is an example of our commitment to harmonious, indus trial relations. We believe the time to act is now. Our study of Manitoba's legislation and the legislation in other jurisdictions has been detailed and extensive. The labour and busine ss communities have worked very hard to ensure that their concerns have been met and their needs have been addressed. Mr.

Speaker, Bill 22 will go a long way in providing the kind of long-term labour stability that is needed for a steady economic growth, while helping to ensure that the rights of Manitoba workers, their needs and aspirations, are also better met. This government is committed to the provisions of Bill 22 and I invite all those involved, the labour communi ty, the business commu nity, the members of this House, to assist in seeing that the goals of ind ustrial harmony, economic growth and the dignity of the worker are achieved. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for La Verendrye. MR. R.

BANMAN: Mr . Speaker , I beg to move, seconded by the Member for Morris, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 6 - THE DANGEROUS GOODS HANDLING AND TRANS PORTATION ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Min ister for the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER presented Bill No. 6, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act;

Loi sur la ma nut ention et le transport des marchand ises dange ureuses, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to bring this most important legislation before the House. As members of this Chamber may be aware, this legislation has gone through an extensive consultation and planning process. We have worked closely with both the private and the public sector in an effort to make the new legislation as pragmatic and effect ive as possible.

Before I get to the details of The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act, I would like to give you some background that has brought us up to this point in time. As members of this House, you will recall that our government passed Bill 43, The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, in May of last year. This act was to provide provincial legislation to parallel and supplement the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act of 1980. The Manitoba Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act was not proclaimed, because its Imp lementation required the adoption of federal regulations.

To date, no operational regulations have been passed . Concu rrent ly, the Department of Environment and Workplace Safety and Health had been developing a Dangerous Goods Handling Act which was introduc ed as a discussion bill in August of last year to be subjected to intensive public consultation during the int erval between August of last year and this time. In the fall of 1983, approximately 3,500 copies of the proposed Dangerous Goods Handling Act were distri buted for comment to numerous indus tries, employer groups, labour unions, environmental interest groups and private individuals.

Special public meetings were also held in Thompson, The Pas, Dauphin, Brandon, Morden, Portage la Prairie and Winnip eg. Appr oximately 250 people attended the meetings, and some 34 written briefs were received. 1935 A detailed report was prepared, and it is being circulated to all those involved in the process. Copies are also available for anyone else who wishes to consult, and filey are available on request. The consultation process was completed, and the legislation redrafted to address the concerns and comments raised during the meetings.

One such issue raised on a number of occasions was the relationship between The Dangerous Goods Handling Act and The Transportation of Dangerous Goods Handling Act. Due to the obvious overlap areas and the concerns raised, it was deemed highly desirable to amalgamate these two acts into one combined piece of legisla tion. This is what you will find in the bill that is being introduced

wednesdey, 13 June , 1984 for second reading today. lt was determined that this move would facilitate private industry and gove rnment. I would now like to highlight the major provisions of Bill 6. Bill 6 will give the province the much-ne eded capability and authority to regulate and react to site­ specific problems regarding the manufacture, use, storage, tran sporta tion, handlin g and disposal of dangerous goods. The new legislation will also accommodate the establishment of hazardous waste disposal facilities in Manitoba.

A cradle to grave manifest will be required for haza rdous wastes, so they can be tracked from generator to fina l di sposal. This system will be compatible with planned national and international systems. Under Bill 6 as well, tran sporters of hazardous waste will be licensed, and required to carry adequate third party liability insurance. They will also have to adhere to stringent site-specific requirements. Under the new legislation, environmental accident res ponse capability will be impr oved so that a greater number of responders will be available.

The bill makes provision so that capable persons can be deputized to perform required functions until departmental staff have arrived on an emergency scene. Failure to comply with the provisions of this new act or future reg ulations will result in penalties of up to $50, 000 .00. This is consistent with the federal Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act, and the public health and environmental consequences of improper dangerous goods handling. Prior to closing my remarks, I wanted to make the following points known to the House.

As I indicated during our department's Estimates review , to facilitate the combinin g of two acts, the Transportat ion of Dangerous Goods unit from the Department of Highways is being transferred over to our department. Therefore, our department will now have the operat ional and legislative re sponsibili ty for the majority of dangerous goods management in Manitoba. I would also like to empha size this new legislation is one of the major components of our government's Hazardous and Special Wastes Management Program.

This legislation will, in essence, form the legislative foundation of this very important program. Mr. Speaker, as I stated at the outset of my remarks, it is both a pleasure and an honour for me to present this legislation before the House. I consider it crucial to Manitoba's long- term public health and environ mental interests. Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just a question to the Minister if he would.

He indicated that the summation of the briefs from the public hearings was mailed out to some 34 presenters of briefs. Could the Minister indicate whether copies of the bill have been sent out to those presenters of briefs? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of the Environment. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The copies of the bill were sent out starting - what was it? - Tuesday or Monday that the bill was distributed in the House. Starting on that date, the bill was being sent out to all of those who attended the meetings, not only just the 34, but to all the 250. MR.

SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Portage la Prairie, that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 11 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CLEAN ENVIRONMENT ACT HON. G. LECUYER presented Bill No. 11,

An Act to amend The Clean Environment Act, for Second Read ing. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. G. LECUYER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr . Speaker , I am ple ased to present these amendments to the House for consideration and passage. Mr. Speaker, these amendments are necessary for four major reasons: firs tl y, Mr.

Speaker , to accommodate the new Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act that is now before us, and which I just presented for second re ading; secondly, to accommodate the impl ementation of the planned province-wide Pesticide Control Program; thirdly, to accommodate any future decision regarding bringing the City of Winnipeg water discharges under the control of The Clean Environment Act; and fourthly, to allow for some housekeeping changes regard ing enforcement procedures and special cases. I would now like to delve into detail in regard to the proposed amendments.

One of the pri ncipal reasons that The Clean Environment Act is being amended at this time is to accommodate Bill 6 which, as I stated, was the bill titled Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act. lt is important to note that, without the se proposed amendments, there would be duplication of leg islation. These changes will also ensure technical consi stency among cert ain provisions of The Clean Environment Act and Bill 6. These amendments to The Clean Environment Act are also necessary to allow for the implementation of the Pesticide Control Program.

As many of you may reca ll, in 19 82 the Clean Environment Comm ission recommended that a province-wide permit system be implemented in an effort to effe ctively control the application of non­ agricultural pesticides in Manitoba. Of particular concern was the mosquito control. In accordance with this, my department rece ntly comple ted the first draft of a proposed regulation aimed at implementing this new permit system. The draft regulation is now out for extensive public consultation and discussion. 1936

Wednesday, 13 June, 1984 Since it is our government's intention to proceed with this program in the spring of 1985, it is now necessary to make the relevant amendments to The Clean Environment Act. Another amendment to the act will accommodate any future decision In respect to bringing the City of Winnip eg water dis charges under The Clean Environment Act. lt should be noted to the members of this House that water discharges within the City of Winnip eg are now exempt from The Clean Environment Act by Order-in-Council.

As my colleagues are aware, ongoing water quality problems have occurred in the Red River and, in large measure, it has resulted from dis charges from the City of Winnipeg. As it stands now, the province has no effective control over these discharges. Over the course of the last two years, our government has attempted to .resolve the ongoing water quality problem via consultation with the various parties involved. These parties are the City of Winnipeg, the Town of Selkirk, the Federal Gov ern ment and the Provincial Government.

Although there has been extensive review and dis cussion of the problem, some what limi ted progress has been made in terms of providing a long­ term plan towards impr oving the quality of the Red River water. The former Minister says we tried, and that is true, and we will continue trying. Therefore, in view of this governmen t's strong desire to bring a resolution to this problem, it may be necessary to seriously consider bringing the City of Winn ipeg dis charges under the control of The Clean Environment Act. At least the act will make provision to do so.

Finally, the amendments allow for some housekeeping cha nges to the act . These cha nges relate to enforcement procedures and special cases. In the area of enforcemen t, the amendments will make the existing requirements of the act more enforceable in the courts. As well, the maximum fines under the act are being increased to be consistent with The Dangerous Goods and Transport ation Act . As I mentioned, the housekeeping changes also relate to procedures under the act. They will streamline the process of varying Clean Environment Commission orders so that hearings are only required in the event of objections.

When we get into the details, members will notice that this will streamline and expedite the process. Finally, the housekeeping changes also deal with special cases. This will permit the declaration of environmentally sensitive areas and accommodate government action in future emergencies involving Western Equine Encephalitis situations. Mr. Speaker, none of these housekeeping changes reflect any fundamental differences in the principles which are now embodied in The Clean Environment Act. Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and my pleasure to present these amendments for consideration to the members of the House.

Thank you. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of questions for the Mini ster. The Minister ind icates that this bill is companion legislation in many respects to Bill No. 6. If for any reason Bill 6 is held over and not passed this Session for further study, etc., will this bill likewise be held over? HON. G. LECUYER: The question, Mr. Speaker, begs for speculation on what is going to happen to one bill in order to determine what will happen to the other.

Without having given it further reflection and without considering all the causes or all of the amendments to The Clean Environment Act, I find it difficult to answer that question. I presume one could still occur without the other, not as is, though. Not as is. MR. D. ORCHARD: One further question. The Minister ind icated reg ulations which are currently being ci rculated which have no effect upon the agricultural commun ity.

Will these reg ulations apply to the application of pesticides by weed control dist ricts established throughout the various rural municipalities that provide weed cont rol services to the farm community? HON. G. LECUYER: If I understood the Member for Pembina correctly, this is a service provided by the weed control dis tricts whic h come un der the mu nicipalities, and I do believe that they would be subject to this regulation.

But I want to also clarify something that - (Interjection) - I would like to finish my response to that, and I would also like the Member for Emerson to listen to it before he takes off with some misconceptions. So it is preferable that he listens to it. I would like to correct something that the Member for Pembina said - that is, seems to be im plied - that this is not a regulation that is being circulated. This is a draft of a proposed regula tion which is being circulated , therefore, for consultation.

We are not talking, therefore, of a regulat ion that has been imp lemented, nor are we talking about a final format of a regulation. We are doing exactly that, Mr. Speaker, circulating a draft regulation to get the feedback from the various levels of governments which will be affected so that we can arrive at the regulation which will serve the intended purposes and still remain practicable and enforceable. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Niakwa. MR. A. KOVNATS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move, seconded by the Hnourable Member for Portage la Prairie, that debate be adjourned.

MOTION presented and carried. BILL NO. 12 - THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT HON. M. HEMPHILL presented Bill No. 12,

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

loi sur les ecoies publiques, for Second Reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. HON. M. HEMPHILL: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce to the House for second reading a bill to amend The Public Schools Act. This proposed legisation is intended to do two things. it's intended to provide 1937

W8dneMiey, 13 June, 1984 for the release of school board budgets to the public and to amend the Education Support Program which provides the major portion of revenues to school divisions. I am going to just touch on that last amendment that I mentioned first, Mr. Speaker.

This sect ion is in relation to the Education Support Program, and what we are doing is bringing in an amendment to the existing legislation so that the consumers price index factor, which was built in as the dete rmining factor for the inflation increase in the Support Program, is going to be changed for the 19 84 calendar year to coincide with the previously announced funding levels of 3 perc ent. I think that when my Estimates were up, I announced in the House that the incr ease for school boards this year would be 3 percent and therefore it's necessary that we make this change to conform to that decision.

I would like to concentrate most of my few remarks, I think, on the item that is of major inter est to the people of Manitoba and that is the release of school board budgets. This amendment and this change in legisla tion, Mr. Speaker , is being brought in for three major reaso ns. The first one would be freedom of information, which this government believes in. Secondly , it is because we believe that it's important that taxpayers know how their tax dollars are being spent.

When you're looking at the Education Budget, you're looking at the second largest budget in the province. lt's about 19 to 20 percent of the provincial budget and this year school boards will be spending about $734 million. That's a great deal of money and that is taxpayers' money and I think that we believe very strongly that they have a right to know what that money is being spent on. Individual schools have a lot of automony. We agree with that. Out of the funds that they get, about 76 percent of the funds they get are block funds.

That means they have a lot of discre tion in terms of programs and where they spend that money and it's very important for parents to know what programs are going on in their schools, what the prioriti es of the school divisions are, what the programs are costing and what the distribution of money is. For the taxpayer, it's very important that they have access to information that tells them what that money is being spent on.

When we did the survey, and we've discussed this a fair amount in the House, both myself and the Member for Morris, but we've talked about the survey of public attitudes in education; and I think there was some important information there, because generally the people of Manitoba were saying that they thought there was a reasonable amount of money being spent on education at this time. They didn't want it cut; they didn't want a decrease and they didn't want a major increase and - this is very important - they didn't neces sarily equate improved quality of education with incr eased spending.

That's imp ortant for elected representatives to know that, that you can't just throw money into the pot and assume that the people of Manitoba are going to believe that you have improved the program and the quality of education. However, they did say very clearly that they would be prepared to have more money go into education even if it meant increased property taxes, provided we could dem onstrate and show them what the improvements were going to be and that there was going to be improved quality of education for their children.

This really shows how important it is that they have access to the budgets, because that's one of the only ways they're going to know where the money is going and what it is being spent on and be able to make a judgment from their point of view on the value of the money that is being spent on their child's educa tion. I really believe that the question of confidence and support can only increase with increased access to information, particularly financial information like school board budgets. Are you convinced? Did I convince everybody? I have just a few more things to say.

One of the thrusts of my depart ment, as all the mem bers in the Chamber know, has been public inv olvement, incr eased public inv olvement and participation in decisions made about their child's education and one of the major factors will be resulting from this change in legislation that will give them access to all the information about the money that is being spent on their programs. I think we've got some very difficult choices.

The education system is being pressed to do more and more all the time with less mone y, or with not a major increase in money, and I think the parents have to help us make some of those deci sions. The public has to help us make some of those choices; they have to know what those choices are. I did set up an inter-organizational committee. I think it's important - just one last thing - to say that the education community supports this. A MEMBER: Don't feel rushed. HON. M. HEMPHILL: No, I'm not.

They did set up an inter-organiza tional committee and asked them to deal with this, because I believe we should be releasing school board budgets to the public. There were a few concerns put forward. One was that they believed there should not be any information made available dealing with negot iations. In other words, there shouldn't be any access to information telling you what they are doing in their negotiations and I agree with that; and they should not receive any information that gives information about an individual, and I agree with that.

So we have provided those two exemptions, but other than that, any member of the public of Manitoba has a right to ask for and a right to have access and to receive the school board budget. The Federal Government does it, Mr. Speaker; the Provincial Government does it, the Mun icipal Government does it; and I believe school boards should do it too. I believe that this may be a small bill in size, but a large bill in terms of the important principle to parents and the people of Manitoba. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the ques tion? The Honourable Member for Morris. MR. C. MANNESS: Mr.

Speaker, I move, se conded by the Memb er for Robli n-Rus sell that deba te be adjourned. MOTION preaented and carried. 1938

Wedneeday. 13 June, 1984 ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING BILL NO. 8 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE SECURITIES ACT MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 8. On the proposed motion of the Honourable Attorney-General, standing in the name of the Honou rable Member for Lakeside. MR. H. ENNS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourn this debate on behalf of my Leader. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourabl e Leader of the Opposition. MR. G. FILMON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm pleased to be able to speak to the information contained in Bill No. 8,

An Act to Amend The Securities Act, which was introd uced by the Minister of Consu mer and Corporate Affairs approxima tely a week ago. In speaking to the bill, Mr. Speak er, I will be taking issue with the intent and the decision of the government to proceed in this manner. I want to say, as the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, that I begin by concurring wholeheartedly in the words of commendation that the Minister put forward to Mr. Peden, the Chairman of the Securities Commission, Mr.

Tapley and the other members of staff who I know are eminently well qualified, very capable ind ividuals, who are attempting to do an excellent job on behalf of the people of Manitoba In their roles, respectively, in the Securities Commission. My criticisms of the government's decision to proceed in this man ner, Sir, are of the government and not of the commission and the members of the commission. Mr. Speaker, the Minis ter ind icated that this bill was urgently requested by Mr.

Peden and members of the Securities Commis sion and I say, Sir, that I take him at his word, but I suspect that was not his first choice, in terms of an urgent requirement, and I will go on to discuss, in my view, various aspects of this legislation and th e alternat ives that there are before the government today to proceeding in this manner. Mr.

Speaker, the Minister, in introducing the bill last week, put a few statements on the record in justification of the govern ment's decision, the first of which was that the amendments are primar ily intended to achieve or provide a mechanism for achieving uniformity of securities legislation in this province with the legislation of other provinces. Indeed, Sir, my recollection is that was always an objective that was imp ortant to the workings of the commission and important to the Minister in his position that we do have uniform ity with the securities legislation of other provinces.

The problem is, Sir, that these amendments are not the best way of achieving that. The Min ister ind icates that Bill 72 of 1980 provided an entir ely new approach to The Mani toba Securit ies Act, but was not yet proclaimed. lt is his contention, Mr. Speaker, that: "Until such time as that bill can be amended to reflect amendments which are expected to be made, inde ed expected to be made fairly soon, in The Securit ies Acts of the Provi nces of Alberta and Ontario, it is very impo rtant to keep us pretty well in a lock step with these provinces primaril y." That's what he said.

The problem, Sir, is that this bill will not do that. This bill is a piecemeal, patchwork kind of approach to keeping in place the old legislation,

whereas the best method of putting us in lock step, using his words, with The Securities Acts of the other major provinces in the country would be to proclaim Bill 72 and, Sir, make the additional amendments that are now required as a result of the passage of the last four years. But the Minister has given us a variety of excuses, one might say, or reasons why they are not proceeding in that mann er, preferring to stay with the patchwork system of trying to keep the old bill in place and to keep up to date with it. But the longer we proceed in this manner, the more difficulty we have, Mr.

Speaker, in keeping in parallel and in lock step with these other jurisdictions. I believe, Sir, that the ultimate answer would be for the Minister and his government to seriously consider something that I know he is seriously considering, because it was referred to during the debate on his Estimates, the addition of staff to the department which would be the major component necessary for them to be able to proclaim Bill 72 and bring up to date the amendments that would put us in lock step. This does not.

Not only does it not put us in lock step, but it does something which I consider to be unusual and perhaps even unwarranted in that it anticipa tes potential amendments in Ontario at a time when, I am given to und erstand by people in the industry and professionals who are dealing with the Securities Commissions in our province and that province, there is great reason to believe that they will not even by proceeded with by Ontario. They are proposals, I agree. They have been proposed by the Province of Ontario, but they may not be proceeded with in the form that they were proposed.

In fact, the Ontario Government is having serious second thoughts about it. Therefore we are going to be in the unusual position of passing amendments, anticipating what happens In Ontario when in fact it doesn't come about. So now we're going to have a whole hodgepodge of things that we're waiting for proclamation on, that we are trying to bring us into lock step with

an act that isn't parallel in any case. I think that it's just simply a very very bad approach to this whole effort. I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that there will be people from the indu stry and professionals who deal with securities and the registration of instruments of security and offerings of securities here in our province who will come before a comm ittee and say precisely that to the Minister, who will not be in agreement with what the Minister is doing. I am wondering why the Minister is proceeding in this manner. Perhaps in committee and perhaps later, he will tell us that.

But it seems to me that rather than face the real root problem of putting additional staff in the Securities Commission to deal with it and to be able to allow them to proclaim the act of 1980, Bill 72, he is instead asking them to continue on a patchwork basis, do the best they can, and the only manner that he can persuade them to do it on that basis is to bring in the se amendments that bring in some of the necessary changes to bring them closer to these other acts. But it isn't the real answer, and I would like the Minister to tell us why he isn't proceeding with the real answer. 1939

Wectnncay, 13 June, 1984 I'll give him the benefit of even quoting his answer to the Member for St. Norbert who asked that very question last Wednesday, Mr. Speaker. The que stion that was asked was, why doesn't he proclaim Bill 72, The Securities Act, that was passed in 19 80? The Attorney-General, as is his wont, replied to the question with a question, and he said: "I only ask, of course, rhetorically why the previous administration, having passed the bill in 19 80, didn't proclaim it in 1981 or 19 82?" We ll, I can tell him why we didn't proclaim it in 1982.

We weren't in government in 19 82, that's the first reason. In 1981, Mr. Speaker, we were, of course, being given the advice of the Securities Commission that they needed a little bit of time. The Ontario act inciden tally, although it had been passed in 19 80, was not proclaimed until late 1980, and they wanted to have a little bit of experience in understanding what the Ontario Securities Commission adjustments would have to be in their staff and their procedures in order to deal with . The Securities Act in that province.

Then it was our anticipation that, if not certainly by late 1981, by 1982, it would certai nly have been proclaimed so that it could have been put into the works, but it wasn't. Of course, since then, and we're dealing now with a matter of two-and-a-half years, it is this government who has not proclaimed it for two-and-a-half years, all the while stalling off what I believe would be the first preference of the people of the Securities Commission, the staff of the Securities Commission.

The Attorney-General further spoke about "significant changes in the marketpla ce, in the legislation of other provinces." Sir, those changes have been added to their equivalent of that 1980 act, Bill 72. They are already off on that new course. We could be making those parallel changes, but we're not. We are instead dealing with the old act and trying to, on a patchwork basis, bring it in step or close as possible to what exists with the new act and its amendments in other provinces. That, Sir, is, I think, not the right route to go. He spoke further in his answer to the Member for St. Norb ert, Mr.

Speaker, the Attorney -General, and he said : "The amen dments here proposed to The Securities Act as it presently exists, just to make sure that we are keeping up, and to see in fact what the amendments which are being considered, which of those will be made in the other provinces - Alberta and Ontario particular ly.'' So we are dealing with proposed amendm ents that are bein g consi dered in other provinces, not yet in place in other provinces. lt seems to me that this whole process of doing things in anticipation is not a very good one, beca use those provinces may think twice and may re consider and may not put in those amendments.

Here we are dealing with them in Manitoba on an anticipatory basis. lt doesn't seem to me to be the best approach, particularly in a year when this government is saying we're only dealing with essential legislation, we are only dealing with things that absolutely must be done, urgently requir ed and all those things. Here we are dealing with a proposal that anticipates something that may or may not happen in these other jurisdictions. I don't believe it is the way to go. In any case, Mr.

Speaker, as well, the bill is being suggested to us as being in the best interests of those people who deal with the Securities Commission in all respec ts. The Commission has various responsibilities in my view.

In addition to maintaining and preserving the integrity of the Manitoba Securities Commission in dealing with the issue of new securities, we have to be very cognizant of the need to ensure that we can deal and they can deal - that is the Commission - with the examination and administration of the legal, financial and other assessments that are necessary in order to approve and carry out the proper registration of securities issues in Manitoba.

That's a prime function and we've got to be concerned, as the Minister pointed out, that we preserve that watchdog role and that we ensure that nothing we're doing is going to lessen their opportunity and ability to be a watchdog on the registration of new securities issues here. As well, we also have to recognize that the reg istration of new securities in Manitoba can have a significant and major financial impact on our province because of companies registering here to sell their securities.

They create a capital flow through Manitoba that is important to many sect ors of our economy. lt brings emplo yment in a variety of areas, financial reward for people in various areas of our province, investment companies, financial institutions, accountants, lawyers, people who are in the business of marketing, securities, printers, all sorts of areas, benefit as a result of these organizations being able to register securities here.

We've got to have a rational and a reason able system of dealing with this business of regis tering securities here that doesn't provide a roadblock or a disincentive for people to register here that is not provided In other provincial jurisdictions in the country. I don't believe that this legislation is necessarily going to do that. I emp hasize that I'm not arguing for any lesser scrutiny, any weakening of the watchdog role of the Commission.

I'm concerned that by this approach, we'll remain out of step, we'll continue to have perhaps a more cumbersome or least time-co nsuming operation in the Securit ies Commission in their role in registering securities and, we may, in fact, provide more of a disincentive or a roadblock to private organizations that want to register securities here without any additional assurance of more protect ion to the invest or. I agree that we must be as closely parallel to the other jurisdictions as much as possible in lock step, as the Minister indicated, with their processes and their legislation.

This won't do the trick is the argument that I've put forward. I believe proclaiming Bill 72 and making the necessary adjustments to bring it up to date with the Ontario legislation and others would be the right tack, Mr. Speaker. I believe, from what I'm told by people within the Commission area and others who deal with the Commission, that in order to do that it would require more staff. As I said earlier, that is a problem that the Attorney-General, the Mini ster of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has to wrestle with. Mr.

Speaker, there has been a growth In the registration of securities over the past couple of years. The Minister rightfully pointed that out. By doing it this way and by keeping in place a system and a procedure that I'm told is taking much longer for the processing of these registrat ions, for the processing of these securities issues is going to choke off some major financial industries that have been growing in Manitoba during the past short while and will probably result in 1940

Wednesday, 13 June, 1984 the assurance that private offerings of these securities are now going to avoid Manitoba in future and go elsewhere to do their work. That, I think, would be a serious financial loss. We have in Manitoba, or at least an organization that grew out of Manitoba that is nationwide now, an organization called the Association of Canadian Real Estate Syndicators, which I know that the Minister is familiar with. These people are a major significant economic impact in our province.

The leaders of this ind ustry in Canada are located here in Winnipeg by and large, even although their products, that is the basic developments for which they are issuing securities, are elsewhere. In fact, 90 percent of those products that are being syndica ted and issued here in Manitoba are being built somewhere else. Wh ether it be somewhere else in Canada or even the United States, their investors to a large extent or outside out of our province but, nevertheless, that ind ustry and that expertise in organi zat ion and ma nagement and marketing is located here.

I'm told that it is the closest thing to a comparison to what Great-West Life and Investors Syndicate meant to Manitoba when they located here. That kind of financial expertise and that kind of ability to market securities all over North America and do their financial work all over North America, but be headquartered here, has a major im pact on us and, yet, we're going to make it more difficult for them to do business out of their home base right here. Mr.

Speaker, the figure I was given, and I'm sure that this organization will be at Committ ee to give similar information is tha t indu stry was respo nsible for developments over the past 10 years between $1 5-20 billion, that whole ind ustry in Canada. The Winnipeg people located here were responsible for half. So, we're talking about somewhere between $7.5 billion and $1 0 billion of those securities were headqu artered here in Winnipeg. That's significant. That's $1 billion a year over the last 10 years just about.

With that kind of expertise and marketing and management capability and everything located here, it obviously has some significant impact. I spoke earlier about the lawyers, the accountants, the printers, the various people who are of im portance, I believe, financial imp ortance to our communi ty. They are syndicating things such as hotels, shopping centres, commercial buildings, and all sorts of others things.

They started off, of course, with the MURBS and with the other primarily residential developments and, of course, they've very much expanded their offerings. lt costs them $1 00,000 to $1 50,000 for one public prospectus. That's a very significant cost. As I say, most of that kind of soH cost accrues in our province,

whereas the development accrues somewhere else. I'm told, Sir, that last year and, it was ind icated that they would have no objection to my using the example, a very large Winnipeg fami ly, at least a Winnip eg family of substantial financial means who were developing a hotel on this basis in Palm Springs, California, tried to have that issue registered in Manitoba and had it lodged with the Securities Comm ission for over six months without being able to have that securit ies issue approved.

At the same time, by comparison, they had that issue registered in Ontario within one month - that's how long it took to clear it there; in Alberta, it was a matter of days to clear the issue there; here it remaine d for over six months and was finally withdrawn, because, in frustration, they could not get it processed .

They were of such substantial means that, you know, in this case they have to wait until they get the approvals in order to proceed ultimately with the proJect, and they were so much delayed by this process that they finally pulled it out and themselves subscribed to more than half the shares in it in order to be able to commit it and to proceed before the inflationary costs and the costs of preserving the land and the commitments on construction and so on could expire on them - they did it that way - but very few people would have that kind of financial backing to be able to do that.

Most people would have the whole thing collapse on them and not proceed and lose a great deal of money as a result of the Commission not being able to deal with that kind of issue as it should. Mr. Speaker, the fear is of the people who are in the ind ustry that by making these ame ndme nts and preserving the old system, the old act, we will not clear up this bottleneck in the Securities Commission, we will not be able to make it as easy as it is in other provinces to go through the paperwork.

Agai n, I emphasize I'm not talking about lessening the watchdog role or the amount of investigation and protection for the public that's involved, but rather the process and the ti meliness that it takes to go through this whole process. The people in the indus try are telling me that will not be clarified, that will not be corrected by this approach to the act. They give further commentary on such things as the change in the threshhold from $97,000 to $250,000, a level above which the security does not require the approval and the registration.

That, Sir, as I understand, is what is being proposed in Ontario, but that was a proposal that was made by the Securit ies Commission but is now being challenged by various people who have to deal with that matter. lt appears as though the goverment will not go forward with that change of threshold to 250,000.00. Now it may be 150,000; it may be something in-between, but it appears as though that may not go through at 250,000.00.

So by us passing this at the present time, we are not necessarily going to be in step with Ontario, but will be further out of step with Ontario or, for that matter, any other jurisdiction, because I understand no other jurisdiction currently has the 250,000 threshold in place. Two of the arguments that have been put forward to oppose the proclamation of the act of 1980 and instead proceed on this piecemeal basis, two of the arguments are: No. 1. Shortage of staff.

I think I have probably dealt with that already, but the bottom line is, why should we choke off a major financial ind ustry in Manitoba when the answer is a shortage of staff that can be dealt with by this Minister and this government. No. 2. The argument that has been put forward by the Commission and, I believe, the Minister is that they are waiting for Ontario to make its amendments or other provinces to make their amendments. The point is, and I speak from experience as I had to deal with these proposals from staff as the Min ister currently is, that these other jurisdictions are constantly amending.

In particul ar, Ontario, I believe, brings in amendments to The Securities Act almost annually. 1941

w.dnesdey, 13 June, 1984 So if we are waiting for Ontario to be finished its amendments, we'll wait forever because every year they'll bring in amendments to bring them into step with changing times. Even that figur e that we talked about, the threshold of 97,000 and 250,0 00 will be amended, no ques tion. The question is: to what amount? Why should we jump to an amount that hasn't already been app roved by Ontario? So they'r e constantly amending their legislation. This isn't going to solve the problem by waiting and by utilizing the old act with patchwork amendments. The other thing, Mr.

Speake r, that should be pointed out to the Minister is that the Ontario Secu rities Commission, the reason he knows and we know and every body in the public knows what amendments they are considering, Is that they have a very public form of communication and dialogue with the people who are affected by their Securities Act changes.

They attempt as much as possi ble to have this open communication and draw the wisdom and the expertise of all those who have to use the act and be affected by it in bringing forward their amendments. 1 think the impression has been left that the Industry in Manitoba was consulted before this act came forward. I am told, Sir, that they got two days' notification that this act was being presented and of the details of it before it arrived at the legislature. That, I don't believe, is consultation. That, I don't believe, is drawing on their expertise and listening to their concerns.

They are the people who are going to be affected by the changes that are brought forward in this act. As I say, Ontario does have a me chanism in place, and I think it would be wise for this Minister and the Securities Commission to have done that before coming forward with this. Mr. Speaker, my concern is that we should not be put at a substantial disadvantage to other provinces in being able to deal with and register securities on a proper basis here in Manitoba. I believe that we are going to be put in that position by the proposal that's before us. Mr.

Speaker, I believe that there is a case here for the Minister to sit down immediately and find out whether or not what we should be doing instead of this is proclaiming Bill 72 of 1980 and bringing in the appropri ate amendments to put us again in lock step with Ontario and the other jurisdictions, because I am told and I'm led to believe that this will not do it. So having put that on the record, Mr. Speaker, I just simply say that we'll be inte rested to listen to the various people who come to committee who are interested in the act because they have to deal with it on a regular basis.

We 'll be in terested to hear the presentat ions of the professionals, the industry and the businesspeople in Manitoba who are going to be affected by this. We 'll ask the Minister and the government to listen and to consider carefully their alternatives before proceeding on this basis with this proposed act. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, P. Eyler: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Mem ber for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Opposition House leader, that debate be adjourned. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: lt is moved by the Member for Pembina, seco nded by the Opposition House leader that - the Opposition House leader has already spoken on this - (Interjection) - se conded by the Member for la Ve rendrye that debate be adjourned. Is that agreed? MOTION presented and carried. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of - the Honourable Member for la Ve rendrye. MR. R. BANMAN: Mr. Speaker, just so that it doesn't become a preced ent, I thought it was establis hed that, even though a member had spoken, his or her name could be used to second the motion. I just want clarification on that, Mr.

Speaker. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I recognize the point of order of the Member for la Veren dyre. BILL NO. 5 - THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: On the proposed motion of the Honourable Minister of Highways, Bill No. 5,

An Act to amend The Highway Traffic Act, standing in the name of the Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker, the Minister in his Introductory remarks indicated that this act dealt primarily with two areas, and one of them was the institution of legislative framework under which mobility aids, motorized, and mobility vehicles can be used by handicapped citizens of the Province of Manitoba.

He indicated that his predecessor, the MLA for lac du Bonnet and former Highways Minister, had established a committee to attempt to come up with appropr iate amendments which would allow the changes he is proposing in Bill No. 5.

This is a problem that has been, I guess, with us for a number of years, because I know at one stage of the game I wrestled with this problem and had, at one stage, got to amendments which were found to be faulty and wer en't proceeded with beyond committee stage, I believe if my memory serves me correct. lt is a difficult problem to come up with a legisla tive framework to allow some of these new inventions, which are very very helpful to the physically handi capped in the province, to allow them some equal participation in getting arou nd and transporting themselves independently in the province.

I note that in the proposed amendments, one of the problems that came up when we wrestled with the problem has been addressed, that being a splitting off of the two types of motorized mobility aids. The one will primarily deal with devices such as a motorized wheelchair in that the maximum speed that class of vehicle can achieve is some less than 10 miles an hour, and that particular vehicle doesn't require a licence and essentially becomes a pedest rian and shares the sidewalks, the crossings, the cross walks, with pedest rians in the Province of Manitoba.

That does appear to elimi nate one of the problems we ran into when we had a proposal which didn't specify those 1942

Wednesday, 13 June, 1984 separate and apart from some thing like - and I use for just purely recall - the happy wander er type mobility vehicle which would fall under this definition now. That should suffice to separate the two types of vehicle that are currently available. If I under stand the act, and, of course, we will get to und erstand it further as the Min ister closes debate and in committee, the licensed vehicles under the mobility vehicle classification will, by and large, operate under the same rules and regulations as bicycles or mopeds.

They will apply the rules of the road currently in The Hig hway Traffic Act, which will require single file operation down streets and hig hways and not beside each other in tandem, and also will require travel to the extreme right of the road much as a bicycle now is requir ed to do.

These changes are something that will be welcomed by the physically handicapped in the Province of Manitoba and are inde ed welcomed on our side of the House, because it was, I believe, the Session of 1981 that we attempted to come to grips with the problem and tried to come up with a workable solution to a problem that has some difficulty for the enforcement agencies, the police agencies and the traffic authorities in the Province of Manitoba.

I'v e got several questions as a result of these amendments that I pose to the Mi nister to ensure that the use of these mobility vehicles is done very safely for those using them, that they won't be endangered whilst on the streets and the hig hways, and that they will not put the rest of the motoring public in cars and much larger vehicles to some dis advantage because that has always been a problem, how do you accomodate a happy wanderer and a semi-trailer on the same street or highway for the safety of the physically hand icapped person using the happ y wanderer type vehicle.

I think that is a consideration we all want to give very serious thought to, because it is not a fair contest, I submit, Sir, between a car or a truck and some of the mobility vehicles that will be now licensed.

The question that I have to the Min ister is this: now that we have a mobili ty vehicle cla ssifica tion, I understand the government's intent that this is designed to give physically hand icapped Manitobans access to the streets and highw ays of the Province of Manitoba, but will that use of a mobility vehicle be restricted solely to handic apped Manitobans or can, for ins tance, I buy one myself because they are electric powered, very economical to run, and can all Manitobans license these mobili ty vehicles without having a handicap and hence use them on the streets and hig hways?

I ask that question, Sir, from the standpoint that the desire, if I under stand it, of this legislation is to allow the physically hand icapped access to our streets and highways. That access has and will present certain logistical problems in traffic flow and traffic handling and safety.

We are willing, and I belie ve I can speak on behalf of government members because I can speak on behalf of our side of the House. we are willing to accept the risks to the physically handi capped of taking those vehicles out on the highway for the offsetting advantage that they participate more fully in society and day-to-day activities.

But if these mobility vehicles, which are now licensed, can be used by all members of the society, I could foresee a potential problem where you have greater num bers than were anticipated with this amendment, and we end up having to put rest rictions on which were not envisioned now and those restrictions would impact on the people we are trying to help with the passage of this legisla tion, the physically hand icapped in Manitoba. So that is a question I have and I don't belie ve the definition addre sses that.

If it does, I will certainly accept that, but that is a potential problem that I would like the Mi nister to address. As I recal l, when we discussed amendments suitable to bring this advantage to the physically handicapp ed of the province, I recall a question that had come up from the Motor Vehicles Branch from the Registrar of what sort of driver licensing capabilities are necessa ry. I note that the legislation provides that one must have a Class 1 to 6 or a learner's permit. Okay, that is fairly straightforward, Sir.

Now that creates the potential problem I just mentioned in that anyone, simply by having that licence, could purchase a mobility vehicle licenc e and use it on the streets without bein g handicapped. Now the other problem is that is the requirement of holding a valid driver's licence going to restrict the numb er of people who are cu rrently physically handica pped in the Province of Manitoba that could successfully operate these vehicles and, because of their physcial handicaps would not qualify for a driver's licence as required by this amendment.

I know the discussions that we had, and there were problems with these di scussions, but the discussions I had with the then Registrar was that of setting up a separate driver's licence category which would be, quite frankly , more lenient. lt would be a special category of driver's licence for handi capped people.

That presents a problem right away because in our society, the way we are developing, we are - I guess the word is mainstreaming - so that we are not identifying people by physical handicap, and having a special licence provision separated them when the intent of the legislation was to bring them in to the mains tream of society as much as possi ble.

So that proposal for a separate licensing had that problem, but I suggest to the Min ister that his licensing requirement now might have as big a problem or possibly more of a problem in that it will be automatically excl uding a number of physically hand icapped people from using mobilit y vehicles from the very fact that the Registr ar, under the terms and conditions and regulations set down for the issuing of a Class 1 to 6 driver's licence or a learner's permit, may not license those in di viduals, tho se physically hand icapped Manitobans, because that licence could be used to operate a car or a truck as well as a mobility vehicle.

So I ask the Min ister whether that particular problem has been considered and addressed, because we are, as I said earlier , on both sides of the House attempting to brin g in legislation which will allo w physically hand icapped Manitobans self-contained transportati on, tran sportation they don't have to rely on a third party to provide for them under most conditions. If we are restricting that in some way by their inability to get a valid driver's licence, then that is somet hing I am sure the Min ister and his caucus would want to address prior to Law Amendment Committee.

I would ask the Min ister at some point in time during the debate on this issue, since it is not evident to me 1943

Wedneeday, 13 June, 1184 in the amendments that he is passing, whether there are any nighttime restrictions on the operation of this vehicle or any rush hour traffic restrictions on the operation of these vehicles, because those were points that we had given consideration to some two-and-a­ half or three years ago.

Now the nighttime operation, when I realize is partially remedied in the amendments because the mobility vehicle will be classified as a bicycle, and if the Minister of Highways wanted to have discussions with his former colleague, the MLA for Elmwood, that's always been one of his favorite beefs to the Hig hways Department in that to ride a bicycle in the evening or at night you had to have it lighted with one of those self-contained generators so that you had a light and many bicycles don't have that.

I notice that the act provides that this mobility vehicle must have a lamp in front for forward illum ination, but there is a further

section in the bill which - if I understand it correctly - exempts the mobility vehicle from the necessity to have either a reflectorized warning device, such as a slow-moving vehicle sign, on the back of it and exempts it from having flashing amber warning lights pointing to the rear of the vehicle. So on the one hand we've got no restrictions that are apparent in the amendment on nigh ttime opera tion, but we have removed by this amendment some of the rear protection on these mobility vehicles in that they don't have to have an SMV signal or flashing amber lights to warn people at nighttime that they're there.

This may be addressed and I've missed it, but if it isn't I think the Minister's got to give some very serious consideration to providing that kind of protection for people using these mobility vehicles, because there is no restriction, as I can see it, on nighttime operation or rush hour operation, for that matter.

So if there are no restrictions, then certainly we want to make sure that those vehicles are as highly identifiable to traffic meeting and passing them as is possible, because once again I db say with no hesitation that these vehicles are no match for a car or a truck on our highways if a collision occurs. The other question I'd have for the Min ister on the mobility vehicles is: is there a restriction on any highways for their use?

In other words, can these vehicles set out on a trek to Selkirk on the undivided highway between Winn ipeg and Selkirk or, for that matter, down to Falcon Lake on the divided highway, Trans-Canada? The Minis ter smiles slight ly, but that will happen, because these people have been waiting a number of years for the amendments to allow them to take these mobility vehicles out and enjoy life like the rest of us.

That will happen, and in those instances we have 100-kilometre traffic, and cars and trucks moving at 100 kil ometres, and these vehicles are licensed only as mobility vehicles if they can go less than 25 miles per hour or 40 kilometr es. So I ask the Minister: are these vehicles able to mix with traffic on our major highways throughout the province, and what concerns does he have in terms of the safe operation of tho se vehicles and the protection of the physically hand icapped operators of those vehicles on our highways?

Because, as I've said, there is a specific exemption in my interpretat ion in this Bill No. 5 for the rear identification of these vehicles by slow-moving vehicle symbols or flashing amber lights. So on a highway with 100-kilometre traffic, and some of it heavy on the weekends, these vehicles could be out there, unless I have missed the restrictions preventing them from being there, and they are there in my estimation with less than adequate identification for traffic approaching them from behind. I'm sure the Minister would want to attempt to address that in his remarks. Mr.

Speaker, by and large and closing on the mobility aid aspect of it, I know it's a problem that's been wrestled with. I wrestled with it, his former colleague, the MLA for Lac du Bonnet, wrestled with it, and it appears as if they've got an amendment which has met with a lot of approval, and with some of the questions I've posed we may well have a better amendment and better safety for handicapped Manitobans to be able to use our streets and highways. If that's the case, certainly members on this side of the House are supportive of it. Mr. Speaker, to move on to another

section of the bill, and this was a

section of the bill that the Minister did not address at all and I regret that he didn't because I have been known to interpret amendments incorrectly. I did it once before with the former Minister of Highways and apologized to him quite openly because I had made a mistake, but unless I have mi sread the legislation the Minister is bringing in a requir ement that turn signals be placed on all cars and trucks. Former ly, the exemption was there for cars manufactured prior to 1958.

What this does, Sir, is require the individual with an antique Model T to put turn signals on it and ruin the antique and original value of his vehicle. I don't think that the Minister intends to do that. I'm not sure whether the department would not want to intend to do that but this situation developed once when I was Minis ter where they came in with an amendment requiring turn signals on motorcycles, and once again the antique motorcycle and motorcycles I think beyond 1972 didn't have to have turn signals and we grand fathered them. I ask the Minister why this is happening here and now with this amendment?

And if it isn't happening, well, that's fine. MA. SPEAKER, J. Welding: The Honour able Minister of Hig hways. HON. J. PLOHMAN: I'd just like the member to refer to the

section he's dealing with. We had intended, Mr. Speaker, that this deal with two issues, and if we have missed something in here I'd just like the honourable member to refer to that

section he's referring to. MA. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Pembina. MA. D. ORCHARD: I am indeed in a terrible quandar y, Sir, because I never like to break the rules and I would be doing so if I referred to a clause at second reading debate. I will rely on your advice - when I never break the rules - should I refer to a clause specifically in this bill? MA. SPEAKER: I think the member knows that second reading is intended to deal with the principle of the bill and not the clauses. 1944

Wednesday , 13 June, 1984 The Honourable Member for Pembina. MR. D. ORCHARD: I will privately tell the Min ister what's in his bill, since he doesn't know what's in his bill, but there is a

section in this bill which, by principle, if I am read ing it correctly - (Interjection) - A MEMBER: In which clause is the principle? MR. D. ORCHARD: In which clause is the principle? Would that be unparliamentary? I don't believe I can refer to any clause but, Mr. Speak er, the principle of the clause, that is in about the middle of the bill at almost the bottom of the page, deletes an exemption of 1958 and prior on motor vehicles and just says "every motor vehicle." Now, that means antique cars, farm trucks - lots of them on the road prior to 1958 manufacture. I've got one myself.

They are now going to have to be equipped with turn signals which is not there, so the Min ister obviously doesn't know what's in his bill, and the problem is that it makes a further exception to it and deals with "every trailer shall carry at the back thereof flashing lights." That means farm trailers that are carrying water tanks and I believe, if I'm misr ead ing this amendment, I will do like I'v e done in the past when I've made a mistake.

I will apologize for drawing it to the Minister's attention incorr ectly, but if it is there and the Min ister doesn 't know it's there I suggest he has to read his own bills a little more carefully before he brings them to this House. Mr. Speaker , I want to close on one aspect of the bill and that is the suspension of driver's licences for those impaired drivers in the Province of Manitoba. My colleague, the former Attorney-General, my colleague, the ML A for St.

Norbert, when the Attorney-General in trod uced some statement on drunk en driving, imp aired driving in the Province of Manitoba, pointed out the problem tha t appeals from the Licence Suspension Appeal Board, decisions could go to the Court of Appeal and they'r e always reversed or practically always. My colleague challenged th e Attorn ey-General to ind icate the number of times when those reversals by the Court of Appeal, by County Court, the drivers so reversed or so given remission from the Licence Suspension Appeal Board decision caused a further problem with alcohol-impaired driving.

Now we see the amendment, but we don't see the justification for it. This is troublesome from two ways, and no one on this side of the House wants to see people driving on the hig hways impaired or under the inf luence of alcohol. We have brought in amendments; all governments have brought in amendments to prevent that. But what we don't want to see is an amendment to The Highw ay Traffic Act which will allow further bu reaucratic interference into the lives of Manitobans without recourse to an imp artial body.

That's exactly, Sir, what this amendment does, because now the decision of the Licence Suspension Appeal Board is final. The only appeal the dr iver has is on a point of law. Now that does two things. First of all, the boards must now be very careful that they do not make any legal mistakes in their decisions, but the biggest danger in this, Sir, is that we now have a polit ically-appointed board. This time, political-appointed faithfuls of the New Democratic Party, members of the Licence Suspension Appeal Board hold final sway, no appeal, on their decision on the driving public charged with impair ed offences.

I do not believe that is a good amendment to make, to give final decision to a group of political appointees regardless of who appoints them. There has to be a court of appeal that driv ers in front of the Licence Suspension Appeal Board can go to. I don't trust this govern ment's polit ically-appointed Licence Suspension Appeal Board. Furthermore, Sir , the Attorney-General nor the Min ister of Hig hways justified on questioning several weeks ago by my colleague, the MLA for St. Norbert, the statistical reasons for doing this.

I wonder, Sir, what the unions who, when I was Highways Min ister and before, during our government, who wanted to set up a separate licensing category - one being a work licence, the other being a pleasure licence - to avoid having their working licence removed because of an impair ed driving charge, think of this. Now they go before this Licence Suspension Appeal Board, and there is no cour