Manitoba Hansard — 14 May 1981 (Sitting 79, 31st Legislature, 5th Session)

31-5-79

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL V OF MANITOBA Thursday, 14 May, 1981 Time - 2:00 p.m. OPENING PRAYER by Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER, Hon. Harr y E. Graham (Bir tle Russell): Presen ting Petitions . . . Reading and Rec eiving Petitions . . . Prese nting Reports by Standing and Special Committees . . . Ministerial Statements and Tabling of Reports ... Notices of Motion . . . Introduction of Bills . . . INTRODUCTION OF GUESTS MR.

SPEAKER: At this time I would like to draw the honourable members' attention to the gallery where we have 54 students of Grades 7 and 8 standing from the New Bothwell School in the constituency of the Honourable Minis ter of Fitness and Amateur Sport. We have 51 students of Grade 6 standing from Shaugh nessy Park School, and also from the Slake Elemen tary School of Thunder Bay, under the direction of Mrs. Peggy Hill. This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Member for lnkster. We have 43 students of Grades 5 and 6 standing from the Moosehorn Elementary School under the direction of Mrs. Agnes Remius.

This school is in the constituency of the Honourable Memb er for St. George. We have 20 students of Grade 8 standing from LaPort School from LaPort, Minnesota, under the direction of Mr. Robe rt Evenmo. On behalf of all the honourable members, we welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTIONS MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Leader of the Opposition. MR. HOWARD PAWLEY (Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture.

In view of the weather conditions up until today and the reports of next-to-no-hay growth and the impact that this may have in respect to the livestock industry, can the Minister advise what contingency plans are being put into operation in the event that the livestock industry is indeed threatened and affected this year by a continuation of the present weather conditions leading to a repeat of last year's drought? MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Agriculture. HON. JAMES E. DOWNEY (Arthur): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the Honourable Leader of the Opposition.

I think it's a matter of straightening out or looking at some of last year's programs that were implemented to assist the farm community; the timing of the announcement of the dif ferent programs. Last year the major annou ncements of the programs tha t were introduced were made in the latter part of June.

As I ind icated the other da y when the Ho nourable Member for lnkster asked me a question on the soil conditions or the drought conditions, I suggested at that time that our seed ing conditions were somewhat better than last year; that I hoped we wouldn't have to implement major drought programs and that we would be discussing with the Federal Government if we had joint programs or coordinated programs in that area. To be more specific, the Me mber refers to livestock pastures or feed suppl ies; we still, Mr.

Speaker, have an opportunity in Manitoba to see some rain come in the next two weeks and I'm sure, if we were, we would see a regrowth or a growth of the traditional tame hays. The Minister of Natural Resources who is responsible for Crown lands - if he has not sold them all to the farmers in Manitoba - there may be some areas in the province we may ha ve to look at and consider for pasturing of livestock this spring.

We are continuing to keep ourselves aware of what we may have to do; there is ongoing monitoring and if there is a continuation of this continued hot, dry weather and we don't receive rain then we may, Mr. Speaker, have to move to implement a feed transpor tation program or something of that nature. However, I indicated in my answer the other day that we are continuing our Water Pumping Program to the end of June where there is a shortage of water for dugouts or home use on farmsteads. MR. PAWLEY: Mr. Speaker, further to the Minister of Agriculture.

Can he advise, in view of the need for proper coordination with the Federal Government pertaining to programs relating to drought; in view of the fact we're dealing here with a specific question of pasture hay feed, can the Minister advise whether or not there is underway, or intended, any advance discussions with the Federal Government relating to this particular area of immediate concern in order to ensure that if the present trend continues there will indeed be proper coordination this year unlike last year's unfortunate mix-up? MR. DOWNEY: Mr.

Speaker, I think it should be put on the record that the program last year that was first introduc ed was a Feed Transp ortation Assistance Program which, by the way, just ended the end of April this year which was some two weeks ago .

So we ha ve ju st moved out of the feed transportation program and I would say to the honourable member opposite that the pasture conditions are not possibly optimum but at this point it is not critical that we move to repla ce or to supplement cattle on their pastures, because we did have a considerable amount of rainfall last year and there is a regrowth of grass and feed from that particular rainfall. Unlike last year we saw many days of hot, dry wind from the south and at this particular time we were in a lot more serious condition. However, Mr.

Speaker, I am quite aware of the situation and as far as the Federal Government is concerned that was one of the programs they helped us with last year, tha t was the Transpor tation Program, and it worked very well; unlike the program which they introduced last fall to help the producers 3595

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 last winter. I am aware of some producers that still haven' t received assistance from the Federal Government. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Mem ber for lnkster. MR. SIDNEV GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Education. Can the Minister of Education advise me whether there is any consideration being given to providing funding for the Winnipeg Bible College to the same extent as that which is now provided to other post-secondary denominational schools such as St. Paul's and St. John's? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Education. HON. KEITH A.

COSENS (Gimli): Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. MR. GREEN: Mr. Sp eaker, I wonder if the Honourable Minister of Education can advise the House as to what criteria he uses to determine which post-secondary denomi national schools are acceptable to the government and therefore receive state assistance, and which post-secondary schools are unacceptable to the government and therefore do not receive state assistance. MR. COSENS: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of criteria that apply.

Of course in the case of those institutions tha t are affil iated with the pu blic institutions, such as the University of Manitoba and its affiliates, there is assistance provided. Those that do not have that type of association do not qualify at the present time for assistance. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster with a final supplementary. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I wonder if the Minister will advise me as to why the same criteria do not apply to primary and secondary schools, that those that are part of the public school system receive state assistance and those that are not part of the public school system do not receive state assistance. I wonder how the Minister is able to exclude a post-seco ndary school that has graduate courses, from receiving state assistance and give money to other post-secondary schools that do virtually the same thing. MR. COSENS : Mr. Speaker, the honourable member touches on the point.

He says virtually the same thing, that is the point in question. The criteria that apply are not met by certain institutions that do not in fact have the staff accreditation or perhaps do not offer the same type of curriculum as is offered by the other institutions that receive assistance. So it is a matter of criteria and of course a matter in this province to this point, those church -related post secondary institutions that do not have that affiliation have not received assistance. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. BILLIE URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture in light of the answers he's given my leader, the Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Speaker, the Minister has indicated that there is ample time, that there is growth in pastures. The Minister's own department is telling farmers to give their pastures a rest because there is little growth, Mr. Speaker. Is the Minister prepared to make some announcement with respect to the availability of Crown lands like we did last year? The Minister of Natural Resources on Monday when I raised the matter with him, indicated that there would be no speedy decision.

Can the Minister of Agriculture indicate what specific programs with respect to use of Crown lands will there be available to supplement community pastures who also are in great difficulty to carry the herds on the present grass situation that we have in the province of Manitoba? MR. DOWNEV: Mr.

Speaker, let me assure the honourable member that those kinds of pol icy decisions will be dealt with very shortly at a drought committee meeting with the Minister of Resources, I will sit down as we did last year, and make available or propose to make available those lands that can be identified that will help the farm community.

Let me again remind the member opposite though, it was his particular administration or the government that he was with that took a lot of that prime pasture land away from the farm community and put it into a Wildlife Management Area or into a program that made that land unavailable to the farm community, Mr. Speaker. (lnterjection)- MR. SPEAKER: Order. Order please. Order please. There are numerous private conversations going on that I find it difficult to hear the questions and the answers. The Honourable Member for St. George. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Agriculture can put all kinds of red herrings that he wants, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Mi nis ter of Agriculture in terms of making sure that our basic herd is protected in the Province of Manitoba, is he prepared to annou nce feed assistance and hay purchasing or additional programs similar to those that were announced recently in our neighboring province to the west and they are going to be carrying on until the Year 1982?

Is he prepared, or is he interested, or is he concerned about the basic herd and is he prepared to make some announcements to make sure that a basic herd in the province of Manitoba is protected? MR. DOWNEV: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated there is no question in our minds that we have to continue to be aware of the situation as it develops during the spring months.

I think one of the major difficulties, and the honourable member I'm sure is aware of the fact that the memories of last year are very much on the minds of the people of this province, particularly in the farm community, and we don't want to and we didn't let those particular people suffer in any way possible if we could at all help it last year. Mr. Speaker, our policy hasn't changed and we're prepared to do those things that will alleviate the difficulties on the farm community and, if it is to deal 3596

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 with the kinds of programs the member suggests, we are prepared to assess and I would recommend those kinds of actions to my colleagues. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. George with a final supplementary. MR. URUSKI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister, seeing that he's in a good mood, to not allow producers to continue to have the problems that they've been having. Can he indicate when he will announ ce the payout with respect to hog assistance, Mr. Speaker, which is about two years too late for about a third of the producers in the Province of Manitoba? MR. DOWNEV: Mr.

Speaker, again the member opposite has some form of a comment to make that we haven't acted responsibly. Mr. Speaker, I would say the program that we've announc ed will be impleme nted when the produc ers ha ve ha d an opportunity to work out the details, unlike what they did with one of their stabilization progams, that when times got better for the farm community they forced them to pay that money back to the government of the Province of Manitoba instead of leaving it in the farm community and helping that particular farm community. (Interjections) MR. SPEAKER: Order please, order please.

The Honourable Member for Roblin. MR. J. WALL V McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Honourable Minister of Agriculture. I think, Mr. Speaker, it's quite clear that the Federal Financ e Min ister Ma cE achen and the Tru deau government are not going to live up to the promises that they made to the people of this province when they were in opposition. Ably supported by our NDP friends opposite they made all kinds of promises about inflation, doubl e-digit interest rates on the economy. I'm going to ask the Minis ter of Agriculture, Mr.

Speaker, while he was in Ottawa on Tuesday if any kind of programs of any shape or form were offered by Minister Whelan, the Finance Minis ter MacE achen or any of the Trud eau government to deal with the serious problems of economic matters that we face in this province today? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Min ister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEV: Mr.

Speaker, in reply to my honourable colleague, the Member for Roblin, let me tell the members of this House and the people of Manitoba that the reason that I believe the Minister of Agriculture for Canada called the Ministers of Agriculture from all over Canada was to sit down and assess or reassess the difficulties that they, as a government, have created for the particular farm community and all Canadians. I would suggest, Mr.

Speaker, if they would have had the proper policies in this country, if he would have met with his Cabinet colleagues and told them the difficulties they had created, maybe there could have been results come from it. Other than that, Mr. Speaker, there was very little offered by the Federal Government. MR. McKENZIE: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture could give the House or the farmers in Manitoba any hope or assurance that the three to four cents per gallon fuel tax that's levied on farmers to buy these Petrofina gas stations will be exempted from fuel tax by the Federal Government. MR.

SPEAKER : The Ho nourable Min ister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEV: Mr. Speaker, at our meeting in Ottawa the Federal Minister asked us what might be done to alleviate some of the difficulties that the high interest rates or the costs were causing for the problems of the farmers of Canada and, Mr.

Speaker, that was one of the recommendations that I made; that the first thing he could do was exempt the farm community who are doing the producing of food and energy in this country from that particular tax because it has implications on the direct use of fuel that goes into the production of food. lt also goes into the cost of producing the fertilizers from the natural gas where his Petrofina tax is implied, also adding to the cost of food. We are energy producers, Mr.

Speaker, and one of the ways to help the farm community is to alleviate some of the taxes that they were being burdened with on foolish - and I say foolish - moves by the Federal Government. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Roblin with a final supplementary. MR. McKENZIE: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I wonder can the Minister of Agriculture advise if he or any of the other Agricu lture Min isters from across Canada brought up the subject matter of the removal of the natural gas tax which is levied on nitrogen fertilizer on our farm communities in the province. MR. DOWNEV: Mr.

Speaker, I ind icated to the member that there were direct costs going into the production of nitrogen fertilizer, in particular from natu ral gas and that was also one of the recommendations. I think they could take a lesson from our Minister of Finance and our colleagues, Mr. Speaker, in the introduction of the exemption of provincial sales tax on agricultural fuels as well as the encouragement to get gasohol produced, which is an alternative form for the people of this country - not ju st the farm community, but all the consumers. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet. MR. SAMUEL USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture when it is that he is going to take the problems of agriculture seriously and answer the questions forthrightly that are put to him from this side and not waste time of this session, grandstanding on irrelevancies and misstatements of fact which he is so accustomed of doing, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER : The Honou rable Mi nister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEV: The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet sounds somewhat like the Federal Minister of Agriculture today that blamed the problem of high 3597

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 interest rates on farmers and bankers, Mr. Speaker. I'm taking the problem serious, Mr. Speaker. I went to Ottawa to meet with the Federal Minister. We met in all seriousness to do something and a comment like that I'm surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear then because the facts are, when he was the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of this Crown, they bought 500,000 acres of farm land to put into Wildli fe Management areas that were taken out of the farmers hands plus 200,000 acres into the State Farm Program. MR. USKIW: Mr.

Speaker, I assume it's obvious that the Minister does not intend to answer the questions which are serious questions, questions of what this government is going to do in conjunction with the Government of Canada and hopefully some co operation with the Government of Canada in whatever needs to be done in order to save the basic herd of this province in a second year of drought, Mr. Speaker. There is no question in anyone's mind that knows anything about agriculture that we are now again in a crisis situation with respect to the maintenance of herds in this province. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Minis ter of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEV: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, we extended some of our programs from last year, both our Feed Transportation Program until the end of April which is just concluded; plus the extension of our Water Pumping Programs to assist the farm community in the movement of water and he asks me, what have we done in the crisis situation? We, Mr. Speaker, implemented a program that suppli ed some several mill ions of doll ars in a Greenfeed Program and supplied added feed stocks to the province of Manitoba. That wasn't introduced until the end of June, Mr. Speaker.

Let me further add, that we have increased the direct lending in our Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation by 70-some percent; a program, Mr. Speaker, that wasn't even available under the last government; we've increased from $19 million to $33 million to lend to the farm community. Mr. Speaker, we were looking at the changing of policies to have a Debt Consolidation Program where farmers can consolidate their debt and extend that over a longer period of time. Mr.

Speaker, we have taken action to assist the farmers with the transporting of their grain, something that is a bottleneck and the Member for Brandon East when he was responsible, paid no attention to it at all, sat with his head in the sand and chased the craft people out of this country. Instead of improving our transportation system the y attached thems elves to an id eol ogy that wouldn't build this western nation or this country and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we're the responsible government and they're the irresponsible opposition where they should be. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please.

The Honourable Member for Lac du Bonnet with a final supplementary. MR. USKIW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In recognition of the fact that we are not going to get an answer from this Minister I will ask him one that has been asked of him many times during this session and the last session and that is, when is he going to fulfil the commitment that he gave and the Premier gave in this House, on the request for an Order for Return which we are now two years waiting for, Mr. Speaker? MR. DOWNEY: When it's ready, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. JUNE WESTBURV: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System. I wonder if the Minister would comment on reports to the effect that the telephone system is losing up to $20,000 a month through dishonest use of the long distance telephone system. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minis ter of Hig hways. HON. DON ORCHARD (P embina): Wel l, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of a specific example of that but if the member had information which would indicate that, I would certainly be more than pleased to have that information so I could investigate it thoroughly. MS. WESTBURY: Mr.

Speaker, I think what I was really asking the Minister was whether or not the telephone system is losing $20,000 a month and in order that it won't be counted as a second question I would like to ask also, whether he has information concerning a disproportionate amount of this loss being due to the credit card system that is now in force. MR.

ORCHARD: Well first off, Mr Speaker, I can neither confirm nor deny the figure of $20,000 per month loss on long distance charges and I would assume that the figure is from all segments using the long distance and not confined to one particular segment of the telephone user population. I can't confirm that but, Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to make that enquiry to see if in particular, the credit card system has resulted in some level of loss of long distance toll revenue to the system and I'd be pleased to provide her with that information as I obtain it. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honour able Mem ber for Rupertsland. MR. HARVEY BOSTROM: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My qu estion is to the Minis ter of Labour and Manpower in respect to the New Careers Program. I would ask the Minister if there has been a new directive from his department which has had the effect of limiting or holding any new activity by the New Careers Program, whether or not this directive means there will be no new projects approved for this year and that there will only be a completion of the ones that are on stream at the present time? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. HON.

KEN MacMASTER (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, there has been no new directive given by myself to that particular portion of my responsibilities. 3598

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 MR. BOSTROM: A supp lementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Minister indicate then whether or not ther e ha s been a consu ltant hi red by his department who has apparently been gi ven a mandate to review the programs in the Department of Labour and Manpower and, in particular, the New Careers Program, and, Mr. Speaker, that while this process is going on there are apparently no new programs approved and there are no new trainees being recruited for any new programs and this is having the effect of actually cancelling out this New Careers Program? MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Speaker, there is I think three major programs being reviewed right now which will have a pretty dramatic increasing effect in numbers on that particular program. The member should also be aware that the Northlands Agreement where a good chunk of that money comes out of, and that doesn't have an effect on these decisions because we've been working on three as I said, major new programs for a period of time but it certainly is something that has to be considered.

The Northlands Agreement supplies substantial funds into that particular program and we still haven't quite got the Federal Government to agree to sign that particular agreement. Have you got a question? MR. BOSTROM: Well, Mr. Speaker, to be more specific then, I wonder if the Minister could take as notice the question as to what new projects are being approved under the New Careers Program, how many trai nees are expected to be involved in each of those projects and when the projects will be commenced. MR. MacMASTER: Well, Mr.

Speaker, we are finalizing the trai ning portion of one parti cular program and it's coincidental - the Member for Rupertsland was eating lunch about two feet from me at noon because we talked about that particular program at lunch - it will involve 12 people and I expect the paper work to start on that in the next week or two. The other two will involve similar numbers of people. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Member for Churchill. MR. JAY COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question follows upon the questioning of the Member for Rupertsland and is to the Minister of Labour and Manpower.

I'd ask the Minister if he can indicate if, to his knowledge, persons in the communities of Northen Manitoba who are concerned with these particular programs have been informed by his department or departmental officials that the New Careers Program will no longer apply to social service programs and that it will be confined strictly to preparing people for work in the private sector? MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour and Manpower. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Speaker, I have no idea where the Member for Churchill got that information; the information is incorrect. MR.

COWAN: Will the Minister then check with his department because I got the information from a constituent who was quite concerned about what they perceived to be a new direction in the program?

Therefore, would the Minister please check with his department to see if in fact any members or any of his staff have been giving out information of that sort to persons with in the Northern constituenc ies respec ting the continuation of the New Careers Program; to be quite specific, I'd ask him to check to see if in fact some Northerners have not been told that the New Careers Program will be directed solely to the private sector when new programs come on stream?

That is not to say the programs that are ongoing now will not deal with social service programs and government sponsored programs but that new programs will in fact only deal with private sector programs. MR. MacMASTER: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly check. I would like the Member for Churchill - he talks about people perceived things - I would like him to be kind enough to maybe ask those who informed him of their perceptions of what's supposedly taking place, if they'd be kind enough to drop me a line. That's the first thing because I don't know how they perceived this.

Secondly, I think I am similar to other Minis ter of my government and any other governments in power, that you don't appreciate people within the system or within the department you 're responsible for going around and telling people blatant lies. So I will certainly check out the second part and find out if there is a civil servant within the New Careers division who is going around telling people, or suggesting to people, that type of nonsense in Northern Manitoba. MR. COWAN: I'll inform the Minister, Mr.

Speaker, that we may not be talking about blatant lies but we may in fact be talking about bla tant misunderstandings because I can assure him that there is, in fact, that bel ief prevalent in some communities in Northern Manitoba that the New Careers Program is being changed in that way.

My question to him, so that the record be very clear, is does the department now have under consi dera tion plans which would limit the continuation of the New Careers Program to co operation only with private sector companies and would, over a period of time either a short period or a long period of time, attempt to eliminate the social service aspects of that program as it exists and has existed in the past? MR. SPEAKER: Orde r please. I bel ieve tha t question has already been asked once today. The Honourable Member for Elmwood. MR. RUSSELL DOERN: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to di rect a qu estion to the Min ister of Na tural Resources considering this lavish pamphlet that's been di stri buted, or booklet distribu ted to the Chamber yesterday. (I nterjection)- Yes, very nice colours and material and an end less list, Mr. Speaker, of acknowledgements. I think everybody is inclu ded in the acknowledgement page except Leonard Bateman; it was the only name that I notice that wasn't listed. I wonder if the Minister could indic ate the cost and the numb er of these publications and who paid for this. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Natural Resources. 3599

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 HON. HARRY J. ENNS (Lakeside): Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to inform the honourable member that the responsibility for the report and the board that obviously put it together, comes un der the jurisd iction of my friend, the Honourable Minister of Government Services. MR. DOERN: I would then ask the Min ister of Government Services what value there is in publishing a lavish illustrated picture book which contains basically no information and a great deal of photos - I mean, this is two years after the fact. I ask the Minister what value there is in producing this now? MR.

SPEAKER: The Honou rable Minis ter of Government Services. HON. WARNER H. JORGENSON (M orris): Mr. Speaker, I suspect it's of no value to my honourable friend who is not concerned or involved in the flood but it is of some concern to the people of this province. The Flood Program cost something in the order of $10 million and what it is is an attempt on the part of the Flood Board to illustrate the types of programs that were undertaken during the course of the rehabilitation. I know there are a lot of people who would be interested in knowing just what types of programs.

I think my honourable friend, rather than verbal descriptions, can look at the pictures and perhaps understand a little more fully precisely what has taken place in the rehabil itation and flood preventive program. I might also add, Mr. Speaker, although the Flood Disaster Systems Board now comes under my jurisdiction, I think it should be pointed out that I want to give due cred it to my predecessor for authorizing this booklet to be printed. I'm sorry that I cannot advise my honourable friend as to the cost; I don't have that figure at the moment. MR.

SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Member for Elmwood with a final supplementary. MR. DOERN: Mr. Speaker, again I ask whether the Minister could indicate the cost and the number of copies. The photos don't seem to have any particular value; again, a photo of a combine bogged down in a field of water with a caption saying, "Efforts to save grain became extremely difficult", Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I'm asking the value of this publication and the cost and J ask the Minister why we get these pictures, other than in some cases sheer humour which has some value and perhaps a photograph of a submarine would have been good, but I'd like to know why all of these expensive photographs are contained in here? I mean, there's jus t about everything here except one of the Minister's baby pictures and I ask him how he can justify such a lavish expenditure with such minimal information and value? MR. SPEAKER: Order please. Order please. The Honourable Minister. MR.

JORGENSON: Much of what the member refers to as "art work" from the book is as costly as the art work that my honourable friend purchased when he was Minister of Public Works and lay in mothballs for a number of years. As I suspected, my honourable friend would not grasp the significance of the picture of the combines standing in the water. Not ever having been on a farm he wouldn't be able to appreciate how difficult it is to save grain when it's under water; it's very di fficult to combine un der those circums tances.

These graphic illustrations that my honourable friend has been given appear to be completely and totally lost on my honourable friend but I'm confident that there are a lot of people in this province who would like to have some idea of the type of work that was done by the Assistance Board and how it was done and I think that the pictures do illustrate that very graphically. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Finance. HON. BRIA N RANSOM (Souris-Killarney): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege.

Having had the oppo rtunity to review the page of acknowledgements in this publ ication here I find that although I was Minis ter resp onsible for the Depar tment of Na tural Resources at the time, responsible for the forces that were fighting the floods, that my name was not mentioned in the acknowledgements. MR. SPEAKER: Order, order please. Order please. The Honourable Member for St. Boniface. MR. LAURENT L. DESJARDINS (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order I wonder if the Minister would tell us what was the cost of the first edition, before the credits were removed from the MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns on a point of privilege. MR. SAUL CHERNIACK: The point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. As one taxpayer who was compelled to pay money, his share of the cost of the production of this pictorial leaflet in suppo rt of the Conser vative government, I too share with the Minister of Finance a concern that my name is not shown here as a contributor to the cost of this extravagant display. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Member for lnkster. MR. SIDNEY GREEN: Mr. Speaker, to the same point of order, the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance.

In view of the fact that he now sees that there is a mistake and his name is not printed, is he going to follow the procedure that was followed by the Deputy Premier to have them all destroyed and have a new one issued with his name printed? MR. SPEAKER: I would assume tha t was a question. The Honourable Minister. MR. RANSOM: The honourable member said he was speaking on the same point of privilege. He was asking a question? Mr. Speaker, I think I should take that under consideration if the member is making that recommendation. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Rock Lake. 3600

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 MR. HENRY J. EINARSON: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources. I think the question would be somewhat significant to what has been asked but only in a different tone and, that is, my question relates to the beluga whale in Churchill. Mr.

Speaker, that question was asked about the beluga whale of the Minister of Mines and Resources but, in view of the fact that Church ill had a tremendous tourist industry last; in view of the fact that the beluga whale is a subject of great interest to tourism, I'm wondering if the Minister of Mines and Resources has any information to inform this House as to what kind of response he may be getting from countries of the world in order that they may purchase belugas for their various museums or their various aquariums throughout the world. MR. ENNS: Mr.

Speaker, in responding to that whale of a question, let me indicate to you as a matter of fact we do have an ongoing interest and industry in providing beluga whales from Churchill that are taken in captivity in a real western-like way. They are actually roped and lassoed and brought into cages in a very hu mane way and we have received a numb er of reque sts from various aquariums from across the country and in other countries for these favourite species to be added to their aquariums. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Labour. MR. MacMASTER: Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to reply to a question from the Member from Fort Rouge as related to possible changes in the Manitoba Building Code, as they may relate to fire alarm systems, sprinkler systems and smoke-detector systems. The member may or may not be aware tha t it is manda tory now for fir e alarm systems in new commercial construction and I'm not sure if the member knew that.

We ha ve a Provincial Fir e Advisory Board, that the member may or may not be aware of, which advises both myself and the Fire Commissioner's office on possi ble up grading amendme nts and reg ula tions tha t may be appropriate at the particular time to be implemented as relates to fire safety.

They have a subcommittee right today who is dealing with the precise question that the member asked the other day; how we can best bring up and upgrade the fire alarm systems and smoke detector systems in buildings that were built substantially a number of years ago in the Province of Manitoba; that Committee is actively working right today, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The time for question period having expired we'll proceed with Orders of the Day. The Honourable Member for Gladstone. ORDERS OF THE DAY COMMITTEE CHANGES MR. JAMES R. FERG USON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have two changes on the Municipal Affairs Committee. Mr. Kovnats for Mr. Johnston and Mr. Mercier for Mr. Anderson. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. WILLIAM JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some ch anges for Committees. On Law Amendments the Honourable Member for Churchill for the Ho nour able Member for Flin Flon; the Honour able Member for Point Dougla s for the Honourable Member for Transcona. On the Committee on Private Bills, the Honourable Member for Brandon East in place of the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader.

HANSARD CORRECTION HON. GERALD W.J. MERCIER (Osborne): Mr. Speaker, firstly on a matter of correction, Page 3592 of Hansard yesterday afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question from the Honourable Leader of the Opposition, the First Minister is shown as stating, well I will designate him to take my place. Mr. Speaker, the answer was, I will designate who will take my pla ce. The member opposite are concurring in, not only my recollection of that statement, but confirmed in a conversation with the First Minister this morning. Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 35. BILL NO. 35 - THE PLANNING ACT MR.

SPEAKER: Bill No. 35. The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourn this debate on behalf of the Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR: SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Rossmere. MR. VIC SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We're prepared on Bill 35 to let it go to committee. We're happy to see that after close to two years of requesting the government to do something to make sur e that su bdi vision app lications in rural municipalities were made public in some way the Minister has chosen to act on it. The Member for Minnedosa asks whose act was it.

We're very happy that it was the act of the former NDP government; it wasn't the act of this government. But before the act was passed - as he should be aware and I'm sure he's not - but before the act was passed there was no requirement for public notice.

At least once the act was passed there was a requirement for approval by public officials - that is the municipal officials in the district in which the application is being made - we, several years ago discovered that we had not provided for notice to surrounding landowners and occupants and we sugge sted several years ago that something should be done about that. Finally after two years of procras tination we' re se eing the government act on it and for that we are grateful. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to make a short submission I hope on this bill, with respect to The Planning Act generally and the basis upon which it has proceeded to work to my direct knowledge, 3601

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 Mr. Speaker. I think, Mr. Speaker, generally in this House there has been a recognition of the need for land-use planning and I don't know if there is any desire to undo that. One of the di fficulties, Mr. Speaker, about expressing a need for land-use planning and having it then articulated, is that it flows from the wishes of the Legislatures into the hands of essentially a Civil Service bureaucracy composed of planning, who are much more concerned with being operative in the planning structure than in making sure some of the needs which gave rise for planning, are developed. I, Mr.

Speaker, believe there has to be in all of the planning legislation, an underlying basic premise and that is that a person is entitled to use his land for lawful purposes except insofar as it may interfere with his neighbour using the land for lawful purposes; and that such restrictions as are then imposed be only imposed in order to provide for needs that are absolutely essential. I think sometimes the officials who are planners and professionals think they can do a better job of planning individual needs than the individuals themselves.

I'm going to give the Minister some prime examples of what can happen when it gets out of the Legislature and into the hands of the bureaucracy. Mr.

Speaker, there is one example with which I am personally acquainted and which involves a case - but I'm not going to deal with the principles of the case - where a municipality did become involved in planning, did set out by the planners the areas zoned for residential, the areas zoned for industrial, the areas that were flood plain, the areas zoned for particular uses or where a conditional use could be imposed and people who owned land which was zoned for residential construction with a certain minimum lot req uir ement which in every way complied with the plan, then appl ied for a subdivision.

The council because they were advised, and it was because they were advised by civil servants, bur eaucrats in the Department of the Minister of Municipal Affairs - and I'm not blaming this government, I'm blaming it generally - were told this subdivision should not proceed because after having listed all the requir ements, they still wanted this landowner to be under their control and as a result, the municipality refused a subdivision. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I think it has to be made plain to the people who are engaged in this planning type of legislation, that essentially a person should be able to deal with his property as he sees fit and significantly, Mr. Speaker, that hasn't worked out so terribly.

In many areas where they've had no zoning and no planning, a person can go to the community and find that the community has developed very well aesthetically and rationally on the basis of the people in the area exercising either self-restraint or doing what is a sensible thing, or using private contracts and private covenants - which is frequently done in many United States jurisdictions - where there is no planning. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I want to give another example of what happens when you get down to regulating what a person can do with their land - I'm sorry the Member for Fort Rouge is not here - because this involves the City of Winnipeg. The City of Winnipeg building restrictions requires a fence around the property to be limited to four- 3602 and-a-half feet - it can't be higher than four-and-a half feet. -(I nterjection)- That's right, the fence on your front yard can't be higher than four-and-a-half feet.

If it runs along the street it can be five feet up to a certain distance from the corner but the front fence cannot be hig her than four-and-a-half feet, that's their restriction. If you build a swimming pool, Mr. Speaker, you have a requirement to build a fence no shorter than five feet around the swimming pool. There is an actual case in the City of Winnipeg, Mr.

Speaker, where the property owner built a swimming pool in their yard and then because they wanted the swimming pool to include the lawn - in other words they wanted the play area to also be adjacent to the swimming pool which I think any reasonable person would say that is sensible - they applied to the City of Winnipeg that the fence on the outside of the property be five feet rather than four and-a-half. You see that's conflicting. The fence around the swimming pool had to be five feet.

I suppose if they had acted more resolutely without thinking they had to get approval or to be registered, they would have built the fence five feet around the front of the lawn and then there would have been a battle as to whether that fence was around the swimming pool or around the front lawn, but they didn't. They applied for the right to build it five feet instead of four-and-a-half feet which was perfectly consistent, Mr. Speaker, with the bylaw; you could get a variation.

When she came to the city the planning people said, "We think your swimming pool should run east west rather than north-south", which they had noth ing to do with, Mr. Speaker, and ha d no busi ness telling a priv ate citizen who wants a swimming pool to run north-south, that the swimming pool should run east-west. So as a result of that the planning people did not recommend the five-foot fence, so we had to go to council. The Member for Fort Rouge was at that council meeting. She applied for six inches on the outside fence.

The members of council refused her because she wouldn't listen to the bureaucrats about building the pool north-south rather than east-west, therefore she had to build a five-foot fence around the swimming pool with the lawn outside it. If you people want to see that, you can go to the corner of Waterloo and Academy Road and you 'll see a five-foot fence around the swimming pool, the lawn outside of the fence and no fence around the house because City of Winnipeg aldermen did not want to argue with City of Winnipeg bureaucrats about letting her build six inches higher on the outside fence. Now, Mr.

Speaker, these are two examples as to what can happen when we overdo laws with regard to the use of property and I am putting in a caveat, Mr. Speaker, with regard to this second reading. I'm not going to challenge the particular sections of the bill but I do want to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that the land- use plann ers have gone much further in restrictions - they cannot be blamed because we have given them the power to do so - than what the Legislatures have intended and that there should be a thorough examination, Mr.

Speaker, as to what rights, in rural Manitoba and in urban Manitoba, people have had removed from their land which are not necessary in order to protect the rights of their

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 neigh bour s because tha t should be the only restriction. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister will be closing debate. The Honourable Minister of Municipal Affairs. HON. DOUG GOURLA V (Swan River): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the comments that have been put forward by members opposite with respect to the bill, The Planning Act amend ments, and certainly we will have an opportunity to discuss this further in Committee. I would not have any further comments on it at this time. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR.

SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 42, then Bill No. 58? MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 42,

An Act to amend The City of Winnipeg Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have examined this bill and we are prepared at this time to have the bill go to Committee. If we have any questions on our side we will ask them when the bill is at committee stage. We are prepared at this time to have the bill proceed to I understand Municipal Affairs Committee. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 58,

An Act to amend The Agricultural Lands . . . MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'll just leave that bill for a moment and come back to it. Could you call Bill No. 34? MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we can just leave 34 for the moment. I'm prepared to speak on Bills 38, 56 and 57. So if we proceed to Bill No. 38. MR. MERCIER: Would you call 38, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 38,

An Act to amend The Child Welfare Act. The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I originally ha d adjour ned this de bate for the Ho nourable Member for Wellington but he is otherwise occupied at the moment but he has instructed me that we are prepared to have the bill proceed from the House to committee stage and we are prepared to have the bill proceed at this time. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. JENKINS: Would you call Bill No. 56, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 56. MR. MERCIER: I thank the honourable member for his assistance, Mr. Speaker.

BILL NO. 56 THE EDUCA TION ADMIN ISTRATION ACT AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ACT MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you , Mr. Speaker, and I assure the Attorney-General I'm trying to be as helpful as possible. Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate on behalf of the Honourable Member for Rossmere. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Me mber for Rossmere. MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have taken a look at this bill as well and we must say that we have some very serious reservations with respect to the proposal contained in this bill which provides a flat formula from now into the future to determine the amount which the province will pay to the school divisions for education purposes in the province. In the year 19 81 we've had some thing like a $70 million increase in fundin g for education, together with a new formula for so doing.

The result of that new formula for this year is that the bulk of property taxpayers in Manitoba are paying somewhat similar, or indeed in many areas lesser, property taxes or school taxes than they did in the previous year and certainly the result of that extra funding for the year 19 81 is that there is less being paid this year than there would have been by most Manitobans. There's a few divisions which are not in that fortunate circumstance but the year, 19 81, is going to be looked at by Manitobans, three or four years from now, as the year, as the Member for Emerson indicates, as the good year; that is true.

If this bill is passed 19 81 will be viewed as a the zenith in terms of provincial financing of education. This bill for the first time in Manitoba history places the Minister of Education and the Department of Education in a straightjacket in terms of financing education. lt is a pretty nice little trick.

For the year 19 82 this bill contains a formula which eliminates any problems for the Minister of Education. lt simply says that you calculate the eligible per pupil costs in 19 81 - and of course that was based on the eligible costs in 19 80 - and you add in the inflation rate on top of that and then you reduce it for the province as a whole by the number of students who have left the system. As long as we are in a period of inflation you've built in, first of all, an increase which will always be less than the rate of inflation. it must be, especially so long as we are losing school population.

So that's one factor that this formula builds in. One of the other problems with this formula is that it is based on the consumer price index. lt doesn't ask what is the cost of fuel, what is the cost of school materials, what is the cost of transportation, other costs? lt doesn't ask that. lt just asks what was the consumer price index in September of the year?

So it is based on unrealistic costs; it's not based on any kind of a budget that comes in, as it has been in the past where people take a look at what the school divisions are bringing in and you make a political decision of what is the amount you should pay. What you've got here is a computer calculation. it's not based on what the costs are out there but 3603

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 it's based on artificial costs. You can say from now on into eternity or until this bill is rejected by a future Legislature you are funding 85 percent of approved education costs but each year you're going to be moving further and further away from the 85 percent and you're moving downwards, not upwards. That's one problem. The other area that it also ensures is that there's no such thing as new programming without new legislation. So if a division comes along with some new programming, that is not going to be taken into consideration by this formula.

So for the first time again, the first time in our history we're putting a legislated cap on what the Legislature can provide to the school divisions. School divisions such as my own which have relatively little in the way of commercial and industrial rates, are going to be the divisions which are the most hard hit when you look at the City of Winnipeg. I believe that rural municipalities, rural school divisions are going to be hit very hard as well.

The new system was very neat for 1981. it's one the Tories believe can help them to get out of the jam they're in this year which I think all Manitobans would hope is an election year. Then once they're past this - certainly we hope it will be an election year - but one we're past that hurdle then they've got this problem solved for next year. They can say well, we've got this formula; this is the law; this is what we agreed to. Everybody was so happy with this formula and it was based on 1980.

One of the other problems with that basis is that some of the school divisions were very very careful with their money and they weren't spending as much per pupil in similar circumstances as other school divisions were.

Those school divisions are being punished for listening to the Minister, not only for 1981, but up into the future until such time as this legislation if it is enacted, if they really insist on enacting this legislation, this inequity between divisions is going to continue. lt will grow larger; it will grow larger each year as between divisions because of the fact that the formula itself doesn't take care of all of the inflation involved. lt doesn't start one division off at the same level that another division starts off at, so the division that starts off hig her will each year increase in dollar terms the amount of funding by which it is getting more per pupil than the ones that were spending less.

So basically from every angle we have to say we have some very serious concerns about this bill and we're most anxious to hear from school trustees, from the teachers' organizations and others involved in education, to hear what they think of this program which basically will achieve stagnation in terms of education funding. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Mr. Speaker, I'm prepared to let this go to committee so we can hear the pub lic representations. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I'd like to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kildonan that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Minis ter of Finance. MR. RANSOM: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 58. BILL 58 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS PROTECTION ACT. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. lt is my intention to support this bill because it's better than the existing legislation. lt is imperfect in the opinion of the Agriculture Committee of the Liberal party but it is better than what is there now, so they have asked me to support the bill on that basis, because it at least makes an attempt to plug some of the loopholes which I'm told were big enough to drive a whole truckload of land speculators through. Mr.

Speaker, a headline in the Free Press dated October 16 last stated: "Lawyers skirting farm land laws" and I'm told that is in effect what has been happening in Man itoba to the detriment of the agricultural community. Mr. Speaker, in the hope that the government is really sincere about doing something useful I intend to offer a couple of suggestions which are in effect the policy of the Liberal party in Manitoba respecting land ownership.

I want to say - and I'm sorry that the Minister for Hig hways and Transportation isn't here to hear me say this because I've been hearing him shout about it for a long time - that in the opinion of our party the ownership of land is one of the traditional right s of our countr y and any restrictions thereon should be implemented solely for the pu rpose of sup porting and enhancing the agricultural sector and the rural communities. The Liberal party in Manitoba, Mr.

Speaker, would propose g1vmg local municipali ties some discretionary taxing powers to affect the direction of property ownership within their boundaries, so would be in a position to make their own assessments of the nature and extent of any problem and would be able themselves to implement appropriate remedial measures. The intent of the program would be to reduce incentives for speculative land purchases, one of the spino ffs being to encourage people to live and participate in the rural communities, something which in the opinion of my advisors this bill does not adequa tely accomplish.

The policy of our party would address both the problem of non-resident farm land ownership and the issue of the th reatened extinction of rural communities, Mr. Speaker, in a far more effective and positive way than the proposal that we're looking at in this bill. At least the government has indicated a willingness to change what is now an ineffective piece of legislation. I'm told there have been no prosecutions against the violators of the existing legislation so presumably the government in itself has not been very confident of the effectiveness of the legislation.

Hopefully soon the Liberal party in Manitoba will be 3604

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 in a position to implement what we consider to be a more effective way of dealing with the problem. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Min ister of Agriculture will be closing debate. The Honourable Minister of Agriculture. MR. DOWNEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In closing debate on Bill No. 58, The Farmlands Protection Act, I would just like to make my comments very brief. In doing so, Mr.

Speaker, I think it would be fair to say at this particular time that the act, as I indicated in the introduc tion of the amend ments to The Farmlands Act were to truly identify or to point out who those people who were eligible owners of Manitoba farmland, the eligibility criteria, particularly in those areas of corporations that may have been in fact, owned by other than Canadians; the true ownership we believe, should be left in the hands of Canadians.

The bill as I indicated does have that power now to trul y id ent ify or to ask for the identification of the boards of directors of an annual statement to give the board the kinds of support they need. Further to that, Mr. Speaker, an increase in the amounts of penalties or as well where the indi viduals cannot prove the right to own the property then in fact, disclosure or divestiture would actually be ordered by the board. lt is our desire, Mr. Speaker, to maintain the family farm units in Manitoba.

As we've ind icated, 96 percent of the land transactions in each of the last two years were from farmer-to-farmer within the province. We have to be well aware of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that there are two sides to the coin on this particular issue, those people who are either retiring farmers or individuals who have made the decision to sell their investment that in fact, they are given the opportunity to maximize their return.

Now to deal with the issue that the Member for lnkster and some of the other members brought forward, was the concern of high priced lands to the particular people who are in the food production. That is also a concern of ours, Mr. Speaker, and that is why we have reintroduced our program with an intrasubsidy, putting provincial moneys into the hands of the Credit Corporation to allow farm people - particularly young farm people - access to funds so they can own their lands and farm them. Now if the members opposite are suggesting there should be some form of land price control put in place then, Mr.

Speaker, I can't agree with that kind of a concept because after all it would be like - (I nterjection)- well, that's the kind of message I get from the members opposite. Again, Mr. Speaker, I'm sure the amendments to the act will work in the way in which will be in the best interests of the farm community, particularly the young farmer and the family farm and with those comments I would recommend to the House and ask for support of the members on the amendments and would recommend this bill proceed to committee stage. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR.

DEPUTY SPEAKER, Abe Kovnats (Radisson): The Honourable Govenment House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, first I would now confirm that the Hous e will adjourn at 5:30 and Municipal Affairs and Agricultural Affairs Committees will meet tonight at 8 o'clock. Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 51? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 51,

An Act to amend The Fires Prevention Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Logan. The Honourable Member for Logan. BILL NO. 51 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE FIRES PREVENTION ACT MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate on behalf of the Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will be quite brief in my remarks to Bill 51,

An Act to amend The Fires Prevention Act. I'd like to inform the House firstly that we have reviewed this Act and find that we have no objections to it going to committee where we'll be able to participate in a far more detailed examination, debate and discussion on the specifics. However, I would like to also indicate at this point that I have discussed this Act with the Min ister responsible, the Honourable Minister of Labour, in respect to certain parts of the original Act which were not inclu ded in the amendments which he brought forward.

During those discussions we have come to what I believe is a partial agreement and I'd like to put on the record - and I've asked the Minister of Labour if he had any objections to my doing so and he indicated that he did not - the basis of our discussion. As the Act stands now, in three sections of the Act - and for clarification purposes only I'll point them out,

Section 10,

Section 15 (1 ),

Section 15 (2) - there's reference made to male employees and male persons being required by the Act to do certain acts by the Fire Commissioner and by the other persons of authority under the Act, in respect to containing and fighting fires. There is also an indication in those sections that those persons who are physically unfit to do so will not be required to do so and in

Section 15 there are some other exemptions which are made as welL I think in this day and age, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we can eliminate and omit the reference to a male person or a male employee. We should be talking about emplo yees. We should be talking about people. Now while I say that, I realize full well that what we are talking about is heavy work, sometimes dan gerous work and in fact work which has traditionally been thought of as man's labour.

I think we have escaped those traditional discriminatory practices - I hope we have as a Legislature - so when I first spoke to the Minister respecting this bill, I told him that in my review of the Act I had run across those specific references to males and 1 would hope that when we have the Act open we would be able to eliminate those, that we would be able to make the Act non-discriminatory and non sexist so far as is possible. I am pleased to be able to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Minister of Labour has indicated 3605

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 he has discussed this matter and has some concerns about those particular sections as well and is willing to discuss it more fully at the committee stage in order to try to come up with some more appropriate language, language that more fully suits the 1980s than when the Act was originally written. I think that's important. I think when we have these Acts open - and that applies to all the Acts - we should review the Act in its entirety and try to come up with improvements to the Act which are more in keeping with the philosophy of the day. I note that when we opened up The Garnishment Act, we referred to a

section in second reading res pecting the ga rnish ment of pensions. The Attorney-General took that under advisement; we gave the Attorney-General notice and during the committee stage we were able to I think, bring forward an improvement which was not intended when the Act was brought before the House but in fact does benefit the Act. I think that's to the credit of both the Opposition, who first pointed the problem out to the Attorney-General, to the Attorney-General and his government who took a serious problem into consideration and came up with what appears to be an acceptable solution.

I am hop eful and I am optimistic, gi ven my conversations with the Minister of Labour, that we will be able to do that in this instance as well. So I wanted the record to be clear at this point that I have had those conversations with him respecting the di scr imina tory and sexist lang uage in the provisions of Sections 10, 15(1) and 15(2). We are of agreement that it should be discussed more fully in committee.

I can't anticipate what the committee will decide, but I hope that we do decide to remove any reference to whether an employee or a person is male or female and thereby bring this Act more up to-date, at least from my perspective. So while we are in committee we will be discussing that. Also, we may be suggesting a number of minor changes in respect to the wording of the amendment that is brought forward. That of course, will depend upon the explanations for the wording which the Minister gives during the particular committee hearing.

I would point out to him just one instance so that he can be prepared for that discussion and that's in respect to 58(1) I believe, of the Act which talks about a person disturbing a Fire Commissioner or a person of authority during his or her duties. The Clause reads: "Hinders, obstructs or disturbs that individual". In previous references to it in the Act in previous years the clause read: "Hinders, obstructs or impedes ". So we're concerned about the far reaching implications and

definitions of the word "disturbs" and would like a more thorough explanation of why they felt that word was necessary rather than the word "impede" which was used on previous occasions. So I bring that to the attention of the Minister through this debate so he will be prepared to discuss that as well. We will be talking about some of the other changes but I think they are probably of a general enough nature that we will be able to discuss them fully without notice being given of the specifics.

I am prepared, we are prepared on this side to send this to committee and look forward during the committee debates to being able to update and modernize the references to those who shall be required to work on preventing and putting out fires in the Province of Manitoba. I thank the Minister for the co-operative way in which he has approached this issue with me over the past number of days. I think because of that we have been able to come forward with what I hope will be some positive changes, which will be added to the changes that were first suggested by Bill No. 34. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR.

DEP UTY SPEAKER: The Honour able Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Would you call Bill No. 34? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 34,

An Act to amend The Consumer Protection Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for St. Vital. The Honourable Member for Logan. BILL NO. 34 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I bel ieve the Honourable Member for St. Vital adjourned this deb ate on behalf of the Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Churchill. MR. COWAN: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would just indicate at this time that we are prepared to let this bill go to com mittee and at that point we'll look forward to having more detailed discussion on the contents therein and some of the concepts which are contained in this particular Act.

At the same time I would like to give some notice that we would like to discuss the full Act in an appropriate way in reference to some amendments which were passed last year and upon which no action has been taken by the govern ment. I'm referring specifically to the amendments in respect to unit pricing, computer scanners and their use at different retail outlets in the city.

We are concerned that there appears to have been very little action on the part of the government although we un derstand ther e has been some pressure applied to government by consumer groups and individuals which would indicate to us that there is a need. So while we're in the committee, we look forward to being able to discuss that particular aspect of the Act in some detail as well. In respect to the amendments which are contained in Bill No. 34 - and I would like to correct the reference I made in my last speech - I referred to Bill No. 34 at the end, I should have referred to Bill No. 51.

But in respect to Bill No. 34 which is now before the House we do look forward to discussing it in some detail at the committee stage. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, I move seconded by the Honourable Member for Winnipeg Centre that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. 3606

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 MR. DE PUTY SPEAKER: The Ho nou rable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you ca ll Bill No. 52? MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Bill No. 52,

An Act to amend The Insurance Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Logan. The Honourable Member for Logan. BILL NO. 52 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE INSURANCE ACT MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have examined this Act and we are prepared at this time tc have the bill proceed to the commiW•e stage and any questions we have at that time will be raised with the Minister. As I say we are prepared to have the Bill proceed into Committee at this time. MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: I move, seconded by the Honourable Me mber for Winnip eg Centr e that de bate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried MR. DEPU TY-SPEAKER: Government House Leader. The Honou rable MR. MERCIER: Mr.

Speaker, would you call second reading Bill No. 39. The Honourable Minister of Finance. SECOND READING GOVERNMENT BILLS BILL NO. 39 THE ECOLOGICAL RESERVES ACT MR. RANSOM, on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, presented Bill No. 39, The Ecological Reserves Act for second reading. MOTION presented. MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister. MR. RANSOM: Mr .

Speaker, in the period of development of our province over the past 100 years, 150 years at least , we have seen our land scape and our natura l systems be altered through the process of settlement to the point where there are very few examples that remain today of the natural systems that were here at the time that the first European settlers arrived and began to change the face of the land.

I think it is necessary and appropriate that government and the people of the province should have the authority to preserve some of these examples and should move to preserve some of these examples of ecosystems that have been so important in the natural evolution of the environment that we have around us. it's something thJt is generally accepted in our society that there should be museums. Almost every community in our province has a museum of some sort, Mr.

Speaker, where they preserve the artifacts of prehistory and historical development but that same concept has not been widely extended to preserving examples in living museums of our natural ecosys tems. Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for the formal recognition of such living museums which can then be used for purposes of study, research and simply for people to enjoy if the y are able to enjoy them with out destroying the basic structure of the system that is in place.

Now this bill is not very different from the powers that were available to the government through The Crown Lands Act and through regulations under that Act, in fact, some four ecological reserves have already been designa ted in the province, Mr. Speaker.

But what this bill does is to give more formal recognition to those reserves and, indeed, provides the sort of zuthority that could be required to be certain that indeed the systems are preserved. lt allows for the taking of land, if necessary, to preserve a system and of course it provides for the restriction of activities within these areas unless they are authorized through regulation. I think it is fitting, Mr.

Speaker, that we give formal recognition through the passage of this bill to the ecological reserves that we have and to others that we expect will be established over time and this bill has provision for the establishment of an advisory committee; ag ain, which has been informally in existence up to now where people interested and knowledgeable in this field are able to recommend to the government some areas to be preserved.

Similar Acts exist, I believe, in five or six other provinces in the country and I would expect that in time all ten provinces will have such Acts and that there will be ecological reserves in existence across the country. Mr. Speaker, I recommend this bill to the House very highly. MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for lnkster. MR. GREEN: Mr. Speaker, this is a concept which I don't have any arg ument with and indeed, Mr.

Speaker, I would sugge st that if the Minister looks back he will find that between the years 1970 and 1977 there were ecological reserves created in the Provinc e of Mani toba and the ide a tha t such ecological reserves should be created has substantial support, Mr. Speaker, and substantial argument and is one which certainly I could not see any harm involved in.

The idea, as explained to me by the people who were concerned and they were very well motivated people, was that we would reserve certain parts of our province, pieces of land, to develop as they would develop under nature rather than that they would develop under human involvement and that we would therefore be able to observe what happens when there is no human involvement and when nature was permitted to take its course. My argument with this bill, Mr. Speaker, is similar to the argument that I had with respect to several pieces of legislation that were introduced last year; I believe, Mr.

Speaker, it is a good rule that you do not legislate unless you have to legislate. Unless the project that you have in mind cannot be done unless you pass legislation, it is my respectful submission that the legislation does you more harm than good and there is absolutely nothing to prevent the Minister from now setting up an ecological reserve. lt 3607

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 is goiN g to be limiting on the flexi bilit y of the government to put in a piece of legislation which says how they shall set up a reserve; what the law is after they have set up a reserve; and what conditions will apply.

Those imperatives are not part of the needs of the public of the province of Manitoba or the government; they are part of the needs of people who say that they don't trust the government - and maybe they have good reason not to trust them - but I trust the government, even a Conservative government, better than I trust a law which I'm bound by. lt's almost similar to the constitutional debate. Why is it necessary to put into statute form what the Min ister has power to do without the statute? Who has induced him to do this?

Ind eed the Minister is not here and I would like to see him face to face and suggest to him that some people have come in and said, yes, you have established these ecological reserves; they are done; we know that they are happening but we want the statute. We want the statute so that we know that it doesn't depend on you; that there is a law and the law will say how it's to be done and what happens when it is done. Mr. Speaker, I find it completely unne cessary.

There have been several ecolog ical reserves established over the past several years and for the Minister to say he wants a statute he should explain to me what has been the problem. I mean, the public can take land and set it aside; there is no law agains t that. The public can make tha t land inaccessible to anybody; there is no law against that. The public can put up a sign saying, ecological reserve; there is no law against that. What does the statute do? A statute be an enabling piece of legislation and I do not know what this enable s.

I know that it sets out and defines and it seems to me that you are better off setting out and defining by virtue of governmental authority, rather than setting out and defining and then being in a position, Mr. Speaker, of wanting to change it; and the only way it can be changed is if you bring in another bill, go through three readings and clutter up the legislation. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest to the government if some day they had time - and if it's not this government I will suggest it to the next government and if I have any more power or if I have the power that I once had vis-a-vis sitting in the government benches - I wo uld go through the statutes of Ma nitob a, Mr. Speaker, with the imper ative of eliminating at least 50 percent of them because they are unnecessary.

As a matter of fact, I heard, I believe it was one of the legislative counsel, who said to me that one jurisdiction had a rule that a Minister could not present a bill un less he repealed two others because there are two other bills on the paper which surely are not necessary. Here is a bill which nobody will argue, I don't argue with the desirability of it, I just wonder what can't be done. What is the Minister seeking from the Legislature with this bill that he cannot do without it? I would like the Min ister to explain that, Mr.

Speaker, when this bill goes to Committee because I'm not, in principal, against the establishment of ecological reserves. I think I established the fi rst one, I'm not certain of that. The Minister is nodding his head up and down in the affirmative so my memory is probably not faulty. I believe that I established the first one and I believe that all of the powers that are 3608 in this bill were had by the government before the enactment of the legislation. Why do we have to do it. Why do we drive ourselves into the thought that the world doesn't move except if somebody gives three readings to a bill.

The world has moved and will continue to move and probably better, probably better without giving three readings to a bill. Now, I'm not saying that you never have to have a bill. Before I came in government, between 1966 and 1969, there were laws where judges were ordering people to work, as a for instance, and unless there was a bill which changed that that continued to be the law.

I want the Minister at Committee to tell us what this legislation enables the pu blic of the Province of Manitoba to do through their elected representatives which could not be done without this legislation and if indeed there is something that is needed, rather than that there be a statute for those who say that they want ecological reserves to be able to say we have a statute providing for it and therefore it is necessary to do. Mr.

Speaker, I don't think that is necessary and I told the people that at the time and I tell the Minister now, at the time, that I established, and he has confirmed it and therefore I'm not even going to rely on my memory, ecological reserves which I believe had all the features of what he is now talking about and there was no bill in the Legislature. Because, Mr. Speaker, there are some people who think that the only time you can do anything is if you have a statute and I prefer to believe, Mr.

Speaker, that you can do anything that is not prohibited by statute and if you will tell me what we cannot do by virtue of a prohibition then I certainly would like to facilitate the establishment of ecological reserves in the Province of Manitoba and I am not the least bit interested in first, second and third readings of the bills. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: I thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My party has no objection to letting this bill proceed to Committee but we have a couple of concerns which I would just like to draw to the attention of the Minis ter and tha t is concern ing licensing and permits. We have no objection to this kind of provision being included, Mr. Speaker, provided the management control will be within the department. My party is not interesting in having licences granted to other authorities, whether under the guise of ecological authorities or anything else.

We want the management to remain within the department and, if that is not to be so, I would appreciate hearing about it from the Minister in closing debate. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nourable Member for Rupertsland. MR. BOSTROM: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Kildonan that debate be adjourned. MOTION presented and carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 57?

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 BILL NO. 57 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE TEACHERS' PENSIONS ACT MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 57, the Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have examined this bill; we have no great dispute with what the Minister is trying to achieve here. We're prepared at this time to have the bill proceed to the committee stage. If there are any questions we would have them at that time and I imagine that members of the teaching profession would probably be there. If we wanted any questions we could ask them at that time. So, like I say, Mr.

Speaker, we are prepared at this time to have the bill proceed to the committee stage. MR. SPEAKER: The Honou rable Mem ber for Winnipeg Centre. MR. J.R. (Bud) BOYCE: We are prepared to have this bill go to committee, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The Honour able Mini ster of Education will be closing debate. The Honourable Minister of Education. MR. COSENS: Mr.

Speaker, just very briefly, I am pleased to see this bill proceeding to Committee. lt completes, as I mentioned in my introduc tory remarks, several changes that have been made in the Teachers' Retirement Plan that are viewed by the teachers as being very positive and certainly I would hope are viewed in the same way by members of this Legislature. QUESTION put, MOTION carried. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 28 from Page 8 of the Order Paper? ADJOURNED DEBATES ON SECOND READING PUBLIC BILLS BILL NO. 28 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE EMPLOYMENT SERVICES ACT MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 28,

An Act to amend The Employment Services Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, the Mem ber for Gladstone adjourned deba te for me. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as Bill 28, although it proposes amendments to The Employment Services Act, I think the Member for Wellington would acknowledge that the question at hand is first and foremost a human rights matter. Therefore, Mr.

Speaker, as Minister responsible for the Human Rights Commission, I would like to make a few comments with respect to this matter. 3609 I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that both I and the Human Rights Commission have studied this bill and have taken a great deal of interest in the discussion in this House because of the concern for this matter and, particularly, because of discussion of this issue that arose out of a commentary on the W5 television program. The Human Rights Commission, when they learned of the incidents discovered in a random survey by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Mr.

Speaker, were concerned with this matter. The Member for Wellington indicated, I belie ve in his comments with respect to this bill, tha t I ha d directed the Human Rights Commission to write to employment agencies. Mr.

Speaker, I can say that the Human Rights Commission needed no prompting from me as the Minister responsible but, because of their concern with respect to this matter, they initia ted letters to all emp loyment agencies in Manitoba informing them of their responsibility to comply with the provisions of Manitoba's Human Rights legislation and warned them tha t any compla ints received would be investigated vigorously. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that I advised the Member for Wellington of this action by the Commission I believe on February 5th. Fu rther, Mr .

Speaker, the Huma n Rig hts Commission is making personal contact with these employment agencies to reinforce the fact that non compliance with the Act will be viewed as a very very serious matter. Moreover, the Commission advises that they are considering the use of monitoring and testing activities which could be sanctioned under current Human Rights legislation. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that Manitoba's Human Rights legislation presently contains provisions,

Section 23(1), giving the Human Rights Commission authority to inspect documents and records and to make copies thereof and further, when a person refuses to grant access or produce documents,

Section 23(2) permits the Commission to obtain a court order for access. lt is suggested, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments proposed in Bill 28 may not add at all to the powers of the Human Rights Commission which they possess under these sections which I have referred to. I would note, Mr. Speaker, that the Commission has reviewed the pertinent sections of other Human Rights legislation in Canada with respect to access to records, investigations, etc.; in effect, Manitoba's provisions are the same.

I can provide the member with a copy of information from The Canadian Human Rights Act; The Human Rights Act of Nova Scotia; the Human Rights Code of New Brunswick; the Ontario Human Rights Code; the Saskatchewan Huma n Rights Code and the Charter of Huma n Rights and Freedoms of the Province of Quebec if the Member for Wellington or any other member is interested. The Member for Wellington, Mr. Speaker, made reference in his comments to actions by the Province of Ontario with respect to their reaction to the W5 story. I wo uld say, Mr.

Speaker, that while the Ontario legislation appeared to act quickly, in terms of introducing new legislation, it was not introduced as a direct action to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association su rvey; rather the bill that was introduced in Ontario's Legislature contained several amendments to their Human Rights Code which had

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 been in the works for several months and even years and were essentially the culmination of a response to the recommendations of a 1976 report which they had received. Mr. Speaker, the Human Righ ts Commission considered this to be a matter of high priority but they are presently satisfied that the current provision of The Human Rights Act, specifically

Section 6(1)(

b) and 6(5) which deals with specifically with employment agencies, together with the access to information sections of The Human Rights Act, are sufficient enough for them to investigate complaints with respect to this type of problem. As I've indicated, Mr. Speaker, they have written to all employment firms with respect to this concern advising them of the specific provisions of The Human Rights Act; these letters will be followed up by personal contact The Commission is hopeful, as I am, Mr. Speaker, that these actions will address the problem satisfactorily. However, Mr.

Speaker, I've advised them that I am deeply concerned with regard to this matter and I've asked them to keep me up-to date with respect to their considerations and the results. I would say to the Member for Wellington, Mr. Speaker, that if the Commission is satisfied, and I am satisfied, that a problem persists in this area that I'm certainly prepared to consider and bring forward amendments to The Human Rights Act that will specifically address any problem that may arise out of this matter. I thank, Mr.

Speaker, the Member for Wellington for raising these concerns in the Legislature and I want to assure him that if it is necessary we will bring forward stricter amendments to the Hu man Rights Commission if they prove to be necessary. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Me mber for Wellington will be closing debate. The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR. BRIAN CORRIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, and I'll be very brief in making my closing remarks in response to the summation and rebuttal of the Attorney-GeneraL Mr.

Speaker, succinctly I think everything I have to say can be put in one nutshell and that is that the Honourable Attorney-General seems to have missed the main point of the amendment. The main point of the amendment was to require employment agencies to maintain records that would facilitate the monitoring of their activities by the Human Rights Commission. What we were doing, Mr. Speaker, what I was attempting to do, was shift the onus, the burden, from the employee, the person who aggrievedly feels that he or she was the victim of discrimination on the basis of race, or whatever, to the employment agency.

So what we were doing is we were saying that the employment agency had to maintain certain records which wou ld, in turn, provide information which would be accessible and available at any time to officials of eit her the Employment Services Branch or the Human Rights Commission. lt was my belief and the belief of members on this side, Mr.

Speaker, that sort of more activist affir mative appr oach wou ld ha ve the desirable effect of, first of all, discouraging agencies who were prone to this sort of activity from participating in discrimination; and, second of all, where such incidences were occurring would make them much more discernible, identifiable and that is the problem, Mr. Speaker.

Succinctly the problem has always been that the Human Rights Commission has not had the wherewithal to go behind the scenes and identify such situations when they do exist In most cases, because even the complainants are not privy to all the information that they should be about the nature of the employer's requir ements, the qualifications of competing prospective employees, they too are disabled in seeking redress under the Human Rights Commission in cases where they do feel that they have a justifiable grievance.

So what we're doing is we are trying to activate and revivify the Human Rights code in such a way that it will work effect ively in contemp orary circumstances. So I say that it's highly unlikely that the Attorney-General is going to find himself in receipt of more complaints as he says it was. He sugge sted that if he were he would take action. Well, I'm suggesting that it's highly unlikely that will take place unless the Act is first amended. it's a question of where the empha sis lies. He feels tha t the complaints will somehow flow naturally and then, if warranted, he can take necessary amending action.

I say that the flow will never take place because there will never be any information sufficient to substantiate those sorts of complaints and therefore they will not proceed to his attention. I would also indicate, Mr. Speaker, in summation that I feel that it is time for the government to do something effective and activist with respect to the whole problem of racial tension and discrimination in this province. lt was not too many weeks ago that the Mayor of the City of Winnipeg saw fit to create a special task force on race relations. He did so, Mr.

Speaker, because there was brought to his attention and the attention of course of all citizens, a number of incidents involving physical violence and other sorts of intimidation and violence. Mr. Speaker, I would think that members of the government side opposite would well pay heed to the Mayor's actions and his spontaneous and quick response to the problem he perceived within his jurisdiction in the City of Winnip eg and as well do somethin g affirmative in this important area.

I would suggest that rather than waiting for the other shoe to fall, tha t it wou ld be better to take a measure of protection and put it in place now so that those tensions would be mitigated and abated. So, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the response tendered by the Attorney-General on behalf of himself and his government and I would indicate that I feel that the government is unwise in wasting an opportunity to upgrade the standards of the relevant legislation. Thank you. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated. MR. PETER FOX: On division, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On di vision? Is that agre ed? (Agreed).

I declare the Motion defeated. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call for Bill No. 49, Page 8 of the Order Paper, The Landlord and Tenant Act moved by the Memb er for Wellington. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Logan. 3610

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 BILL NO. 49 -

AN ACT TO AMEND THE LANDLORD AND TENANT ACT

(2) MR. JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate on behalf of my colleague, the Mem ber for Wellington. MR. SP EAKER: Th e Ho nour able Mem ber for Wellington will be closing debate. The Honourable Member for Wellington. MR. CORRIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Prior to this matter being closed I wanted to take this opportunity to respond to the Minister responsible for this particular Act, the Min ister responsible for Housing.

He responded to my introductory remarks on Tuesday last, the 12th of May and I wish to deal again summarily with a few of the points that he raised in response to my presentation and the legislation on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker, I want to say first of all that I think the Minister has misdirected himself in that he seems to place the emphasis rather than on consumer or tenant protection on commercial relations in the community. I want to stress, Mr.

Speaker, that I was motivated to introduce this legislation not because there was such an alarming outcry from the populace but rather because I perceived a problem which was being aggravated by current high rates of bankruptcy in the province. As I pointed out in my initial remarks we are experiencing at least a 10-year record with respect to bankruptcy proceedings in Manitoba and as a result I am concerned about tenants who are being put in peril or jeopardy in facing situations where their land lord has made an assignment in bankruptcy.

Now the purpose of this proposed revision or what I wou ld prefer to refer to as a reform to the legislation, Mr. Speaker, is very simple. lt is to make very clear what assets of a bankrupt landlord will be avai lable for di stri bution to general un secur ed creditors. The problem in the past, Mr.

Speaker, and the problem which will continue to pertain until the legislation is somehow reworked and revised is that the law in this particular country is such that security deposits are not regarded as trust proceeds and therefore are avai lable on an assignment in bankru ptcy for the general purposes of all the creditors. Now there have been cases and the Honourable Minister made mention of the Thompson case - that's Thompson, Manitoba case of 1972 - there have been cases where tenants of a bankrup t landlord have lost all their security deposits as a result of this legal

interpretation and precedent. What I was saying was, it seems rather senseless knowing that there is a potential problem and knowing that we are experiencing a high rate of bankruptcy which gives rise to the problem, not to take some remedial reformative approach to the particular problem. So the Minister has come back and the Minister sort of skirts that whole area, that whole aspect of my concern and he says it's going to have the result of raising the operational costs on landlords.

He says that it's going to be inevitably a cost which is passed along to the tenant because landlords are going to be depriveq of what he refers to as their cash float, 3611 which I presu me is a reference to the security deposits being used for operational purposes within the commercial activity of the landlord. Mr. Speaker, I suppose in some respects I must be very naive. But I would have presumed unlike the Minis ter of Housing, tha t a responsible ethical land lord wou ldn't attempt to use the sec ur ity deposits for operational expending purposes.

I would have presumed that it would have been of least almost de facto considered to be a trust fund. I can't imagine why some landlord having received moneys as a security deposit from a tenant would then proceed to take the money and start using it for the purposes of general maintenance in the block or whatever. I thought it was there more or less pledged until such time as the tenant gave up possession of his or her unit. Now that's what I thought, Mr.

Speaker, and I think that reading the Act I think that's certainly what most tenants would presume. lt is just as I said as a result of rather a wide latitude in the security deposit provision that these funds have never been regarded as trust proceeds. So I don't think that we should much concern ourselves with this particular argument. I think with respect to the Min ister that it's a rather weak argument and that one that belies the conception with respect to these situations anywhere.

Secondly, the Minister was very concerned about the legislation not going far enough anyway - he didn't put it qui te in those terms - but he suggested that the trust moneys could be misused or misappropriated anyway and that even the strict policing provisions that I recommend and submit are warranted would not prevent that from happening. I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, I think sometimes a little common sense goes a long way. lt seems to me if we took that to its logical conclusion that there would be literally hundreds if not thousands of rules and laws and reg ulations suspended within the province because you know, Mr. Speaker, we do that with respect to hun dreds of thing s. We create regulations which require certain disclosures to be made by certain persons, by certain parties and we provide mechanisms for policing in order to assure that people are opera ting with in the regulatory framework that we establish as legislators.

So what the Minister is saying, that with respect to landlord and tenants he would prefer a reversion if we're not already there - I'm not sure reversion is the right term - he would prefer to maintain the law of the jungle, so if we're going to have somebody who deceitfully and criminally misappropriates trust funds, so what? I am suggesting as I sugge sted in my initial remarks, Mr.

Speaker, that most people if it is a law, if they are faced with a law that requires them to maintain trust deposits and it is clearly and explicitly spelle d out that the fund which the y manage is a trust fund, will not breach the law and I think that's a fairly reasonable argument. it's based on I suppose first of all trust in my fellow citizens. I have some degree of confidence which is not shared by the Honourable Minister in this regard in my fellow Manitobans. Secondly, I say with respect to that small minority that will for reasons of temptation or whatever disposition, will misappropriate trust funds.

I suggest it's far more likely that they will be apprehended if there is a mechanism put in place to police the regulatory provision.

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 So again I have to chide the Minister because I think what he's doing is he's saying that he would prefer to take a very passive rather reactionary status quo anti-position. I know that we don't concur with respect to many aspects of consumer protection. I know we have substantial differences with respect to landlord and tenant law. But, Mr. Speaker, sometimes it seems to me that common sense should prevail because if he's unwilling to accept this reform then he should repeal all sorts of regulatory provisions of this sort. He could go right thr ough The Consumer Protection Act, Mr.

Speaker, and he could strike literally scores of similar provisions. Then he could go through The Corporations Act also within his jurisdiction and strike dozens if not scores of more provisions. We could go on and on, Mr. Speaker, because we could look at the environ mental protection legislation. Goodness knows he could strike I'm sure, well over a hundred provisions there, Mr. Speaker, regulations attached to that legislation. But he doesn't want to do that, Mr. Speaker, he seems unmotivated in that respect. But at the same time, Mr.

Speaker, he's like the proverbial horse that could be led to water but not be made to drink. He seems to be willing to tacitly understand and appreciate the need for regulation when it's been forced upon him by another government but unwilling to act when confronted with a situation where he can actively participate and reform. So, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to belabour it. I am di sappointed tha t the Mi nis ter has taken this approach and will not intervene on behalf of tenants but I am not surprised. Mr.

Speaker, I believe there will be cases in the next few months because I know that there are several cases now before the courts involving this particular problem. I believe that ·1 will have opportunity in the next few months or the next year to once again reintroduce this particular bill. I will be able to at that time, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately - and I guess somewhat regrettably - cite in order to reinforce my arguments and make them hopefully more persuasive to the Minister, more cases where tenants have been deprived of their rightful security deposits. So, Mr.

Speaker, I suppose the Minister would prefer rather than deal with this issue on a reasonable basis would prefer to deal with it on a political basis, one that should be discussed on hot line shows and debated heatedly in future sessions of the Legislature. So if that is his disposition, Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to deprive him of his right to deba te and continue the dialogue. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated. MR. FOX: On division, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: On di vision. Is tha t agre ed? (Agreed). I declare the motion defeated. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR.

MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call Bill No. 5. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 5, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Minnedosa. BILL NO. 5 THE GASOLINE TAX ACT, THE MOTIVE FUEL TAX ACT, THE REVENUE ACT, 1964, THE RETAIL SALES TAX ACT, THE TOBACCO TAX ACT. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr . Speaker, the Me mber for Minnedosa adjourned this bill on my behalf. I just want to make a very brief comment. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance spoke to this matter on Tuesday of this week.

He indicates in his comments that the subject requires some further attention from himself and he wished to examine those possibilities and make other improvements in the Act, Mr . Speaker, so, I just wish to make the comment that it would appear, as a result of that comment from the Minister of Finance, that we will be in a position to have a bill before the next session of this Legislature which no doubt will incorporate some, but not all, of the amendments brought forward by the Member for St. Johns. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for St. Johns will be closing debate.

The Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, I've been aware of the fact for very many years that the wheels of government turn very slowly but I have to say that the wheels of a Conservative government turn more slowly and I feel that possibly it's a question of priorities. The question of the strong feeling on the part of Min isters of the Crown of the present government as to what has greater priority.

We spent a little time today talking about expen ditur e of money on some pamphlet which was a pictorial representation of flooded Manitoba and I suppose that took more time and more money than it would to consider important matters of government. I don't suggest, Mr.

Speaker, that the contents of Bill 5 are of outstanding importance but they are a matter of principal which I would like to have thought would be the kind of matter that any government would examine as soon as it's drawn to its attention in order that that government should make sure that it is indeed defending the rights of the individual and the rights of a citizen whose life is affected by government. Mr.

Speaker, the imposition of taxation is a burden on people and yet it is also an obligation which most people seek out, as evidenced by the fact that indeed our whole system of taxation is, to a large extent, voluntary; it is not monitored. If people are aware of the fact they must realize that income taxation, for example, is one where the government relies on the citizen to be honest and straigh tforward in the response he or she makes to the demands of the tax collector and files a return which is reviewed, not in every case but in the minority of cases.

The result is that when there is an infraction in taxation laws by an individual then the government must, of course, draw it to the attention of the individual and when it is extreme then it should be drawn to the attention of the the public who is affected. Any �812

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 person who is honest and straightforward in the presentation of his tax return has a right to expect that every other person in society is making the same ho nest report and, therefore, it's incumbent on government to make sure that examples of evasion of taxation are brought to the attention of the public so they are aware, not only that they are being protected by the tax collector checking on others but also that they themselves must continue to be honest, and that's why it is necessary to have enforcement regulations. But, Mr.

Speaker, whatever is done in that regard is usually an invasion of the privacy of the individual; it is certainly an invasion on his piece of mind, on his comfort, on the continuity of his life; it is an intrusion and therefore it has to be closely watched. Mr.

Speaker, I draw to your attention - and I don't remember just what I said when I introduced the bill - but I think that a government which puts up such a big fuss about the rights of the individual being protected by government and the fact that no entrenched Bill of Rights is necessary, that kind of government should be foremost in its efforts to make sure that when there is criticism of government powers being excessive that that government should react. I fault this government for having sat and done what I am not - you know, Mr.

Speaker, I'm about to say for having sat and done nothing about this for some 17 or 18 months - the truth is I said, I do remember I said when I introduced this bill, I believe that something was done by the department and I must say, Mr. Speaker, I don't know that to be a fact at all; I just assume it from my knowledge of the ad minis trative abili ty of the members of the department. But, Mr. Speaker, the Min ister of Finance obviously has not studied the Law Reform Commission sufficiently to be able to bring in legislation.

I assume his predecessor didn't either and that's why I say that it's a matter of priorities and to them the principle involved in this bill is apparently of not enough concern to have acted on the Law Reform Commission Report and to have brought in legislation last year; last year, not just this year, and then to have sat and done nothing until this year and then to have done nothing. Then if one lis tened to the Ho nour able, the Minister of Finance or reads Hansard on what he said two days ago, one will note that he says that, yes, this is a problem, it may be a problem, we're looking into it.

We don't know if the proposals by the Law Reform Commission are adequa te or possibly they go a little too far. We will look at it; next year we'll bring in legislation. Well, Mr. Speaker, I wish I could guarantee there will be an election this year and then I would guarantee, even though I won't be a member of that government, I guarantee that the New Democratic government would bring in legislation dealing with this problem.

I can guarantee that and I'm only sorry that I cannot be sure that election will be called in sufficient time for a New Democratic government to deal with this matter in the next session, therefore, we have to rely on the Minister of Finance to carry out his undertaking and bring it back to the next session. He says that no complaints have come to his attention but does not claim that no complaints were made; I think that's true.

I think that it is a bad policy to bring in legislation and sit back and wait for complaints; if it is drawn to you attention that the matter is wrong to sit back and say, I have no complaints, therefore, I'll let this una cceptable, inadvisable legislation sit in the books until I get complaints. One of the problems with that, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the power being there it often need not be used. As you know, Mr.

Speaker, your own power is, I suppose, only that you can name a member and I don't think that you've named a member in your time and yet that's the only power you have; that's the only way you can stop any of us from being rambu nctious. I' ve not heard you call in the Sergeant-at-Arms but it is the th reat and I think that when the Minister of Finance's Department has a threat which will say we have a right to do certain things, many times they don't have to exercise their power, merely indicate that they have the power. So I don't accept it.

I'm glad that the Minister undertook to deal with it and bring it in next year. I'm even glad that he will be able to take all credit next year for having said, I've reviewed this legislation; I find that there should be corrective measures; I'm bringing it in. I'll say, goody for you if he does it; but if he doesn't do it, Mr.

Speaker, I would not be inclined to say, goody for you; I would use some other expression to indicate my displeasure by that failure and, since I expect tha t his un dertaking carries with it the assumption that there'll be no election before the next session, then obviously I will be here again to my dismay and sorrow, but I'll be here, and if he doesn't do it, I guess I'll do it again next year. So, leaving it on that basis I would say, Mr.

Speaker, I'm glad I brought it in; I'm sorry it took some seven years to go from the time I had it referred to the Law Reform Commission untn now but. nevertheless I brought it up, I' ve got an unde rtaking from the Mini ster. The wheels of government will move, but slowly, but they'll move. So, Mr.

Speaker, I would like to think that there will be a vote in favour of the bill but I somehow, for reasons that may be apparent to those who listened to the debate, I am of the impression that it is not likely that the bill will pass second reading but I will have to accept that since that is the way life is in this Legislature. QUESTION put, MOTION defeated. MR. PETER FOX: On Division. MR. SPEAKER: On Division. The Honourable Government House Leader. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if there would be unanimous agreement to move into Private Member's Hour. MR. CHERNIACK: No. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR.

CHERNIACK: lt is my impression that the Minister could now call another bill on the Private Member's Hour list and the reason I suggested, no; I didn't insist on, no, was that I want to have the opportunity to speak on that at this time. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, would you call the third reading of amended bills and third reading of bills on Pages 1 and 2 of the Order Paper. THIRD READING - AMENDED BILLS 3613

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 BILL No. 8 was read a third time and passed. MR. SPEAKER: Bill No. 10, The Ho nourable Minister of Government Services. MR. JO RGEN SON presented Bill No. 10 , The Builders' Liens Act for third reading. MOTION presented. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for Fort Rouge. MS. WESTBURY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have read the amendments as they were presented at Committee but most of them are in very involved language and I wonder if the Minister could assure me tha t the kinds of protection for the small consumer, the owner of property to which I referred on second reading, is provided.

I was concerned about the fact that in a technical bill of this type that some of the people who might suffer from this legislation might be small owners of property, perhaps farmers who are having farm build ing s constructed or city people who are having garages built or additions to their property where they would employ a small contractor but they wou ldn't necessarily go to a lawyer to have the contract drawn up. I was concerned about whether those people were properly protected under Bill 10. I know that the Construction Association was present at the Committee hearing.

I'm afraid I wasn't able to be there, I had another engagement I wasn't on the Committee, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder if the Minister can assure me that in fact the consumer is protected in this particular bill and in the amendments; as they were not protected in the original drafting of the bill. MR. SPEAKER: Are your ready for the question? The Honourable Attorney-General. MR. MERCIER: Mr. Speaker, I'm a little confused with the member's remarks because she referred to consumers and owners. Consu mer protection is contained in other legislation under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.

I can assure the member that this bill which has been under study since 19 70 and has been the subject of study in B.C. and Ontario, another report in Ontario as late as the fall of 19 80 which was the basis of a number of amend ments we made to the bill which was presented to the last session of the Legislature. This whole subject area has been covered not only in great depth and detail by our province but by a number of other provinces, Mr. Speaker. We've reached the point where we finally have a new bill and I would suggest this bill be passed.

I've indic ated to committee if problems arise we're certainly prepared to deal with them as expeditiously as possible. MR. SPEAKER: Are you ready for the question? The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. LOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Elmwood debate be adjourned. 3614 MOTION presented and carried. PRIVATE MEMBERS' HOUR MR. SPEAKER: The hour is 4:30. We are now in Private Members' Hour. On Thu rsdays the first order of bu siness in Priv ate Memb ers is Public Bills followed by Private Bills and then Resolutions. The Honourable Member for Logan. MR. JENKINS: Mr.

Speaker, before we proceed, have a committee change. I would like to move that the Honourable Member for Elmwood be replaced by the Honour able Me mber for We llingt on on the Committee of Municipal Affairs. MR. SPEAKER: The Ho nour able Me mber for Wellington in place of the Honourable Member for Elmwood on Committee of Municipal Affairs. We will proceed then with Bill No. 14 ,

An Act to amend The Medical Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Gladstone. (Stand) The Honourable Member for lnkster on a point of order. MR. GREEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. This bill was introduced and then there was a fairly definitive position given on it and then it was adjourned. I just want to know whether the House Leader is going to let the position be responded to and have the bill voted on. The House Leader is giving me the assurance that will happen, that's fine. MR. SPEA KER: Bill No. 17, The Me di cal Act, standing in the name of the Honourable Member for Logan. MR.

JENKINS: Mr. Speaker, I adjourned this debate on behalf of the Honourable Member for St. Johns. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Member for St. Johns. BILLS NO. 17, 18 , 20, 21, 22, 25, 40, 47. MR. CHERNIACK: Mr. Speaker, there are some eight professional bills on the Order Paper, Nos. 17 , 18 , 20, 21, 22, 25, 40 and 47 with which a committee of our caucus dealt I am prepared now to speak in a general way on the principle of the bills. I would propose, Mr.

Speaker, that if necessary with consent, to deal with all eight in my one speech and then as far as I'm aware - I don't know if anybody else on the Official Opposition wishes to speak on any of these bills - we feel it is advisable that they all go to committee, that they be dealt with there in detail and that is the best way to do it. The principle of all the bills is in the nature of a professional bill. So, Mr. Speaker, if I run out of 20 minutes and if I'm not granted leave then of course I will sit down. On the next bill I will comp lete my speech; either way it'll work out. Mr.

Speaker, when I said the principle of the bill is professional legislation, I point out to you that the only reason a professional society comes to the Legislature to ask for legislation is to empower it to set qualifications and standards for the profession and for members of the profession and to give them that power to control their members to that extent. lt

Thursday, 14 May, 1981 is done in all sincerity I believe, in a recognition that in taking these powers they're doing it because they have a special knowledg e and training in the particular field and have an obligation to the public to protect the pu blic in conne ction with these professional services.

Once these bills are brought by professional bodies to the Legislature, the Legislature has a different objective, it must have and that is, first and foremost, the Legislature has to say, "Our job is to protect the public". lt is only in the light of the recognition of the obligation of the Legislature to protect the public that the Legislature should agree to consider granting powers of this kind to private bodies. I mention that, Mr.

Speaker, because from time to time in committee some suggestion will be made about some variation in a bill and very often you'll find the Minister responsible for that particular bill or the mover - more often you find the mover - saying, "Well, I don't think my people would like that" and that to me is completely unacceptable. - (I nterjection)- The Member for lnkster is saying it was said, I don't know the occasion, but I can well believe it because the peculiar thing, Mr.

Speaker, is that some members seem to feel that because they were asked to bring in a bill they are suddenly acting on behalf of a private body and have to bow to the wishes of that private body which is not only silly, which is not only contrary to the entire spirit of the purpose of legislators bringing in private bills. If they take the concept one step further it is improper for them to be representing the society that brought in the legisla tion; the y are represe nting their constituents.

They have to believe sincerely that it is in the interests of the public of which their constituents are part, to have this bill brought in. Even when somebody brings in a bill of some private corporation - we have one somewhere I think the Montreal Trust or some trust company - that is supposed to be in the interests of the public. Usually it is necessary to look at what is requested by the proposers of the bill to make sure they're not acquiring powers which are not in the interests of the public and that is wrong. So, Mr. Spea

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	31-5-79
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	31st 5th hansardpdf 79.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	eec58b81e9e7f009634926c686038adc6f644cee

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