LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, February 18, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I
beg to present the petition of Shonnon Armstrong, Jacqueline Dyke, Susan Rogers
and others requesting the government to show its strong commitment to dealing
with child abuse by considering restoring the Fight Back Against Child Abuse
campaign.
Ms. Judy
Wasylycia‑Leis (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
to the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The petition of the undersigned, The Pas
Health Complex Incorporated, humbly sheweth:
THAT your petitioner seeks to amend The Pas
Health Complex Incorporation Act by striking out the word "ten" in
paragraph 1, line 4 thereof and substituting therefore the word
"thirteen."
WHEREFORE your petitioner humbly prays that
the Legislature of the
And as in duty bound your petitioner will
ever pray.
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): I have a ministerial statement and I have
copies.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to advise the
House of my government's initiatives with regard to Churchill, its port and the
rail line that serves it.
I have had increasing concern for the
future of Churchill. This concern has been fueled by the review being conducted
by the federal government which is expected to lead to a decision on the rail
line and the port.
We have been actively pursuing commitments
to increase traffic through Churchill as well as to upgrade rail and port
facilities. This has involved meetings
with federal ministers, the Canadian Wheat Board and Canadian National
officials.
I have also sought the support of my western
counterparts for the port. In addition,
last fall I took the Honourable Shirley Martin, Minister of State for
Transport, to Churchill. This provided
her an opportunity to meet with the people of Churchill and to view the
facilities. She came away with a much
better understanding of both issues and the potential of Churchill.
The Premier signed an agreement with
We are aggressively pursuing maximum
utilization of Churchill for this movement, which will run through 1996. Churchill's proximity to northern
The
potential development of the
In order to ensure preservation of these
opportunities, I met with the Honourable Jean Corbeil, federal Minister of
Transport and the Honourable Shirley Martin, Minister of State for Transport
yesterday in
Although I am confident that grain will
move through Churchill this year, every effort must be taken to secure the long‑term
future of Churchill and northern rail service. Northern development, access to
grain markets and the very future of Churchill itself hang in the balance.
I urge members of this House to give their
full support to these vital initiatives.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker,
we were somewhat encouraged that the minister would take the opportunity to
travel to
We are very discouraged, Mr. Speaker, by
what we see in this document here today and that the minister has received no
assurances and commitment from his federal counterparts. There are a lot of initiatives that we wish
to see take place in the province, in the North of Manitoba, that hang in the
balance because no decision has been made for the port facilities. Until that decision is made, the future of
northern
It is unfortunate that the minister has not
received that commitment from the federal minister, and I believe that once
again that task falls into the hands of the other parties in
*
(1340)
Mr. Paul
Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I
want to respond to the minister's comment first by noting an excerpt from his
statement that they have been actively pursuing commitments to increase
traffic. I remember that statement being
made very shortly after first coming to this House a number of years ago when
this government first came into power. We really have not seen much progress
since then, unfortunately.
I acknowledge that not all of that can be
laid at the feet of this minister, but surely it is time for the people of
northern
It is a fact which I think is lost on many
people in this country, certainly not on Manitobans, but many people in this
country, that this province has a seagoing port. It is the only prairie province to have that
port. That should be a jewel for the
Prairies, Mr. Speaker, not just for
It is high time that eastern Canadians
recognize the importance and the possibilities for that port. I do not believe that it is understood. I appreciate the minister's efforts to put
that forward. It is time, however, I
think, to put some meat on the bones of the many fine words and the rhetoric
that is often thrown around this Chamber and no doubt the House of Commons in
I also want to acknowledge the meeting
which is going to take place on Friday in
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House
with copies‑‑[interjection] I have not been in
Mr. Speaker, last April 4 I had the
pleasure of standing in this House to announce the official opening of the
Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation, a world‑class health research
institute.
In the past year, we have become even more
acutely aware of the cost of health care and of the necessity to seek answers
which will enable us to provide quality care and universal access without, as I
said last year, bankrupting the system.
This is true not only in
It is essential that as health care
planners we make sound policy and funding decisions. I believe the centre is providing us with the
data we require to effect strategic management decisions. We will make the right decisions for the
right reasons. We will be able to
determine the value of what we obtain for the patient.
Mr. Speaker, members will recall, the
centre is a partnership between the
One of the first projects of the centre
known as the Manitoba Population Health Data Base, which is being jointly
developed by the centre, Statistics Canada and the Canadian Institute for
Advanced Research will help us link service delivery with health outcomes. This will mean focusing on health care rather
than illness cure.
Doctor Leslie Roos has completed a study on
the outcomes of surgical care in
I take pleasure today in tabling a document
entitled "
Over the past 15 years, the
The study says that, quote: Strategies proposed to deal with the issues
are based on the principle that professional and scientific approaches are
preferable to administrative or punitive measures.
Population‑based research helps
ensure that the results can be provided to policymakers and planners with
confidence that the descriptions accurately reflect conditions in the
*
(1345)
The
For instance, the issue of geriatric
assessment and treatment may be of medium priority.
The study found that improving the physical
and mental status of our elderly citizens will help increase the number of
elderly people who age successfully and reduce health care use. In other words, successful aging is lifestyle
related, not related to physician visits.
The study suggests that the
As I said at the opening of the centre last
year, we have a unique and substantial opportunity in
I am pleased to have in the gallery today,
Mr. Speaker, the director of the centre, Dr. Noralou Roos; the director of the
Manitoba Research Data Bank, Dr. Leslie Roos; the author of the
Thank you.
Ms. Judy
Wasylycia-Leis (St. Johns): Mr.
Speaker, we begin on this side of the House by thanking the minister for
releasing this information and providing us with an update of what is
considered to be a most outstanding centre here in
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we want to
commend key individuals behind this centre who are with us in the gallery
today, Dr. Noralou Roos, Dr. Leslie Roos, Evelyn Shapiro and Carolyn
Kryschuk. We commend the work that they
are doing. We believe that it would be
most important for the future of our health care system to have substantive
research in terms of health outcomes and evaluation.
The real question though, Mr. Speaker,
today is what is the record of this government in terms of our health care
system. The real question for us today is when will the studies end. This is
fine. We need this understanding. We need this data. We need this compilation
of experts and expertise here in the province, but we have at the same time in
this province a minister who has in place dozens of studies under the Health
Advisory Network which are accumulating on his desk, which are gathering dust,
and we are awaiting action in some very critical areas that the Advisory
Network is studying.
*
(1350)
Let me give you one example, Mr.
Speaker. Last spring, around the same
time that the minister announced the mandate for this Centre for Health Policy
and Evaluation, we asked the minister where is the report and the plan of
action for the Health Advisory Network on the critical situation facing home
care in the
More recently he has said he is waiting for
translation of that document. Day after
day after day this minister stalls behind piles of studies. Let me mention further the 44 studies of the
Urban Hospital Council for which there is no evaluation mechanism being applied‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I would like to remind the honourable member
that the ministerial statement, as brought forward by the honourable Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard), dealt specifically with the Manitoba Centre for Health
Policy and Evaluation. I would ask the
honourable member to keep her remarks relevant to the said ministerial
statement.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I
addressed the home care issue and the lack of action in this area because it is
precisely mentioned in the minister's statement and is part of this whole
evaluation process.
I mention the evaluation mechanisms in
place for the recommendations coming out of his closed‑door, elite, male
network, making such decisions as selling services to Americans, closing the
emergency ward at
Mr. Speaker, we have yet to see from this
minister any sense of a vision, any sense that he is evaluating decisions being
made, either by his Urban Hospital Council or by his bureaucrats or even closer
by his own colleagues.
We are asking the minister today to take
very seriously the themes, the ideas behind this whole Centre for Health Policy
and Evaluation and to truthfully and honestly evaluate decisions he is making
today that will have tremendous impact on patients and health care
professionals and communities throughout the
We are all worried in the
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, last year when the announcement
was made, we made it very clear at that time that in the history of a lifetime
of any Minister of Health, there are only a few things people will remember
them for. We said that there were two
major initiatives. One was this centre,
the second was the mental health reform.
That was true in 1990 and is true today again. Mr. Speaker, it is very positive.
*
(1355)
I think the issue here is not the one bed
cut here or the one closing of a ward there, the issue is how we are going to
preserve the system which is costing us $1.8 billion for 1.3 million
people. I think if the political parties
are going to do anything good, and as a member of the Legislative Assembly, we
are going to do anything better for the province, the policies which are going
to be developed by this group which have very renown people and one of the best
in this country and as we said at that time, this is the only centre I guess in
North America which will not only provide direction to us here, but also to the
rest of the country and most likely to the other part of the western world.
Mr. Speaker, that is why the issues which
are going to be part of this group and a part of the other health reforms, it
is going to be very important for us to be very logical and only be critical
when things are done wrong, but not to be negative when we are sitting on this
side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the basic thing that we have
to achieve here is to preserve the five basic principles of the
The consultation process‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is interrupting because he
has nothing else positive to say. It
seems like the positive impact for the sake of the taxpayer is not going to
solve the NDP party. We want them to
know that this is an important step. Let
us be positive and that is what I was carrying on. It seems like interruptions will continue and
that is a part of their nature.
Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the
consultation process must involve all the health care providers and above all,
the consumers of
I will end up saying, Mr. Speaker, that we
are very pleased. We will continue to monitor what is happening, but we will
definitely say that we are moving in the right direction.
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to recognizing the
honourable Minister of Government Services, I note in the minister's statement
where he says he is pleased to have in the gallery today certain
individuals. I would also like to join in
welcoming our guests here today, but I would like to point out to all
honourable members that, by practices of this House, it is the Speaker who
recognizes the presence of certain visitors.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr.
Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling the Annual Report of the Seniors
Directorate, 1990‑91.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table Volume 3,
Summary Financial Statements, Public Accounts, 1990‑91, and also the
Annual Report, Department of Finance, 1990‑91.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion
presented.
*
(1400)
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I would like
just to take a minute to recommend this bill to the House. It simply seeks to extend a right to the
students of the
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 29‑The Municipal Council Conflict of Interest
Amendment Act
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that Bill 29, The
Municipal Council Conflict of Interest Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
les conflits d'interets au sein des conseils municipaux, be introduced and that
the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this
bill will prevent municipal and city councillors from exploiting their
positions for personal gain after they have finished their tenure as elected
officials. We are all well aware of the public decline in confidence generally
of elected officials and the increase in cynicism in our society regarding elected
officials. There are concrete measures
that can address that loss of confidence.
Indeed we have the post‑election
conflict‑of‑interest guidelines in place both provincially and
federally. This bill simply extends that
approach which has already been taken at other levels of government and
establishes a cooling‑off period in which councillors cannot serve a
private organization by participating in matters which he or she also
participated in as a councillor.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time, surely, that
this same protection for the public from post‑election conflict of
interest was extended to City Hall in addition to the other two levels of
government. I recommend this legislation
for speedy passage for all members. Thank
you.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 27‑The Business Practices Amendment Act
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), that Bill 27, The Business Practices Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les pratiques commerciales, be introduced and the
same be now received and read for the first time.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, this
bill will advance consumer protection as well as protect employees. The new Business Act was a step forward, but
it needs crucial improvement such as the ones in this bill. It will protect employees from persecution
when they unknowingly commit an unfair business practice or are directed to do
so by the employer. It will also tighten
that discretion. It would tighten the
power of the director of the Consumers' Bureau to refuse to mediate or
investigate complaints so that all the complaints will be investigated. Thank you.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 33‑The Vacations With Pay Amendment Act
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Motion
presented.
Mr. Lamoureux: This bill seeks to
extend a reasonable and equitable level of paid vacation time to all employees
in
We believe that the worker who enjoys
reasonable vacation benefits will, in the long run, be a more fulfilled and
more productive worker, and we also believe that this applies equally to both
unionized and nonunionized employees.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 26‑The Constitutional Referendum Act
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member
for
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that Bill 26, The Constitutional Referendum Act;
Loi sur le referendum constitutionnel, be introduced and that the same be now
received and read a first time.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. We had leave granted to the honourable member
for
Now the question before the House is, it
has been moved by the honourable member for
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Now it has been moved by the honourable
Leader of the second opposition party (Mrs. Carstairs), seconded by the
honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that Bill 26, The Constitutional
Referendum Act; Loi sur le referendum constitutionnel, be introduced and that
the same be now received and read a first time.
Mrs. Carstairs:
Mr. Speaker, it is time to return
constitutional making decisions to the people of this province and this
country. The Liberal Party of Manitoba
would far more like to receive the initiative of a federal government which
would allow every single Canadian whether they lived in a province or a
territory to be given the opportunity of saying yes or no to any constitutional
amendment that is proposed to the Constitution Act of
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed? Agreed and so ordered.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
today His Excellency, Sir Brian Fall, the High Commissioner of
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
*
(1410)
Also with us the afternoon in the Speaker's
Gallery, we have Elliana Allon and her family.
Elliana Allon is a Grade 5 student at
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
Seated in the public gallery this afternoon
from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Government Ministers
Hiring Authority
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions in this
House last December, members of the government insisted that the hiring
authority for the provincial government was delegated to departments.
The Minister responsible for the Civil
Service Commission (Mr. Praznik) on December 11 and other dates in this House
repeatedly said the hiring authority is delegated to the departments, not to
ministers.
My question is to the Deputy Premier. What is the policy of the government and the
position of the government of the day?
Is it delegated to the departments or is the hiring authority delegated
to cabinet ministers?
Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that it only
took one day of a response to the economic issues which were raised under a
special debate by the members opposite to be dropped off of their agenda to try
to find something else that the people may find favour with him and his party.
I think the member is well aware of what
the policies are within this government as it relates to hiring. There is never any doubt as far as this
government is concerned as to the openness with which we carry out the
process. There is never any question,
and there is no change in policies which have been carried on in the past
number of years.
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker, given the fact
that the government, the clerk of cabinet, obviously under the direction of
cabinet, under the direction of the Premier, insisted that the Civil Service
Commission, the alleged Civil Service independent commission, be asked to
monitor and show diligence of the staffing authority with the former Minister
of Education, the now Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach).
How can the government say in this House
that the hiring authority is indeed attached to departments when in fact it is
the Premier and cabinet asking for the monitoring to go with the individual
minister over another department? If the
government is truly serious about this issue, it would be open and release the
study and investigation that took place in the Department of Education so all
the staff in the Department of Education will be cleared and we will know
clearly that the circumstances were in fact tied to the minister, not the
department.
I ask the government: Will they release that study so we know
clearly that it was the minister, not the department, who was responsible for
the loss of the delegated hiring authority?
Mr.
Downey: Mr. Speaker, I think it
should be made clear that the confidence that this government has in the
members of cabinet and their work that has been carried out, that there is
nothing that is being kept from the public as far as the activities of this
government are concerned. The report
which he refers to is the Civil Service property and not within the ministerial
purview.
I think this has been handled openly and
honestly, and I say that genuinely, on behalf of my colleagues. All colleagues in cabinet carry out their
responsibilities with honour and integrity.
Mr.
Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have the
Minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission (Mr. Praznik) standing up
in this House day after day after day and saying that it is not the minister
who is responsible for the loss of the hiring authority, it is the department,
so everyone in the department is slammed by the minister. Then we have the cabinet directing and
quoting: Given the circumstances
surrounding the withdrawal of the hiring authority, that we ask that due
diligence be followed and for the monitoring of the minister in the other
department.
Will the government and the Deputy Premier
please tell us: Is it the department or the minister? Clearly, the cabinet is saying it is the
minister.
Will the Deputy Premier agree today to
release the report on the loss of the delegating hiring authority of the
minister so all the public will know where the responsibility lies with the
loss of the hiring authority, clearly with the minister, as the memo directs,
not with the department, as the minister of the Civil Service Commission said
time after time in this Chamber?
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I will compare the hiring
practices and the activities of this cabinet any day with the fast practices of
the former New Democratic Party. We will
do a comparison any day with the activities of this government compared to the
government which he sat with.
Rural Workshops Cancellation
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Education and Training.
If this government is truly serious about
dealing with cross‑border shopping, why has the Department of Education
and Training cancelled the small school rural workshops and been sending
teachers to a workshop in
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): I thank the member for his question. I will look into that matter, and I will
bring the information back to the House.
Mr.
Chomiak: I will table a letter from
the minister's department that indicates workshops are being handled in the
States.
If they are serious about cross‑border
shopping, will they stop this cross‑border education shopping and will
they immediately cancel the workshop in the States and reinstate the workshops
in rural
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, we in Education
are also committed to the economy of
I have responded to the honourable member,
I will bring back the information when I receive it.
Mr.
Chomiak: I have a supplementary to
the same minister.
Will this minister consult with the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) to see what impact the moving of
this program from
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as a minister,
I am in contact with my colleagues regularly.
I will be discussing the matter as necessary. I will bring the answer back to the House.
Youth Unemployment Rate
Government Initiatives
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): We have
heard daily of the increasing rates of unemployment, of the number of people on
social assistance, of those who are unable to find gainful employment. Nowhere are those statistics more alarming
than in the ages between 15 and 24. In
the past year, that has seen an increase of nearly 4 percent. It is now at 16.8 percent. For young men, it is 21.9 percent. It is the only statistic in which we are
above the national average.
Can the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism tell the House today what specific initiatives he has coming from his
department with respect to the training of these young men and women who cannot
find employment opportunities in present‑day
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker,
firstly, unless my information is incorrect, I would like to correct the
honourable member. While nobody is
satisfied with the youth unemployment rate in
The most important thing that we can do as
a government, in terms of long‑term job opportunities for young people
here in
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that we had the
opportunity to discuss the economy at length yesterday. The only thing I am not pleased with is the
lack of constructive suggestions that came from across the way.
*
(1420)
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, I would be
prepared to table labour force statistics January of 1992, which I am sure the
minister has a copy of, which shows that the Canadian average is 21.1 for men
between the ages of 15 and 24, and for us it is 21.9, which means we are above
the national average.
Will the minister now tell this House what
initiatives there are in his department to put these young men and young women
to work in the
Mr.
Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I guess we
have agreed to disagree on statistics.
Mine show a report dated February 7, which is more recent, that while
Mr. Speaker, that so much is not the
point. The point is: What are we as a
government doing and what are governments across
I have already suggested that we do not
support the kinds of suggestions that are coming from across the way of the
short‑term make‑work projects that do not provide the opportunities
for young people in this province to pursue opportunities that are here today
and here tomorrow. We will continue to
work on that for the long‑term benefit of the youth of
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, thousands of
Manitobans continue to leave. In a study
in which this minister was directly affiliated, it was clearly shown that the
majority of those who leave are between the ages of 19 and 35 and are among the
best educated. The minister refuses to
give us information as to what plans they have.
Are we to assume that they have no plans?
Mr.
Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I have
already indicated, in terms of the youth, there are two fundamental points in
terms of the kinds of training opportunities that have been provided to date
and the kind of training initiatives that you will see being announced as part
of our budget process, as well as the kinds of training initiatives that we
brought in last year through our Workforce 2000 program.
The other is also the kinds of long‑term
opportunities that have to be created.
Governments do not create those.
Manitobans and businesses create those opportunities, and the way you do
that is to create a competitive environment and a level playing field.
I believe that Manitobans can compete,
given that opportunity. We are working
to provide that opportunity. It would be
nice, Mr. Speaker, to have opposition members recognize that for a change.
Grain Shipments
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, the ministerial statement the
minister released gives no new assurances to northern Manitobans and leaves in
doubt any proposed provincial government initiatives and the economic future of
northern Manitobans.
Will the Minister of Highways and
Transportation share with the House today, and concerned Manitobans, the
anticipated volumes of grain to be shipped through Churchill this coming
shipping season, or will it continue to be starved by low volumes as it has in
the past?
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, let
me first of all indicate to the member that the way it looked for a while,
there would be no activity in Churchill, period, so I think the fact that we
have a year's reprieve in the making‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker, there are three initiatives
out there that basically, I think, will affect decisions for Churchill in the
future, basically the 25 million tonne grain sale to Russia.
The member has asked me for specific
numbers. I do not have them at this
time, but I can assure him that we will be making contact along with his
colleagues in the federal government who are meeting with the ministers, I
believe on Friday, who will be pursuing the same thing, the aspect of trying to
see whether the Russians are prepared to take grain through Churchill. If that is the case, out of that 5 million
tonnes a year, we should be able to get a fair share through Churchill, hopefully.
Mr.
Reid: Mr. Speaker, a lot of doubtful
statements by those comments.
Federal Commitment
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Given that the recent transportation talks‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Question, please.
Mr.
Reid: Many
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Mr.
Reid: My question for the minister
is: Did the minister receive any long‑term
commitments from the federal Conservative government that the Churchill port
will not be closed but instead will be expanded?
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker,
since the day that I took the responsibility of this office and this department
here, I have been pushing for a long‑term commitment. We have not gotten a long‑term commitment. We are still striving for that, and I hope
that some of the elements that are involved right now ultimately will help
retain the future of Churchill.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister is: Can the minister
explain to the House why he travelled to Ottawa by himself and did not take
part in the group that was travelling from this province to make representation
on behalf of the Port of Churchill, and why did the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) not accompany the Minister of Highways and Transportation‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, I
am very pleased to answer that question because, since December, I have been
trying to arrange a meeting with both the federal ministers. Ultimately, we finally had a date that suited
my department as well as the two ministers.
This arrangement with Mr. Murphy and the ministers was arrived at much
later. I indicated my support for the
efforts that they are putting into the thing and indicated, because I had my
meeting yesterday, that I would not be participating Friday but will have
representation there.
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Proclamation
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, there has been a striking and
disturbing parallel between The Business Practices Act and The Residential
Tenancies Act.
Both were initiated by NDP
governments. Both were introduced as
legislation by the Conservative governments and killed at the committee
stage. Both were reintroduced, and both
were watered down and passed on December 14, 1990. Both experienced serious and lengthy delays
in being proclaimed.
Can the Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs tell the House and thousands of renters who are anticipating increased
protection under The Residential Tenancies Act:
When will the act finally be proclaimed?
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there were indeed
similarities between those two acts in that they were never introduced into the
House by the previous administration but were introduced by this
administration. We, in three years, have
passed them; they had six years and did not.
Having said and acknowledged the
similarity, I would like to say that our target date for proclamation is late
spring, early summer 1992. That has
always been our target date for proclamation.
That has been the target date that I have had since I took over this
division some four or five months ago, and we hope that we will be proclaiming
it late spring, early summer 1992, on schedule, as planned.
Mr.
Martindale: Regrettably, the date
keeps changing as they change cabinet ministers responsible for the
legislation. I would like to know from
the minister who is lobbying the minister.
What special interest groups are you meeting with? Is that why it is taking so long to draft the
regulations?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting
with anybody and everybody who asks to meet with me on The Residential
Tenancies Act. That includes tenant
groups, landlord groups, individual tenants, individual landlords. If they wish to meet with me they are most
welcome to meet with me. I look into
their concerns and their questions very thoroughly indeed.
In terms of the second part of the
question, what are we doing, as the member knows this is a mammoth act and it
requires a virtual restructuring of a major portion of the whole branch. You
cannot move into a house before the house is built. To proclaim the act before we have put in the
court functions that we now will have to be putting in place, searching for the
Commissioner, drafting the regulations, developing a procedures manual,
training the staff, doing a number of things that we are doing and have been
doing for many months require time. I do
not wish to move into a house when the foundation and walls are built but it
has yet no roof.
*
(1430)
Mr.
Martindale: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell us if she is making any progress on any of these items, since we
keep hearing the same answers over and over from three successive ministers,
but what progress is the minister making in any of these areas she outlined, so
the act will be proclaimed as soon as possible?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, indeed, we are making
progress on all of those items.
Regulations are now in the final form for drafting. Job descriptions have now been developed for
the Commissioner. They will soon be advertised. We have even now gotten to the point where we
are ordering chairs for the courtroom we will be setting up for the court
function.
Things are in way. There still remains a great deal of
consulting to be done as we finally get to the last legs of this stretch, but
we are making progress.
Urban Hospital Council
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Health.
The Misericordia is the only community
hospital with a community‑based family doctor in central
My question is to the Minister of
Health. His deputy minister is the
chairperson of the Urban Hospital Council, which is proposing to cut the
emergency hours during nighttime. Can
the minister tell us why this hospital is a target for the Urban Hospital
Council? Can he table the final report
on which they are making the recommendations?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot. The
Urban Hospital Council met last week, Thursday I believe it was. The issue of the Urban Hospital Council
decision around whether to recommend the proposed closure was not made at that
meeting. I expect it will be made at the
next meeting.
I would fully expect that with any
recommendation coming from the Urban Hospital Council, the information, the
background data that my honourable friend has alluded to in his answer will
have been given full consideration, not only by the Urban Hospital Council but
by the expert team that investigated the issue of emergency department hours of
operation.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister guarantee that the risk‑free transfer of patients from
Misericordia Hospital to the other hospital will be required because, as a result
of this Urban Hospital Council's meeting, and the deputy minister was present
at the meeting‑‑the minister has the full statistics‑‑can
he finally tell us how he is going to guarantee that transfer?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, naturally I am
unable to respond to that question as I stand before the House today because,
bear in mind, as I indicated in my first answer, the Urban Hospital Council has
not yet made a decision as to whether they will recommend that closure of
emergency for the hours mentioned at Misericordia. I expect that they will make a decision as to
whether to advance that recommendation to government, to the Ministry of Health
at their next meeting. I cannot prejudge
their decision.
However, I will tell my honourable friend
that in accepting any decision as proposed around the closure of emergency at
Misericordia, those answers and those questions will be responded to. Otherwise, we would be unable, with assurance
of patient safety and patient care and consideration foremost in our minds, to
be able to accede to any such decision which may be made.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the
minister tell this House who will pay for the very expensive transfer of
patients back and forth between Misericordia and other hospitals because of patients
own family doctors who are only working out of
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, as my
honourable friend well knows, ambulance costs, depending on the circumstance,
are either part of the hospital's budget or else are borne by the patient. It depends on the circumstance under which
they are used and will be very much‑‑how would I phrase it?‑‑a
patient individual, in terms of whether it qualifies under the program of
transfer, which the hospitals pick up, or whether it is an original
transportation which is the responsibility of the patient.
Civil Servants
Senior Salary Levels
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): We are in tough times, Mr. Speaker, but this
government has a strange sense of priorities.
Today we see news that
My question is to the minister responsible
for the Civil Service. How can he
justify the increase in the salary scale, which presumably the government will
be using at some particular point in time, at a time when its own employees
have been legislated to zero, have received only inflation increases in the
latest contract, and Manitobans are third last in terms of pay increases in
this country?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister responsible
for and charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, it is certainly obvious whenever
you discuss the PACE salaries with employees and you compare senior employees
with general rank‑and‑file people, obviously there is a great hue
and cry about the salary levels of senior employees. I do not think any minister or any government
has ever been able to avoid that debate.
However, Mr. Speaker, I would tell the
honourable member that in increasing the pay scales for deputy ministers and
ADMs, the current holders of those positions were moved in at their current
salary levels plus 3 percent. They
receive the same benefits as all MGEA members in this fiscal year, plus I would
tell you that the rank‑and‑file MGEA members also have the ability
to have merit increases, some as high as 2 percent. I still believe there are about 40 percent of
our employees who are not at the top of the pay scale.
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, how
can this minister attempt to justify these increases in the salary scale if he
does not intend to use it? Is he going
to increase those salaries over the next period of time to senior civil
servants by as much as 20 percent?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member for
Thompson is aware, as with all increases in pay scales, whether they be rank‑and‑file
MGEA members, whether they be assistant deputy ministers or deputy ministers,
the ability to increase the pay scale occurs on the anniversary date of
employment, I believe, and is at the discretion of the manager, and it is based
on merit.
I would also point out to members opposite
that in the recent MGEA agreement, there were some 830 positions that received
special increases in their salaries, some as high as 16 percent. They
negotiated part of that agreement to deal with the host of inequities that
occurred as a result of pay equity in other particular areas.
I should tell him as well that in the last
year, the MGEA requested and was granted 500 positions being reclassified where
salaries went up as well. In comparing
those two results, those go on regularly, and the review of positions and
classifications occur on a regular basis.
Deputy ministers and ADMs should not be precluded from the same rules as
MGEA members.
Senior Salary Levels
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is
either to the same minister or the minister responsible directly for the
Manitoba Liquor Control Commission.
Will this government now withdraw the major
increases that took place to senior executives in that department and bring
those increases in line with everybody else in this province and what every
other civil servant, every other employee in the Liquor Commission is faced
with, which is barely inflation increases, if that.
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control
Act): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
correct the last statement made by the honourable member opposite when he said
that no other member of the Manitoba Liquor Commission received a similar
treatment. That is not an accurate
statement.
As the member knows, I was asked to do a
review and did a review of the four management people and the 14 union people
over at the MLCC, who received wage increases as a result of having their jobs
changed, their job descriptions changed.
That included the managers. One
senior management position was cut, a net savings of $50,000, and an increase
of between 5 percent and 8.4 percent for the senior people.
For the unionized people, who also had
their salaries adjusted in a similar fashion because of reorganization, the
union people saw raises ranging from 5 percent to 11.7 percent. They were
accorded the same treatment as a result.
I just wish to correct the information, Mr.
Speaker, to make sure that all the facts were put on the table accurately.
Health Care System
Home Care Program
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
That is just one of a number of
recommendations that are identical to the kinds of recommendations the minister
received in the Advisory Network report on home care over a year ago.
I would like to ask the minister, when will
we see a plan of action to deal with the understaffing, the underresourcing of
home care services and ensure that elderly are able to stay in their homes in
their communities?
*
(1440)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my honourable friend has raised that issue,
because that is exactly why, for instance, we increased the budget for home
care last year by over $5 million. In
addition to that, I believe that there was provision for even greater spending
this year in the Special Warrant that met more service demands in the home care
division.
We have been taking action, and now that my
honourable friend wants to deal with individual recommendations, maybe she
might refer herself to recommendations II.4.1 or II.6.2, which deal with
fundamental issues in health care, instead of cherry picking the ones that she
thinks meet with her narrowed vision of health care reform, because every issue
that my honourable friend wants to bring up is an issue that existed when we
came into government with no resolution and are now being proactively worked on
by this government in co‑operation with professionals throughout the
health care system to give us good advice on how to better manage $1.8 billion
of spending for the betterment of health care delivery to Manitobans.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: The needs of seniors
and home care services are not cherry picking, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask the minister: How does his last statement and the
recommendations of these numbers of reports jive with the fact that in the last
few days dozens of senior citizens in the Dauphin and Swan River areas have
been cut off or cut back in terms of their home care services, intimidated and
told that they are hoarding their money and giving it to their children? How does he justify cutbacks in those areas
with these reports and his statements?
Mr.
Orchard: I do not because they are
not. Mr. Speaker, how can you talk? Only a New Democrat could take a $5‑million
increase in the budget, about $2‑million more in Special Warrant and call
it a cutback. Goodness, gracious.
Now, my honourable friend wants to talk
about cutbacks. I hope that she has the
constitutional fortitude, as we get into Estimates, to discuss the relative
policy development in Manitoba, an action plan in Manitoba, compared to other
jurisdictions which must, I know, be near and dear to her heart, like Ontario
for instance.
My honourable friends from the New
Democrats in
Mr. Speaker, we do it for one purpose in
mind: to care for senior citizens when
they need care in their home.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: With his own
departmental statements, how, Mr. Speaker, does that kind of lying, that
rhetoric jibe with his own departmental briefing material, which clearly
indicates that there is a serious problem of understaffing in the Home Care
Program, which is putting all kinds of pressures on institutional health care
services? When is this minister going to
start to deal with the recommendations of his department, his centre for policy
evaluation‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, we started to
deal with those issues on May 9 of 1988 when this government was elected to
replace the incompetence of Howard Pawley and the NDP. We have been dealing with those issues from a
very, very deliberate strategy. That
strategy that my honourable friend from time to time wants to flip‑flop
her position on involves consultation with wide a group of Manitobans‑‑professional,
consumers, health care workers, administrators, doctors, nurses‑‑to
give us good direction and policy development.
Mr. Speaker, we reinforce that consultation
process with analysis by probably the finest group of researchers in health
care policy development in
Stony Mountain
Environmental Concerns
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, in October of last year it was
determined for the first time that the underground water for the residents of
Stony Mountain, just north of Winnipeg, had been seriously contaminated by the
chemical trichloroethylene, which is a very dangerous carcinogen. That underground aquifer feeds into many
rural municipalities just north of
Mr. Speaker, the standard this government
is using is 50 parts per billion as the action level. The Environmental Protection Agency in the
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the very serious question. I think that the commitment that I gave the
residents of that area and the discussion that we had between myself and the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) is that we are using the Canadian standards. We also recognize that there is work being
done on the world scene that in fact may recommend today a higher standard even
than
We want to continue to work to make sure
that we are on top of any potential hazards to the people in the
community. We have set up a task force
to be able to respond quickly and efficiently to all of the concerns that are
raised, and that includes making sure that we provide a safe alternate source
of drinking water on very short notice.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the
minister commit today to do the prudent thing for public health in the area
and, in the interim, while acceptable limits are being fully researched, as he
indicates they are being done, will he choose the lowest standard set by these
organizations and set the limit at five parts per billion, which has been set
by the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States?
That is the only prudent course at this
point. I ask the minister to commit
today to take it.
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I think that
it would be somewhat unwise for me or the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and
this government to arbitrarily deal with that type of a standard without making
sure that could be fully enforced and backed up with the facts. What we have given is an undertaking to make
sure that we apprise ourselves and keep fully abreast of any developments in
this area, but that is entirely apart from the concern of the residents and the
concern that we have regarding that aquifer.
In dealing with the standard, we are
prepared to examine all of the information that surrounds that standard,
knowing full well, as I believe the member opposite knows, that there are
second thoughts about some of the levels that are being set in this area. We want to make sure that we deal with that
issue while at the same time we are dealing with the more particular issue of
how we deal with the pure water supply for the people of that area.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Speaker, finally, for
the same minister: Can the minister tell
the House then what consultation his government has had with the Environmental
Protection Agency or the World Health Organization in determining and trying to
find out how they reached their standards, which again I emphasize are
significantly lower than ours in Manitoba‑‑in fact, in the case of
the United States, one‑tenth of the standard that we have set here?
Again, I ask the minister, in the cause of
prudence and the safety of these people, to take the lowest standard in the
interim, surely until we have gotten a definitive answer on what it should be.
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, right from
Day One the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) has been spending a considerable
amount of time making sure that all of the departments of this government are
co‑ordinated and working in exactly the area of concern that the member
raises. He is asking for assurance that
we are keeping ourselves abreast of that information. I can assure you that the Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) has some very talented and qualified people who are advising us
on what is the proper standard for drinking water quality in this province.
I also think that one of the things that is
bearing very heavily on this issue today is that we are concentrating on
dealing with the very quick and urgent need to deal with the concerns that are
being raised. The commitment that we
have given is that we are quite prepared to look in the longer term at what the
recommendations might be.
I think it is counterproductive today to
get into that discussion when we know full well that there is another body of
opinion out there that is saying the standard could be considerably higher than
what we are dealing with. That clouds
the issue, and I do not think the member intended to do that. We want to deal with the two concerns and
deal with them in the way that is in the best interest of the people involved.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has
expired.
*
(1450)
Nonpolitical Statements
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, I wonder if I may have leave to make a nonpolitical statement.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable
minister have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? Leave?
It is agreed.
Mr.
Downey: I am pleased to have Elliana
Allona as my guest today. Elliana is one
of 12 students from across
I will draw your attention to the month of
August and Elliana's work. She has done
an outstanding job of demonstrating her view that the environment is vulnerable
and that careful development and energy conservation are important. The essence of sustainable development is
there for all of us to see. In the
foreground, families together, people relaxing and playing in the fresh air; in
the background, the threat of pollution looms.
It is a proud moment as we pay tribute to a
very young, talented lady. Her work, and
that of the other 11 young Canadians, will be on display across
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable Leader
of the second opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement? Leave? It is agreed.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): According to a poet,
it's not the winning, it's how you play the game, that is really important.
Well, I think Manitobans have seen first‑hand,
at the Olympics this week, of a young Manitoban who has truly showed us it is
how you play the game that is particularly significant.
Jacqueline Petr and her partner in ice
dancing, Mark Janoschak, have in fact competed under quite extraordinary
circumstances. Jacqueline, as a result
of a fall, has a seven centimetre gap in her leg which required 22 stitches. Having had that on one day, she was on her
feet two days later and skating three days later, and has competed three times
since then. She and her partner came
12th in the world competition in ice dancing.
I think if they had been skating in full health, they would have done
much better.
That
is not the essence of my tribute to Jacquie today. The essence of my tribute to Jacquie is that
she is exemplary of what a young Canadian should aspire to be: someone with not only talent, but someone who
has practised long and hard, and when the chips were down, pulled herself up
and performed to the very best of her ability.
I know that all members in this House would
like to not only congratulate Jacquie, but indeed her parents for having
provided the support for her skating career.
We wish her not only success in the Worlds but in future years, when I
am sure she will end up actually being on the winning side and not just playing
the game as she did so well this week.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, before
we call Bills 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 20 and 38, in that order, I propose that
you call the Order for Return under the name of the member for Osborne (Mr.
Alcock).
ORDER FOR RETURN NO. 2
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
THAT an Order of the House do issue for the
return of the following information:
(a)
the number of applications received under the Vision Fund program since its inception; the
number of proposals accepted;
the number of proposals rejected;
and the number of proposals still under consideration;
(b)
a list of all agreements reached and monetary payments made, and to whom, by the government
under the Vision Fund since the
programs's inception;
(c)
the criteria for acceptance and rejection of applications and a statistical
breakdown of the reasons for
rejection.
Motion
presented.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I have discussed this Order for
Return with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), and
certainly the government has no difficulty in attempting to provide the
information sought by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
The Vision Fund is one that has been in
place now for a little over a year. It
was one of the government's first initiatives to try to bring forward Venture
Capital funds, and indeed I hope that the information is ultimately provided to
the member. It will show that it was a
thrust that is working and one that should continue to be supported by all
members of this House.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Speaker, if I understood
the minister correctly, he said that the government accepts the Order for
Return and will supply the information.
I simply have one question, and I direct it to perhaps yourself.
I have put on the Order Paper on several
occasions orders for return that have been accepted by the government. I have not received any information. I had an Order for Return last session on the
Minister of Education asking for some information on the education of the deaf
which was accepted by the government. I
received nothing. I have a list of
them. I think if the government is
sincere in attempting to provide information, then it should follow up on the
statements which it makes in the House.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I was going to
rise to my feet and ask you to bring the member to order. I believe his representation now is out of
keeping with the rules, but it is the government's timetable that determines
the expeditiousness of replying to the Order for Return. In conversation with the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), he indicates to me that he will
make some effort to try and do this in an expeditious manner.
As far as the former request, that is not
what is being discussed; indeed that is not the essence of the motion so moved
by the member.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. It appears, the honourable member for Osborne
(Mr. Alcock), that the government House leader has accepted your Order for
Return, and I do not believe it is appropriate at this time for the honourable
member to ask the Chair to intervene in this matter.
The government House leader (Mr. Manness)
has accepted your orders for return previously.
I guess the honourable member will simply have to wait until such
information does come to the honourable member.
This one has been moved, that is‑‑[interjection]
Point of Order
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, the government has exhibited its
contempt for this House when it passes a motion of this sort. I would ask the government House leader (Mr.
Manness) when he is going to comply with orders he has accepted. That is what I do not understand.
*
(1500)
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. As has been indicated to the honourable
member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), these orders for return have been
accepted. Therefore, it will be up to
the government House leader (Mr. Manness) or the minister responsible to have
the information conveyed to the honourable member. Now that is agreed?
Mr.
Manness: Is this a debatable motion?
Mr.
Speaker: No, there is no
motion. I have simply indicated to the
honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) that he will have to wait until such
time as that information is conveyed to him.
Mr.
Manness: At that time it is
debatable?
Mr.
Speaker: Unless the honourable
member wants to have it transferred to‑‑it could appear in the
Order Paper under Private Members' Business, if the honourable member so
wishes.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I am just
trying to determine‑‑[interjection] He moved a motion and I am
trying to determine whether or not that motion is a debatable matter.
Mr.
Speaker: On the point of order
raised by the honourable government House leader, there will be a question for
the House. It is not debatable at this time.
If the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) wishes to have it
transferred over to Private Members' Business, at that point it is debatable.
Mr.
Alcock: On this occasion, one more
time, I will accept the undertaking of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to
see that that information is delivered to the House. [interjection] I have been
asked by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) if I wish to withdraw the
comments about the government being contemptuous of orders of this House, and
the answer is no. That is a fact.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): In view of the honourable member's comments,
I think it would be appropriate for us to review this matter very carefully, so
therefore I would move that the debate be adjourned.
Mr.
Speaker: There is no debate to be
adjourned. There is simply a point of
order raised.
*
* *
Mr. Speaker: Now the question for the House is, it has
been moved by the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), seconded by the
honourable member for
(a)
the number of applications received under Vision Fund Program since its inception, the
number of proposals accepted,
the numbers of proposals rejected; and the number of proposals still under
consideration;
b) a list of all agreements reached and monetary
payments made, and to whom, by
the government, under the Vision
Fund since the program's inception;
c)
the criteria for acceptance and rejection of applications and a statistical
breakdown of the reasons for
rejection.
Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
Now we will do bills.
House Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
move two motions of House Business. They
are leading into the changes of sponsors of Executive Council's sponsor of two
bills, namely Bills 10 and 20.
Bill 10‑The
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): I move, seconded by
the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that sponsorship of Bill 10, The Manitoba
Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba, currently
standing in the name of the honourable Mr. Neufeld, be transferred to the
honourable Mr. Downey.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, with leave
of the House, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that
sponsorship of Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale, currently standing in the name of the
honourable Mr. Downey, be transferred to the honourable Mr. Derkach.
Motion
agreed to.
SECOND
Bill 7‑The Real Property Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 7, The Real Property
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels, be now read a second
time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, The Real
Property Act amendments contained in Bill 7 are intended to update or confirm
certain procedures in the handling of land titles and facilitate
registration. Among other things we are
proposing changes in the procedures for bringing land under The Real Property
Act to facilitate the vacating of prior claims, interests or reservations. The amendments would enable the strict
registrars to vacate without notice where it is clear that an interest has been
extinguished or expired or where a mineral lease specifies an expiry date that
has passed.
Existing practice, respecting attachment of
notarial and certified copies of documents as evidence to instruments presented
for registration, will be brought unto The Real Property Act. This will facilitate registration in such
matters as grants of probate.
At present, Mr. Speaker, an agent may
execute instruments registering a judgment or lien in Land Titles offices. Another amendment will allow the same agent
to also discharge a judgment or lien. We
are proposing to allow service of notice of requests to lapse caveats,
judgments and liens by registered mail to the addressed for service set out in
the instrument. This will reduce costs
to the registered owner since at present personal service is required. Another amendment would allow district
registrars to vacate caveats without notice where it is clear from the record
that the interest claimed in a caveat has expired or been extinguished.
As honourable members will see, Mr.
Speaker, in several clauses the Latin phrase "lis pendens" is changed
to "pending litigation order" to bring the act in line with wording
in The Court of Queen's Bench Act and rules.
Honourable members will recall vividly that changes were made to The
Court of Queen's Bench Act and rules followed therefrom. Words, Latin phrases, such as "lis
pendens," are being changed. There
has been quite an updating of procedures in the Court of Queen's Bench, and as
time passes certain administrative changes are required in Land Titles Office
as well dealing with real property matters.
*
(1510)
While we are discussing matters related to
the Land Titles Office, I can tell honourable members that since 1988, when
this government took office, there have been some pretty significant
improvements in the operations at the Land Titles Office. The honourable Minister of Family Services,
also the honourable member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer), has taken quite an
interest in the Winnipeg Land Titles Office operations and, repeatedly, has
asked how things are going at the Land Titles Office. I have tried to give periodic reports.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, the
scandalous situation that was left to us by the previous government whereby
people were waiting as many as 43 days to have their titles registered in the
Land Titles Office in Winnipeg, and that was just very clearly unacceptable,
unacceptable to all Manitobans, except members of the New Democratic Party who,
at that time, happened to be the government of the day.
It did not take very long after the 1988
election and the election of a new government which showed concern for property
owners, buyers and sellers in
The latest figures I have are from November
of 1991, which is a few months ago now.
Certainly, unlike the 43 days people had to wait under the New
Democratic Party administration for registration of title at the Winnipeg Land
Titles Office, in November of 1991 for verification of transfers, the number of
days it was taking was seven and for mortgages nine. Well, that is a far cry from the 43 days that
people were having to wait back in the bad old days of the New Democratic Party
administration in this province.
Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to make some of
the improvements, not only in the Land Titles Office, but in other public
institutions in this province, the new government came into office and really
applied some resources toward the alleviation of some of these problems which
had become major sources of irritation for people in the lending business,
people buying and selling real estate in our province. All it took was the will to make a
change. The previous government clearly
had lost the will to do anything constructive in the
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Now we see, after yesterday's debate, that
those left over from those Neanderthal hordes who were once in government in
this province and those who have joined them for whatever reason, I swear I
could never even guess, let alone know about, they have not changed as
yesterday's debate demonstrates clearly.
Not one area of new think were we able to detect in any of the speeches
that were made yesterday by members of the New Democratic Party. It is a shame. We have young members opposite, young members
like the honourable Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) or the honourable Member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid), but they are stuck in that hide‑bound old think
that we get from the likes of the honourable Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie)
or the honourable Member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
It is a crying shame that people in
It is a crying shame, and it is a terrible
statement about services delivered in the days of the New Democratic Party in
I think it is shameful that any minister
cannot get more support amongst his colleagues to do something about that. Now I do not say that Mr. Penner did not have
the wish to improve the situation, but his colleagues clearly said to him, oh,
never mind, the people of
Point of Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Deputy Speaker,
the minister responsible for The Real Property Amendment Act is clearly not
being relevant to anything that is in this act.
We are having some sort of historical revisionism going on. We understand that the government has no
particular agenda and would be embarrassed if the Legislature were to adjourn
early because they have no agenda, but filling up time with this kind of
revisionist history is neither very interesting nor very funny.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: The honourable
member for Flin Flon does not have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: In an attempt to be
kind to the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), Madam Deputy Speaker,
obviously I will accept your ruling on the matter, but I will also take some
advice from the honourable member's comments.
Of course, I do not want to be revisionist
or rewrite history, but I think as a backdrop to Bill 7 that we have before us,
which deals with real property, it is important to put it into the context of
the situation in which we find ourselves.
In that context, there is a bit of history here that needs to be told,
and needs to be retold, and told again and again.
It is interesting that only when issues
that are raised on this side of the House are sensitive to honourable members
opposite do they rise to their feet to talk about something being irrelevant. Be that as it may, I do not intend to go
on. A lot of people though tend to
forget that when significant improvements are made in institutions of
government, those improvements get made and then they are promptly forgotten
about.
Well, I do not want honourable members
opposite to forget. I do not want them
to forget that improvements can be made.
It is not impossible. All you
need is the will. The government on this
side, the Progressive Conservative government elected in May of 1988, has shown
the will to do something about these chronic problems that were allowed to
develop under the New Democratic Party before.
With those brief comments, I will conclude on Bill 7 and ask the
honourable members for their support.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Yes, I
move, seconded by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), that debate be
adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 8‑The Garnishment Amendment Act
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by
the honourable Minister of the Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Bill 8, The
Garnishment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la saisie‑arret, be
now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Deputy
Speaker, the amendments to The Garnishment Amendment Act are needed in order to
clarify and improve the law respecting garnishment orders served on
employers. The suggested changes will
overrule a Court of Queen's Bench judgment of October 1989, which has adversely
affected the way that the government, as well as other
Under the present act, a garnishing order
affects all wages due or payable. The
court interpreted this wording as meaning that an employer who has already sent
a postdated cheque to the employee is still obliged to pay under the garnishing
order with respect to wages earned for each day the employee works after the
order is received.
As I am sure honourable members will
appreciate, this interpretation places a severe strain on the ability of the
Department of Finance to administer The Garnishment Act for government
employees.
The amendments we are proposing will state
that a garnishing order affects all wages due and payable after the order takes
effect. An order will take effect on the
Monday after the day it is served on the employer.
The amendments will clarify and simplify
the rules for employers who are served with garnishing orders without adversely
affecting the persons who benefit from those orders. The Garnishment Act will then better reflect
the way most people are paid: weekly or
biweekly, and often by postdated cheque.
It will therefore benefit the garnishment process as a whole in
The amendments will cover all
As a closing point of information, the
amendments are consistent with garnishment legislation in other provinces.
Madam Deputy Speaker, with these brief
comments, I would commend this bill to the attention and to the support of all
honourable members in this Chamber.
*
(1520)
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman),
that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 10‑The
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for The Manitoba Hydro Act): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), that Bill 10, The
Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'Hydro‑Manitoba,
be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker,
in the introduction of this bill, I want to say that I am pleased to carry on
the initiative that my colleague the former Minister of Energy and Mines had
presented to this House in introducing Bill 10.
Mr.
Harold Neufeld (Rossmere): A good
bill it was.
Mr.
Downey: As he is indicating from his
seat, a good bill it was. It still
is. I would hope that all members would
see fit to not only support me in the further carriage of this bill, but the
introductory of it of my colleague, the former Minister of Energy and Mines.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to
introduce for second reading Bill 10 amending Section 30 (1) of The Manitoba
Hydro Act. This amendment gives Manitoba
Hydro the flexibility it needs to get the best deal possible on available
lending rates. This means the people of
The
amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker, enhances the corporation's capacity to take
advantage of short‑term financing in the
I recommend and would hope for support of
all members of this Legislative Assembly to help the Manitoba Hydro work in a
better way on behalf of the people of
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): I have a
question for clarification for the minister‑‑[interjection] with
leave. I am not sure that I require
leave. Questions for clarification are
allowed after second reading.
Madam Deputy Speaker, my question to the
minister is: Does anything in this act
change the requirements that are part of Manitoba Hydro's obligation to go
before the PUB with respect to capital construction decisions? Does this give them any additional authority
in terms of proceeding with the construction of roads or ancillary projects
with respect to Conawapa, for example?
Madam
Deputy Speaker: The honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines to respond to the honourable member for Flin
Flon's question and clarify the‑‑
Mr.
Downey: If I understand correctly,
Madam Deputy Speaker, no it does not restrict them or change anything as it
relates to going before the Public Utility Board. It is more flexibility within their operating
capital that is available to them.
Mr.
Storie: Just for clarification then,
the minister is giving assurance that this does not allow Manitoba Hydro to
begin a project in anticipation of some additional approvals from the PUB or
from the Environmental Review process, that it would not allow Manitoba Hydro
to do that.
Mr.
Downey: The answer is no, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I
move, seconded by the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), that debate be
adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 11‑The Bee-Keepers Repeal Act
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), that
Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur les
apiculteurs, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this
House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce Bill 11, The Bee‑Keepers
Repeal Act.
The intent of the bill is to permit the
Over the past several years discussions
have taken place between the Manitoba Beekeepers Association, the honey
marketing board and the Manitoba Department of Agriculture staff as to whether
or not it is necessary to have two organizations representing the same group of
producers.
At the December 11 and 12, 1989, annual
meeting of the Manitoba Beekeepers Association a motion was passed to establish
a joint committee to review and make recommendations on how the industry might
fund its various activities. The
committee was comprised of seven members with three representatives from the
association, meaning the Manitoba Beekeepers Association, three representatives
from the honey marketing board and a representative from the
At the joint general meeting of the
Manitoba Beekeepers Association and the
That the
The committee continued its deliberations
on restructuring throughout the year.
The board considered the committee's recommendations and agreed on
November 20, 1990, to increase the board's membership from eight directors to
12 directors. The restructuring
discussions culminated on August 12, 1991, at a meeting of the Manitoba
Beekeepers Association with the passage of the following motion:
That because it is the intention of the
Manitoba Beekeepers Association to operate under the legislation of the
Manitoba honey marketing board regulations that the Manitoba Beekeepers
Association support the repeal of The Bee‑Keepers Act.
More recently at the December 5, 1991,
annual meeting of the Manitoba Beekeepers Association a motion reaffirming its
previous decision to repeal The Bee‑Keepers Act was passed and read as
follows:
Whereas the Manitoba Beekeepers Association
and the
Be it resolved that the government of
*
(1530)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to have
the opportunity to bring this bill forward to repeal The Bee‑Keepers
Act. It is a request of the
industry. The industry has gone through
a lot of discussion to arrive at this position.
Really, if you look at other commodities that are represented by
marketing boards, you look at hogs, or dairy, or turkey, or chicken, or
broiler, or eggs, they have one organization, the marketing board that
represents the entire industry.
The beekeepers in this province have
decided to take the same decision that they would have one organization
representing them, and a said preference to repeal The Bee‑Keepers Act,
to operate under the
I think that it is imperative that
government, when asked to repeal legislation that is redundant, that they do
it. That is why, Madam Deputy Speaker, I
recommend this legislation to the House for consideration and quick, speedy
passage so that the desires of the industry can be met with the repeal of The
Bee‑Keepers Act. Thank you very
much.
Mr. John
Plohman (Dauphin): I would like to
ask the minister a couple of questions for clarification if I may, Madam Deputy
Speaker. [interjection] If it is by leave, Madam Deputy Speaker has not been
requiring leave today as a precedent. My
question is‑‑
An
Honourable Member: It is a
tradition, by the way. Actually it never
used to be by leave.
Mr.
Plohman : Madam Deputy Speaker, I
take it that I should carry on. I wanted
to ask the minister if he can provide any clarification with regard to who
initiated this review. I did not catch
that if he provided information at the beginning. I know that there was a group that reviewed
this from the industry, and department, and various sectors, interests
involved. I just asked who initiated it,
whether there is any loss in service provided to beekeepers of any sort,
whether it be the commercial operators or hobbyists, for example; if he is
aware of that, and if there is any money saved in this amalgamation, who is
saving the money.
Mr.
Findlay: The member's first question
was in regard to who initiated. It was
really initiated by the bee industry themselves, who made a decision that they
did not want to be represented by two associations speaking on the same issues. If you look at the other commodities under
marketing boards, they have done that already.
There is only the marketing board representing the entire industry. So the beekeepers themselves decided to do
this, and the makeup of the committee, as I told them earlier, were three
representatives from the beekeepers association, three representatives from the
honey marketing board, and a representative from the Manitoba honey co‑operative,
along with members of my department who went through the process, arriving at
the conclusion that they brought to me for action now.
The appropriate resolutions were
passed. The member also asked if there
is loss of service. No, I am not aware
that there is any loss of service. The
marketing board has the authority with the regulations to do all the things
that they have done in the past and will do the same things that the voluntary
association was doing. I do not see that
there is a loss of anything. There is
probably some saving of money by the producers in terms of less administrative
costs, because there is no duplication of the two groups representing the
beekeepers.
So I think there is strength in going with
one organization, probably saving some cost for them. I am not aware if there are any savings for
government or not, but if there are, they are relatively minimal. It is a matter of streamlining their
actions. It is a matter of streamlining
our legislation so we do not have duplicate legislation in place.
Mr.
Plohman: Madam Deputy Speaker, I
move, seconded by the member for
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 12‑The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy Speaker,
I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger),
that Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'elevage, be
now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Deputy
Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 12, The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act, and it
is to do with Part 7 of The Animal Husbandry Act to deal with artificial
insemination of animals. The purpose for
having to do these amendments is because back in April of 1991 we sold the
Semen Centre to Western Breeders.
Therefore, there is no longer any need for this many sections of this
part of the act pertaining to the Semen Centre AI technicians and subsidies
thereof.
These amendments will bring the actual act
up to 1992 standards relative to the activities that have to be conducted under
this act since we sold the Semen Centre.
The Semen Centre was sold after considerable input from the private
industry, from the producers, the users of the semen service.
Way back when the Semen Centre was first
formed, some roughly 20 years ago, there was need for that service because
there was no artificial insemination service properly available in the
Producers came forward and said, you know,
we wonder if we should be spending government money to duplicate a service that
is already here. So, Madam Deputy
Speaker, as a government we responded.
We consulted with the industry, particularly the dairy and beef
producers relative to what is the future need of the Semen Centre, and a little
over a year ago we arrived at the decision to sell the centre. We offered it, called for proposal calls from
interested parties and we sold it to the highest bidder. I would have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that the closing of the centre has been relatively well accepted by all sectors
of the livestock industry in the
The provisions of the act pertaining to the
semen centre are now redundant. The ones
that we need to deal with today in this bill is the payment of subsidies to AI
technicians who act as agents for the centre.
Since the centre is no longer there, they obviously cannot act as agents
for it. We have the role of the centre
as a parent unit for technicians registered with the joint dairy breeds
committee. Certainly, other proposed
amendments delete various provisions pertaining to requirements that are no
longer relevant or that have not been enforced for some time. Some of these are
the establishment of AI advisory boards and I will talk on each of these a
little bit more later on.
Secondly, the requiring of technicians to
reside in designated areas for which they are licensed; and thirdly, requiring
semen and embryo production in distribution centres, technicians and
practitioners to provide the director with records of inventory, transactions,
inseminations and transfers. Obviously, the implications of not proceeding with
this bill would leave certain sections of this act quite redundant and
unenforceable. Some of the things I am
going to talk about already were not being acted on because they were not deemed
to be necessary over a period of time, so we are doing a fair bit of
housekeeping in this bill to bring The Animal Husbandry Act up to appropriate
standards for 1992.
Just a few explanations on some of the
areas of the act that we are making changes:
In Section 90 we are amending it by striking out three words. The three words are "reside in
and," because in the definition of the technicians' commitment‑‑and
the reason we are removing these words is because in remote areas of the
province it is very difficult for technicians to reside in all areas because
there is not enough business. By
removing those words, it just actually allows to happen what is technically
happening anyway. In remote areas
technicians do not reside and the people who want to have the service have to
have a technician from some other area a little further away.
*
(1540)
Section 95, subsection 6, is repealed
because it refers to AI technicians acting as sales agents for the semen
centre. Obviously, with no longer a semen centre, that no longer exists. In
Section 95, subsection 6, we are amending it by striking out reference to the
semen centre at the end of the subsection.
In subsection 9, it is amended by striking
out the reference to the need for AI technicians to reside in the designated
areas for reasons I have already explained.
Sections 97, 98 and 99 are being completely repealed. Section 97 is being repealed because it deals
primarily with matters pertaining to the semen centre, including such matters as
payment of subsidies to technicians acting as agents and, obviously, with the
centre not there, they can no longer act as agents of the centre. It deals with AI technicians dealing directly
with joint breeds committee and not with the semen centre and the payment of
subsidies as it was discontinued a little less than a year ago.
The provisions in subsection 1 of Section
97 are now provided by federal legislation and the regulations pertaining to
the licensing of AI technicians, semen and embryo production units. Sections 98
and 99 are repealed because they referred to an advisory, an appeal board which
has not existed for many years and for which there appears to be no
justification or likelihood of its reinstatement. In other words, those activities are deemed
to be redundant by the industry and by government for many years. For example, the revisions call for such a
board to include technicians elected by the Manitoba AI Association, and this
association has not existed for the last 10 years.
Section 100 is repealed and submitted. The submission that is made is in the bill
itself, Section 100, dealing with records.
The part that we are going to add to the bill is, immediately after
performing artificial insemination or an embryo transfer, every technician and
every practitioner shall prepare a record of the artificial insemination or
embryo transfer containing the information required by the regulations and
leave a copy of record with the owner.
Requiring that technicians do this or anybody who is involved in
artificial insemination, it allows an opportunity to facilitate the tracking of
the use of artificial semen in cases of diseased semen. It is required that that be the case, and it
is dealt with in federal legislation.
Section 102 deals with the penalties for
violation of Part VII of The Animal Husbandry Act and the fines for summary
conviction. We are amending the fines to
go from a minimum of $200 to a minimum of $500 and the maximum from $2,000 to
$5,000, raising the minimum and maximum fines on summary conviction.
Section 103 is amended by repealing clauses
that pertain to the Manitoba Semen Distribution Centre, namely clauses (a), (h)
and (i). The advisory board has referred
to this in Section 98.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what we are doing is
responding to changes that have occurred in the industry over time,
particularly with regard to the decrease in business that occurred at the semen
centre and the desire of the industry that they purchase their semen directly from
the private sector. Since we have sold the semen centre, there is no longer any
justification for an Animal Husbandry Act that refers to the semen centre and
actions of technicians. We are bringing
The Animal Husbandry Act up to date so that we have an act that is now current
with the actions that we have to enforce in the industry. Thank you very much.
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources):
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to address a few remarks to the bill
that was just introduced by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr.
Findlay). In doing so, it is also a
little bit of a fundamental philosophy lesson that I wish to engage in with my
own colleagues and indeed those of the members opposite.
In the introduction of this bill, believe
it or not, it is an opportunity, and I think it is an opportunity that should
be taken, that demonstrates a fundamental difference between us and them. When I say us and them, I mean the good guys
or the bad guys, or the Conservatives and the Socialists. I say that with all sincerity.
It was my privilege to have assumed the
responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture shortly after the program of
artificial insemination was made available to the cattle producers of Manitoba
by my predecessor, at that time, a very popular Minister of Agriculture of the
earlier Roblin years, the late George Hutton, who for many years‑‑Madam
Deputy Speaker, many of the things that we still hold as icons in terms of the
Agriculture Department, The Natural Products Marketing Act, that I know my
colleague from Portage has a high regard for, the Manitoba Crop Insurance
Program, the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation, all of these things were
brought in by that progressive Minister of Agriculture, a Conservative Minister
of Agriculture, by the name of George Hutton, then the member for Rockwood‑Iberville,
who I had the privilege of succeeding in '66.
Why did the government of that day decide
it was important to use hard‑earned taxpayers' money to teach farmers how
to artificially inseminate their cattle?
Well, it is very simple. Because we accepted the then proven fact that
in doing so we could substantially increase the upgrading of our cattle, our
dairy cattle specifically, but also our beef cattle. It was extension education, if you like, that
the Minister of Agriculture at that time had no trouble in convincing his
colleagues, the Roblin government, that we should use some of Manitoba's hard‑earned
taxpayers' dollars to teach Manitoba farmers.
It had to be done because after all it took
some convincing that somebody coming onto the farm with a little plastic tube
and inserting that in that delicate part of the anatomy of the female bovine
species and blowing it, would produce a healthy baby calf nine months later
on. More importantly, even a better calf
than that big, virile bull that also used to walk around the pasture.
So this extension work had to be carried
out and was carried out by none other than one Harry Enns who succeeded the
late George Hutton to the Ministry of Agriculture, and we established a
network, a whole system that covered the whole province as the minister related
to. We had technicians, we had advisory
boards established throughout the rural agricultural parts of
Madam Deputy Speaker, I began this little
discussion on the bill by saying that I wanted to point out the difference
between us, those who believe in progressive intervention on the part of
government to help improve our economy, help improve individually our
enterprises, whether we are in business in the city or in the country, and do
not hesitate in doing so with the use of taxpayers' money, but our socialist
friends would have never done what we are doing today, because in the
intervening 25 years, every cattle farmer, every progressive dairy farmer knows
the value of artificial insemination, knows that he can improve his livelihood,
his production on his farm, improve the quality of his cattle by the use of
this particular management tool, artificial insemination.
It does not need the support of taxpayers
anymore to do that. As a matter of fact,
why should I be taking money away that should be spent on education or to help out
my colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), to make a few more dollars
for the cattle producers? So we are
doing what is a sensible thing. We are now withdrawing from that program. We are not doing it in a disruptive way as
the minister made very plain in his introduction of the bill. This is a self‑evolving thing.
The fact that artificial insemination
became such an accepted management tool within the cattle industry bred to the
provision of all kinds of private and other sources of semen, and very often on
a competitive basis, so that it was not necessary for the government to be
involved anymore. But, you see, my
friends opposite would never do that. My
friends opposite would make the case it has to be government that pays the
technician to blow the semen into the cow.
It does not. What is important is
that the cow get impregnated with a higher quality calf, and it does not matter
whether it is private or whether it is government. That is a fundamental difference between us,
because you would be in bed with the MGEA bosses, with Mr. Olfert or someone
like that. Oh, no, we cannot lay off any technicians or something like
that. Somehow a cow impregnated by a
nongovernment employee will have three heads or something else between his legs.
We Conservatives know better. We approach these matters sensibly. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I take some offense
at the lightheartedness with which some of my colleagues are accepting these
remarks. Nonetheless, for me it is a
reaffirmation of the faith that I have in being a Conservative. It shows a very prudent order of
business. We as a Conservative
administration do not fear to use government intervention, government tax money
to introduce and to educate and to bring something forward.
When it has done the job, when we have
convinced those targeted areas, in this case cattle producers, that this is a
worthwhile management tool, then we can sensibly withdraw from that. Quite frankly, we ought to. I know the honourable member for Rossmere
(Mr. Neufeld) would say we ought to be able then to reduce the demand on
taxation by that amount because that money is no longer needed for that. We are trying to do that except that we have
other calls on this money all the time that make that difficult.
*
(1550)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I know that you of
all members of the House, representing that constituency that kind of borders
on that urban‑agro area, that you will understand the importance of this
little anatomy lesson that I have given in political philosophy having to do
with artificial insemination and how big Bessie does get comforted and
satisfied in different ways in this technological age, and that it is now no
longer important that it be done by a government agent or private. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. John
Plohman (Dauphin): I move, seconded
by the member for
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 14‑The Highways and Transportation Department
Amendment Act
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move seconded by
the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) that Bill 14, The Highways and
Transportation Department Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministere
de la Voirie et du Transport, be now read a second time and referred to a
committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Deputy
Speaker, I am pleased to bring this bill forward. It is not of a major magnitude. I also have Bill 15 coming forward and I have
made the spread sheets available on this one to my critics, and basically
indicate the purpose of the bill.
The Highways Traffic Amendment Act which is
Bill 15 and will be coming forward in a day or so, which is always the one
where we have all the other amendments, this deals with the Highways and
Transportation Department and is called, as I indicated, The Highways and
Transportation Department Amendment Act.
There are four small components to this
act, and the spread sheets give clarification as to what we are trying to
accomplish with it. Basically, the first
section is to increase from $5,000 to $25,000 the threshold of requiring
authorization by Order‑in‑Council for the minister to dispose of
surplus property.
This brings it in line with The Public
Works Act which presently allows Manitoba Government Services to lease or
dispose of property up to $25,000 in value without prior authorization by Order‑in‑Council. Basically, what we are doing here is bringing
it into line with the other department, which is Government Services.
The second portion of it is to allow the
minister to lease lands that we have purchased the right‑of‑way for
public road or public works, and it would basically allow the minister to lease
this property out for productive use until they are required. I want to give an example: the Selkirk corridor where we have acquired
right‑of‑way in many cases.
The circumstance at the present time is that after we have acquired the
right‑of‑way, we then have to take and close the road, go through a
process of doing it and then we can lease it out. Then, by the time we actually need the
property for the construction of the road, we have to take and revert that
again.
What this basically will do, the amendment
will allow us to take and lease property out to the landowners who had it
before, whom we have acquired it from, either by purchase or by whatever
process we use to get land. We can lease
it back to them without having to go through various hoops. It is basically making it a little bit more
feasible and faster to do it and creates less problems. It would only be where we have the right‑of‑way. I use the example again of the Selkirk
corridor where for the future we are buying certain properties as they come up
and the land now belongs to us.
Rightfully, under the act, we cannot take and turn that land over for
lease or use unless we go through the other process again. I hope that clarifies it so that members
understand.
The third and fourth parts of this act are
minuscule really. The third part allows us to allow for the removal of
abandoned vehicles from provincial roads.
This has been a longstanding error in the legislation which is being
corrected with this amendment.
An
Honourable Member: Is there anything
in there about licence plates?
Mr.
Driedger: No, not yet. But in the case of removal of abandoned
vehicles, the legislative error in there is because we have provincial trunk
highways and we have provincial roads, and this one portion of it is not
covered under this where we can remove abandoned vehicles that are on the road
which we have to remove for safety reasons or whatever other reasons. It is recommended that we correct this
longstanding error in the legislation and that it would include provincial
trunk highways which is a PTH system.
The fourth minor change in there is
changing from imperial to metric measurements to be consistent with similar
changes being proposed to The Highway Protection Act where we change from the imperial
system to the metric system, and this comes into play where we set up snow
fences 300 feet from the right‑of‑way. It now is changed to metric and makes minor
changes in there. Basically, these four items are the only ones that are being
addressed in there.
An
Honourable Member: How are we going
to know where to put the fence now?
Mr.
Driedger: We now have a different
measuring stick. Instead of using the
foot and the yardstick, we use the metric tape.
It seems to work. What happens
though is that we have a variation of about four feet in this sometimes, you
know, by changing from imperial to metric. [interjection]
The member is asking a question here, Madam
Deputy Speaker, and with your indulgence I will try and see whether I can give
an example: 295 feet works out to 90
metres, and 38 metres is 124.6 feet, 15 metres is 49 feet. These are the three. I have them here specifically‑‑the
question was asked‑‑because it relates to the distances that we do
certain things on the roads with snow fences and signs, et cetera. That basically deals with the four minor
changes under this act.
If there are further questions, I would
certainly be prepared to deal with them.
I want to indicate again that this is not The Highway Traffic Amendment
Act which basically is pretty substantive and covers a whole bunch of other
things under The Highway Traffic Act.
This is The Highway Traffic and Transportation Amendment Act. There is a difference, and I do not have that
many acts, so thank you for your indulgence.
Mr.
Daryl Reid (Transcona): I believe
with leave I might ask a question of the minister on this particular bill?
*
(1600)
An
Honourable Member: You do not need
leave.
Mr.
Reid: You do not need leave. The minister talked about the opportunity or
the change in the legislation that would allow the department to lease out
lands that the department or the government would own but are not in current
use. I was wondering if the Minister
could explain for my benefit the process that the department has to undertake
to lease these lands out and how they arrive at some arrangement with the
interested parties that wish to lease.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Deputy Speaker, I
wonder if I could ask a question in return for clarification? Is the member asking what the process is of
when we lease the property? I am not
quite sure what the process is. I will
take and get that information to the member in terms of the process that we
would be using when we lease it out.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I would like to put a question to my
colleague because of a concern that I have with respect to the fourth point
that he has raised today in relation to the bill before us, that being Bill 14,
The Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur le ministere de la Voirie et du Transport.
My concern goes back many years. Honourable members will know that from
painful experience the move to the metric system has probably touched each and
every one of us who have been around long enough to have worked in the other
system. I was an employee with the House
of Commons back during those days when the most bitter debates were taking
place in the House of Commons respecting the conversion to the European system
of measurement here on this continent.
Of course, there were discussions about how
changes were or were not happening in the
The honourable minister has touched on the
issue of the distance from the right‑of‑way on a provincial trunk
highway or a provincial road, I am not sure which it was, the distance that one
might place a snow fence, if I understand.
He was using that either as an example or something that is actually in
this proposed piece of legislation.
My concern, after listening to all of the
debates and not being sure myself whether I have been misled along the way by
federal Liberal politicians of the day who were attempting to change our
country in such a drastic way and leaving us in such a mess as a result‑‑I
am not sure if when we move to a different system of measurement if the snow
fences to which the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger) makes reference will or will not be the same distance from the road
as they are now as we move to a different system of measurement.
Similarly to that assurance which I seek, I
also would want to know if I heard him correctly when he said that we are
moving from a system of using feet to a system of using metres, and in this
context, if the honourable minister can tell us how many feet there are in a
metre.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Deputy Speaker, I am
surprised that you actually allowed that length of time to him before a
question could be posed. I want to
indicate the three areas where we are asking for a change in here are basically
where we are changing from the imperial to the metric system.
In the case of snow fences, it always used
to be within 300 feet we had the authority to move in and erect the snow
fences. By changing it to 90 metres, it will be 295 feet, so there is a slight
5‑foot reduction basically. There
is a change in that.
The other area is where an erection of
structures that within so and so many feet you can or cannot erect a
structure. In this case, it is now 38
metres and it is 124.6 feet. It used to
be 125 feet.
In the case of planting, we have
regulations which say that you cannot plant within 15 metres of the right‑of‑way,
and that works out to 49 feet where it used to be 50 feet before.
That should address the concerns in terms
of the differences.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will
allow the floor to be passed to the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach)
if it is for the purposes of a question.
Hon.
Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a question with
regard to this bill, if the minister would not mind answering it for me,
because it does affect some of my constituents who have had property or
buildings erected near some of our highways, especially Highway 83 which runs
through my constituency.
Some of the people who have been erecting
such things as grain storage bins, and even houses and buildings, have gone to
the Department of Highways and have questioned the distance that this
particular structure should be from the road.
It seems that there has been some confusion as to whether the distance
is measured from the right‑of‑way or whether the distance is
measured from the centre of the road. In
some cases there has been confusion, and in one particular instance that I know
of we never did get an answer, so the individual just moved the structure far
enough away to be safe.
I am wondering whether this bill will
clarify whether or not the measurement is taken from the centre of the road or
whether it is taken from the edge of the right‑of‑way, whether it
is Highway 83 or any other highway of the province.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Deputy Speaker, the
member raises a very valid question, and I concede that there probably is some
confusion on that.
It is my understanding that it is from the
edge of the right‑of‑way that we own, but I will just make
sure. I will get a clarification on
that. I do not believe it is from the
centre of the road, but the question is one that I certainly will get an answer
to.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 20‑The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr.
Ducharme), that Bill 20, The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi sur l'evaluation municipale, be now read a second time and be referred
to a committee of this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Derkach: Madam Deputy Speaker,
the amendments to The Municipal Assessment Act are being introduced primarily
to simplify and/or to clarify certain provisions within the act.
*
(1610)
It has been, I guess, two years now that we
have lived with the new assessment act and during that period of time there is
some experience with the new act and therefore there is also some experience
with regard to some changes that perhaps need to be made, changes that are of
basically a housekeeping nature. However, there is perhaps one substantive
change that we need to look at and we would hope that we will have the support
of members opposite to ensure that the citizens of Manitoba who have to live
with the act are going to find it much more easy to deal with the whole issue
of assessment, because assessment is not something that is very easy to
understand by most of our Manitobans, because it is complex and because it does
require a fair amount of explanation and understanding to get down to the real
important parts of the assessment act.
As an example, Madam Deputy Speaker, a
number of the proposed changes are intended to simplify the administration
associated with Municipal Boards' appeals.
In terms of clarification, the amendments to this act will improve
sections by removing redundancies that have the potential to cause some
confusion among Manitobans. At the same
time, I want to assure members that these changes will not in any way alter the
application of the present act.
We are also proposing, and this is the
substantive part of the bill I believe, to delay the reassessment of properties
by one year. Under the present act,
property reassessment is to take place for 1993. This amendment moves that assessment to the
1994 tax year. I have to say that I have
heard that there has been some confusion as to when the next reassessment would
be implemented. As a matter of fact, we
have heard some comments from some of the opposition critics that would lead us
to believe that we are moving the reassessment for other reasons than
administrative.
Let me assure members of this House and
Manitobans that the proposed legislation directs that the reassessment of
property be completed by the end of 1993 for the 1994 tax year. That is no different really than the
implementation was before. This
amendment to delay the reassessment is a very important part of the province's
long‑term portioning strategy that was adopted and announced by my
predecessor in mid‑September of last year.
By delaying the reassessment for one more
year, the government is able to reach the portion targets for a number of
classes before the next reassessment. I
think this is important because, in order to reach the target portions for
Residential 1 and Commercial properties, it will allow those people who own
those types of properties to actually understand the reassessment act much more
clearly.
We should also point out that these classes
make up about two‑thirds of all of the ratepayers in
This delay will also allow the changes
associated with the July 1992 implementation of the new education finance
formula to stabilize before changing the assessment base across the
province. As members are aware,
assessment is a fundamental element in the education‑tax system. Let me say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
because I had the opportunity to introduce the education funding formula that
we are going to be living under in the next education year, taxpayers and those
who have to work with the funding formula, have to have a fairly good
understanding of how that formula impacts upon them as taxpayers.
If we were to do reassessment in the midst
of all of this, I think there would be considerable confusion and
misunderstanding among taxpayers in this province. So it is important that we were able to
stage, first reassessment and then, of course, the education funding formula
and now the reassessment so that people would have time to digest, so that
people would have time to get a firm understanding of each of these very
important and very complex issues.
There has also been some discussion in the
press and elsewhere, suggesting that Bill 20 will move to restrict appeal
rights, particularly for farmers. I
would like to again assure members that Bill 20 does not propose to alter the
circumstances under which farmers can appeal their assessments. The amendments we are proposing are in
keeping with the department's ongoing commitment to the improvement of the
assessment system.
There was also a court challenge, as a
matter of fact, to the Court of Appeal, regarding an issue within the present
act and I have to say that the Court of Appeal ruled in favour of the act so
that indeed the act was upheld. However,
because of a term within the act that there was some debate about, whether or
not the meaning was very clear, we have decided to also clarify the act in that
respect as well.
I guess when we go through the amendments
that we are proposing there may be a whole series of questions that would arise
as a result of the amendments that we are proposing. One of the questions, of course, would
be: Why are we delaying the next
reassessment from 1993 to 1994? I have
explained this a little bit, but I would like to elaborate on it.
The province announced its intention to
introduce legislation in this session to delay this next reassessment for one
year. This decision is again a very important part of our strategy in terms of
adjusting portions and I need to repeat that.
It was noted that such a delay would help facilitate implementation of
portioning changes. By delaying the
reassessment for one more year, the government is able to reach the portion
targets for these important classes that I spoke about, classes which make up
about two‑thirds of the population of this province. In this way, I believe, that we can sincerely
eliminate a lot of the confusion in a large portion of the ratepayers of
The other reason, of course, is the whole
education funding formula and I have talked about that. I think when you combine these two reasons,
you can understand that it is probably more practical to move the reassessment
by one year. After that point in time we
are going to be reassessing properties on a regular basis. Indeed, it is a great improvement from what
we had before.
When you see that reassessment in this
province was so out of whack, so outdated and so far behind that there had to
be some improvements to it, we moved in stages to try and ensure that
ratepayers and taxpayers, first of all would be treated as fairly as possible,
and secondly so that they would have a good understanding of what reassessment
was like. We tried to simplify it so
that all of us would have a better understanding of what the new assessment
was.
I have to congratulate the former minister
who did such an excellent job in terms of leading us through the entire process
of reassessment.
One of the issues that we are very
conscious of and, of course, one that has come to our attention is: Does this delay in reassessment hurt farmers
because it continues to use the 1985 levels of value for another year? It is a valid question. There is no denying that, but I have to say
that the use of portioning that was introduced neutralizes the choice of a
reference year. It does not matter what the reference year is, we have
introduced portioning to sort of override the use of that particular reference
here.
Portioning actually protects the farm
community, regardless of the assessment levels, because it controls their share
of taxes province wide. Farmers pay only
27 percent of their assessment based on the 1985 market values. Had we been able to use more current market
values, the portion of course would have had to have been higher. Therefore, the answer to the question as to
whether or not it hurts farmers, I would say, no it does not, because we had
introduced the portioning to sort of work to the advantage of the farm
community.
*
(1620)
The other question that has been raised
just recently is, and I noted that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) had
raised it just a couple of days ago: Does
Bill 20 change farmers' rights to appeal.
Again, I would have to say that, in Bill 20, we do not change the
farmers' right to appeal. Recently, Mr.
Mercury appealed a municipal board decision to the Court of Appeal, relating to
the assessment of farm property in the R.M. of Macdonald. He argued unsuccessfully, I might add, that
Section 17 (1) meant that the value of this property should be based on its
value in 1990.
Section 17 (1) directs assessments be done
at value in relation to the reference here.
Bill 20 proposed to remove the underlined words in relation to the
reference here which become redundant when the definition of value was added at
the committee stage. The court based its
conclusions on the current wording of the act and ruled in favour of the act
itself and not in favour of Mr. Mercury's arguments. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would say that Bill
20 does not restrict the right of farmers to appeal.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I must also say that,
in times between reassessment years or in years between reassessments, an
assessment roll may be amended under sections 13 and 14 for reasons of an error
or omission or destruction or damage to the property or a change in the
physical characteristics of the property or of a property in close proximity
which alters the value of that or land which, perhaps because of subdivision,
is reclassified, those things we can look at under Sections 13 and 14.
Madam Deputy Speaker, when you talk about
reassessment and looking at the market value, we look at it in reference years.
We have to do that because those are the basic fundamental characteristics of
reassessment. You cannot do it any other
way.
I would say that we are introducing these
amendments to this bill to make sure that the bill is clear, to make sure that
we do the housekeeping things that will bring the bill up to a current standard
so that there is no confusion out there, and to allow us some time to get an
understanding. First of all, portioning,
so that it can be phased in properly, and then to allow for education to the
education funding formula to work. Then
we will start the reassessment process on a regular basis, after the 1994 year.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, with those
comments, I would certainly hope that members on both sides of this House will
see that there is value to doing it this way for the benefit of Manitobans, and
I am certainly prepared to meet with my critics to discuss this issue further
so that they can perhaps get greater clarification and understanding of the
bill. On that basis, I fully commend
this bill to the House and to the committee.
Mr. Jack
Penner (Emerson): Madam Deputy
Speaker, I want to rise today to compliment my honourable colleague on action
taken in the introduction of the amendment today. I want to start off by saying that I
recognize, having been the minister in charge of the assessment legislation,
how difficult a task assessment and assessment reform has been. As well, I want to indicate as I have
previously done in these Chambers, my appreciation and our government's
appreciation for both opposition party's co‑operation during the
assessment reform legislation period.
The official opposition certainly knows how
difficult the decision was to, first of all, agree to moving ahead with
legislation such as this. I believe that
they had almost 10 years where they could have introduced legislation that
would have reformed our assessment process.
The Weir Commission, of course, was
appointed some 12 years ago and spent a tremendous amount of time consulting
with Manitobans, not only rural Manitobans, but all of Manitobans, as to what
kind of a process should be used to correctly determine the values of property,
and to allow assessment to in fact happen on a more regular basis than what the
case was.
Weir came back with some fairly specific
recommendations: No. 1, market values should be the consideration that would
determine the amount that would be used as a portion of taxation for the
purposes of municipal as well as education tax application.
Weir also indicated clearly the
disproportionate amounts that various municipalities were paying in taxation
now under the old system.
When you consider that some of the
municipalities, in fact, had not been assessed for some 15, even more than
that, years, and some municipalities were at current values, the
disproportionate amounts of tax paid prior to the freeze that was established
under the previous administration certainly allowed for a large amount of
discrepancies, especially in the education tax application. Therefore, it was important that we proceeded
with the implementation and the introduction of legislation, knowing full well
that the time lines we were imposing upon the department were very, very restrictive.
We also recognized the importance of
bringing up to date the equipment that was being used; in other words, the
computer process that was being used by the department, or should be used by
the department to keep assessment data current.
Under the old system it was virtually all done manually. All the data was recorded on long sheets, so‑called
long sheets, and recorded and processed.
The whole initiative of ensuring that
assessed values pertaining to the old formula that had been established years
ago, taking into consideration soil classifications, the productivity of the
soil, drainages, and all those kinds of things, would have a large impact on
the values applied for assessment purposes.
Market value, or the current market value,
really had no bearing on the amounts of values applied for assessment purposes,
and therefore became irrelevant really in the application of school and
municipal taxation.
When the work commission considered all
these things and came forward with some recommendation, it was assumed that it
would be within a matter of a couple of years that new legislation would be
introduced in the House, and that by early in the 1980s we would have a new
assessment process.
Politicians being what politicians are, it
became evident that the people at that time in government were rather hesitant
to move forward with legislation on assessment because they assumed it would
have a tremendous political impact on their future viability to remain in
government. Well, it was our
government's intention and commitment that we made prior to the 1988 election,
that if and when we were elected we would in fact proceed with the introduction
of assessment legislation.
We spent almost two years, and the now
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) in charge of assessment was part of
the committee that spent many, many hours devising the final piece of
legislation. Due credit goes to that
committee and the many hours that the various ministers spent drafting, or helping
to draft, the final assessment reform legislation.
*
(1630)
The new legislation, of course, designates
one authority in the province which is relatively new. Previously, under the previous act‑‑or
acts I should say‑‑under The City of
I have often made the comparisons of what
really did happen and how values were established and whether there was equity
between one and the two as into what happened in my part of the country under
the 4‑H program. The Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) is certainly aware of how 4‑H programs go and
are assessed and are judged on the value and merit of what in fact is part of a
project.
We had, in our part of the province, sugar
beet 4‑H projects. We had a
significant number of clubs in our part of the province. We had a judge who judged the merits of the
projects on the east side of the
I make that analogy simply because I think
it applies as well to our assessment process under our previous legislation in
this province. When you do in fact have
two authorities or two provincial assessors who have authorities for various
jurisdictions, you simply cannot apply an equalized process to ensure the
values that need to be applied are equal.
Therefore, it was our intention to ensure that the authority of the
provincial assessor would apply to both assessment authorities, both the rural
as well as the City of
I believe that in fact is working
well. I am encouraged when I look at the
values of various properties that are applied today under the market‑value
system. They are much, much more
relevant to the current situation, and it provides a much more equal provision
for taxation. I know the council of the
City of
There was a considerable amount of
lobbying. Maybe we should, at some point
in time, consider whether we in fact only need one authority, one assessment
provincial authority over all of the province instead of having the two
authorities in the province, as we currently do. That lobby has come from various parts of the
province.
I believe that eventually we will move to
one assessment authority. I believe
there are probably some savings to be garnered by in fact applying one
assessment branch over all of the province and one group of assessors for all
of the province.
I was interested in hearing what the
minister was referring to under the Mike Mercury case in questioning whether
the reference here should be maintained.
I was glad that the courts concurred with the legislation designating a
specific year as the reference year in any legislation. I think it is important that when an
assessment is done, in order to retain an equitable amount of taxation, when
that happens, that all people in the province can be assured that market value
in their respective municipality is similar to any other market value dictated
by local markets are in fact applied. If
you would allow what Mr. Mercury and a few others were professing should be the
case, the current updating of values on specific properties, you would of
course create a tremendous inequity of taxation, whether you drop the market
value of a given property or increased it.
There would be tremendous inequities created within a period of time.
Therefore, I think it is important that we establish one year as the reference
year and the basis for the assessment being applied and all taxation then
becomes relevant.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
Now there was also a question whether in
fact you could or should be able to change or appeal the assessment on a given
property. There has never been any
question about that. The legislation
clearly allows for the appeal under the current legislation that could be
allowed. I reference some of the
properties, whether they are actually being used or being vacant, certainly the
application for assessment change could be made even under the current
legislation. There is absolutely nothing
restricting the appeal under the process.
The establishment of a computerized data
base is, I think, long overdue in this province and should have been implemented
years ago, instead of doing the long handwritten accumulation of data and the
tremendous number of hours that are required in the municipal offices to assure
that the data is in fact all correct and being applied equitably. Now the municipalities can in fact punch a
computer and up comes the data, and they are assured that it is correct and
similar to the ones that are stored in the data base.
I believe that the extension that is being
proposed by Bill 20 of one year is in fact something that we had considered
even when we introduced the legislation, because it became very apparent that
if we were going to ensure that the department had adequate time to ensure the
right values that were implied, that the two‑year period that we gave the
department to put in place the whole process was very, very minimal. I know that some of us, even during that
period of time, questioned the department whether they would have enough time
to apply and implement, No. 1, the computer program and, No. 2, to ensure that
all the hardware and all the data entry was made to allow for the reassessment
to take place. The department at that
time told us that the time period would be very, very tight. I congratulate the former minister for having
made recognition of that, having also made recognition of the tremendous
changes that the previous Minister of Education (Mr. Derkach) made in the
funding formula, and how the two have to intertwine in order that we can all be
assured and satisfied and comfortable that we are, in fact, knowledgeable
enough about the whole process.
I congratulate the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) for bringing forward this time the change and the
assessment legislation and the amendment to the assessment reform legislation
and consequential amendment act. That
would ensure, in my view, the proper and correct procedure be implemented and
enacted that would satisfy everybody in this province once and for all that we
had given adequate time for the department to enter the data, to put in place
the process, to have proper consultation with the municipalities and with the
school boards to ensure that everybody was knowledgeable and comfortable about
the total process.
As the minister has indicated in his
opening remarks, this is a hugely complicated and very often boring subject to
most people, but it is a very important element of ensuring that the correct
taxation will be applied in the future.
Therefore, I would believe that by 1994 the department will have had
adequate time that we can then assure ourselves that we can roll over on a
regular, normal three‑year process the assessment legislation and the
reassessment of the province and, therefore, meet the requirements or meet the
requests that Mr. Mercury and others have made of this province. Again, I want to congratulate the current
minister for having the fortitude and the wisdom to introduce this amendment at
this time, Mr. Acting Speaker.
*
(1640)
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is
the House ready for the question? The
Minister of Rural Development to close debate? The honourable member for
Ms.
Rosann Wowchuk (
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Justice.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Acting Speaker‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Speaker, I recognize that you had
called my name with regard to closing debate on this particular bill, but I
know that we from time to time are busy with other things and an error perhaps
has been made.
I acknowledge that the members opposite want to have the
opportunity to debate this bill. I think
that is only correct, but I know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) had
a question on it as well.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, to the same point, we do
not want to make the record incorrect.
The reason why the members of the opposition party were sitting in their
seats was because the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) was standing trying to
get the attention of the Chair, so we sat in our chairs and the minister
decided to sit down and then looking over to the minister, opposition party was
quite prepared to adjourn debate.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):
Yes, Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe also we run into a bit of a
difficulty in this case because the member for
I would suggest if you had recognized the
member for
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): The
honourable Minister of Labour on the same point of order.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Acting Speaker, I am rising as the Deputy
Government House Leader.
I think it is the intention on this side of
the House to accommodate debate in the traditions of this House in allowing the
opposition to adjourn that debate. I think,
Mr. Acting Speaker, if there is leave of the House, no matter who was
recognized or what the record shows, I think with the leave of this House if we
could allow the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) to have the floor to move
her motion and that the minister be given the opportunity when it comes the
time to close debate to speak at that time, if there is leave of all members to
allow that to proceed. I would like that
put to the members.
I think I asked if there was leave of the
House if we could have that recorded, if there is leave, simply to protect‑‑I
do not know what the record of the House is going to show and I do not want the
minister to be denied the opportunity to speak at some other point.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On
the point of order raised by the Deputy House Leader, the honourable Minister
of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) will not lose his opportunity at this time.
Ms.
Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) that debate be adjourned.
Point of Order
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Speaker, I have no problem with
the debate being adjourned by the honourable member for
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is
there leave for the honourable minister to make a few comments?
Some
Honourable Members: Leave.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Leave.
It has been moved by the honourable member for
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Agreed.
Thank you. Leave has been
accommodated for the honourable Minister of Justice for a couple of comments on
the issue.
* * *
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Acting Speaker,
I am awfully relieved that we have been able in such a co‑operative way
to sort out this rather sticky problem that presented itself just the last few
moments in this House.
I did not want the day to go by without my
making just a few brief comments‑‑on this bill, of course. I say that because you never know, I may not
be available the next time this bill is called or some such thing, and I will
not have an opportunity then to pay tribute to people like the honourable
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), who, when he was Minister of Rural
Development, undertook a very big challenge in the life of a Legislature and as
a Minister of Rural Development in engaging in assessment reform, significant
assessment reform which will serve Manitobans for a long time to come.
Hon.
Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): With a minority government he did it.
Mr.
McCrae: I think my honourable friend,
the Minister of Government Services, reminds me that was done during the time
of a minority government, which makes the statement about that honourable
member's courage and commitment to his province all that much stronger. I think it should not go unnoticed and that
history should duly record the significant contribution made by the honourable
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) who, as Minister of Rural Development, made
such extensive reform in the area of assessment in our province.
Now, further contribution was made to the
whole evolving process of assessment reform in this province by our Deputy
Premier, the honourable Minister for Northern and Native Affairs, Minister of
Energy and Mines, the honourable member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey), who
also made a very significant contribution to this whole area in doing some of
the workup that brings us to the point we find ourselves today, Mr. Acting
Speaker, considering Bill 20.
Just in passing, and on the point of
assessment, it should be noted that in the city of
I am delighted that earlier today, as a
matter of fact, the honourable Minister of Rural Development, the honourable
member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach) and I and the honourable member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) were able to travel to Brandon this
morning to formally sign an agreement bringing the Province of Manitoba
formally into that partnership, which will make quite a difference in the
future years to the environment in the city of Brandon and to the future
viability of the downtown area of the city of Brandon. These things do not happen without a high
level of partnership.
Here we have a partnership between the
business community, the municipal level of government and the provincial level
of government, which brought us to the point where today I was able to travel
with the Minister of Rural Development and the honourable member for Brandon
East to have a formal signing ceremony and, not insignificant, the presentation
by our Minister of Rural Development to Mr. Ron Lacey, the chairman of the
Business Improvement Board of $300,000, Mr. Acting Speaker, the first
installment of a $1.75 million commitment by the Province of Manitoba to the
City of Brandon and the BIA, as it has so affectionately become known in recent
years.
*
(1650)
I recall standing in the former BIA office
about a year and a half ago with the then minister of Rural Development, the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner)‑‑and incidentally, Mr.
Acting Speaker, that particular office is now occupied by the honourable member
for Brandon West, which is now my constituency office, the BIA having since
moved two doors down and me moving two doors down and taking over that space. So I am pleased to be located so close on
I say it is a commitment to the kind of
partnership that we as Progressive Conservatives have been talking about for
some time with respect to building a better
With those brief comments I thank
honourable members for their co‑operation in allowing me to have this
opportunity to say a few words on this bill and to pay tribute to my colleagues
who are doing their work to make a contribution towards building a better
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): The
debate has already been concluded on this.
Bill 38‑The
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson),
that Bill 38, The Manitoba Evidence Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la
preuve au Manitoba, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of
this House.
Motion
presented.
Mr. McCrae: The purpose of the
amendments to the Manitoba Evidence Act is to bring our legislation in line
with the Canada Evidence Act respecting the need for corroboration of unsworn
evidence given by children or persons whose mental capacity to give evidence is
challenged.
The federal legislation was amended as the
result of a detailed report considering issues relating to sexual abuse of
children. The report identified several
problems of legislation that made prosecution of child sexual abuse cases more
difficult. Since January 1, 1988, the
federal act has no longer required children's unsworn evidence in criminal
cases to be corroborated. However, under
our act which governs civil proceedings, including custody actions and child
protection cases, it is still necessary for unsworn evidence of children to be
corroborated by some other material evidence.
These amendments delete Section 24 of The Manitoba Evidence Act and replace
it with wording that is similar to Section 16.1 of the Canada Evidence Act.
These changes are necessary, first, to
ensure that the test for admissibility of children's evidence in civil
proceedings is no more onerous than that in criminal cases. Second, to safeguard the best interests of
children, they are particularly essential for child protection proceedings.
Before proceeding with the legislation, we
received the input of Justices of the Family Division of the Court of Queen's
Bench. We consulted with the family law
subsection of the Manitoba Bar Association, interest groups, lawyers practicing
in child protection law, and the Director of Child and Family Services. Those responses received, and in particular
that of the Director of Child and Family Services, strongly supported the
changes.
We have also reviewed legislation in other
provinces. Since the federal act was
amended,
It is important, Mr. Speaker, to note that
while these amendments might be considered housekeeping in nature, in effect
they go further than that. They accord
to young people in circumstances of abuse, or alleged abuse, kind of an
equality of status when it comes to their participation in proceedings. I do not know why it is, that just because
someone is young there has to be a special requirement that their evidence be
corroborated when experts will tell you that in matters of abuse, especially
sexual abuse, young people in tender years rarely make up stories about
that. I see the honourable member for
Mr. Acting Speaker, with that, I commend
this legislation to honourable members, to their attention, to their study and
deliberation and to their support.
Mr. Clif
Evans (Interlake): Mr. Acting
Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
Motion
agreed to.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): The hour now being 5 p.m., it is time for
private members' hour.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 1‑Canada/Mexico/U.S. Free Trade
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): I move, seconded by the member for
WHEREAS the 1988 Free Trade Agreement with
the United States has ushered in an era in which 160,000 Canadians have lost
their jobs to low wage areas of the southern United States, including more than
8,000 Manitobans; and
WHEREAS the federal government has done
little to keep its promises to provide Canadians with an effective labour
adjustment strategy; and
WHEREAS free trade talks with Mexico expose
Canadian workers to Mexican standards of wages, environmental protection,
workplace health and safety, and general living standards that are well below
those of Canada; and
WHEREAS Mexican journalists and writers
have themselves petitioned the Mexican government to ensure that a free trade
agreement include a social charter.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the government to take a proactive stance
toward the Mexico free trade talks, and to make representation to the federal
government to ensure that equitable standards in the areas of labour,
occupational health and safety, and the environment are written into any
agreement with the government of Mexico; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
urge the government of
Motion
presented.
*
(1700)
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have this opportunity to debate this important issue. It is an issue that I hope members on all
sides of the House will listen to carefully, because I think this is the kind
of issue that this House can come together on.
I think this is the kind of issue that all members of this Chamber can
support. I note that on Thursday, June
13 of 1991, the Premier of this province in Hansard indicated that, and I
quote: "we have a good deal of
concern about free trade with
The dilemma that we face in Canada as we
begin to move into this new trade arrangement with the U.S. is that virtually
every one of the concerns that were expressed by the opponents of the Free
Trade Agreement have come to pass. I am
frankly astounded by the shortsightedness and narrow vision of many of those
people who worked so hard in favour of the Free Trade Agreement in the face of
a great deal of evidence to the contrary.
You will recall when that debate was on,
and I do not want to completely revisit the debate on the FTA, but I think it
is important to frame the problem that confronts us right now. At the time when we were debating the North
American Free Trade Agreement, the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade Agreement,
people who were concerned about it said that Canada would be a net loser, that
the Americans were aggressive negotiators and that we would see a good many
jobs here in Canada move south of the border, that they had lower wages, lower
labour standards, lower environmental protection standards, and that we were
going to lose work as a result and that some of the benefits that were supposed
to occur to Canada simply would not occur to Canada because the United States
would find other ways of continuing to protect their industries in defiance of
the agreement.
Mr. Speaker, virtually every one of those
concerns has come true. What you see now
over and over again are people who were strong proponents of the North American
Free Trade Agreement say exactly that. I
note that one of the more recent ones, Mr. Gordon Ritchie, who was one of the
people who helped negotiate that, is now on record stating that the
macroeconomic policies of the Mulroney government have been highly perverse,
cancelling out many of the benefits of the Free Trade Agreement. Simon Reisman, the chief negotiator, has
commented on how the Americans are not living up to the agreement.
We in this country sold a portion of our
sovereignty in order to extract some limited benefits from the
I note that two of the things that went on
when we had the debate on the Free Trade Agreement, the federal government said
do not worry about it, do not worry about the Free Trade Agreement; it will
cause labour disruption in
Now, the dilemma that we face with the
entry of
The concern that we face is the competition
that we as an exporter to the U.S. face from Mexico as a potential exporter to
the U.S., that with their lower wage rates, with their lower environmental
standards, with their lower occupational health, with their lower social
benefits, they are in a much greater straight dollar competitive position than
we are and, as a result, we are going to see an increase in the movement of
jobs and manufacturing south of the American border into Mexico. A significant portion of our market will
begin to disappear.
I would like to draw the House's attention
to a research paper that the library just got in recently on the North American
free trade agreement. It was conducted
by two Canadian economists, one at the
There is no real benefit for us going into
this agreement, but significant risk. At
the same time, it has to be pointed out that by tying ourselves, by tying our
future to the U.S. through the North American free trade agreement, we are, by
virtue of that reality, until such time as that agreement is cancelled or
abrogated, we have no choice but to be at the table with Mexico to try to
protect those little interests that we can.
I mean, we seem to have very little leverage with the
I must confess to some mixed feelings on
this one. I have a number of friends in
the Mexican government. A number of
people in the administration in
Having said that though, there are elements
of what is happening in that country that impact on us directly, and I want to
reference two things.
The lower environmental standards in the
poorer countries of the world as a whole affect all of us. As we strive to improve the quality of our
water and air, if they do not we are impacted by it. We no longer can put up borders. We never could really put up borders, but the
level of pollution has gotten to the point where anything that is done in
Mexico‑‑there was an old song by Tom Lehrer, the breakfast garbage
they throw into the bay we drink for lunch.
The reality is we are affected globally by this.
*
(1710)
We have an opportunity in this agreement to
speak to Mexico, to begin to insist that if we are to mingle our markets, that
they raise their standards of environmental protection to be consistent with
those in North America, so we are no longer impacted by their lower level of
environmental standards and that that does not serve as an incentive. One would hope that it would not serve as an
incentive for companies to move south of the border.
The
second one is on wage rates. Inevitably,
as industrial production, as economic production, picks up in that country
there will be upward pressure on wage rates.
Another component of wage rates is labour standards, the kinds of
protections that we offer labourers: the
work week, minimum wage laws, and a whole variety of benefits that are part of
the normal basket of protections that are made available to workers in this
country. I think
What right do we have to expect those kinds
of conditions be met in that country when we are not part of that country? I think we have a right as a partner going
into an agreement with them to expect certain kinds of conditions be met as
parties to that agreement, and I think those expectations are consistent with
the hopes and desires of the Mexican people.
The third one is occupational health and
safety. Should we be party to a deal that
allows business to escape the very necessary protections that we provide to
workers in this country and to produce things outside of our borders and export
them back into this country without any ability to extract any kind of control,
exercise any kind of control, over those decisions? I would imagine that nobody in this Chamber
would like to see that occur.
The purpose of this resolution is to say to
this government, and frankly to support this government, to offer some support,
the support of all parties in this Chamber as they speak to our representatives
in Ottawa who are going to be, I believe, this week in Dallas negotiating this
agreement, to offer some direction to them and to say that, if we are going to
be entering into an agreement, if the U.S. and Mexico are going to be entering
into an agreement that affects our interest, that at a minimum we extract some
improvements in the current conditions that exist in that country that wishes
to become a trading partner of ours. I
would hope that this government will not sit idly by.
I note with some interest the concerns
expressed by the Premier (Mr. Filmon). I
note also that the Premier has indicated that the Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) has been actively conducting studies. In fact, I believe he says here on Thursday,
June 13, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism has commissioned
analyses and studies of the various areas of the
I hope today, when the minister rises to
speak to this resolution, that we will hear the results of some of those
analyses and will hear in this House what action this government has taken to
protect the interests of Manitobans as we move into what could be a very
dangerous new agreement. Our experience
to date with agreements that have been negotiated between this government in
An
Honourable Member: I do not think he
leaves much down there when he is there.
Mr.
Alcock: He does not have much to leave
anywhere.
Mr. Speaker, another example, and I think
it needs to be kept in mind, you will recall when the debates were on about the
Canada‑U.S. agreement relative to supply management, we were assured over
and over again that supply management was not part of the agreement, that they
would be protected. We see today that
they are not going to be protected. We
were assured over and over again that cultural industries in
Thank you very much.
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise to have an opportunity to speak on this motion. At the outset, I would like to indicate that
I feel that the majority of the concerns raised in this motion have in fact
been addressed by the position adopted by our government announced in this
House back on July 17, 1991.
I would like to summarize a few of those to
show members just how our position does cover off most of these concerns. I think, as a starting point, one might
question why the Canadian government decided to enter these negotiations in the
first place. Part of the rationale that
we are being provided with is that it was on the basis of an attempt to
preserve the attractiveness of
While
As I said, there are some concerns that
came to the forefront based on our review of a proposed agreement with the
While I say that, the concern that I would
have to express is on this issue, a lack of research done in many instances,
and perhaps in many cases a lack of an attempt to really come to grips with the
impact of this issue, not only in the short term but in the long term here in
Manitoba. I think a discussion like this
is certainly worthwhile to continue to remind Manitobans that this issue is out
there. It is certainly an important
issue facing the
As a result of our internal review, as a
result of our consultations that took place, we adopted a position in this
House back in July whereby we do not support a North American free trade
agreement unless six very important conditions are met. We consider those conditions extremely
important and they are the conditions that I alluded to, Mr. Speaker, that I
feel address the majority of the concerns raised by the honourable member. I think it is worth putting them on the
record again and reminding members.
I will briefly walk through them. The first condition that we made was that
The second very important condition is that
*
(1720)
It
was with that in mind that we adopted this particular condition, because a
number of Manitobans have expressed concern with respect, as I say, not only to
the wage differentials between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, but with respect to
some of the labour standards in place in the various countries. We do believe that as Mexican industries
improve their technology and productivity, that wage rates in
The third condition, Mr. Speaker, is that
The fourth important condition is that
Manitoba calls upon the federal government to ensure that comprehensive and
adequately funded adjustment measures be provided to ensure that Manitoba and
Canada are equipped to capitalize on the opportunities provided by trade
liberalization, and that we clearly recognize that if there ever were a North
American free trade agreement that, unquestionably, certain adjustments would
be necessary in the Manitoba economy. It
is vitally important, Mr. Speaker, that not only comprehensive, but adequately
funded adjustment programs be put in place to handle the adjustment needs of
Manitobans that would be affected under such an agreement. Once again, that is an important condition
that addresses some of the concerns raised in the motion put before us today.
The fifth condition is that Manitoba
stresses the need for policies at all levels of government which reinforce the
efforts and needs of Manitoba businesses in adjusting to trade liberalization
within a globalized world market, and the consultations I referred to with a
wide range of business groups and individuals in Manitoba have confirmed
Manitoba's view that the federal monetary policies over the past three years
have operated to deny Canadian businesses advantages that might well have
existed under the Canada‑U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and we do not need to
look any further than the value of the Canadian dollar. In the minds of many westerners, certainly,
the value of the Canadian dollar was kept artificially high, in some instances
to the benefit of other parts of
We realize that for
The sixth very important condition we
attached to this particular issue, Mr. Speaker, is that
This particular condition goes even further
than the consultation process that has worked very well to date. We see the establishment of a very formal
federal‑provincial agreement outlining the mechanisms for federal‑provincial
co‑operation in this very important area.
While we are pleased with the co‑operation and the lines of
communication being very open with the federal government on this issue for all
of the provinces within Canada, we would like to see that formalized even more
to ensure that on issues of this nature that have a direct impact on the
economies of our provinces, that we are full partners in terms of the decision‑making
process.
Mr. Speaker, I thought it was very
important to walk through our position announced back in July of '91 and to
outline the position of our government, that we do not support a North American
free trade agreement unless these six very important conditions are met. I feel that the six conditions really do
address the motion put before this House today.
So it is with that in mind that I would like to move an amendment.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for Arthur (Mr. Downey)
THAT the Resolution be amended by
substituting all words after the first "WHEREAS" with the following:
WHEREAS the governments of Canada, the
United States and Mexico are currently engaged in negotiations aimed at the
signing of a North American Free Trade Agreement; and
WHEREAS the three countries involved have
widely divergent levels of economic development with Mexican conditions in
wages, environmental protection and workplace health and safety well below
those prevailing in Canada; and
WHEREAS the federal government holds the
primary responsibility for providing effective labour adjustment assistance;
and
WHEREAS the
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the government in reinforcing its
position on the North American free trade negotiations and making further
representation to the federal government to ensure that a free trade agreement
encompasses equitable standards in the areas of labour, occupational health and
safety and the environment and does not result in the lowering of any Canadian
standards; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
support the government of
I am very pleased to table this amendment
which I feel clearly addresses the issues raised by the honourable member and
shows support for the position adopted by this government back on July 17th of
1991.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Motion
presented.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): First of all I want to say that I appreciate
the amendment that has been tabled by the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson). It is one of
the few amendments which at least is consistent with the government's previous
position on this issue, although it is somewhat self‑serving, although
not as self‑serving as many of the amendments we have seen from members
opposite and I think an amendment that is worthy of debate, Mr. Speaker.
I want to begin by also saying that when
the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism released the
I do not believe that
Mr. Speaker, the current Free Trade
Agreement has provided virtually no benefit to
I remind people that we have already lost
some 435,000 manufacturing jobs in
Mr. Speaker, I read into the record
yesterday a list of the casualties in this continuing debate over the benefits,
or the lack thereof, of the Free Trade Agreement. I want again, for the record, for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) to read the complete
list of the jobs that have been lost, the percentage of manufacturing jobs that
have been lost by sector because of the Free Trade Agreement.
I will be the first to acknowledge that it
is not just the Free Trade Agreement.
Clearly, there are other factors that work in the economy that have
contributed to the recession. My Leader
says that is part of the repercussions of a Tory economic policy being foisted
on the people of
This government is no different. The bottom line is when you compound the high
interest rate, the high dollar, the deregulation, and the other areas where the
government has injected its particular ideology into the economy, the end
result has been a reduction of 22.8 percent in manufacturing employment in
food; 26.9 percent reduction in jobs in rubber and plastic; 38.5 percent
reduction in jobs in leather; 28 percent reduction in jobs in textiles; 29
percent in apparel; 34 percent in wood; 32 percent in furniture and fixtures;
16 percent in paper and alloy; printing and publishing down 17.8 percent; primary
metal down 19 percent; machinery down 31 percent; transportation down 16.8
percent; electrical electronics down 26 percent; petroleum and coal products,
10 percent; chemicals, 15 percent.
Those are not just figures. Those are real jobs lost by real Canadians
from coast to coast. We also know that
unlike the last recession‑‑a Tory‑inspired recession as well,
at least in the
Those are the implications of the Free
Trade Agreement. So, when the minister
says, gosh, we have got to get into these negotiations to protect the benefits
of the Free Trade Agreement, I shudder, quite frankly. I shudder if those are the benefits‑‑the
loss of 400,000‑plus jobs, the loss of our sovereignty in culture, the
loss of sovereignty in energy‑‑then I say, heaven forbid that we
protect that agreement.
I believe that we should not only be
denying the federal government any right to negotiate on our behalf in terms of
the Mexico‑Canada‑U.S. free trade agreement‑‑the North
America free trade agreement‑‑I say we should be abrogating the
Free Trade Agreement as it exists today, because there are no benefits. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
(Mr. Stefanson) talks so euphemistically‑‑
An
Honourable Member: The minister of
unemployment.
Mr.
Storie: The minister of
unemployment, that 57,000‑person unemployment, talks euphemistically
about the level playing field. I do not
know when we are going to come to the realization that there is no such thing
as a level playing field. That is why we
have, in fact, trade agreements between countries. No country in the world ever entered a trade
agreement, saying well, I am going to have to give up a whole bunch of things,
and I am probably going to lose because we entered into this trade
agreement. You enter into a trade
agreement only when you believe that either there is going to be a balance of
benefits or that you are going to win, and most countries enter trade
agreements because they are going to win.
*
(1740)
Certainly, if I was
Even the government of
I want to put on the record as well‑‑first
before I get off on a tangent. The minister may not be aware of the fact‑‑he
says he has consulted broadly with Mr. Wilson and Mr. Mazankowski about the
discussions and negotiations and has been briefed. I do not know if he has seen the latest
federal documents that were obtained by the Ottawa Citizen, which say: Secret papers show
I want to say that if we are to succeed in
terms of employment creation in Canada, if we are to succeed in terms of
benefiting from a free trade agreement, whether it is the Free Trade Agreement
with the United States or a free trade agreement with Mexico, then we have to
talk in advance of signing an agreement about the conditions that need to be
met before we sign the agreement. For
this government and for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) to believe that we can tell the Canadian government, here are our
concerns, we are concerned about labour standards, we are concerned about
environmental standards, and then rush in and sign an agreement having
registered our concerns, does nothing to protect our interests.
If in fact we are going to enter into a
trade agreement with another partner, then as a condition of entering the
agreement, signing on the dotted line, we have to have a staged progression
where those concerns are addressed in the country that is going to become our
partner. It is not good enough to sign
the agreement and then hope that the labour standards in
I understand that
Mr. Speaker, what I would suggest is that
the minister translate his concerns into some objective criteria, that he
translate his concerns and say, here is what we need to see from the Mexico
government; here is what we need to see in terms of environmental legislation
and all of the safety nets that working people have in Canada and come to
believe are part of their birth right, part of their right as workers to
receive protection through the legislative process.
It is very dangerous, and I think foolish,
for us to start contemplating signing another agreement before we come to a
concrete understanding of what issues we need to have addressed, how we are
going to create that level playing field, and where there cannot be a level
playing field to compensate.
I think there is no more better example of
where the concept of a level playing field is illogical than in the area of
agriculture. We cannot have a level
playing field with the
How do you compensate for those kinds of
climatic and geographical advantages?
Mr. Speaker, you can do it by recognizing, for example, in
Well, if you simply look at that on paper,
you say why are we such energy gluttons?
The fact of the matter is we live in a country and an environment that
demands that kind of consumption if we are going to compete. The distances of transportation, the climate,
the cost of heating our homes and the energy required to heat our homes and
heat our businesses make it illogical for us to assume that somehow we are not
going to use more energy. So if we are
going to get into a trade agreement, and we all agree that it requires some
kind of balance for it to be fair to both partners, we have to provide a
mechanism for compensating for our disadvantages.
It is not good enough simply to say we want
a level playing field. You have to
construct an agreement which is going to create a level playing field. I think everyone would agree with that, and
the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) certainly does.
The bottom line is that the free trade
agreement with
There are very few advantages to Canadians
and certainly not to Manitobans under the Free Trade Agreement. Not at all.
If that is the only rationale for saying we are going to be involved in
this tripartite negotiations, then I say abandon them, abandon them now. I go one step further. I say the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) should finally come clean with his colleagues and with
the Legislature about what is happening to Manitoba under the Free Trade
Agreement.
Mr. Speaker, we got into the Free Trade
Agreement the same way we are getting into this agreement, without the facts at
hand, without understanding what the implications were really going to be. I read, probably as much as anybody in this
Chamber, the propaganda material that came out sector by sector from the
federal government when we got into the Free Trade Agreement.
I read the energy sector material. I know that it was nothing more than
propaganda. There were no facts in
there. What I am asking from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) is‑‑never mind the political niceties anymore of saying,
here are our conditions‑‑what is the minister going to do if they
are not met? What is the minister going
to say? Is the minister going to be on
TV before we sign the agreement saying: This is ridiculous; my federal
colleagues, my federal cousins do not know what they are doing.
Further than that, if he really cares, if
he really cares about the future of industry in this province, if he cares about
the economic well‑being of this province, will he now agree to study in a
thorough and thoughtful way, the impacts of the Free Trade Agreement on
Will we quit being cheerleaders for the
Free Trade Agreement with the
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Free
trade causes a great number of my constituents to raise very valid points of
concern to myself, and I believe Manitobans as a whole do not care for what has
been going on in terms of the whole free trade negotiations, not only with what
has been happening in Mexico, but also the first agreement that was struck back
in '88 with the then Prime Minister Mulroney.
I want to put a few thoughts on the record
regarding the Free Trade Agreement, and I also want to comment very briefly on
the amendment that was put forward from the minister. Mr. Speaker, opposition members are given an
opportunity during private members' hours to bring forward resolutions. Many of us put endless hours in trying to
come up with what we believe are sincere resolutions. The government has many other vehicles in
which they can make statements. They can
write correspondence and so forth, take official lines as a government to the
federal government.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Speaker, in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, once again, I hope that
this is not another example of what we can see in the next number of
resolutions that come before this Chamber, where we see really the resolution
and the work and the effort, the sincere effort, that was put into this
particular resolution from the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) be wiped out
because the government does not feel that the opposition member can contribute
in a positive fashion. Mr. Acting
Speaker, the member for Osborne, through the Liberal Party, has brought forward
a lot of valid concerns that need to be looked into, and I think it is
imperative for the government to take seriously what the member for Osborne has
brought forward.
We are talking about different labour laws,
environmental laws, different working atmospheres in
Mr. Acting Speaker, the Liberal Party has
opposed the free trade deal with the
Mr. Acting Speaker, we believe it would be
irresponsible to say that here in Manitoba we should stay out of it, do not
consult with the federal counterparts, that we have no role to play, because
even if the U.S. enters into an agreement with Mexico it is going to have at
the very least a very strong indirect costs to the workers, to Canada as a
whole. Those who might say we should not
even participate in any form of dialogue, I would suggest to you, are
wrong. We should be participating in
some sort of dialogue to ensure that if, in fact, something does happen, even
though we oppose it, there are certain standards that have to be there.
Mr. Acting Speaker, we have heard in terms
of the Free Trade Agreement, the free trade deal that was entered into between
Canada and the United States and some of the concerns that have come right out
of that, and I found it interesting in terms of‑‑and I want to read
just one quote, and it goes: To date
Canada has gained very little from the Free Trade Agreement as a result of the
government's high interest rate, high dollar policy. Even Mr. Gordon Ritchie, who helped to
negotiate the Free Trade Agreement, is on the record stating that the macro‑economic
policies of the Mulroney government have been highly perverse, cancelling out
temporarily and possibly permanently many of the benefits from the Free Trade
Agreement.
Mr. Acting Speaker, this is one of the
things that has come out of a Liberal Party dialogue from across the country, and
even those who were in support of the free trade deal, and still remain in
support of the free trade deal, disagree with what the federal government is
doing and how they are implementing it with the current policies. Then you have those who were in favour of the
free trade deal when it was first implemented who have completely reversed
their positions. So the free trade deal
with the
Mr. Acting Speaker, if we continue in the
direction, if we do not send a strong message to our current Prime Minister
about the free trade negotiations that are going on between
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
The role that this Chamber has in ensuring
that Manitobans and in fact Canadians' interests are in fact being looked after
is to ensure, first and foremost, I would argue, that we avoid any free trade
deal with Mexico, but, failing that, to ensure that there are specific
standards that Mexico, the Mexican government, has to adhere to. We cannot compete when Mexican workers are on
average I believe paid in and around 80 cents an hour.
There is just no way that we can compete
with that type of labour rate. There are
other labour laws, as the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has pointed out,
that say one thing, but in reality do nothing because they are not
enforced. I recall the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) talking about scoff laws. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that many
of the labour laws that are in Mexico‑‑from the information that I
have been given and the dialogue that I have entered into‑‑are in
fact what the Minister of Natural Resources has said in terms of being
scofflaws.
Mr. Speaker, it is not quite as simple to
say that this is what they are going to be doing in
Mr. Speaker, free trade, I believe, in
general is not a good thing for
I would suggest that we should be moving in
the opposite direction, that in fact we support the idea of global trade, but
first what we need to do is to start within Canada. We have trade barriers between provinces that
need to be tackled before we start entering into all these negotiations with
other countries.
If the government wants to start talking
free trade or continue the debate on free trade, let us start the debate within
the provincial boundaries. Let us open
up
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I am interrupting the member according to the
rules. When this matter is again before
the House, the honourable member will have three minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).